PDF(1334 KB)
PDF(1334 KB)
PDF(1334 KB)
团队多样性影响科研人员创造力的机制研究
Research on the mechanism of the influence of team diversity on academics’ creativity
科研团队的学缘结构和职业履历多样性深刻影响创造力,但其影响的方向和机制并不清晰。本文以中国科学院99个团队的1054名科研人员为研究对象,综合运用简历编码、问卷调查、文献计量等多种方法构建数据集,建立跨层次模型,检验了团队学缘结构和职业履历多样性对成员创造力的影响。研究发现,职业履历多样性与科研人员创造力显著正相关,且知识共享是主要的中介机制;学缘结构多样性则依赖于授权型领导的调节作用,仅在授权水平较高时才会提升认知摩擦、知识共享与成员创造力。研究构建了团队认知信息处理框架,阐明了多样性的价值兑现机制:通过成员既有的跨界能力或领导有意识的组织赋能,在互动中建立正向反馈。据此,本文提出应当促进科研人员的职业流动,并在学缘结构多样的团队中加强放权赋能。
Diversity in educational pedigree and career trajectory within research teams has profound implications for creativity, yet its direction and underlying mechanisms remain inconclusive. Drawing on a sample of 1054 researchers from 99 teams at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, we compiled an integrated dataset using resume coding, survey data, and bibliometric analysis. Cross-level regression models were employed to examine how different forms of team diversity influence individual creativity. The findings indicated that career trajectory diversity is positively associated with creativity, primarily through the mediating role of knowledge sharing. Conversely, the effect of educational pedigree diversity is contingent on empowering leadership: only at higher levels of empowerment does such diversity enhance cognitive conflict, knowledge sharing, and ultimately creativity. Building on these findings, this study develops a team cognitive information-processing framework to explain how the value of diversity is realized—either through members’ preexisting boundary-spanning capabilities or through leaders’ deliberate empowerment practices, which generate a positive feedback loop in team interactions. Accordingly, the study suggests facilitating career mobility and adopting empowering leadership practices in teams with diverse educational pedigree.
学缘结构 / 职业履历 / 授权型领导 / 科研团队 / 跨层次回归
educational pedigree / career trajectory / empowering leadership / research teams / cross-level regression
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
赵丹龄, 刘伟, 葛铿. 吸引汇聚青年英才聚焦人民健康研究:东南大学生命科学与技术学院优秀教学与科研团队访谈报告[J]. 中国高等教育, 2022(7):34-36.
|
| [6] |
季小天, 彭小宝, 刘继安, 等. 高校及科研院所一流科研创新团队的发展机制探析:基于物理学领域顶尖团队的多案例分析[J]. 中国高教研究, 2023(6):63-71.
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
Findings from prior research on the relationship between functional diversity and team innovation have been inconclusive. This study aims to reconcile the mixed findings in the literature by investigating how functional diversity may influence team innovation and when such influence may or may not occur. The view of teams as information processors suggests that functionally diverse teams may capitalize on their knowledge benefits to produce innovations through knowledge sharing. However, knowledge sharing and subsequent team innovation do not necessarily occur in functionally diverse teams. Drawing on the motivated information processing in groups theory, we propose that affect-based trust in a team moderates the effects of functional diversity on team innovation (via knowledge sharing). The results based on a sample of 96 research and development teams indicate that functional diversity had a negative indirect relationship with team innovation via knowledge sharing when affect-based trust in a team was low, and this relationship became less negative as the level of affect-based trust in a team increased. The relationship was not significant when affect-based trust in a team was high.
|
| [11] |
马鸿佳, 唐思思, 郑莉莉. 创业团队多样性对惯例更新的影响:知识共享的中介和共享领导的调节作用[J]. 南开管理评论, 2022, 25(5):75-86.
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
Increasingly, teams consist of members from widely distinct knowledge domains. This article studies the extent to which research and development (R&D) teams can transform their members’ different technological knowledge into impactful inventions. Although teams composed of members with distinct expertise can create impactful new technologies, in order to realize this potential, team members must have the ability and motivation to integrate each other’s knowledge. This article argues that the ability to do so is shaped by the patterns of intrateam ties, measured in terms of coauthorships on patents. Our results suggest that teams’ ability to reap the advantages of members’ distinct expertise is shaped by the patterns of members’ prior collaboration ties. Prior experience working together (i.e., density) and the presence of factions of team members with common history (i.e., subgroups) improve teams’ ability to leverage differences in members’ knowledge. In contrast, when prior collaborations center on one focal person (i.e., centralization), teams are less able to take advantage of the knowledge differences on the team. An analysis of 32,612 nanotechnology R&D teams provides support for the hypotheses.
|
| [16] |
陈玮奕, 刘新梅, 张新星. 团队横向监督如何影响团队创造力?:基于团队冲突认知差异与失败学习的视角[J]. 研究与发展管理, 2020, 32(2):82-93.
|
| [17] |
田莉, 张劼浩, 袁国真. 创业团队身份异质性对团队冲突过程与结果的影响:基于团队断裂带的多案例研究[J]. 管理评论, 2021, 33(12):324-338.
|
| [18] |
杜娟, 林新月, 赵曙明. 团队断层研究评述及展望:静态向动态的演进[J]. 管理评论, 2022, 34(1):180-190.
