知识团队自省性研究
|
摘要
当代企业越来越依赖于富有创造性并能够对环境变化做出快速反应的团队,因为高效团队能够帮助团队应对不断增长的环境压力,实现稀缺资源共享与跨部门合作,通过不同职能部门之间的协同来成功地完成既定任务。但是,造就高效团队是一项需要很多投入的艰难工作,因为大多数团队,特别是从事创新活动的知识型团队都身处动态变化的环境之中。不确定性(对特定行为的后果与影响缺乏认识)与含糊性(在该做什么的问题上模棱两可、含糊不清)始终伴随着频繁从事创新活动的知识型团队。对于知识团队而言,要成功应对不确定性与含糊性,就必须密切关注周围环境的变化,并根据环境变化及时做出反应。团队自省性(Team Reflexivity)就是基于这一思想提出来的,团队自省性是团队关注环境并根据环境变化做出反应的关键所在。如果团队成员能对自己的工作方式和所处的工作环境进行公开反思,制定应变计划,并根据环境变化对自己的工作方式做出相应的调整,那么团队将会变得更加有效。
团队自省性理论为研究知识团队绩效与知识员工行为提供了新的视角。为此,本文系统考察了知识员工行为理论、团队绩效理论、团队自省性理论与团队研究方法等相关研究的理论与实践成果。通过回顾以往文献,本文发现有四个理论问题有待解决:(1)在中国企业背景下,知识团队自省性有怎样的结构维度?(2)知识团队自省性受哪些因素的影响,应当如何有效提升团队自省性水平?(3)在知识经济时代,知识团队自省性如何影响团队的效能与效率?(4)在知识团队中,知识员工的行为是否会受到知识团队自省性的影响?为了回答这些问题,本文开展了以下研究。
研究一:探索中国背景下知识团队自省性的结构维度。在前人研究的基础上,本研究将团队自省性界定为:团队成员对团队目标、策略与程序进行公开反思以使它们适应当前或预期环境变化的程度。通过借鉴国外相关研究结论、团内企业访谈与问卷调查,本研究编制了中国背景下的知识团队自省性问卷,并使问卷尽可能测量到团队自省性的不同要素与不同水平。对20支预试团队中148份有效成员样本数据的探索性因素分析表明,团队自省性量表由任务反思、过程反思与行动调整三个因素构成。对80支正式研究团队中352份有效成员样本数据的验证性因素分析证实了结构模型的合理性。通过对所有100支团队中500份成员样本数据的两层次验证性因素分析,表明团队自省性的三因素结构在个体层次与团队层次均得到了验证。从量表结构来看,知识团队自省性包含三个要素:一是任务反思,主要是对任务完成情况进行反思;二是过程反思,主要是对决策、沟通等团队过程进行反思,与任务反思相比,它是更深层次的反思;三是行动调整,主要用于测量团队根据环境变化对团队目标、决策和计划进行调整的程度。
研究二:分析知识团队自省性的影响因素。首先通过理论推导,从不同层次提出了影响知识团队自省性的关键变量及其作用关系。这些关键因素包括:团队任务特征、团队成员特征、团队领导角色与心理安全气氛。通过对正式样本(134支知识团队,含134名团队主管与656名团队成员)的调查,运用层次回归分析方法对团队层次样本数据进行分析,研究发现,团队学习取向、促进型领导与团队心理安全为知识团队自省性的三个触发因素。进而通过构建结构方程模型,研究发现,触发因素对团队自省性的影响会受到任务依赖性与任务例行性的不同程度的调节作用,即在高、低任务依赖性与任务例行性的工作环境中,团队目标取向、团队领导角色与团队心理安全气氛对知识团队自省性会产生不同程度的影响。
研究三:知识团队自省性的团队层次效应。首先通过理论推导,提出知识团队自省性对团队效能与团队效率的作用关系。通过对正式样本(134支知识团队,含134名团队主管与656名团队成员)的调查,借助结构方程建模技术,从两个方面分析了知识团队自省性的团队层次效应:(1)知识团队自省性对知识团队效能与效率的影响。研究发现,这种影响关系并非是简单的一一对应关系。在不同的团队任务特征下,任务反思、过程反思与行动调整的强弱差异、组合不同,将会对团队效能与团队效率造成不同程度的影响。(2)通过检验知识团队自省性的中介效应,打开了团队投入因素与团队绩效关系的“黑箱”。研究发现,团队学习取向、促进型领导及心理安全气氛对知识团队效能的影响,主要是通过其对知识团队自省性的影响而实现的。尤其需要注意的是,促进型领导与心理安全对任务绩效的影响是完全借助于团队自省性的中介作用来传递的。
研究四:知识团队自省性的个体层次效应。知识员工的知识活动行为(知识员工行为)是一种复杂的组织行为,会受到不同层次因素的交互影响。研究首先通过理论推导,提出团队层次自省性与个体层次目标取向影响团队成员行为的作用关系。通过对正式样本(134支知识团队,含134名团队主管与656名团队成员)的调查,借助多层线性模型技术,研究发现:(1)团队自省性对知识员工的知识获取行为、创新行为与知识分享行为均具有显著正向影响,在高自省性的知识团队中,其成员的知识获取行为、创新行为与知识分享行为要显著高于低自省性的知识团队;(2)团队自省性除了具有这种主效应外,还对知识员工目标取向与知识员工行为间的关系具有不同程度的调节效应。研究发现,知识团队自省性对知识员工学习取向与证明取向对知识员工行为的影响起正向调节作用,而对知识员工回避取向对知识员工行为的影响起反向调节作用。团队自省性作为一种团队过程,会在知识员工个人特征与知识员工行为之间起到一种“调控”作用。经研究努力,本文在如下三个方面获得了理论创新:
(1)团队自省性结构研究的新发现。
本研究编制了中国背景下的知识团队自省性问卷,并使问卷尽可能测量到团队自省性的不同要素与不同水平。本研究并没有将深度反思从其他反思中区分出来,作者认为,深度反思不会像轻度反思与中度反思那样经常发生,特别是在中国背景下,大部分团队都趋于认同自己的文化,而不会经常讨论自身的文化准则与价值观。此外,本研究首次将行动调整因素真正纳入到测量团队自省性的量表中,使本研究开发的团队自省性量表具有“整体性”。因此,本文为研究者从事中国背景下的团队自省性研究提供了测量工具。
(2)团队效能与效率研究的新视角。
本文从团队自省性的全新视角研究知识团队绩效。研究发现,自省性对知识团队效能与团队效率的影响存在较大差异。团队自省性的三个维度,即任务反思、过程反思与行动调整对知识团队的效能均具有显著正向影响;但除了行动调整外,任务反思、过程反思对团队效率不会产生显著正向影响。通过研究还发现,任务依赖性与任务例行性对团队自省性与团队绩效的关系具有不同程度的调节作用。说明在任务特征的不同水平,团队自省性对团队绩效存在不同的回归效应。此外,研究发现,团队自省性作为一种团队过程,将会在知识团队自省性的触发因素与团队绩效之间起到一种中介作用。因此,本文丰富了团队自省性理论与团队绩效形成理论。
(3)基于多层次的团队研究新思路。
本论文同时涉及两种团队研究模式:同层模式与跨层模式。本研究中以触发因素为前因变量、自省性为中介变量以及以团队绩效为结果变量的结构模型构建,就是基于同层模式的研究。而本研究中用跨层次方式探讨个人层次目标取向与团队层次自省性对团队成员行为的交互影响,就是基于跨层模式的研究。因此,本研究从方法上为今后从事团队研究进行了有益的尝试与探索。
总之,本论文基于多层次研究方法,提出并验证中国背景下知识团队自省性的多维度构思,深入分析了知识团队自省性与对知识团队绩效与知识员工行为的影响作用,开拓了知识团队绩效与知识员工行为研究的新视角。这些理论观点,为我国企业规范知识员工行为,提升知识团队绩效,适应内外环境变化,赢得并保持竞争优势,提供了思路。
Effective teams are important cornerstones of successful organizations, especially for those operating in dynamic environments. As such, the large literature on factors explaining team effects on performance has generated significant understanding. However, an important assumption in most team studies is that teams and team properties are static, thus ignoring the possibility that at various stages of their existence, teams can have different characteristics. However, the reality for most teams involved in innovative projects is that they are facing a constantly changing environment, both internally and externally. Teams in innovative projects constantly face uncertainty (lack of knowledge about future events and consequences of specific actions) and equivocality (deeper level of ambiguity and confusion regarding what needs to get done). However, in order to cope successfully with such environmental contingencies, it is important for teams to constantly monitor their environment and react appropriately. One key aspect of the ability of teams to monitor and react to their environment is reflexivity. Team reflexivity is based on the notion that a team’s environment is ever changing and that there is a need for constant reflection and contemplation to assess the most current environment in order to apply the best action. Team reflexivity—the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning—has been identified as a possible important determinant of team effectiveness. When members collectively reflect on the way they work and the environment they work in, plan to adapt these aspects and make changes accordingly, teams will be more effective.
