), 齐舒婷1,2, 明晓东1,2, 周意勇1,2, 黄明权1,2 1中国科学院心理研究所行为科学重点实验室, 北京 100101
2中国科学院大学心理学系, 北京 100049
收稿日期:2018-09-21出版日期:2019-04-15发布日期:2019-02-22通讯作者:白新文E-mail:baixw@psych.ac.cn基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金面上项目(71871214);国家重点研发计划项目(2016YFC0802600)Pearls are everywhere but not the eyes: The mechanism and boundary conditions of the influences of decision maker's mental models on idea recognition
BAI Xinwen1(), QI Shuting1,2, MING Xiaodong1,2, ZHOU Yiyong1,2, HUANG Mingquan1,2 1 CAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
2 Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Received:2018-09-21Online:2019-04-15Published:2019-02-22Contact:BAI Xinwen E-mail:baixw@psych.ac.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 当前组织创造力和创新研究与实践的一大误区, 是重视员工的创意生成而忽视决策者的创意识别。决策者对组织创新的影响更大, 探讨决策者创意识别的影响因素及其作用机制, 是本领域研究的新方向。决策者的心智模式——即个体用以描述、解释和预测事物并指导判断和决策的知识及信念结构, 是影响创意识别准确性的关键因素。然而, 其重要性尚未得到充分认识。本项目以创造力的系统观作为理论框架, 综合采用实验和现场研究方法, 通过4个子研究揭示固着型与成长型两类决策者的心智模式影响创意识别的中介机制, 并探讨决策者、创造者和环境三个子系统影响决策者创意识别的协同作用。本项目从决策者角度探讨其创意识别的过程及结果, 在理论上为组织创造力和创新研究引入了新视角和新议题, 并有望为决策者如何规避创新决策的陷阱提供实践指导。
图/表 9
图1创造力的系统观 资料来源：Csikszentmihalyi, 1999.
图1创造力的系统观 资料来源：Csikszentmihalyi, 1999.表1固着型/成长型心智模式的差异
| 固着型心智模式 | 成长型心智模式 | |
|---|---|---|
| 基本假定和信念 | 人的特质固定不变 | 人的特质并非固定不变, 而是具有可塑性 |
| 特质与行为的关系 | 行为完全由特质所决定, 外在行为稳定反映人的内在特质, 因而通过观察外显行为可以对特质进行准确的判断 | 行为受内外部多种因素共同影响, 并随情境不同而变化。需经多方面持续观察一个人在不同时空下的行为表现, 才能对之形成准确判断 |
| 认知加工模式 | 快速的认知加工, 以尽早形成确定的认知和判断 | 动态的认知加工, 以彻底了解对象为目的 |
| 认知需要 | 低, 追求认知智力活动需要较低, 不追求全面了解事物 | 高, 积极追求高认知智力活动, 力求全面了解事物 |
| 认知闭合需要 | 强, 即力求达到对事物的确定和封闭的认识, 回避或消除认识上的含糊不确定性和开放状态 | 弱, 能够忍受事物的不确定性 |
| 不确定性容忍 | 低, 尽量回避任何不确定性, 倾向于维持熟悉的或已知的确定的认识状态 | 高, 积极探索新鲜事物, 接纳学习过程中的不确定性和未知状态 |
| 目标导向 | 绩效导向, 行动的主要目的是展现能力, 追求积极评价, 回避负性反馈 | 学习导向, 注重通过参与活动来学习和掌握新的知识或技能 |
| 对失败的态度 | 失败是因为能力差, 自己不可改变的能力导致, 无力克服困难, 倾向于无助性反应 | 坚持努力、认清导致挫折的具体原因, 以及寻求新的解决问题的策略 |
表1固着型/成长型心智模式的差异
| 固着型心智模式 | 成长型心智模式 | |
|---|---|---|
| 基本假定和信念 | 人的特质固定不变 | 人的特质并非固定不变, 而是具有可塑性 |
| 特质与行为的关系 | 行为完全由特质所决定, 外在行为稳定反映人的内在特质, 因而通过观察外显行为可以对特质进行准确的判断 | 行为受内外部多种因素共同影响, 并随情境不同而变化。需经多方面持续观察一个人在不同时空下的行为表现, 才能对之形成准确判断 |
| 认知加工模式 | 快速的认知加工, 以尽早形成确定的认知和判断 | 动态的认知加工, 以彻底了解对象为目的 |
| 认知需要 | 低, 追求认知智力活动需要较低, 不追求全面了解事物 | 高, 积极追求高认知智力活动, 力求全面了解事物 |
| 认知闭合需要 | 强, 即力求达到对事物的确定和封闭的认识, 回避或消除认识上的含糊不确定性和开放状态 | 弱, 能够忍受事物的不确定性 |
| 不确定性容忍 | 低, 尽量回避任何不确定性, 倾向于维持熟悉的或已知的确定的认识状态 | 高, 积极探索新鲜事物, 接纳学习过程中的不确定性和未知状态 |
| 目标导向 | 绩效导向, 行动的主要目的是展现能力, 追求积极评价, 回避负性反馈 | 学习导向, 注重通过参与活动来学习和掌握新的知识或技能 |
| 对失败的态度 | 失败是因为能力差, 自己不可改变的能力导致, 无力克服困难, 倾向于无助性反应 | 坚持努力、认清导致挫折的具体原因, 以及寻求新的解决问题的策略 |
图2基于创造力系统观的总体研究框架
图2基于创造力系统观的总体研究框架
图3决策者子系统特征影响创意识别的内部机理研究框架(研究1)
图3决策者子系统特征影响创意识别的内部机理研究框架(研究1)
图4心智模式与角色的交互作用对创意评估的影响(研究1a预期结果)
图4心智模式与角色的交互作用对创意评估的影响(研究1a预期结果)
图5心智模式与角色的交互作用对不确定性容忍的影响(研究1a预期结果)
图5心智模式与角色的交互作用对不确定性容忍的影响(研究1a预期结果)
图6心智模式与角色的交互作用对创意评估的影响(研究1b预期结果)
图6心智模式与角色的交互作用对创意评估的影响(研究1b预期结果)
图7决策者子系统与创造者子系统协同效应的研究框架(研究2)
图7决策者子系统与创造者子系统协同效应的研究框架(研究2)
图8决策者、创造者和环境子系统的三阶交互作用示意图(研究4)
图8决策者、创造者和环境子系统的三阶交互作用示意图(研究4)参考文献 66
| [1] | 崔诣晨, 王沛, 谈晨皓 . ( 2016). 内隐人格理论对他人印象加工策略的影响. 心理学报, 48, (12), 1538-1550. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01538URL |
| [2] | 杨学儒, 李新春, 梁强, 李胜文 . ( 2011). 平衡开发式创新和探索式创新一定有利于提升企业绩效吗? 管理工程学报, 25, (4), 17-25. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-6062.2011.04.004URL |
| [3] | 吴梦, 白新文 . ( 2012). 动机性信息加工理论及其在工业与组织心理学中的应用. 心理科学进展, 20, (11), 1889-1898. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.01889URL |
| [4] | Amabile T. M. ( 1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. |
| [5] | Anderson N., Potocnik K., & Zhou J . ( 2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, (5), 1297-1333. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527128URL |
| [6] | Baas M., Koch S., Nijstad B. A., & de Dreu C. K. W . ( 2015). Conceiving creativity: The nature and consequences of laypeople's beliefs about the realization of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 9, (3), 340-354. doi: 10.1037/a0039420URL |
| [7] | Baer M .( 2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55, (5), 1102-1119. |