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
While diversification within organisations is seen by many to be a strategic move, there is conflicting evidence about what makes diverse teams successful. The purpose of this paper is to highlight a range of complex, and in some cases contradictory, research contributions towards several key areas of diversity within teams, and to propose a framework for integrating existing approaches and clarifying inconsistencies in this domain.
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
刘鑫, 李小玉, 薛有志. 职能背景、团队冲突与企业创新[J]. 科学学研究, 2020, 38(2):357-372.
基于双元冲突的视角构建理论模型，聚焦于高管团队冲突过程，动态分析了CEO特征整合情境下的高管团队职能背景多样性对企业创新绩效的影响机理。以2009年至2016年沪深A股上市公司为样本，运用泊松回归模型实证研究高管团队职能背景多样性对企业创新绩效的影响以及CEO能力、权力和关系三个维度特征所发挥的情境作用。研究结果表明：在企业创新过程中，高管团队职能背景多样性引起的情感冲突相比于认知冲突发挥更为主导性的作用，对企业创新绩效具有破坏作用；CEO职能背景丰富性和CEO与高管团队成员共同经历减弱了高管团队职能背景多样性对企业创新绩效的破坏效应；CEO权力增强了这种破坏效应。基于双元冲突视角聚焦冲突过程动态剖析高管团队职能背景多样性对企业创新绩效的影响机理突破了原有研究静态的分析框架，有助于打开“团队多样性—企业经营后果”的“黑匣子”，同时对企业有效提升创新绩效具有一定指导意义。
|
| [31] |
– Teamwork is important for innovation, but it often incurs conflicts. Previous literature has reported inconsistent relationships between conflicts and team performance. The purpose of this paper is to clarify this relationship and explore how to improve team innovation using conflict management styles.
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
Drawing on the microfoundations theory and rational choice sociology, this study aims to investigate knowledge-sharing microfoundations through knowledge sabotage behaviours in the workplace. As such, it aims to shed light on the adverse impact of knowledge sabotage on a knowledge-sharing climate.
|
| [34] |
柳美君, 步一, 杨斯杰. 科研团队成员国别差异性的测度、演变及其与团队产出影响力的关系[J]. 情报学报, 2024, 43(7):818-838.
|
| [35] |
王嘉杰, 王焘, 孙建军. 技术人员流动与团队双元创新:知识互补与替代的影响分析[J]. 情报学报, 2025, 44(1):35-47.
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
This article develops a framework to test how surface-level and deep-level faultlines impact team performance through subgroup formation and team interaction quality. We test it with 96 empirical articles on team faultlines from 2002 to 2022, using meta-analytic techniques. Firstly, results suggest that subgroup formation and team interaction quality act as serial mediums through which surface-level and deep-level faultlines exert negative indirect effects on team performance. Secondly, moderator analyses reveal that increasing interaction time will mitigate the effects of surface-level faultlines but enhance the effects of deep-level faultlines. Finally, surface- and deep-level social faultlines and deep-level task faultlines are detrimental to team interaction quality, and these negative effects are mediated by subgroup formation. Surface-level task faultlines are beneficial to team interaction, and this positive effect does not work through subgroup formation.
|
| [39] |
This study set out to investigate the role of self-determination and accountability in the relationship between empowering leadership, motivation and performance.
|
| [40] |
邢赛鹏, 赵琛徽, 陈琴弦. 领导授权赋能行为对团队创造力的影响机制研究[J]. 科研管理, 2025, 46(7):165-173.
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
仇勇, 王文周, 苏宏宇. 团队断层会阻碍员工创新吗?[J]. 科学学研究, 2019, 37(5):950-960.
个体创新是组织创新的源动力，既往研究着重分析人员配置对团队创新的影响，而没有特别分析对个体创新的作用，尤其忽视团队多样性排列所引致的团队断层对个体创新的影响。本研究建构了团队断层对个体创新的影响模型，采用ASW指标对30个项目团队的断层情况进行了测算，并对175名领导-成员进行了配对调查，利用分层线性模型考察了团队断层对个体创新的影响，从授权型领导和冲突管理策略两个视角探讨了情境条件。结果显示：（1）团队断层对个体创新有消极影响；（2）授权型领导会削弱团队断层的消极影响；（3）回避型冲突管理策略会削弱团队断层的消极影响，合作型、竞争型策略的调节效应并不显著；（4）团队断层作为情境因素会直接削弱个体层次观点采择对创新的积极影响。研究对深化有关人员构成多样化的认识，指导团队人力资源配置从而激发创新有借鉴意义。
|
| [43] |
游玎怡, 温珂, 宋大成. 赋予更大经费使用自主权提高了科研人员创造性吗:从制度信任看自主权与自主性感知的背离[J]. 中国软科学, 2023(7):56-65.
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
李艳, 刘荣三, 马琳, 等. 社会资本视角下高校教师团队科研产出研究:基于网络爬虫数据的分析[J]. 科学学研究, 2025, 43(10):2212-2220.
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
