信任不对称与网络嵌入对团队创新机制的影响

曲刚; 路鑫; 王琦

PDF(363 KB)

科研管理 ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (4) : 177-184.

论文

信任不对称与网络嵌入对团队创新机制的影响

曲刚,路鑫,王琦

作者信息 +

The effect of trust asymmetry and network embedding on team innovation mechanism

Qu Gang, Lu Xin, Wang Qi

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

创新团队中，成员的交互记忆系统反映了团队成员基于对彼此掌握的知识的认知而形成的分工协作机制，对于团队的创新绩效具有重要影响。而团队成员之间的信任关系与网络嵌入特征则是构成了影响交互记忆系统形成与发展的关键因素。本文在探讨交互记忆系统对创新团队绩效作用效果的基础上，重点分析了信任不对称对交互记忆系统的影响机制，并考虑了以团队及成员的网络嵌入特征表现出的在其中的边界效应。本文选择某高校学生组成的移动应用软件项目设计团队开展实验研究。研究发现：首先，交互记忆系统对创新团队绩效具有显著的积极影响，其作用机制可归纳为团队创造力提升、任务效率改善提高和成员满意度改善三条路径；其次，信任不对称不利于交互记忆系统的形成与发展。信任不对称会触发团队成员的知识隐藏行为，不利于对彼此知识的识别、检索和协调，阻碍交互记忆系统的有效运行；再者，成员之间的社会网络具有显著的边界效应。网络中心性能够显著削弱信任不对称对交互记忆系统的抑制作用，但同时降低了交互记忆系统对团队绩效的积极贡献。本文研究结论不仅能够从交互记忆系统视角拓展了创新团队绩效驱动机制的相关研究，还有利于从网络嵌入视角揭示了交互记忆系统驱动创新团队绩效的边界条件，对于提升团队和企业创新绩效具有重要的实践意义。

Abstract

Innovation is an important driving force for enterprises to maintain a competitive advantage and promote sustained economic growth. The high failure rate of tasks generally faced by innovation teams makes it a key reason for restricting the innovation and development of enterprises. Existing studies have found that teamwork formed by team members based on their knowledge of each other is an important prerequisite for reducing innovation failure rates. Transactive memory system is a cognitive division mechanism that fully utilizes and coordinates knowledge in different fields within the team to achieve efficient division of labor and collaboration, and has an important impact on the innovation performance of the team.
By combing the relevant literature, this study found that there are still the following theoretical issues to be explored about the impact of the interactive memory system on the performance of innovative teams: First of all, the existing literature on the antecedents of the formation of transactive memory system is limited to team characteristics, team communication, etc., ignoring the influence of general phenomenon of trust asymmetry on the interactive memory system. Secondly, most of the existing studies have explored the formation mechanism and value boundary of transactive memory system based on the characteristics and types of tasks, but little attention has been paid to the important situational factor of team social network structure.
This paper focuses on the interference of trust asymmetry on the active cooperative behavior of team members may be an important factor in the formation of transactive memory system. Therefore, this paper constructs a theoretical model of "trust asymmetry-transactive memory system-innovation team performance" to investigate the antecedents and value effects of transactive memory system, and to reveal the boundary conditions of the value creation of transactive memory system from the perspective of network embedding.
In this paper, a mobile application software project design team composed of students from a university is selected to carry out experimental research, and empirical analysis methods are used to test the reliability and validity of the data and verify the hypothesis. The research found that: firstly, transactive memory system has a significant positive impact on the performance of innovative teams, and its mechanism of action can be summarized as three paths: promotion of team creativity, increasing task efficiency and improvement of member satisfaction. Secondly, trust asymmetry is not conducive to the formation and development of transactive memory systems. Asymmetric trust will trigger the knowledge hiding behavior of team members, which is not conducive to the identification, retrieval and coordination of each other′s knowledge, and hinders the effective operation of transactive memory system. Furthermore, social networks among members have significant boundary effects. The centralization of network can significantly weaken the inhibitory effect of trust asymmetry on the transactive memory system, but at the same time reduce the positive contribution of transactive memory system to team performance.
The research conclusions not only expand the related research on the performance-driven mechanism of innovative teams from the perspective of trust asymmetry, but also reveal the boundary conditions of transactive memory system driving innovative team performance from the perspective of network embedding, which has important practical significance for improving team and enterprise innovation performance: First, enterprises should pay full attention to the positive effect of team transactive memory system on team division and collaboration and its outstanding contribution to team performance. Second, enterprises should continuously strengthen the trust environment of the innovation team and optimize the knowledge coordination effect of transactive memory system. Third, enterprises should dynamically adjust the network embedding characteristics of members according to the evolution law of team goals, so as to maximize the value contribution of transactive memory system.