The theory of Team Reflexivity gave a new perspective for knowledge team performance and knowledge worker behavior. After looking up key papers from the cited references, we confirmed four theoretical issues unresolved: (1) what were the connotation and constructs of Knowledge Team reflexivity (KTR) in the context of Chinese firms? (2) What were the antecedents of KTR, and how to build KTR? (3) How did KTR influence team effectiveness and team efficiency in the knowledge economy? (4) How did KTR influence knowledge workers’behaviors in the knowledge team? Four studies were conducted to answer these questions.
Study 1 explored the construct of team reflexivity in Chinese context. After looking up key papers, Team reflexivity is defined as“the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about the group’s objectives, strategies and processes, and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances”, and then we conducted interviews and survey to obtain items for the Team Reflexivity Scale (TRS). And then, empirical and statistical methods were employed to assess the structure and psychometric properties of the TRS. The scale was tested with two different samples form high technology companies in China. The exploratory factor analysis on the first sample with 148 staff showed that Team reflexivity contains three dimensions. The three dimension constructs were confirmed by using a confirmatory factor analysis on the confirmation sample with 352 staff. In both samples, three factors of reflexivity were identified. They were labeled task reflection, process reflection and action adaptation. And then, the two-level structure of TRS was assessed by means of multi-level confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) on all samples(100 teams with 500 staff), indicating that the three dimension constructs of team reflexivity can be used both at individual and team level. Statistics from individual and team level showed good psychometric properties for the scale in both studies. We conclude that the scale forms a valid instrument to assess team reflexivity in Chinese firms.
Study 2 analyzed the antecedents of KTR in the context of Chinese firms. Before the study, the researcher had put forwarded several critical variables which worked on KTR and had supposed their effects on KTR. These variables include team task characteristics, team members’characteristics, team leader roles, and psychological safety climate. Subsequently, we applied stepwise linear regression and structural equation model to validate the effect of antecedents on team reflexivity. With regards to our investigation of possible antecedents of KTR, some factors were positively related to team reflexivity. Especially, the study showed that team learning orientation, leader role as facilitator, and psychological safety climate were the key trigger factors of KTR. Moreover, the study showed there were moderating effects between the trigger factors and KTR by team task characteristics.
Study 3 analyzed the performance mechanism of KTR on team level in two aspects, adopting questionnaire studying method, sampling on team level, and depending on structural equation modeling techniques. (1) The effects on team effectiveness and team efficiency made by team task characteristics and KTR. Empirical results show that the dimensions of team reflexivity have positive impact on team effectiveness, and action adaptation has positive impact on team efficiency. And it was found that task reflection, process reflection and action adaptation had influences on team effectiveness and team efficiency in various task environments. (2) It enabled to open up the black box between team input factors and team performance through testing the mediation effects of KTR. The effects on team performance made by team input factors were mainly through its effect on KTR. Especially, the effects on team performance made by team leader role as facilitator and psychological safety were fully through its effect on KTR.
Study 4 analyzed the knowledge workers’behavior mechanism of KTR on cross level adopting questionnaire studying method, sampling on individual and team level, and depending on hierarchical linear modeling techniques. Based on the preliminary conclusions derived from the research of the theory of Goal Orientation, we proposed a theoretical model in which the KTR was included to examine the relationship between the goal orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors. At individual level, we examined the relationship between 3-factor individual goal orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors. At cross level, we also examined whether KTR can affect knowledge workers’behaviors, then analyzed whether KTR has a moderate effect between individual goal orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors. Results of cross level analysis showed that (1) positive effect of KTR on knowledge workers’behaviors such as knowledge acquiring behavior, innovation behavior, and knowledge sharing behavior is significant; (2) To varying degrees, KTR had positive moderating effect between learning orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors; (3) To varying degrees, KTR had positive moderating effect between proving orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors; (4) To varying degrees, KTR had negative moderating effect between avoiding orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors.
The main contributions of the dissertation include:
(1) The validity and reliability of Team Reflexivity Scale(TRS) was firstly modified and examined in China. (2) Form the perspective of Team Reflexivity, this dissertation analyzed the performance mechanism of KTR on team level. (3) At the same time, this dissertation carried out team research involving both two models: the single-level model and cross-level model.
Based on cross-level view, this paper put forward and validated the multi-dimensions construct of KTR in Chinese firm context, and analyzed the performance and behavior mechanism of KTR. As a result, these theoretical opinions enabled the companies to be aware of the way how to manage knowledge workers’behaviors, improve knowledge team performance, adapt to Internal and external changes in the environment, and thus gain and maintain the competitive advantage.
团队自省性理论为研究知识团队绩效与知识员工行为提供了新的视角。为此,本文系统考察了知识员工行为理论、团队绩效理论、团队自省性理论与团队研究方法等相关研究的理论与实践成果。通过回顾以往文献,本文发现有四个理论问题有待解决:(1)在中国企业背景下,知识团队自省性有怎样的结构维度?(2)知识团队自省性受哪些因素的影响,应当如何有效提升团队自省性水平?(3)在知识经济时代,知识团队自省性如何影响团队的效能与效率?(4)在知识团队中,知识员工的行为是否会受到知识团队自省性的影响?为了回答这些问题,本文开展了以下研究。
研究一:探索中国背景下知识团队自省性的结构维度。在前人研究的基础上,本研究将团队自省性界定为:团队成员对团队目标、策略与程序进行公开反思以使它们适应当前或预期环境变化的程度。通过借鉴国外相关研究结论、团内企业访谈与问卷调查,本研究编制了中国背景下的知识团队自省性问卷,并使问卷尽可能测量到团队自省性的不同要素与不同水平。对20支预试团队中148份有效成员样本数据的探索性因素分析表明,团队自省性量表由任务反思、过程反思与行动调整三个因素构成。对80支正式研究团队中352份有效成员样本数据的验证性因素分析证实了结构模型的合理性。通过对所有100支团队中500份成员样本数据的两层次验证性因素分析,表明团队自省性的三因素结构在个体层次与团队层次均得到了验证。从量表结构来看,知识团队自省性包含三个要素:一是任务反思,主要是对任务完成情况进行反思;二是过程反思,主要是对决策、沟通等团队过程进行反思,与任务反思相比,它是更深层次的反思;三是行动调整,主要用于测量团队根据环境变化对团队目标、决策和计划进行调整的程度。
研究二:分析知识团队自省性的影响因素。首先通过理论推导,从不同层次提出了影响知识团队自省性的关键变量及其作用关系。这些关键因素包括:团队任务特征、团队成员特征、团队领导角色与心理安全气氛。通过对正式样本(134支知识团队,含134名团队主管与656名团队成员)的调查,运用层次回归分析方法对团队层次样本数据进行分析,研究发现,团队学习取向、促进型领导与团队心理安全为知识团队自省性的三个触发因素。进而通过构建结构方程模型,研究发现,触发因素对团队自省性的影响会受到任务依赖性与任务例行性的不同程度的调节作用,即在高、低任务依赖性与任务例行性的工作环境中,团队目标取向、团队领导角色与团队心理安全气氛对知识团队自省性会产生不同程度的影响。
研究三:知识团队自省性的团队层次效应。首先通过理论推导,提出知识团队自省性对团队效能与团队效率的作用关系。通过对正式样本(134支知识团队,含134名团队主管与656名团队成员)的调查,借助结构方程建模技术,从两个方面分析了知识团队自省性的团队层次效应:(1)知识团队自省性对知识团队效能与效率的影响。研究发现,这种影响关系并非是简单的一一对应关系。在不同的团队任务特征下,任务反思、过程反思与行动调整的强弱差异、组合不同,将会对团队效能与团队效率造成不同程度的影响。(2)通过检验知识团队自省性的中介效应,打开了团队投入因素与团队绩效关系的“黑箱”。研究发现,团队学习取向、促进型领导及心理安全气氛对知识团队效能的影响,主要是通过其对知识团队自省性的影响而实现的。尤其需要注意的是,促进型领导与心理安全对任务绩效的影响是完全借助于团队自省性的中介作用来传递的。
研究四:知识团队自省性的个体层次效应。知识员工的知识活动行为(知识员工行为)是一种复杂的组织行为,会受到不同层次因素的交互影响。研究首先通过理论推导,提出团队层次自省性与个体层次目标取向影响团队成员行为的作用关系。通过对正式样本(134支知识团队,含134名团队主管与656名团队成员)的调查,借助多层线性模型技术,研究发现:(1)团队自省性对知识员工的知识获取行为、创新行为与知识分享行为均具有显著正向影响,在高自省性的知识团队中,其成员的知识获取行为、创新行为与知识分享行为要显著高于低自省性的知识团队;(2)团队自省性除了具有这种主效应外,还对知识员工目标取向与知识员工行为间的关系具有不同程度的调节效应。研究发现,知识团队自省性对知识员工学习取向与证明取向对知识员工行为的影响起正向调节作用,而对知识员工回避取向对知识员工行为的影响起反向调节作用。团队自省性作为一种团队过程,会在知识员工个人特征与知识员工行为之间起到一种“调控”作用。经研究努力,本文在如下三个方面获得了理论创新:
(1)团队自省性结构研究的新发现。
本研究编制了中国背景下的知识团队自省性问卷,并使问卷尽可能测量到团队自省性的不同要素与不同水平。本研究并没有将深度反思从其他反思中区分出来,作者认为,深度反思不会像轻度反思与中度反思那样经常发生,特别是在中国背景下,大部分团队都趋于认同自己的文化,而不会经常讨论自身的文化准则与价值观。此外,本研究首次将行动调整因素真正纳入到测量团队自省性的量表中,使本研究开发的团队自省性量表具有“整体性”。因此,本文为研究者从事中国背景下的团队自省性研究提供了测量工具。
(2)团队效能与效率研究的新视角。
本文从团队自省性的全新视角研究知识团队绩效。研究发现,自省性对知识团队效能与团队效率的影响存在较大差异。团队自省性的三个维度,即任务反思、过程反思与行动调整对知识团队的效能均具有显著正向影响;但除了行动调整外,任务反思、过程反思对团队效率不会产生显著正向影响。通过研究还发现,任务依赖性与任务例行性对团队自省性与团队绩效的关系具有不同程度的调节作用。说明在任务特征的不同水平,团队自省性对团队绩效存在不同的回归效应。此外,研究发现,团队自省性作为一种团队过程,将会在知识团队自省性的触发因素与团队绩效之间起到一种中介作用。因此,本文丰富了团队自省性理论与团队绩效形成理论。
(3)基于多层次的团队研究新思路。
本论文同时涉及两种团队研究模式:同层模式与跨层模式。本研究中以触发因素为前因变量、自省性为中介变量以及以团队绩效为结果变量的结构模型构建,就是基于同层模式的研究。而本研究中用跨层次方式探讨个人层次目标取向与团队层次自省性对团队成员行为的交互影响,就是基于跨层模式的研究。因此,本研究从方法上为今后从事团队研究进行了有益的尝试与探索。
总之,本论文基于多层次研究方法,提出并验证中国背景下知识团队自省性的多维度构思,深入分析了知识团队自省性与对知识团队绩效与知识员工行为的影响作用,开拓了知识团队绩效与知识员工行为研究的新视角。这些理论观点,为我国企业规范知识员工行为,提升知识团队绩效,适应内外环境变化,赢得并保持竞争优势,提供了思路。
Effective teams are important cornerstones of successful organizations, especially for those operating in dynamic environments. As such, the large literature on factors explaining team effects on performance has generated significant understanding. However, an important assumption in most team studies is that teams and team properties are static, thus ignoring the possibility that at various stages of their existence, teams can have different characteristics. However, the reality for most teams involved in innovative projects is that they are facing a constantly changing environment, both internally and externally. Teams in innovative projects constantly face uncertainty (lack of knowledge about future events and consequences of specific actions) and equivocality (deeper level of ambiguity and confusion regarding what needs to get done). However, in order to cope successfully with such environmental contingencies, it is important for teams to constantly monitor their environment and react appropriately. One key aspect of the ability of teams to monitor and react to their environment is reflexivity. Team reflexivity is based on the notion that a team’s environment is ever changing and that there is a need for constant reflection and contemplation to assess the most current environment in order to apply the best action. Team reflexivity—the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning—has been identified as a possible important determinant of team effectiveness. When members collectively reflect on the way they work and the environment they work in, plan to adapt these aspects and make changes accordingly, teams will be more effective.
The theory of Team Reflexivity gave a new perspective for knowledge team performance and knowledge worker behavior. After looking up key papers from the cited references, we confirmed four theoretical issues unresolved: (1) what were the connotation and constructs of Knowledge Team reflexivity (KTR) in the context of Chinese firms? (2) What were the antecedents of KTR, and how to build KTR? (3) How did KTR influence team effectiveness and team efficiency in the knowledge economy? (4) How did KTR influence knowledge workers’behaviors in the knowledge team? Four studies were conducted to answer these questions.
Study 1 explored the construct of team reflexivity in Chinese context. After looking up key papers, Team reflexivity is defined as“the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about the group’s objectives, strategies and processes, and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances”, and then we conducted interviews and survey to obtain items for the Team Reflexivity Scale (TRS). And then, empirical and statistical methods were employed to assess the structure and psychometric properties of the TRS. The scale was tested with two different samples form high technology companies in China. The exploratory factor analysis on the first sample with 148 staff showed that Team reflexivity contains three dimensions. The three dimension constructs were confirmed by using a confirmatory factor analysis on the confirmation sample with 352 staff. In both samples, three factors of reflexivity were identified. They were labeled task reflection, process reflection and action adaptation. And then, the two-level structure of TRS was assessed by means of multi-level confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) on all samples(100 teams with 500 staff), indicating that the three dimension constructs of team reflexivity can be used both at individual and team level. Statistics from individual and team level showed good psychometric properties for the scale in both studies. We conclude that the scale forms a valid instrument to assess team reflexivity in Chinese firms.
Study 2 analyzed the antecedents of KTR in the context of Chinese firms. Before the study, the researcher had put forwarded several critical variables which worked on KTR and had supposed their effects on KTR. These variables include team task characteristics, team members’characteristics, team leader roles, and psychological safety climate. Subsequently, we applied stepwise linear regression and structural equation model to validate the effect of antecedents on team reflexivity. With regards to our investigation of possible antecedents of KTR, some factors were positively related to team reflexivity. Especially, the study showed that team learning orientation, leader role as facilitator, and psychological safety climate were the key trigger factors of KTR. Moreover, the study showed there were moderating effects between the trigger factors and KTR by team task characteristics.
Study 3 analyzed the performance mechanism of KTR on team level in two aspects, adopting questionnaire studying method, sampling on team level, and depending on structural equation modeling techniques. (1) The effects on team effectiveness and team efficiency made by team task characteristics and KTR. Empirical results show that the dimensions of team reflexivity have positive impact on team effectiveness, and action adaptation has positive impact on team efficiency. And it was found that task reflection, process reflection and action adaptation had influences on team effectiveness and team efficiency in various task environments. (2) It enabled to open up the black box between team input factors and team performance through testing the mediation effects of KTR. The effects on team performance made by team input factors were mainly through its effect on KTR. Especially, the effects on team performance made by team leader role as facilitator and psychological safety were fully through its effect on KTR.
Study 4 analyzed the knowledge workers’behavior mechanism of KTR on cross level adopting questionnaire studying method, sampling on individual and team level, and depending on hierarchical linear modeling techniques. Based on the preliminary conclusions derived from the research of the theory of Goal Orientation, we proposed a theoretical model in which the KTR was included to examine the relationship between the goal orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors. At individual level, we examined the relationship between 3-factor individual goal orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors. At cross level, we also examined whether KTR can affect knowledge workers’behaviors, then analyzed whether KTR has a moderate effect between individual goal orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors. Results of cross level analysis showed that (1) positive effect of KTR on knowledge workers’behaviors such as knowledge acquiring behavior, innovation behavior, and knowledge sharing behavior is significant; (2) To varying degrees, KTR had positive moderating effect between learning orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors; (3) To varying degrees, KTR had positive moderating effect between proving orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors; (4) To varying degrees, KTR had negative moderating effect between avoiding orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors.
