跨界行为对创造力影响的跨层次双刃剑效应

删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

朱金强¹, 徐世勇²(

), 周金毅³, 张柏楠⁴, 许昉昉⁴, 宗博强⁴

¹中央民族大学管理学院, 北京 100081
²中国人民大学劳动人事学院人力资源开发与评价中心, 北京 100872
³北京科技大学东凌经济管理学院, 北京 100083) (4中国人民大学劳动人事学院, 北京 100872

收稿日期:2019-12-02出版日期:2020-11-25发布日期:2020-09-22
通讯作者:徐世勇E-mail:xusy@ruc.edu.cn

基金资助:* 中央民族大学校级青年教师科研能力提升计划项目(2020QNPY24);北京市优秀人才培养资助青年骨干个人项目(106-2020000101)

The cross-level double-edged-sword effect of boundary-spanning behavior on creativity

ZHU Jinqiang¹, XU Shiyong²(

), ZHOU Jinyi³, ZHANG Bainan⁴, XU Fangfang⁴, ZONG Boqiang⁴

¹School of Management, Minzu University of China, Beijing 100081, China
²Center for Human Resource Development and Assessment, School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
³Donlinks School of Economics and Management, University of Science & Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China;

Received:2019-12-02Online:2020-11-25Published:2020-09-22
Contact:XU Shiyong E-mail:xusy@ruc.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本文从资源的视角,在团队和个体两个层面探究了跨界行为分别对团队创造力和个体创造力的影响以及中介机制和边界条件。采用多阶段-多来源的方式收集数据。研究结果表明在团队层面上,团队跨界行为会提高团队创造力, 但在个体层面上,员工跨界行为通过增加员工的角色压力对个体创造力产生不利影响。角色宽度自我效能感调节了上述关系,相比于角色宽度自我效能感较高的员工,角色宽度自我效能感较低的员工实施了跨界行为后更容易产生角色压力, 对个体创造力的负向影响更强。

图/表 5

表1验证性因子分析结果

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	Δχ²	Δdf
七因子模型	369.05	122	3.03	0.06	0.96	0.95
六因子模型1	1310.83	126	10.40	0.13	0.80	0.76	941.78***	4
六因子模型2	905.27	126	7.18	0.11	0.87	0.84	536.22***	4
六因子模型3	897.31	126	7.12	0.11	0.87	0.84	528.26***	4
六因子模型4	1651.73	126	13.11	0.15	0.75	0.69	1282.68***	4
六因子模型5	661.23	123	5.38	0.09	0.91	0.89	292.18***	1
五因子模型1	1835.17	129	14.23	0.16	0.72	0.67	1466.12***	7
五因子模型2	1602.10	127	12.61	0.15	0.76	0.70	1233.05***	5
四因子模型1	3078.33	131	23.50	0.21	0.51	0.41	2709.28***	9
四因子模型2	2487.72	131	18.99	0.18	0.61	0.53	2118.67***	9
三因子模型	3721.34	132	28.19	0.23	0.41	0.29	3352.29***	10
两因子模型	4013.51	133	30.18	0.23	0.36	0.24	3644.46***	11

表1验证性因子分析结果

模型	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	Δχ²	Δdf
七因子模型	369.05	122	3.03	0.06	0.96	0.95
六因子模型1	1310.83	126	10.40	0.13	0.80	0.76	941.78***	4
六因子模型2	905.27	126	7.18	0.11	0.87	0.84	536.22***	4
六因子模型3	897.31	126	7.12	0.11	0.87	0.84	528.26***	4
六因子模型4	1651.73	126	13.11	0.15	0.75	0.69	1282.68***	4
六因子模型5	661.23	123	5.38	0.09	0.91	0.89	292.18***	1
五因子模型1	1835.17	129	14.23	0.16	0.72	0.67	1466.12***	7
五因子模型2	1602.10	127	12.61	0.15	0.76	0.70	1233.05***	5
四因子模型1	3078.33	131	23.50	0.21	0.51	0.41	2709.28***	9
四因子模型2	2487.72	131	18.99	0.18	0.61	0.53	2118.67***	9
三因子模型	3721.34	132	28.19	0.23	0.41	0.29	3352.29***	10
两因子模型	4013.51	133	30.18	0.23	0.36	0.24	3644.46***	11