导出引用

曲刚路鑫王琦. 信任不对称与网络嵌入对团队创新机制的影响[J]. 科研管理. 2022, 43(4): 177-184

Qu Gang, Lu Xin, Wang Qi. The effect of trust asymmetry and network embedding on team innovation mechanism[J]. Science Research Management. 2022, 43(4): 177-184

参考文献

[1] 李文贵, 余明桂. 民营化企业的股权结构与企业创新 [J]. 管理世界, 2015, (04): 112-125.[2] HOCH J E, KOZLOWSKI S W J. Leading virtual teams: hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2014, 99(3): 390-403.[3] MAYNARD M T, MATHIEU J E, GILSON L L, et al. Do i really know you and does it matter? Unpacking the relationship between familiarity and information elaboration in global virtual teams [J]. Group & Organization Management, 2019, 44(1): 3-37.[4] 杨皎平, 侯楠, 邓雪. 基于团队认同对学习空间调节作用的成员异质性对团队创新绩效的影响研究 [J]. 管理学报, 2014, 11(07): 1021-1028.[5] 顾琴轩, 王莉红. 研发团队社会资本对创新绩效作用路径——心理安全和学习行为整合视角 [J]. 管理科学学报, 2015, 18(05): 68-78.[6] JUN H E, BUTLER B S, KING W R. Team Cognition: Development and Evolution in Software Project Teams [J]. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2007, 24(2): 261-292.[7] 曲刚, 王晓宇, 赵汉. 社会网络情境下交互记忆系统与团队绩效关系研究 [J]. 管理评论, 2020, 32(12): 168-179.[8] KYLE L. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(4): 587.[9] ASHLEIGH M, PRICHARD J. An Integrative Model of the Role of Trust in Transactive Memory Development [J]. Group & Organization Management, 2011, 37(1): 5-35.[10] CHOI S Y, LEE H, YOO Y. The Impact Of Information Technology And Transactive Memory Systems On Knowledge Sharing, Application, And Team Performance: A Field Study [J]. MIS Quarterly, 2010, 34(4): 855-870.[11] 罗瑾琏, 韩杨, 钟竞. 群体交互记忆系统成因机制研究 [J]. 管理学报, 2015, 12(01): 80-87.[12] 戚安邦, 杨玉武, 廖媛红, 等. 面向知识经济与创新型国家的项目导向型组织和社会研究 [J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2006, (04): 70-76.[13] 苏涛, 陈春花, 崔小雨, 等. 信任之下,其效何如——来自Meta分析的证据 [J]. 南开管理评论, 2017, 20(04): 179-192.[14] 王红丽, 吴坤津, 刘小浪. 异质化信任组合?工作团队信任不对称的积极影响效应 [J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(11): 1886-1893.[15] GRAEBNER M E. Caveat Venditor: Trust Asymmetries in Acquisitions of Entrepreneurial Firms [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2009, 52(3): 435-472.[16] BALKUNDI P, HARRISON D A. Ties, Leaders, And Time In Teams: Strong Inference About Network Structure's Effects On Team Viability And Performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49(1): 49-68.[17] HENTTONEN K, JANHONEN M, JOHANSON J E. Internal social networks in work teams: structure, knowledge sharing and performance [J]. International Journal of Manpower, 2013, 34(6): 616-634.[18] 彭伟, 周晗鹭, 符正平. 团队内部社会网络对团队创新绩效的影响机制——以企业R&D团队为样本的实证研究 [J]. 科研管理, 2013, 34(12): 135-142.[19] WEGNER D M. A computer network model of human transactive memory [J]. Social Cognition, 1995, 13(3): 319-339.[20] LEWIS K, HERNDON B. Transactive Memory Systems: Current Issues and Future Research Directions [J]. Organization Science, 2011, 22(5): 1254-1265.[21] REN Y, ARGOTE L. Transactive Memory Systems 1985–2010: An Integrative Framework of Key Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences [J]. J Academy of Management Annals, 2011, 5(1): 189-229.[22] YAN B, HOLLINGSHEAD A B, ALEXANDER K S, et al. Communication in Transactive Memory Systems: A Review and Multidimensional Network Perspective [J]. Small Group Research, 2021, 52(1): 3-32.[23] DAYAN M, BASARIR A. Antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity in new product development projects [J]. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 2010, 25(1-2): 18-29.[24] 曲刚, 鲍晓娜, 彭姝琳. 项目复杂性和团队社会认同情境下交互记忆对软件外包项目绩效作用研究 [J]. 管理评论, 2016, 28(10): 181-192.[25] GINO F, ARGOTE L, MIRON-SPEKTOR E, et al. First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity [J]. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 2010, 111(2): 102-115.[26] 张谦, 刘人境, 刘林林. 交互记忆系统视角下成员经验与团队绩效关系研究 [J]. 中南大学学报(社会科学版), 2015, 21(01): 127-133.[27] REN Y, CARLEY K M, ARGOTE L. The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? [J]. Management Science, 2006, 52(5): 671-682.[28] AKGUN A E, BYRNE J, KESKIN H, et al. Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective [J]. Information & Management, 2005, 42(8): 1105-1120.[29] 黄海艳, 李乾文. 研发团队的人际信任对创新绩效的影响——以交互记忆系统为中介变量 [J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2011, 32(010): 173-179.[30] PINKLEY R L, NORTHCRAFT G B. CONFLICT FRAMES OF REFERENCE - IMPLICATIONS FOR DISPUTE PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37(1): 193-205.[31] WICKS A C, BERMAN S L. The effects of context on trust in firm-stakeholder relationships: The institutional environment, trust creation, and firm performance [J]. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2004, 14(1): 141-160.[32] WEBER J M, MALHOTRA D, MURNIGHAN J K. Normal acts of irrational trust: Motivated attributions and the trust development process [M]//STAW B M, KRAMER R M. Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, Vol 26. 