| [8] | Barrett J. D., Peterson D. R., Hester K. S., Robledo I. C., Day E. A., Hougen D. P., & Mumford M. D . ( 2013). Thinking about applications: Effects on mental models and creative problem-solving. Creativity Research Journal, 25, (2), 199-212. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2013.783758URL |
| [9] | Benner M.J., &Tushman M. ( 2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, (4), 676-706. doi: 10.2307/3094913URL |
| [10] | Benner M.J., &Tushman M.L . ( 2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, (2), 238-256. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2003.9416096URL |
| [11] | Berg J.M . ( 2016). Balancing on the creative high-wire: Forecasting the success of novel ideas in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, (3), 433-468. |
| [12] | Boudreau K., Guinan E. C., Lakhani K. R., & Riedl C . ( 2016). Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Science, 62, (10), 2765-2783. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285URLpmid: 27746512 |
| [13] | Chandy R., Hopstaken B., Narasimhan O., & Prabhu J . ( 2006). From invention to innovation: Conversion ability in product development. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, (3), 494-508. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.43.3.494URL |
| [14] | Chiu C. Y., Hong Y. Y., & Dweck C. S . ( 1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, (1), 19-30. |
| [15] | Criscuolo P., Dahlander L., Grohsjean T., & Salter A . ( 2017). Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Academy of Management Journal, 60, (2), 433-460. |
| [16] | Csikszentmihalyi M . ( 1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davisdon (Eds.), The nature of creativity: Comtemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325-339). New York: Combridge Universtity Press. |
| [17] | Csikszentmihalyi M . ( 1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press. |
| [18] | Dailey L &Mumford M.D . ( 2006). Evaluative aspects of creative thought: Errors in appraising the implications of new ideas. Creativity Research Journal, 18, (3), 385-390. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1803_11URL |
| [19] | Diedrich J., Benedek M., Jauk E., & Neubauer A. C . ( 2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, (1), 35-40. doi: 10.1037/a0038688URL |
| [20] | Dweck C.S . ( 2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York:Random House. |
| [21] | Dweck C. S., Chiu C. Y., & Hong Y. Y . ( 1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, (4), 267-285. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1URL |
| [22] | Edwards J.R., &Lambert L.S . ( 2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, (1), 1-22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1URLpmid: 17402809 |
| [23] | Elsbach K.D., &Kramer R.M . ( 2003). Assessing creativity in hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46, (3), 283-301. doi: 10.2307/30040623URL |
| [24] | Ford C., &Sullivan D.M . ( 2004). A time for everything: How the timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, (2), 279-292. doi: 10.1002/job.241URL |
| [25] | Gralewski J., &Karwowski M. .( 2018). Are teachers' implicit theories of creativity related to the recognition of their students' creativity? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52, (2), 156-167. doi: 10.1002/jocb.140URL |
| [26] | Gupta A. K., Smith K. G., & Shalley C. E . ( 2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, (4), 693-706. doi: 10.2307/20159793URL |
| [27] | Hayes A. F. ( 2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. doi: 10.1111/jedm.12050URL |
| [28] | He Z.L., &Wong P.K . ( 2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, (4), 481-494. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0078URL |
| [29] | Hester K. S., Robledo I. C., Barrett J. D., Peterson D. R., Hougen D. P., Day E. A., & Mumford M. D . ( 2012). Causal analysis to enhance creative problem-solving: Performance and effects on mental models. Creativity Research Journal, 24, (2-3), 115-133. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.677249URL |