表2变量的均值、标准差和相关系数

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
个体层面
1.性别-员工	1.48	0.50
2.年龄-员工	29.97	4.49	0.02
3.教育水平-员工	3.68	0.76	0.07	0.01
4.婚姻-员工	1.53	0.50	-0.01	0.58***	-0.07
5.工龄-员工	3.66	3.84	0.02	0.56***	-0.20***	0.37***
6.悖论思维	3.57	0.61	-0.01	0.02	0.04	0.04	0.18***	(0.64)
7.员工跨界行为	4.78	1.15	-0.10	0.10*	0.05	0.06	0.13**	0.20***	(0.59)
8.角色压力	2.60	0.43	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.11**	0.08	0.15***	(0.64)
9.角色宽度自我效能感	3.81	0.52	-0.06	0.11*	0.12**	0.11**	0.19***	0.56***	0.19***	-0.01	(0.47)
10.个体创造力	3.54	0.71	0.02	0.05	0.00	0.04	0.16***	0.27***	-0.02	-0.15***	0.33***	(0.87)
团队层面
1.性别-领导	1.55	0.50
2.年龄-领导	34.05	4.68	0.08
3.教育水平-领导	3.97	0.63	0.09	0.12
4.婚姻-领导	1.81	0.39	0.44***	0.34***	0.05
5.工龄-领导	5.81	3.97	0.07	0.30**	-0.07	0.31**
6.团队规模	32.57	92.33	-0.07	0.08	-0.28**	0.12	0.28*
7.团队跨界行为	4.63	0.68	0.05	-0.02	0.16	0.13	0.20*	-0.04	(0.62)
8.团队创造力	3.54	0.72	0.04	-0.15	0.03	-0.08	0.21*	0.07	0.33**	(0.93)

表2变量的均值、标准差和相关系数

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
个体层面
1.性别-员工	1.48	0.50
2.年龄-员工	29.97	4.49	0.02
3.教育水平-员工	3.68	0.76	0.07	0.01
4.婚姻-员工	1.53	0.50	-0.01	0.58***	-0.07
5.工龄-员工	3.66	3.84	0.02	0.56***	-0.20***	0.37***
6.悖论思维	3.57	0.61	-0.01	0.02	0.04	0.04	0.18***	(0.64)
7.员工跨界行为	4.78	1.15	-0.10	0.10*	0.05	0.06	0.13**	0.20***	(0.59)
8.角色压力	2.60	0.43	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.11**	0.08	0.15***	(0.64)
9.角色宽度自我效能感	3.81	0.52	-0.06	0.11*	0.12**	0.11**	0.19***	0.56***	0.19***	-0.01	(0.47)
10.个体创造力	3.54	0.71	0.02	0.05	0.00	0.04	0.16***	0.27***	-0.02	-0.15***	0.33***	(0.87)
团队层面
1.性别-领导	1.55	0.50
2.年龄-领导	34.05	4.68	0.08
3.教育水平-领导	3.97	0.63	0.09	0.12
4.婚姻-领导	1.81	0.39	0.44***	0.34***	0.05
5.工龄-领导	5.81	3.97	0.07	0.30**	-0.07	0.31**
6.团队规模	32.57	92.33	-0.07	0.08	-0.28**	0.12	0.28*
7.团队跨界行为	4.63	0.68	0.05	-0.02	0.16	0.13	0.20*	-0.04	(0.62)
8.团队创造力	3.54	0.72	0.04	-0.15	0.03	-0.08	0.21*	0.07	0.33**	(0.93)