The main contributions of the dissertation include:
(1) The validity and reliability of Team Reflexivity Scale(TRS) was firstly modified and examined in China. (2) Form the perspective of Team Reflexivity, this dissertation analyzed the performance mechanism of KTR on team level. (3) At the same time, this dissertation carried out team research involving both two models: the single-level model and cross-level model.
Based on cross-level view, this paper put forward and validated the multi-dimensions construct of KTR in Chinese firm context, and analyzed the performance and behavior mechanism of KTR. As a result, these theoretical opinions enabled the companies to be aware of the way how to manage knowledge workers’behaviors, improve knowledge team performance, adapt to Internal and external changes in the environment, and thus gain and maintain the competitive advantage.
引文
1.曹维武译. Robert K Wysocki著.创建有效的项目团队.电子工业出版社,2003:39-67.
2.陈国权.人的知识来源模型以及获取和传递知识过程的管理.中国管理科学,2003,6:86-94
3.陈国权.团队学习和学习型团队:概念、能力模型、测量及对团队绩效的影响.管理学报,2007,5:602-609.
4.陈永霞等.变革型领导、心理授权与员工的组织承诺:中国情景下的实证研究.管理世界, 2006(1):96-106.
5.丁岳枫,谢小云,王重鸣.虚拟团队任务特征对团队绩效的影响模式研究.人类工效学,2004 (4):39-41.
6.盖乃诚.多水平研究中的概念转换模式——以气氛研究为例,心理科学, 2005(5): 1272 - 1273
7.高日光,凌文辁,方俐洛.知识工作者的特点及其激励对策.人才资源开发,2004(Z1):9-10.
8.侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京:教育科学出版社, 2004.
9.黄敏萍、戚树诚、黄国隆:跨功能任务团队之结构与效能:一项结构权变模式之观点,管理学报, 2002(6)
10.黄家齐,黄荷婷.团队成员目标导向对于自我与集体效能及创新之影响:一个多层次研究.管理学报, 2006, 23: 327-346.
11.廖冰,纪晓丽.浅析知识团队的管理.管理科学文摘,2003(06):57-58.
12.郎淳刚,曹瑄玮.团队反思对创新项目团队绩效的作用研究,科学学与科学技术管,2007年第9期.
13.李锋,王二平.团队作业特征研究现状与展望.心理科学进展. 2008, 16(05) : 753-759.
14.林育理.组织知识活动气候对员工知识活动行为影响之研究:一个跨层次模式的验证,元智大学博士论文,2005.
15.倪浩.构建知识团队立体式信任机制.全球科技经济瞭望,2003(11):28-29.
16.金杨华.目标取向和工作经验对绩效的效应.心理学报, 2005(1): 136～141.
17.柯江林.基于社会资本的企业R&D团队效能形成机制研究:以知识分享与整合为中介,上海交通大学博士论文, 2005.
18.柯江林,孙健敏,石金涛等.企业R&D团队之社会资本与团队效能关系的实证研究.管理世界, 2007(3):89-101.
19.任婧,王二平.互依性与团队协作.心理科学进展, 2007, 15(1): 146~153
20.石金涛等.自主创新人才培养的政府支持.中国人力资源开发.2006(10):12-18
21.石金涛,张文勤.研发团队的自省性研究—基于IPO的视角,中国人力资源开发, 2008年(4)
22.孙锐,石金涛.知识工作者特征与知识团队的形成研究.科学技术与辩证法, 2005, (06)
23.斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.组织行为学(第七版).中国人民大学出版社.2004.
24.唐翌.团队心理安全、组织公民行为和团队创新——一个中介传导模型的实证分析.南开管理评论, 2005, (06)
25.唐炎华,石金涛.国外知识转移研究综述.情报科学.2006(1):153-160
26.王济川,谢海义,姜宝法.多层统计分析模型:方法与应用.北京:高等教育出版社, 2008.
27.王庆燕,石金涛.组织气氛与组织文化的研究脉络与异同.中国软科学, 2005, (09)
28.王雁飞,凌文辁,朱瑜.成就目标定向、自我效能与反馈寻求行为的关系.心理科学, 2004(1): 31-33.
29.王雁飞,朱瑜.国外组织创新气氛研究概述.外国经济与管理, 2005, (08)
30.温忠麟,侯杰泰,马什赫伯特.潜变量交互效应分析方法.心理科学进展,2003, 11(5):593-599.
31.温忠麟,侯杰泰.隐变量交互效应分析方法的比较与评价.数理统计与管理,2004, 23 (3) : 37-42
32.温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰.有中介的调节变量和有调节的中介变量,心理学报,2006, 38 (3) :448-452
33.温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰,刘红云.中介效应检验程序及其应用.心理学报,2004, 36 (5):614-620
34.温忠麟、侯杰泰、马什赫伯特:结构方程模型检验:拟合指数与卡方准则,心理学报, 2004(2)
35.吴志明,武欣.知识工作团队中组织公民行为对团队有效性的影响作用研究.科学学与科学技术管理, 2005(08) :92-96.
36.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(02):471-473.
37.谢荷锋,马庆国.组织氛围对员工非正式知识分享的影响.科学学研究, 2007(2): 306-311.
38.谢洪明,韩子天.组织学习与绩效的关系:创新是中介变量吗?-珠三角地区企业的实证研究及其启示.科研管理, 2005, (05)
39.杨德林、史海锋. R&D项目组知识创造影响因素的实证研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2005(07):92-96.
40.姚静.团队领导行为对团队学习的影响研究.浙江大学硕士论文.2004.
41.于海波,方俐洛,凌文辁.组织研究中的多层面问题.心理科学进展2004(3):462-471
42.张雷,雷雳,郭伯良.多层线性模型应用.北京:教育科学出版社,2005.
43.张体勤,丁荣贵.关于知识团队特性的研究.人类工效学,2002(03):41-44.
44.张翊祥.团队成员人格特质组合对团队效能影响之研究.中原大学硕士论文.2004.
45.张文勤,石金涛.团队反思的影响效果与影响因素分析,外国经济与管理, 2008年第4期。
46.张文勤,石金涛.团队自反性研究综述.管理工程学报.
47.张方华,陈劲.知识创造——企业知识管理的核心,科学学与科学技术管理,2002(10):36-40.
48.郑仁伟,黎士群.组织公平、信任与知识分享行为之关系研究.人力资源管理学报,2001,1(2):69-93.
49.周志成,朱月龙.团队领导行为对团队效能影响之研究.应用心理学.2005,11(2):181-185.
50. Allen, N.J. (1996). Affective reactions to the group and the organization. In M.A.West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 371–396). Chicester: John Wiley & Sons.
51. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123– 167).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
52. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., et al. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 1996 (39):1154-1184.
53. Ancona, D. G., Caldwell, D.F., 1992, Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams, Administrative science quarterly, 37, 634-665.
54. Anderson, N. R., West, M. A. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organization Behavior, 1998, 19: 235-257.
55. Argote, L., Turner, M.E., Fichman, M. To centralize or not to centralize: the effects of uncertainty and threat on group structure and performance [J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1989, 43:58–74.
56. Argyris, C. On organizational learning [M].Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1992.
57. Argyris, C. (1997). Learning and teaching: a theory of action perspective. Journal of Management Education, 21, 9-27.
58. Ashford, S.J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29, 773–799.
59. Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.
60. Baer, M. & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45-68.
61. Bagozi, R. P., Yi, Y., and Phillips, L. W. Assessing construct validity in organizational research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1991,36: 421- 458.
62. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs,1986.
63. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
64. Barry, D. (1991) Managing the bossless team: lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20, 1, 31–47.
65. Barry B,Stewart G L. Composition,process,and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997,82:62-78.
66. Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological bulletin, 83, 762-765.
67. Bass, B. M. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 1985.
68. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire–Rater Form, Palo Alto, C. A. : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1989.
69. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire, Mind Garden, Redwood City.1997.
70. Bass, B. M. Form Transformational to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, 1990,19: 19-27.
71. Bell, B. S., Kozlowski, S. W. J. Goal orientation and ability; Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 87: 497-505.