| [30] | Hong Y., Chiu C., Dweck C. S., Lin D., & Wan W . ( 1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, (3), 588-599. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588URL |
| [31] | Janssen O .( 2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44, (5), 1039-1050. doi: 10.2307/3069447URL |
| [32] | Johnson-Laird P.N . ( 2010). Mental models and human reasoning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, (43), 18243-18250. |
| [33] | Karwowski M . ( 2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, (1), 62-70. doi: 10.1037/a0034898URL |
| [34] | Kaufman J. C., Baer J., Cropley D. H., Reiter-Palmon R., & Sinnett S . ( 2013). Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, (4), 332-340. doi: 10.1037/a0034809URL |
| [35] | Kickul J., &Gundry L.K . ( 2001). Breaking through boundaries for organizational innovation: New managerial roles and practices in e-commerce firms. Journal of Management, 27, (3), 347-361. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00095-2URL |
| [36] | Kornish L.J., &Ulrich K.T . ( 2014). The importance of the raw idea in innovation: Testing the sow's ear hypothesis. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, (1), 14-26. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2035643URL |
| [37] | Levy S.,R Plaks J. E.., & Dweck C. S .( 1999) . Modes of social thought: Implicit theories and social understanding In S Chaiken & Y Trope (Eds), Dual process theories in social psychology New York: Guilford Press Implicit theories and social understanding. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press. |
| [38] | Lingo E.L., &O'Mahony S. ( 2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, (1), 47-81. |
| [39] | Liu D., Gong Y. P., Zhou J., & Huang J. C . ( 2017). Human resource systems, employee creativity, and firm innovation: The moderating role of firm ownership. Academy of Management Journal, 60, (3), 1164-1188. |
| [40] | Loewenstein J., &Mueller J.S . ( 2016). Implicit theories of creative ideas: How culture guides creativity assessments. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2, (4), 320-348. |
| [41] | Mainemelis C .( 2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35, (4), 558-578. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2010.53502801URL |
| [42] | Mainemelis C., Kark R., & Epitropaki O . ( 2015). Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptualization. The Academy of Management Annals, 9, (1), 393-482. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2015.1024502URL |
| [43] | Molinsky A. L., Grant A. M., & Margolis J. D . ( 2012). The bedside manner of homo economicus: How and why priming an economic schema reduces compassion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, (1), 27-37. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.05.001URL |
| [44] | Mollick E . ( 2012). People and process, suits and innovators: The role of individuals in firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, (9), 1001-1015. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1630546URL |
| [45] | Mueller J.S . ( 2017). Creative change: Why we resist it.. How we can embrace it. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. |
| [46] | Mueller J. S., Melwani S., & Goncalo J. A . ( 2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, (1), 13-17. doi: 10.1177/0956797611421018URLpmid: 22127366 |
| [47] | Mueller J. S., Melwani S., Loewenstein J., & Deal J. J . ( 2018). Reframing the decision-makers’ dilemma: Towards a social context model of creative idea recognition. Academy of Management Journal, 61, (1), 94-110. |
| [48] | Mueller J. S., Wakslak C. J., & Krishnan V . ( 2014). Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 81-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.007URL |