图1多水平路径分析结果注: 图中路径系数为非标准化路径系数。te1表示变量在第一时间点由员工评价, tl2表示变量在第二时间点由领导评价。个体层面N = 536, 团队层面N = 111, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001。

图2角色宽度自我效能感调节效应图

图2角色宽度自我效能感调节效应图

表3第一阶段被调节的中介模型分析结果

分组统计	员工跨界行为(X)→角色压力(M)→个体创造力(Y)
分组统计	第一阶段(P_MX)	第二阶段(P_YM)	间接效应 (P_MX×P_YM)	间接效应95%的置信区间
高角色宽度自我效能感	0.02	-0.35**	-0.01	[-0.02, 0.01]
低角色宽度自我效能感	0.10***	-0.35**	-0.03**	[-0.06, -0.01]
组间差异	-0.08**	0	0.02*	[0.01, 0.05]

表3第一阶段被调节的中介模型分析结果

分组统计	员工跨界行为(X)→角色压力(M)→个体创造力(Y)
分组统计	第一阶段(P_MX)	第二阶段(P_YM)	间接效应 (P_MX×P_YM)	间接效应95%的置信区间
高角色宽度自我效能感	0.02	-0.35**	-0.01	[-0.02, 0.01]
低角色宽度自我效能感	0.10***	-0.35**	-0.03**	[-0.06, -0.01]
组间差异	-0.08**	0	0.02*	[0.01, 0.05]