72. Bunderson, J. S., Sutcliffe, K. M. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88: 552-560.
73. Button, S. B., Mathieu J E., Zajac, D, M. Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1996, 67: 26-48.
74. Campion M A, Medsker G J, Higgs A C. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 1993, 46(4): 823~850
75. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.
76. Carter, S., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583-601.
77. Clark, K. B., Fujimoto, T., 1991, Product Development Performance, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 56-61.
78. Cohen, W., and D. Levinthal.. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990(35): 128-152.
79. Cohen, Susan G, Ledford, Gerald E Jr, Spreitzer, Gretchen M.A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 1996, 49(5): 643-676.
80. Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 1988,94: 95-120.
81. Coleman, J. S. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
82. Damanpour, F. Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 1996, 42, 693–716.
83. De Dreu. Team innovation and effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2002, (11),285-298.
84. De Dreu, C. K. W., West, M. A. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86, 1191-1201.
85. De Dreu, Carsten K. W. Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective [J].Journal of Applied Psychology 2007, 92(3): 628-638.
86. Drucker, P. F. Post-capitalist Society. New York:Harper Business. 1993.
87. Drucker, P. F. The Theory of the Business. Harvard Business Review, 1994, 72(5):95-104.
88. Du Toit, M., Du Toit, S., 2001, Interactive LISREL: User’s Guide, Lincolnwood, IL: SSI, 254-260.
89. Dunegan, K. J., Tierney, T. P., Duchon, D. Perceptions of an Innovative Climate: Examining the Role of Divisional Affiliation, Work Group Interaction, and Leader/Subordinate Exchange. IEEE Transactions on Engineer Management, 1992, 39(3):132-139.
90. Dweck, C. S. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 1986, 41: 1040-1048.
91. Dweck, C. S., Leggett, E. L. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 1988, 95: 256-273.
92. Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, N. G. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149-167.
93. Edmondson, A. C. Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1996,32:5–28.
94. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
95. Edmonson A C. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective [J]. Organization Science, 2002, 13(2): 128-146.
96. Edmonson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13, 128-146.
97. Elliot, A. J., Harackiewicz, J. M. Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, 70: 461~475.
98. Elliot, A. J., Thrash, T. M. Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 2001, 13: 139~155.
99. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance. achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, 76(4): 628-644.
100. Ennabih, Abdessamad, Van Riel, Allard C.R. and Sasovova, Zuzana. Antecedents of Team Learning in New Product Development Teams [R]. 23rd EGOS Colloquium, Vienna, July 5-7, 2007
101. Facchin, S., & Tschan, F. The reflective group: Group reflexivity enhances team performance - sometimes [R]. 10th congress of the Swiss Society of Psychology, Zurich. (2007).
102. Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998,83:218-233.
103. Fornell, C., Larcker, D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18: 39-50.
104. Frese, M., Zapf, D. Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H.C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, L. M. Hough (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 4. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1994.
105. Fry, L.W. and J.W. Slocum (1984), Technology, Structure, and Workgroup Effectiveness: A Test of a Contingency Model, Academy of Management Journal, 221-246.
106. George, J. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990, 75: 107-116.
107. Giles, H. and Leon, M. A model of R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project performance R&D Management 2004,34, 2,:147-159.
108. Glick, W. H., 1985, Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multi-level research, Academy of Management Review, 10, 601-616.
109. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 287-312). New York: Guilford Press.
110. Gong & Fan,. Longitudinal Examination of the Role of Goal Orientation in Cross-Cultural Adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006,91(1):176–184.
111. Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N., & Nagele, C. (2007). Getting groups to develop good strategies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 127-142.
112. Gupta, A. K., Wilemon, D. L., 1990, Accelerating the development of technology-based new products, California Management Review, 32, 24-44.
113. Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. Expatriate managers and the psychological contract, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1994,79: 617-626.
114. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
115. Hackman, J. R. Group influences in organizations. In Dunnete, M. D., Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1992, 199-286.
116. Haleblian, J., Finkelstein, S., 1993, Top Management Team Size, CEO Dominance, and Firm Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 844-863.
117. Hammedi, Wafa, Van Riel, Allard C.R. and Sasovova, Zuzana. Reflexivity in the Screening Stage of the Innovation Process [R]. 23rd EGOS Colloquium, Vienna, July 5-7, 2007.
118. Harborne, P. & Fohne, A., Creating a project climate for successful product innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2003, 6:118-132.
119. Hansen, M. T. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44: 82-111.
120. Hansen, M. T. Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 2002, 13: 232-248.
121. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existingproduct technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35: 9-30.
122. Hendricks, P. Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of Ict on the Motivation for Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 1999, 6(2):91-100.
123. Hertel, Guido; Konradt, Udo; Orlikowski, Borris. Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 2004, 13 (1):1-28.
124. Hettie A. Richardson, Robert J. Vandenberg. Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2005, 26(5):561-589.
125. Hoegl, M., Gemuenden, H.G., 2001, Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence, Organization Science, 12, 435-449.
126. Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Management, 36, 113-125.
127. Hofmann D A. Issues in multilevel research: theory development, measurement, and analysis. In: Rogelberg S G. ed. Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Blackwell Publishers, 2002. 247~274
128. Hirokawa, R. Y., 1990, The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: A task contingency perspective, Small Group Research, 21, 190-204.
129. James, L. R. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, 67, 219-229.
130. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: an assessment of within group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
131. James, L., James, L., Ashe, D. The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. 40-84.
132. Janis, I.L. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes [M]. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
133. Janssen Onne, Prins Jelle. Goal orientations and the seeking of different types of feedback information. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2007,80:235–249.
134. Janz, B. D., Prasarnphanich P., 2003, Understanding the Antecedents of Effective Knowledge Management: The Importance of a Knowledge-centered Culture, Decision Sciences, 34, 351-384.
135. Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., Hall, R. J. Levels issues in theory development, data collection,and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19: 195-229.
136. Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., Wang, C. Motivation to learn and course outcomes: the impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 2006, 59: 665-702.
137. King, N. Modeling the innovation process: an empirical comparison of approaches. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 1992, 65: 89–100.
138. Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996), Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253-266.
139. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations, 1, 3-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
140. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climate for technical updating and performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539-563.
141. Lewis, K., 2003, Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587-604.
142. Lewis K. Knowledge and Performance in Knowledge-Worker Teams: A Longitudinal Study of Transactive Memory Systems. Management Science. 2004, 50 (11):1519-1533.
143. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R., Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44(4) : 779-793.
144. Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., Pratt, M. G. There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’creative performance. Academy of Management Journal. 2002, 45: 757-767.
145. Mayer, R. C., Davis, H., & Schoorman, F. D. An integative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20 (3):709- 734.
146. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality,1992, 60:175～215.
147. McDonough, E. F. III., Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation, 2000,17:221-235.
148. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. J. Designing team-based organization: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.1995.
149. Nicole A Gillespie; Leon Mann.Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust Journal of Managerial Psychology; 2004, 19(6):588-607.
150. 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, 22:89-106.
151. Moreland, R.L. & Levine, J.M. Problem identification by groups [A]. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J.A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity [M]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,1992:17–47.
152. Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. The Commitment-trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 1994, 58, 20-38.
153. Muthen, B. O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 376-398.
154. Neuman, G. A., Wright, J. Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84:376-389.
155. Nielson, R. P. (1993). Woolman’s“I am we”triple-loop action-learning: Origin and application in organization ethics. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29, 117-138.
156. Nonaka, I. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 1991, 69(6); 96-104.
157. Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 1994,5:14-38.
158. Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. The knowledge-creating Company. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1995.
159. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Konno, N. SECI, Ba, and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 2000 (33): 5-34.
160. Oldham, G. R., Cummings, A. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39(3): 607–634.
161. Ostroff, Cheri. Comparing Correlations Based on Individual-Level and Aggregated Data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993,78(4):569-582.
162. Payne, S., Youngcourt C., Satoris, S., Beaubien, J. M. A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, 92: 128-150.
163. Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, .1991, 76: 838-844.
164. Petzold, M. Cognitive styles—Definitions, classifications and relevance of a psychological construct from a history of science point of view [J]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 1985,32: 161–177.
165. Pirola-Merlo A, Charmine Hartel, Leon Mann, Giles Hirst. How leaders influence the impactof affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. Leadership Quarterly.2002,13(5):561-581.
166. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
167. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
168. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
169. Porter, C. O. L. H. Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005,90:811-818.
170. Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006,91:185-192.
