团队行动中反思与团队创新关系研究的动态视角——认知与情绪的双元路径

在复杂变化的市场环境中, 在我国实施创新驱动战略的背景下, 企业的长远发展需要依赖于团队创新以建立独特竞争优势。通过对已有团队反思与创新关系研究的梳理, 发现了二者间关系的黑箱, 理论认为回顾过去能够带来新思想和新变化, 然而针对其如何实现的过程机制的实证研究却十分匮乏。基于此, 在传统的行动后反思的思想基础上, 本研究提出团队行动中反思在概念内涵和实证测量上的区别, 检验行动中反思和行动后反思在不同创新阶段的差异性作用, 动态性分析创意形成和创意实施的行为结果, 通过整合动机性信息加工理论和情绪的社会功能视角, 提出认知层面的信息处理和情感层面的团队情绪这两种机制的耦合方式, 构建团队反思影响创新的整体模型, 并深入探讨影响作用的过程机制和边界条件, 以及对各阶段关系上情境因素的调节作用进行全面的分析, 为反思与创新理论和实践做出贡献。     

Team Proactivity as a Linking Mechanism between Team Creative Efficacy,Transformational Leadership,and Risk‐Taking Norms and Team Creative Performance

Despite the growing body of research on creativity in team contexts, very few attempts have been made to explore the team‐level antecedents and the mediating processes of team creative performance on the basis of a theoretical framework. To address this gap, drawing on Paulus and Dzindolet's (2008) group creativity model, this study proposed team creative efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk‐taking norms as antecedents of team creative performance and team proactivity as an intervening mechanism between these relationships. The results of team‐level regression analyses conducted on the leaders and members of 103 Korean work teams showed that team creative efficacy and risk‐taking norms were positively associated with team creative performance. Furthermore, the relationships between team creative efficacy and team creative performance and between risk‐taking norms and team creative performance were mediated by team proactivity. These findings offer new insights regarding the antecedents and the mediator of creative performance in team contexts and important implications for theory and practice.     

La recherche psychosociale sur le processus d’innovation individuelle et d’équipe: un bilan des connaissances

The enterprises’ competition depends on motivation and actions from individuals and work teams who answer to their job demands and task in every day. The management in the world stimulate the employees to be proactive and innovate for coping and manage the changes and market demands. It is important to analyse and understand the factors which are able to activate the process through with the individuals contribute to innovation in the work context, and understand how the process can develop in the organisation for produce generation and realisation of innovations. These last years, the research in individual and team innovation is advanced. This article presents a synthesis of certain antecedents of the innovation process at individual and team level. It suggests new avenues of research on the innovation behavior based on multilevel research.     

Jean-Paul Sartre And Team Dynamics In Collective Sport

On the subject of football, Serge Mésonès, former French international turned journalist, wrote that ‘the true miracle remains the birth of a great team; everything which could contribute to this deserves consideration. Whatever happens, the coach and his group will always form that tandem which Bella Guttman used to compare to a symphony orchestra and their conductor: there is a significant difference between the performance when Toscanini is conducting, and that when the conductor is mediocre’ (Mésonès 1992 Mésonès, S. 1992. “Préface”. In L'organisation du jeu en football,, Edited by: Gréhaigne, J. F. 9–12. Paris: ACTIO.  [Google Scholar], 12). With the aim of better understanding the issues of such an assertion, in this article we will develop the theoretical elements that we began to tackle in the book Teaching Collective Sport in Schools (1999).1 1. Original title: L'enseignement des sports collectifs à l'école. This will involve clarifying, and going into detail on, some conceptions relating to the long journey that is the formation of a sporting group, exploring one scenario at a time.     