参考文献 59

[1]	Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G.(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.
[2]	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.
[3]	Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F.(1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634-665.
[4]	, Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W.(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
[5]	Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount M. K.(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391.
[6]	?ekmecelioglu, H. G., & Günsel, A.(2011). Promoting creativity among employees of mature industries: The effects of autonomy and role stress on creative behaviors and job performance. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 889-895.
[7]	Chan, D.(1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234-246.
[8]	Chen, X. T., Chen, H., & Luo, W. C.( 2020). An inverted U-shaped relationship between helping behavior and career growth: The mediating role of role stressor and the moderating of job autonomy. Human Resources Development of China, 37(4), 51-63.
	[ 陈晓暾, 陈欢, 罗文春.(2020). 助人行为与职业成长的倒U型关系:角色压力的中介作用和工作自主性的调节作用. 中国人力资源开发, 37(4), 51-63.]
[9]	Choi, J. N.(2002). External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33(2), 181-208.
[10]	de Jonge J., Spoor, E ., Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & van Den Tooren, M., (2012). “Take a break?!” Off-job recovery, job demands, and job resources as predictors of health, active learning, and creativity. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 21(3), 321-348.
[11]	Deng, C. P., Liu, X. J., & Mao, J. Y.(2018). The impacts of challenge and hindrance stressors on the outcome of boundary spanning: The moderated mediation effect of IT personnel's learning under stressors. Business Review, 30(7), 150-163.
	[ 邓春平, 刘小娟, 毛基业.(2018). 挑战与阻断性压力源对边界跨越结果的影响——IT员工压力学习的有调节中介效应. 管理评论, 30(7), 150-163.]
[12]	Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Henderson, D. J., & Wayne, S. J.(2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: The interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1079-1098.
[13]	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. URLpmid: 17402809
[14]	Eschleman, K. J., Madsen J., Alarcon G., & Barelka, A.(2014). Benefiting from creative activity: The positive relationships between creative activity, recovery experiences, and performance-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 87 (3), 579-598.
[15]	Faraj, S., & Yan, A.,(2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 604-617. URLpmid: 19450002
[16]	Fornel, C., & Larcker, D. F.(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing, 18(1), 39-50.
[17]	Galperin, B. L.(2012). Exploring the nomological network of workplace deviance: Developing and validating a measure of constructive deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2988-3025.
[18]	Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L.(2006). Multivariate data analysis (Vol.6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
[19]	Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J. P., & Paustian-underdahl, S. C.(2014). Getting to the "COR": Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364.
[20]	Hartog, D. N. D., & Belschak, F. D.(2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194-202. URLpmid: 21842977
[21]	Hobfoll, S. E.(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
[22]	Hobfoll, S. E.(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337-421.
[23]	Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J., Lane, C., & Geller, P.(1990). Conservation of social resources: Social support resource theory. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 7(4), 465-478.
[24]	Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M.(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103-128.
[25]	Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M.(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[26]	House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R.(1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 7(3), 467-505.
[27]	Hwang, P. C., Han, M. C., & Chiu, S. F.(2015). Role breadth self-efficacy and foci of proactive behavior: Moderating role of collective, relational, and individual self-concept. The Journal of Psychology, 149(8), 846-865.
[28]	James, L. R.(1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219-229.
[29]	Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A.(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. American Journal of Sociology, 10(1), 125-129.
[30]	Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L.(1983). A longitudinal study of the effects of boundary spanning supervision on turnover and promotion in research and development. Academy of Management Journal, 26(3), 437-456.
[31]	Kim, B. C. P., Murrmann, S. K., & Lee, G.(2009). Moderating effects of gender and organizational level between role stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 612-619.
[32]	Lebreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L.(2007). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852. doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642 URL
[33]	Li, C. P., & Zhang, Y.,(2019). The effects of role stressors on physical health and mental health among chinese teachers. Psychological Development and Education, 25(1), 114-119.
	[ 李超平, 张翼.(2009). 角色压力源对教师生理健康与心理健康的影响. 心理发展与教育, 25(1), 114-119.]
[34]	Liao, H. Y., & Liang, Y.,(2015). Self-sacrificial leadership and employee proactivity: An integrated model. Human Resources Development of China,(23), 28-37.