171. Randel, A. E. Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender composition and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2002, 23: 749-766.
172. Rousseau, D. M. The construction of climate in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1988, 139 -158.
173. Sarin, Shikhar; McDermott, Christopher.The Effect of Team Leader Characteristics on Learning, Knowledge Application, and Performance of Cross-Functional New Product Development Teams. Decision Sciences, 2003, 34( 4):707-739.
174. Schulz M. The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44 (4): 661-681.
175. Seers, A. Team–member exchange quality:A new construct for role–making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 1989, 43, 118–135.
176. Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J.F. Team–member exchange under team and traditional management, Group & Organization Management, 1995, 20(1), 18–38.
177. Senge, P.M. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization [M]. New York: Doubleday Currency, 1990.
178. Schneider, B. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 1987, 40: 437-453.
179. Schippers, M. C., Deanne, N., & Hartog, D. (2007). Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 189-211.
180. Schippers, M. C., Den, H. D., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779-802.
181. Schwenk, C. R., 1988, The cognitive perspective in strategic decision-making, Journal of Management Studies, 25, 41-55.
182. Scott, S. G., Bruce, R. A. Determinants of innovation behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37: 580-607.
183. Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., and Blum, T. C. Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 2000,43:215-223.
184. Sicotte, H. and Langley, A. Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance [J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2001,17 (1):1–37.
185. Snell, R., & Chak, A.M.K. The learning organization: Learning and empowerment for whom? [J].Management Learning, 1998, 29 (3):337–364.
186. Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and. innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, 132–157.
187. Souder, W. E., Moenaert,R K., 1992, An information uncertainty model for integrating marketing and R&D personnel in new product development projects, Journal of Management Studies, 29, 485-512.
188. Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research [A]. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology [M]. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1995:249-274
189. Steele-Johnson,et al. Goal orientation and task demand effects on motivation, affect, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,2000,85: 724–738.
190. Swift, T. A., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity and group processes: Research and practice. Sheffield: The ESRC Centre for Organization and Innovation.
191. Tjosvold, D., 1988, Cooperative and competitive interdependence: Collaboration between departments to service customers. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 274-289.
192. Tjosvold, D. Team organization: An enduring competitive advantage [M]. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1991.
193. Tjosvold, D. Cooperative and competitive goal approaches to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges [J]. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1998, 47 (3):285-342.
194. Tjosvold, D., Chun, H., & Ziyou, Y. Conflict management and task reflexivity for team in-role and extra-role performance in China [J].The International Journal of ConflictManagement, 2003,14 (2): 141–163.
195. Tjosvold, D., Tang, M., & West, M. A. Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence [J].Group and Organization Management, 2004, 29 (5):540–559.
196. VandeWalle, D. Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1997, 57: 995-1015.
197. VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Jr, J. W. S., The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology,2001, 86:629-640.
198. Wang Hui, Kenneth S Law, Rick D Hackett, Duanxu Wang, zhen Xiong Chen. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 2005,48( 3): 420-432.
199. West, M. A. Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration [A]. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology [M]. Chichester, England: Wiley, 1996:555–579.
200. West, M.A. Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams [A]. In M.M. Beyerlein, D.A. Johnson, & S.T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Product development teams [M]. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 2000:1-29.
201. West, M. A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2002, 51 (3):355-424.
202. West, M. A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 269-299.
203. West, M, A., Anderson, N. R. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996, 81: 680-693.
204. West, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & Dawson, J. F. A path to profit? Teamwork at the top [J]. Centrepiece, 1999 (4):6-11.
205. West, M.A., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. Group decision-making and effectiveness: Unexplored boundaries [A]. In C.L. Cooper & S.E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations: A handbook for future research in organizational behavior [M]. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons,1997:293–316.
206. West,M A. Carol Borrill, Jeremy Dawson, Felix Brodbeck, David Shapiro and Bob Haward. Leadership Clarity and Team Innovation in Health Care [J]. Leadership Quarterly, 2003, 14:393-410.
207. Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common Factor Analysis Versus Principal Component Analysis: Differential Bias in Representing Model Parameters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263-311.
208. Withey, M.J., Daft, R.L. & Cooper, W.H. (1983). Measures of Perrow's work unit. technology: An empirical assessment and a new scale. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (1), 45-63.
209. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., Griffin, R. W. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 1993, 18: 293-321.
210. Yukl, G. (2002) Leadership in Organizations (5th ed.).New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
211. Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L. and Marks, M.A. (2001)Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.
212. Zhou, J., George, J. M. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 2001 (44): 682–696.
213. Zirger, B.J. and Maidique, A.M. (1990) A model of new product development: an empirical test. Management Science, 36, 7, 867–882.
2.陈国权.人的知识来源模型以及获取和传递知识过程的管理.中国管理科学,2003,6:86-94
3.陈国权.团队学习和学习型团队:概念、能力模型、测量及对团队绩效的影响.管理学报,2007,5:602-609.
4.陈永霞等.变革型领导、心理授权与员工的组织承诺:中国情景下的实证研究.管理世界, 2006(1):96-106.
5.丁岳枫,谢小云,王重鸣.虚拟团队任务特征对团队绩效的影响模式研究.人类工效学,2004 (4):39-41.
6.盖乃诚.多水平研究中的概念转换模式——以气氛研究为例,心理科学, 2005(5): 1272 - 1273
7.高日光,凌文辁,方俐洛.知识工作者的特点及其激励对策.人才资源开发,2004(Z1):9-10.
8.侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京:教育科学出版社, 2004.
9.黄敏萍、戚树诚、黄国隆:跨功能任务团队之结构与效能:一项结构权变模式之观点,管理学报, 2002(6)
10.黄家齐,黄荷婷.团队成员目标导向对于自我与集体效能及创新之影响:一个多层次研究.管理学报, 2006, 23: 327-346.
11.廖冰,纪晓丽.浅析知识团队的管理.管理科学文摘,2003(06):57-58.
12.郎淳刚,曹瑄玮.团队反思对创新项目团队绩效的作用研究,科学学与科学技术管,2007年第9期.
13.李锋,王二平.团队作业特征研究现状与展望.心理科学进展. 2008, 16(05) : 753-759.
14.林育理.组织知识活动气候对员工知识活动行为影响之研究:一个跨层次模式的验证,元智大学博士论文,2005.
15.倪浩.构建知识团队立体式信任机制.全球科技经济瞭望,2003(11):28-29.
16.金杨华.目标取向和工作经验对绩效的效应.心理学报, 2005(1): 136～141.
17.柯江林.基于社会资本的企业R&D团队效能形成机制研究:以知识分享与整合为中介,上海交通大学博士论文, 2005.
18.柯江林,孙健敏,石金涛等.企业R&D团队之社会资本与团队效能关系的实证研究.管理世界, 2007(3):89-101.
19.任婧,王二平.互依性与团队协作.心理科学进展, 2007, 15(1): 146~153
20.石金涛等.自主创新人才培养的政府支持.中国人力资源开发.2006(10):12-18
21.石金涛,张文勤.研发团队的自省性研究—基于IPO的视角,中国人力资源开发, 2008年(4)
22.孙锐,石金涛.知识工作者特征与知识团队的形成研究.科学技术与辩证法, 2005, (06)
23.斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.组织行为学(第七版).中国人民大学出版社.2004.
24.唐翌.团队心理安全、组织公民行为和团队创新——一个中介传导模型的实证分析.南开管理评论, 2005, (06)
25.唐炎华,石金涛.国外知识转移研究综述.情报科学.2006(1):153-160
26.王济川,谢海义,姜宝法.多层统计分析模型:方法与应用.北京:高等教育出版社, 2008.
27.王庆燕,石金涛.组织气氛与组织文化的研究脉络与异同.中国软科学, 2005, (09)
28.王雁飞,凌文辁,朱瑜.成就目标定向、自我效能与反馈寻求行为的关系.心理科学, 2004(1): 31-33.
29.王雁飞,朱瑜.国外组织创新气氛研究概述.外国经济与管理, 2005, (08)
30.温忠麟,侯杰泰,马什赫伯特.潜变量交互效应分析方法.心理科学进展,2003, 11(5):593-599.
