|
|
|
| Team Status Promotion,Collective Psychological Ownership and Team Innovation Outcomes |
| Wei Wei,Ding Chenyang,Huang Dujuan |
| (School of Management,Anhui University of Finance and Economy,Bengbu 233030,China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract With the increasing competition in the modern market, most enterprises have begun to implement team-based status incentives. However, existing studies mainly focus on the stability characteristics of status and explore the impact of team status on team innovation,leaving the impact of team status changes on team innovation from the dynamic perspective of status rarely touched. The aim of this study is to reveal the impact and mechanism of team status improvement on team innovation outcomes, as well as the conditions under which team status improvement can more effectively play a positive role.#br#This article uses first-hand survey data from 42 teams as samples and conducts empirical research on the impact mechanism of team status improvement based on collective psychological ownership theory and event system theory. In order to explore the role of team status improvement, collective psychological ownership, and team leadership in influencing team innovation outcomes, the study uses existing mature scales to measure "team status improvement", "team innovation outcomes", "collective psychological ownership", "humble leadership " and "narcissistic leadership"; it uses Likert's five point scoring method, and conducts validity tests, aggregation tests, descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and hypothesis testing on the data by Mplus and SPSS .#br#The research concludes as follows. Firstly, both team status improvement and collective psychological ownership have a significant positive impact on team innovation outcomes, which indicates that the higher the intensity of team status improvement events, the more innovative the team produces, the stronger the collective psychological ownership, and the more innovative the team produces. Secondly, collective psychological ownership plays a mediating role in the improvement of team status and team innovation outcomes, that is, by increasing collective psychological ownership, it provides favorable conditions for team innovation and ultimately has a positive impact on team innovation outcomes. Thirdly, humble leadership has a significant positive moderating effect on the relationship between team status improvement and collective psychological ownership. In other words, when leaders are more humble, the impact of team status improvement on collective psychological ownership will increase. When the level of leadership humility decreases, the impact of team status improvement on collective psychological ownership will also weaken. Fourthly, the moderating effect of narcissistic leadership on the relationship between team status improvement and collective psychological ownership is not significant,possibly because narcissistic leaders are adept at utilizing their strong leadership to deepen team employees' understanding and identification with the team, thereby offsetting the negative impact of narcissistic leaders on team members' sense of ownership expanding to the collective after experiencing team status improvement.#br#This study explores the impact mechanism and process of team status improvement on team innovation outcomes, and further enriches the connotation of collective psychological ownership theory and event system theory from a theoretical perspective. By introducing collective psychological ownership, the study extends status research to the team level, reveals in depth how team status improvement affects team innovation outcomes through the mediating path of collective psychological ownership. Following the event system theory, this study starts with the event attributes of team status enhancement, explores the impact path of team status enhancement on team innovation outcomes, enriching and expanding existing research on events. In addition, this study selects team leadership style (humble leadership, narcissistic leadership) as the moderating variable, includes humble leadership in the analysis framework, and selects narcissistic leadership for comparison, revealing the impact of humble leadership on collective psychological ownership in the Chinese context, and providing direction for effectively promoting team status and motivation. In practice, it provides ideas on how to improve team innovation outcomes and theoretical guidance for enterprise managers to implement specific incentive measures. This study is a preliminary exploration, and future research could focus on event factors, conduct team tracking surveys at different time points, and introduce other variables at individual and team level to better reveal the boundary conditions that promote team innovation outcomes.#br#
|
|
Received: 08 May 2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] ERTUG G,CASTELLUCCI F. Getting What you need:how reputation and status affect team performance, hiring, and salaries in the NBA[J].Academy of Management Journal, 2013,56(2): 407-431.
[2] 常涛, 裴飞霞. 团队地位差异性与团队创造力的倒U型关系：任务特征的调节作用[J].科技进步与对策, 2022, 39(7): 132-141.