	[ 廖辉尧, 梁建.(2015). 自我牺牲型领导与员工主动行为:一个整合模型. 中国人力资源开发, (23), 28-37.]
[35]	Liu, S. B., & Li, Y. H., (2014). A longitudinal study on the impact mechanism of employees' boundary spanning vior: Roles of centrality and collectivism. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46 (6), 852-863.
	[ 刘松博, 李育辉. (2014). 员工跨界行为的作用机制: 网络中心性和集体主义的作用. 心理学报, 46(6), 852-863.]
[36]	Liu, S., Jiang, K., Chen, J., Pan, J., & Lin X.(2018). Linking employee boundary spanning behavior to task performance: The influence of informal leader emergence and group power distance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(12), 1879-1899.
[37]	Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B.(2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423-1439.
[38]	Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W.(2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45.
[39]	Parker, S. K.(1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835 URLpmid: 9885197
[40]	Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Nick, T. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636 URLpmid: 16737360
[41]	Paul, G., Scott, S., & Sarah, R.(2011). Boundary-spanning work demands and their consequences for guilt and psychological distress. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 52(1), 43-57.
[42]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
[43]	Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel sem framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209-233. URLpmid: 20822249
[44]	Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P.(2012). Advantages of monte carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 62(2), 77-98.
[45]	Ramarajan, L., Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Euwema, M.(2011). From the outside in: The negative spillover effects of boundary spanners' relations with members of other organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 886-905.
[46]	Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I.(1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163.
[47]	Singh, J., (1998). Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: An Investigation of some unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 69-86.
[48]	Song, M., Wang, Z., & Zhang, H. L.(2017). Understanding the relationship between leader boundary spanning behavior and team innovation: A knowledge management perspective. Management Review, 29(3), 126-135.
	[ 宋萌, 王震, 张华磊.(2017). 领导跨界行为影响团队创新的内在机制和边界条件: 知识管理的视角. 管理评论, 29(3), 126-135.]
[49]	Wang G. F., Han P., & Yang X. H.(2014). Effects of role stress and negative mood regulation expectancies on work engagement in prison police: Mediating effect of proactive coping. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(6), 1095-1098.
	[ 王国芳, 韩鹏, 杨晓辉.(2014). 监狱警察角色压力和消极情绪调节期待对工作投入的影响: 前摄应对的中介作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 22(6), 1095-1098.]
[50]	Wang, H. L., & Zhang, Q.J.(2016). The cost of feeling trusted: The study on the effects of feeling trusted from supervisor, role overload, job stress and emotional exhaustion. Management World,(8), 110-125.
	[ 王红丽, 张筌钧.(2016). 被信任的代价:员工感知上级信任、角色负荷、工作压力与情绪耗竭的影响关系研究. 管理世界, (8), 110-125.]
[51]	Wang, S. Y., Liu, H., & Liu, R. Q.(2017). Effects of workload boundary on employees' emotional exhaustion: The mediating role of role stress. Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University,(2), 79-89.
	[ 王三银, 刘洪, 刘润刚.(2017). 工作边界强度对员工情绪耗竭的影响研究:角色压力的中介作用. 浙江工商大学学报, 31(2), 79-89.]
[52]	Wang, Y. Y., Meng, R., Li, J., Wang, J. Y., Hu, T., Zhao, X. Q., & Gan, Y. Q.(2011). The Mediation effect of emotion focused coping between occupational stress and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Research, 4(5), 60-66.
	[ 万颖莹, 孟冉, 李洁, 王佳颖, 胡陶, 赵小蓁, 甘怡群.(2011). 情绪聚焦应对在压力源和情绪衰竭间的中介作用. 心理研究, 4(5), 60-66.]
[53]	Wu, Y., & Wen, Z. L.(2011). Item parceling strategies in structural equation modeling. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(12), 1859-1867.
	[ 吴艳, 温忠麟.(2011). 结构方程建模中的题目打包策略. 心理科学进展, 19(12), 1859-1867.]
[54]	Xu, J. Z., & Qu, X.Y.(2014). The relationship among team's boundary spanning behavior, knowledge trading and team creativity: An empirical study based on equipment manufacturing enterprise. Science of Science and Management of S. & T.,(7), 151-161.
	[ 徐建中, 曲小瑜.(2014). 团队跨界行为、知识交易与团队创造力关系研究——基于装备制造企业的实证分析. 科学学与科学技术管理, (7), 151-161.]
[55]	Xu, L.(2019). Boundary spanning behavior, team trust and team innovation performance: Mediation effect of resource depletion. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 36(6), 11-18.
	[ 徐磊.(2019). 跨界行为、团队信任与创新绩效:资源损耗的调节作用. 科技进步与对策, 36(6), 11-18.]
[56]	Yu, H. B., Fang, L. L., & Ling, W. Q.(2004). Issues on multilevel research of organizations. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(3), 462-471.
	[ 于海波, 方俐洛, 凌文辁.(2004). 组织研究中的多层面问题. 心理科学进展, 12(3), 462-471.]
[57]	Zhang, D. L., & Ge, Y. H.(2016). Relationship between top management team boundary-spanning behavior and the innovation performance of enterprises: A perspective of team learning. Journal of Systems & Management, 25(2), 235-245.
	[ 张大力, 葛玉辉.(2016). 高管团队跨界行为与企业创新绩效关系: 基于团队学习的视角. 系统管理学报, 25(2), 235-245.]
[58]	Zhou, J., & George, J. M.(2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696.
[59]	Zhu, J. Q., Xu, S. Y., & Zhang L. H.(2018). “Being lenient and being strict helping each other” promotes subordinates' innovation: Based on the view of Yin-Yang. Nankai Business Review, 21(5), 202-214.
	[ 朱金强, 徐世勇, 张丽华.(2018). "宽猛相济"促创新——基于阴阳观的视角. 南开管理评论, 21(5), 202-214.]