| [49] | Mumford M. D., Hester K. S., Robledo I. C., Peterson D. R., Day E. A., Hougen D. F., & Barrett J. D . ( 2012). Mental models and creative problem-solving: The relationship of objective and subjective model attributes. Creativity Research Journal, 24, (4), 311-330. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2012.730008URL |
| [50] | O'Connor A. J., Nemeth C. J., & Akutsu S . ( 2013). Consequences of beliefs about the malleability of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25, (2), 155-162. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2013.783739URL |
| [51] | Perry-Smith J.E., &Mannucci P.V . ( 2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42, (1), 53-79. |
| [52] | Pirlott A.G., &MacKinnon D.P . ( 2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29-38. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.012URLpmid: 27570259 |
| [53] | Puente-Diaz R., &Cavazos-Arroyo J. ( 2017). The influence of creative mindsets on achievement goals, enjoyment, creative self-efficacy and performance among business students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.007URL |
| [54] | Rafferty A.E., &Griffin M.A . ( 2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, (5), 1154-1162. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1154URLpmid: 16953776 |
| [55] | Rouse W.B., &Morris N.M . ( 1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, (3), 349-363. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.349URL |
| [56] | Scott S.G., &Bruce R.A . ( 1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, (3), 580-607. doi: 10.2307/256701URL |
| [57] | Shalley C. E., Zhou J., & Oldham G. R . ( 2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, (6), 933-958. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007URL |
| [58] | Siler K., Lee K., & Bero L . ( 2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, (2), 360-365. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418218112URLpmid: 25535380 |
| [59] | Spencer S. J., Zanna M. P., & Fong G. T . ( 2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, (6), 845-851. |
| [60] | Steele L. M., Johnson G., & Medeiros K. E . ( 2018). Looking beyond the generation of creative ideas: Confidence in evaluating ideas predicts creative outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 21-29. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.028URL |
| [61] | Stevens G.A., &Burley J. ( 1997). 3, 000 Raw ideas = 1 commercial success! Research Technology Management, 40, (3), 16-27. doi: 10.1080/08956308.1997.11671126 |
| [62] | West M.A . ( 2002). Ideas are ten a penny: It’s team implementation not idea generation that counts. Applied Psychology, 51, (3), 411-424. |
| [63] | West M. A., & Sacramento C. A. .( 2012) . Creativity and innovation: The role of team and organizational climate In M D Mumford (Ed), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp 359-385) San Diego: Academic Press The role of team and organizational climate. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 359-385). San Diego: Academic Press. |
| [64] | Woodman R. W., Sawyer J. E., & Griffin R. W . ( 1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, (2), 293-321. doi: 10.2307/258761URL |
| [65] | Zhou J., &Hoever I.J . ( 2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 333-359. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226URL |
| [66] | Zhou J., Wang X. M., Song L. J., & Wu J . ( 2017). Is it new? Personal and contextual influences on perceptions of novelty and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, (2), 180-202. doi: 10.1037/apl0000166URLpmid: 27893257 |
相关文章 4
| [1] | 孙露莹;陈琳; 段锦云. 决策过程中的建议采纳：策略、影响及未来展望[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(1): 169-179. |
| [2] | 吴杲;杨东涛. 无边界职涯背景下的离职：重回决策者中心[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(2): 289-302. |
| [3] | 刘永芳;王鹏;庄锦英;钟俊;孙庆洲;刘毅. 自我-他人决策差异：问题、研究与思考[J]. 心理科学进展, 2014, 22(4): 580-587. |
| [4] | 李跃然;李纾. 决策者-建议者系统模型的回顾与前瞻[J]. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(5): 1026-1032. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4649