The Predictive Brain

During the lengthy and complex process of human evolution our ancestors had to adapt to extremely testing situations in which survival depended on making rapid choices that subjected muscles and the body as a whole to extreme tension. In order to seize a prey traveling at speeds that could reach 36 km per hour Homo sapiens had just thousandths of a second in which to anticipate the right moment and position himself before the prey arrived. He also had to prepare the appropriate gesture, tensing his muscles and overcoming the resistance determined by body weight. While we are no longer faced with an environment that is anything so threatening, our brain continues to use these mechanisms day in day out to save time and energy, enabling us to avoid situations of danger, sense in advance the intentions of an interlocutor, and more besides. In this article we set out to show that our brain is not only a reactive mechanism, capable of reacting quickly to the stimuli that arrive from the external environment, but is above all a pro-active mechanism that allows us to make hypotheses, anticipate the consequences of actions, and formulate expectations: in short, to wrong foot an adversary.     

Awe or horror: differentiating two emotional responses to schema incongruence

ABSTRACT

Experiences that contradict one's core concepts (e.g. of the world, people, the self) elicit intense emotions. Such schema incongruence can elicit awe, wherein experiences that are too vast to understand with existing cognitive schemata cause one to feel that schemata should be updated [i.e. a “need for cognitive accommodation” (NFA); Keltner & Haidt, 2003. Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(3), 297–314]. However, other emotional responses to schema incongruence, such as horror, have not been investigated. The current studies compared awe and horror to investigate if they are distinct emotional responses to schema incongruence. Study 1 observed significant differences between awe and horror in cognitive appraisals (e.g. certainty, legitimacy), indicating several areas of dissimilarity. Study 2 found evidence that awe and horror are both responses to schema incongruence, as schema incongruence and NFA were salient in awe and horror, but not a contrast emotion. However, awe and horror were elicited by different types of schema incongruence: awe by spiritual vastness, horror by extremity. Awe-eliciting experiences also appeared to be easier to assimilate than horrifying experiences, as NFA and uncertainty were significantly lower in awe than in horror. Differences in the functions of horror and awe are also discussed.     

工作团队领导心理资本对成员组织公民行为的影响机制：多层次模型

本研究采用问卷调查法, 以某国有企业在10个地市的66个工作团队369名企业员工为调查对象, 在控制被试的教育程度、工作经验及人口统计学变量之后, 运用多层线性模型技术分析团队领导心理资本与团队成员心理资本及其组织公民行为的关系。结果发现：(1)工作团队领导心理资本对团队成员组织公民行为存在积极影响, 团队成员心理资本是领导心理资本与团队成员组织公民行为之间跨层次的中介变量; (2)工作团队领导心理资本对团队成员心理资本与组织公民行为关系的调节效应不显著。     

差异化变革型领导对知识分享与团队创造力的影响:社会网络机制的解释

差异化变革型领导是团队领导领域的最新议题,现有的研究局限于探讨其社会心理方面的作用机制。本文从社会网络机制出发解释差异化变革型领导对团队知识分享及团队创造力的影响。基于65家企业的225个工作团队样本的结构方程模型分析表明,团队一致性变革型领导正向影响团队交流网络密度从而提高团队知识分享;个体差异性变革型领导正向影响团队成员交流网络密度差异性从而降低团队知识分享;团队知识分享正向影响团队创造力。本文的证据表明,在中国情境下,差异性团队领导行为不利于创造稠密的团队交流网络,以及团队知识分享,从而不利于提升团队创造力水平。     

Subject and Experimenter Errors in Behavioral Research with Particular Reference to Motor Behavior

Sources of error stemming from S and E and their interaction were identified, their prevalence in behavioral science research discussed, and means for eliminating or discounting them suggested. The findings reviewed indicated that E may bias his findings by indicating to S the demand characteristics of the experimental situation. S errors include such behavior as trying to be over-helpful, attempting to defeat E’s intentions, and the Hawthorne effect. Errors from E may arise by transmitting subtle cues to S as to the hypothesized outcome of the experiment, E’s various characteristics, situational factors, and intentional errors. The applicability of these errors to mo tor behavior research was discussed.