31.温忠麟,侯杰泰.隐变量交互效应分析方法的比较与评价.数理统计与管理,2004, 23 (3) : 37-42
32.温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰.有中介的调节变量和有调节的中介变量,心理学报,2006, 38 (3) :448-452
33.温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰,刘红云.中介效应检验程序及其应用.心理学报,2004, 36 (5):614-620
34.温忠麟、侯杰泰、马什赫伯特:结构方程模型检验:拟合指数与卡方准则,心理学报, 2004(2)
35.吴志明,武欣.知识工作团队中组织公民行为对团队有效性的影响作用研究.科学学与科学技术管理, 2005(08) :92-96.
36.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(02):471-473.
37.谢荷锋,马庆国.组织氛围对员工非正式知识分享的影响.科学学研究, 2007(2): 306-311.
38.谢洪明,韩子天.组织学习与绩效的关系:创新是中介变量吗?-珠三角地区企业的实证研究及其启示.科研管理, 2005, (05)
39.杨德林、史海锋. R&D项目组知识创造影响因素的实证研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2005(07):92-96.
40.姚静.团队领导行为对团队学习的影响研究.浙江大学硕士论文.2004.
41.于海波,方俐洛,凌文辁.组织研究中的多层面问题.心理科学进展2004(3):462-471
42.张雷,雷雳,郭伯良.多层线性模型应用.北京:教育科学出版社,2005.
43.张体勤,丁荣贵.关于知识团队特性的研究.人类工效学,2002(03):41-44.
44.张翊祥.团队成员人格特质组合对团队效能影响之研究.中原大学硕士论文.2004.
45.张文勤,石金涛.团队反思的影响效果与影响因素分析,外国经济与管理, 2008年第4期。
46.张文勤,石金涛.团队自反性研究综述.管理工程学报.
47.张方华,陈劲.知识创造——企业知识管理的核心,科学学与科学技术管理,2002(10):36-40.
48.郑仁伟,黎士群.组织公平、信任与知识分享行为之关系研究.人力资源管理学报,2001,1(2):69-93.
49.周志成,朱月龙.团队领导行为对团队效能影响之研究.应用心理学.2005,11(2):181-185.
50. Allen, N.J. (1996). Affective reactions to the group and the organization. In M.A.West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 371–396). Chicester: John Wiley & Sons.
51. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123– 167).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
52. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., et al. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 1996 (39):1154-1184.
53. Ancona, D. G., Caldwell, D.F., 1992, Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams, Administrative science quarterly, 37, 634-665.
54. Anderson, N. R., West, M. A. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organization Behavior, 1998, 19: 235-257.
55. Argote, L., Turner, M.E., Fichman, M. To centralize or not to centralize: the effects of uncertainty and threat on group structure and performance [J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1989, 43:58–74.
56. Argyris, C. On organizational learning [M].Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1992.
57. Argyris, C. (1997). Learning and teaching: a theory of action perspective. Journal of Management Education, 21, 9-27.
58. Ashford, S.J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29, 773–799.
59. Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.
60. Baer, M. & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45-68.
61. Bagozi, R. P., Yi, Y., and Phillips, L. W. Assessing construct validity in organizational research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1991,36: 421- 458.
62. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs,1986.
63. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
64. Barry, D. (1991) Managing the bossless team: lessons in distributed leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 20, 1, 31–47.
65. Barry B,Stewart G L. Composition,process,and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997,82:62-78.
66. Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological bulletin, 83, 762-765.
67. Bass, B. M. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 1985.
68. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire–Rater Form, Palo Alto, C. A. : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1989.
69. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. Full range leadership development: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire, Mind Garden, Redwood City.1997.
70. Bass, B. M. Form Transformational to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, 1990,19: 19-27.
71. Bell, B. S., Kozlowski, S. W. J. Goal orientation and ability; Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 87: 497-505.
72. Bunderson, J. S., Sutcliffe, K. M. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88: 552-560.
73. Button, S. B., Mathieu J E., Zajac, D, M. Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1996, 67: 26-48.
74. Campion M A, Medsker G J, Higgs A C. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 1993, 46(4): 823~850
75. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.
76. Carter, S., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583-601.
77. Clark, K. B., Fujimoto, T., 1991, Product Development Performance, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 56-61.
78. Cohen, W., and D. Levinthal.. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990(35): 128-152.
79. Cohen, Susan G, Ledford, Gerald E Jr, Spreitzer, Gretchen M.A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 1996, 49(5): 643-676.
80. Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 1988,94: 95-120.
81. Coleman, J. S. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
82. Damanpour, F. Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 1996, 42, 693–716.
83. De Dreu. Team innovation and effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2002, (11),285-298.
84. De Dreu, C. K. W., West, M. A. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86, 1191-1201.
85. De Dreu, Carsten K. W. Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective [J].Journal of Applied Psychology 2007, 92(3): 628-638.
86. Drucker, P. F. Post-capitalist Society. New York:Harper Business. 1993.
87. Drucker, P. F. The Theory of the Business. Harvard Business Review, 1994, 72(5):95-104.
88. Du Toit, M., Du Toit, S., 2001, Interactive LISREL: User’s Guide, Lincolnwood, IL: SSI, 254-260.
89. Dunegan, K. J., Tierney, T. P., Duchon, D. Perceptions of an Innovative Climate: Examining the Role of Divisional Affiliation, Work Group Interaction, and Leader/Subordinate Exchange. IEEE Transactions on Engineer Management, 1992, 39(3):132-139.
90. Dweck, C. S. Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 1986, 41: 1040-1048.
91. Dweck, C. S., Leggett, E. L. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 1988, 95: 256-273.
92. Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, N. G. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149-167.
93. Edmondson, A. C. Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1996,32:5–28.
94. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
95. Edmonson A C. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective [J]. Organization Science, 2002, 13(2): 128-146.
96. Edmonson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13, 128-146.
97. Elliot, A. J., Harackiewicz, J. M. Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, 70: 461~475.
98. Elliot, A. J., Thrash, T. M. Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 2001, 13: 139~155.
99. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance. achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, 76(4): 628-644.
100. Ennabih, Abdessamad, Van Riel, Allard C.R. and Sasovova, Zuzana. Antecedents of Team Learning in New Product Development Teams [R]. 23rd EGOS Colloquium, Vienna, July 5-7, 2007
101. Facchin, S., & Tschan, F. The reflective group: Group reflexivity enhances team performance - sometimes [R]. 10th congress of the Swiss Society of Psychology, Zurich. (2007).
102. Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998,83:218-233.
103. Fornell, C., Larcker, D. F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18: 39-50.
104. Frese, M., Zapf, D. Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H.C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, L. M. Hough (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 4. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1994.
105. Fry, L.W. and J.W. Slocum (1984), Technology, Structure, and Workgroup Effectiveness: A Test of a Contingency Model, Academy of Management Journal, 221-246.
106. George, J. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990, 75: 107-116.
107. Giles, H. and Leon, M. A model of R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project performance R&D Management 2004,34, 2,:147-159.
108. Glick, W. H., 1985, Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multi-level research, Academy of Management Review, 10, 601-616.
109. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 287-312). New York: Guilford Press.
110. Gong & Fan,. Longitudinal Examination of the Role of Goal Orientation in Cross-Cultural Adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006,91(1):176–184.
111. Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N., & Nagele, C. (2007). Getting groups to develop good strategies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 127-142.
112. Gupta, A. K., Wilemon, D. L., 1990, Accelerating the development of technology-based new products, California Management Review, 32, 24-44.
113. Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., & Elron, E. Expatriate managers and the psychological contract, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1994,79: 617-626.
114. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
115. Hackman, J. R. Group influences in organizations. In Dunnete, M. D., Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1992, 199-286.
116. Haleblian, J., Finkelstein, S., 1993, Top Management Team Size, CEO Dominance, and Firm Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 844-863.
117. Hammedi, Wafa, Van Riel, Allard C.R. and Sasovova, Zuzana. Reflexivity in the Screening Stage of the Innovation Process [R]. 23rd EGOS Colloquium, Vienna, July 5-7, 2007.
118. Harborne, P. & Fohne, A., Creating a project climate for successful product innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2003, 6:118-132.
119. Hansen, M. T. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44: 82-111.
120. Hansen, M. T. Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 2002, 13: 232-248.
121. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existingproduct technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35: 9-30.
122. Hendricks, P. Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of Ict on the Motivation for Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 1999, 6(2):91-100.
123. Hertel, Guido; Konradt, Udo; Orlikowski, Borris. Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 2004, 13 (1):1-28.
124. Hettie A. Richardson, Robert J. Vandenberg. Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2005, 26(5):561-589.