2005: 75-101.[33] 王世权, 张爽, 巩岳. 信任不对称理论研究进展 [J]. 经济学动态, 2017, (07): 128-136.[34] TOMLINSON E C, MAYER R C. The Role Of Causal Attribution Dimensions In Trust Repair [J]. J Academy of Management Review, 2009, 34(1): 85-104.[35] DE JONG B A, DIRKS K T. Beyond shared perceptions of trust and monitoring in teams: implications of asymmetry and dissensus [J]. J Appl Psychol, 2012, 97(2): 391-406.[36] PARISE S, ROLLAG K. Emergent network structure and initial group performance: The moderating role of pre-existing relationships [J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2010, 31(6): 877-897.[37] ROBERSON Q M, WILLIAMSON I O. JUSTICE IN SELF-MANAGING TEAMS: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS IN THE EMERGENCE OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CLIMATES [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2012, 55(3): 685-701.[38] THOMAS R, SKINNER L. Total Trust and Trust Asymmetry: Does Trust Need to Be Equally Distributed in Interfirm Relationships? [J]. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 2010, 9(1): 43-53.[39] 彭伟, 金丹丹, 朱晴雯. 团队社会网络研究述评与展望 [J]. 中国人力资源开发, 2017, (03): 57-68.[40] SPARROWE R T, LIDEN R C, WAYNE S J, et al. Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44(2): 316-325.[41] AMABILE T M. Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity, F, 1996 [C].[42] LIN Z, YANG H B, ARYA B. Structural versus individual perspectives on the dynamics of group performance: Theoretical exploration and empirical investigation [J]. Journal of Management, 2005, 31(3): 354-380.[43] WONG S-S. Task knowledge overlap and knowledge variety: the role of advice network structures and impact on group effectiveness [J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2008, 29(5): 591-614.[44] 马盼, 姜琴, 李闽慧. 非正式组织对员工工作绩效影响的研究 [J]. 科技和产业, 2018, 18(02): 92-95.[45] ZOHAR D, TENNE-GAZIT O. Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2008, 93(4): 744-757.[46] AGGARWAL I, WOOLLEY A W. Team Creativity, Cognition, and Cognitive Style Diversity [J]. Management Science, 2018, 65(4): 1586-1599.[47] MICHINOV E, OLIVIER-CHIRON E, RUSCH E, et al. Influence of transactive memory on perceived performance, job satisfaction and identification in anaesthesia teams [J]. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2008, 100(3): 327-332.[48] LU Y. Knowledge sharing in information system development teams: examining the impact of shared mental model from a social capital theory perspective [J]. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2013, 32(10): 1024-1040.[49] COLAZO J A. Collaboration Structure And Performance In New Software Development: Findings From The Study Of Open Source Projects [J]. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2010, 14(5): p.735-758.[50] LAZEGA E, BURT R. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition [J]. Revue Fran?aise de Sociologie, 1995, 36: 779.[51] MAGNI M, ANGST C M, AGARWAL R. Everybody Needs Somebody: The Influence of Team Network Structure on Information Technology Use [J]. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2012, 29(3): 9-42.[52] ARGOTE L, AVEN B L, KUSH J. The Effects of Communication Networks and Turnover on Transactive Memory and Group Performance [J]. Organization Science, 2018, 29(2): 191-206.[53] HOEVER I J, VAN KNIPPENBERG D, VAN GINKEL W P, et al. Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential [J]. J Appl Psychol, 2012, 97(5): 982-996.[54] UZZI B. The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect [J]. American Sociological Review, 1996, 61(4): 674-698.[55] BRANDES U, BORGATTI S P, FREEMAN L C. Maintaining the duality of closeness and betweenness centrality [J]. Social Networks, 2016, 44: 153-159.[56] HENDERSON J C, SOONCHUL L. Managing I/S Design Teams: A Control Theories Perspective [J]. Management Science, 1992, 38(6): 757-777.[57] SARKER S, AHUJA M, SARKER S, et al. The Role of Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams: A Social Network Perspective [J]. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2011, 28(1): 273-310.[58] FERRIN D L, DIRKS K T, SHAH P P. Direct and indirect effects of third-party relationships on interpersonal trust [J]. J Appl Psychol, 2006, 91(4): 870-883.[59] FORNELL C, LARCKER D F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error [J]. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 1981, 18(1): 39-50.[60] JONES M C, HARRISON A W. IS project team performance: An empirical assessment [J]. Information & Management, 1996, 31(2): 57.[61] GLADSTEIN D L. Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 29(4): 499-517.[62] AIKEN L S, WEST S G. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions - Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) [J]. Evaluation Practice, 1991, 14(2): 167-168.