125. Hoegl, M., Gemuenden, H.G., 2001, Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence, Organization Science, 12, 435-449.
126. Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Management, 36, 113-125.
127. Hofmann D A. Issues in multilevel research: theory development, measurement, and analysis. In: Rogelberg S G. ed. Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Blackwell Publishers, 2002. 247~274
128. Hirokawa, R. Y., 1990, The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: A task contingency perspective, Small Group Research, 21, 190-204.
129. James, L. R. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, 67, 219-229.
130. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: an assessment of within group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
131. James, L., James, L., Ashe, D. The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. 40-84.
132. Janis, I.L. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes [M]. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
133. Janssen Onne, Prins Jelle. Goal orientations and the seeking of different types of feedback information. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2007,80:235–249.
134. Janz, B. D., Prasarnphanich P., 2003, Understanding the Antecedents of Effective Knowledge Management: The Importance of a Knowledge-centered Culture, Decision Sciences, 34, 351-384.
135. Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., Hall, R. J. Levels issues in theory development, data collection,and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19: 195-229.
136. Klein, H. J., Noe, R. A., Wang, C. Motivation to learn and course outcomes: the impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 2006, 59: 665-702.
137. King, N. Modeling the innovation process: an empirical comparison of approaches. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 1992, 65: 89–100.
138. Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996), Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253-266.
139. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations, 1, 3-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
140. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climate for technical updating and performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539-563.
141. Lewis, K., 2003, Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587-604.
142. Lewis K. Knowledge and Performance in Knowledge-Worker Teams: A Longitudinal Study of Transactive Memory Systems. Management Science. 2004, 50 (11):1519-1533.
143. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R., Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44(4) : 779-793.
144. Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., Pratt, M. G. There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’creative performance. Academy of Management Journal. 2002, 45: 757-767.
145. Mayer, R. C., Davis, H., & Schoorman, F. D. An integative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20 (3):709- 734.
146. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality,1992, 60:175～215.
147. McDonough, E. F. III., Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation, 2000,17:221-235.
148. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. J. Designing team-based organization: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.1995.
149. Nicole A Gillespie; Leon Mann.Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust Journal of Managerial Psychology; 2004, 19(6):588-607.
150. 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, 22:89-106.
151. Moreland, R.L. & Levine, J.M. Problem identification by groups [A]. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J.A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity [M]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,1992:17–47.
152. Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. The Commitment-trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 1994, 58, 20-38.
153. Muthen, B. O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 376-398.
154. Neuman, G. A., Wright, J. Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84:376-389.
155. Nielson, R. P. (1993). Woolman’s“I am we”triple-loop action-learning: Origin and application in organization ethics. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29, 117-138.
156. Nonaka, I. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 1991, 69(6); 96-104.
157. Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 1994,5:14-38.
158. Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. The knowledge-creating Company. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1995.
159. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Konno, N. SECI, Ba, and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 2000 (33): 5-34.
160. Oldham, G. R., Cummings, A. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39(3): 607–634.
161. Ostroff, Cheri. Comparing Correlations Based on Individual-Level and Aggregated Data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993,78(4):569-582.
162. Payne, S., Youngcourt C., Satoris, S., Beaubien, J. M. A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, 92: 128-150.
163. Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, .1991, 76: 838-844.
164. Petzold, M. Cognitive styles—Definitions, classifications and relevance of a psychological construct from a history of science point of view [J]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 1985,32: 161–177.
165. Pirola-Merlo A, Charmine Hartel, Leon Mann, Giles Hirst. How leaders influence the impactof affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. Leadership Quarterly.2002,13(5):561-581.
166. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
167. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
168. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
169. Porter, C. O. L. H. Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005,90:811-818.
170. Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006,91:185-192.
171. Randel, A. E. Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender composition and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2002, 23: 749-766.
172. Rousseau, D. M. The construction of climate in organizational research. In C. L. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1988, 139 -158.
173. Sarin, Shikhar; McDermott, Christopher.The Effect of Team Leader Characteristics on Learning, Knowledge Application, and Performance of Cross-Functional New Product Development Teams. Decision Sciences, 2003, 34( 4):707-739.
174. Schulz M. The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44 (4): 661-681.
175. Seers, A. Team–member exchange quality:A new construct for role–making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 1989, 43, 118–135.
176. Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J.F. Team–member exchange under team and traditional management, Group & Organization Management, 1995, 20(1), 18–38.
177. Senge, P.M. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization [M]. New York: Doubleday Currency, 1990.
178. Schneider, B. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 1987, 40: 437-453.
179. Schippers, M. C., Deanne, N., & Hartog, D. (2007). Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 189-211.
180. Schippers, M. C., Den, H. D., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779-802.
181. Schwenk, C. R., 1988, The cognitive perspective in strategic decision-making, Journal of Management Studies, 25, 41-55.
182. Scott, S. G., Bruce, R. A. Determinants of innovation behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37: 580-607.
183. Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., and Blum, T. C. Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 2000,43:215-223.
184. Sicotte, H. and Langley, A. Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance [J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2001,17 (1):1–37.
185. Snell, R., & Chak, A.M.K. The learning organization: Learning and empowerment for whom? [J].Management Learning, 1998, 29 (3):337–364.
186. Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and. innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, 132–157.
187. Souder, W. E., Moenaert,R K., 1992, An information uncertainty model for integrating marketing and R&D personnel in new product development projects, Journal of Management Studies, 29, 485-512.
188. Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. The nature and effects of method variance in organizational research [A]. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology [M]. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1995:249-274
189. Steele-Johnson,et al. Goal orientation and task demand effects on motivation, affect, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,2000,85: 724–738.
190. Swift, T. A., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity and group processes: Research and practice. Sheffield: The ESRC Centre for Organization and Innovation.
191. Tjosvold, D., 1988, Cooperative and competitive interdependence: Collaboration between departments to service customers. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 274-289.
192. Tjosvold, D. Team organization: An enduring competitive advantage [M]. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1991.
193. Tjosvold, D. Cooperative and competitive goal approaches to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges [J]. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1998, 47 (3):285-342.
194. Tjosvold, D., Chun, H., & Ziyou, Y. Conflict management and task reflexivity for team in-role and extra-role performance in China [J].The International Journal of ConflictManagement, 2003,14 (2): 141–163.
195. Tjosvold, D., Tang, M., & West, M. A. Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence [J].Group and Organization Management, 2004, 29 (5):540–559.
196. VandeWalle, D. Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1997, 57: 995-1015.
197. VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Jr, J. W. S., The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology,2001, 86:629-640.
198. Wang Hui, Kenneth S Law, Rick D Hackett, Duanxu Wang, zhen Xiong Chen. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 2005,48( 3): 420-432.
199. West, M. A. Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration [A]. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology [M]. Chichester, England: Wiley, 1996:555–579.
200. West, M.A. Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams [A]. In M.M. Beyerlein, D.A. Johnson, & S.T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Product development teams [M]. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 2000:1-29.
201. West, M. A. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 2002, 51 (3):355-424.
202. West, M. A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 269-299.
203. West, M, A., Anderson, N. R. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1996, 81: 680-693.
204. West, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & Dawson, J. F. A path to profit? Teamwork at the top [J]. Centrepiece, 1999 (4):6-11.
205. West, M.A., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. Group decision-making and effectiveness: Unexplored boundaries [A]. In C.L. Cooper & S.E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations: A handbook for future research in organizational behavior [M]. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons,1997:293–316.
206. West,M A. Carol Borrill, Jeremy Dawson, Felix Brodbeck, David Shapiro and Bob Haward. Leadership Clarity and Team Innovation in Health Care [J]. Leadership Quarterly, 2003, 14:393-410.
207. Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common Factor Analysis Versus Principal Component Analysis: Differential Bias in Representing Model Parameters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263-311.
208. Withey, M.J., Daft, R.L. & Cooper, W.H. (1983). Measures of Perrow's work unit. technology: An empirical assessment and a new scale. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (1), 45-63.
209. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., Griffin, R. W. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 1993, 18: 293-321.
210. Yukl, G. (2002) Leadership in Organizations (5th ed.).New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
211. Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L. and Marks, M.A. (2001)Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.
212. Zhou, J., George, J. M. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 2001 (44): 682–696.
213. Zirger, B.J. and Maidique, A.M. (1990) A model of new product development: an empirical test. Management Science, 36, 7, 867–882.