[3] MORGESON F P, MITCHELL T R, LIU D. Event system theory: an event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences[J].Academy of Management Review, 2015, 40(4): 515-537.
[4] NEELEY T B, DUMAS T L. Unearned status gain: evidence from a global language mandate[J].Academy of Management Journal, 2016, 59(1): 14-43.
[5] RESCHKE B P, AZOULAY P, STUART T E. Status spillovers:the effect of status-conferring prizes on the allocation of attention[J].Administrative Science Quarterly, 2018, 63(4): 819-847.
[6] OKHUYSEN G A, BECHKY B A. Coordination in organizations: an integrative perspective[J].The Academy of Management Annals, 2009, 3(1): 463-502.
[7] GRODAL S, NELSON A J, SIINO R M. Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine:continual engagement in innovative work[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2015, 58(1): 136-168.
[8] ALLPORT F H. The structuring of events: outline of a general theory with applications to psychology[J].Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1954, 61(5): 281-303.
[9] PIERCE J L, KOSTOVA T, DIRKS K T. Towards a theory of psychological ownership in organizations[J].Academy of Management Review, 2001, 26: 298-310.
[10] PIERCE J L, JUSSILA I. Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: construct introduction and elaboration[J].Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2010, 31(6): 810-834.
[11] 朱沆, 韩晓燕, 黄婷. 家族涉入管理与私营企业职业经理的心理所有权——基于“我们”意识的新理论解释[J].南开管理评论, 2015, 18(4): 4-14.
[12] APPELBAUM E, BAILEY T, BERG P, et al. Manufacturing advantage: why high performance work systems payoff [M].Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000: 27.
[13] SHALLEY C E, PERRY-SMITH J E. Effects of social psychological factors on creative performance: the role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience [J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2001, 84(1): 1-22.
[14] AMABILE T M, CONTI R, COON H, et al. Assessing the work environment for creativity[J].Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39: 1154-1184.
[15] GIORDANO A P, PATIENT D, PASSOS A M, et al. Antecedents and consequences of collective psychological ownership: the validation of a conceptual model[J].Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2020, 41(1): 32-49.
[16] 魏昕, 张志学.上级何时采纳促进性或抑制性进言——上级地位和下属专业度的影响[J].管理世界, 2014,30(1): 132-143.
[17] 张少峰, 程德俊, 李菲菲, 等.创造性团队中地位关注动机、竞争行为与知识共享[J].经济管理, 2019, 41(9): 109-124.
[18] DRUSKAT V U, PESCOSOLIDO A T. The content of effective teamwork mental models in self-managing teams: ownership, learning and heedful interrelating[J].Human Relations, 2002, 55(3): 283-314.
[19] GRAY S M, KNIGHT A P, BAER M. On the emergence of collective psychological ownership in new creative teams[J].Organization Science, 2020, 31(1): 141-164.
[20] SCHILLING M A, PHELPS C C. Interfirm collaboration networks: the impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation[J].Mangement Science,2007, 53(7): 1113-1126.
[21] 史竹琴, 苏妮娜. 创新网络、失败学习与低成本创新关系研究——理论模型与实证[J].经济问题, 2018, 40(4): 97-103.
[22] 秦许宁,张志鑫,闫世玲.员工创新行为对反生产行为的影响：心理所有权和道德认同的作用[J].科研管理,2022,43(5): 86-93.
[23] 买热巴·买买提, 李野, 王辉. 谦卑型和自恋型领导：跨文化组织管理的视角[J].心理科学进展, 2017, 25(8): 1375-1386.
[24] NEVICKA B, DE HOOGH A H B, DEN HARTOG D N, et al. Narcissistic leader and their victims:followers low on self-esteem and low on core self-evaluations suffer most[J].Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, 9: 422-436.
[25] 李全, 佘卓霖, 杨百寅.自恋领导对下属绩效的影响研究：基于关系视角[J].技术经济, 2020, 39(12): 163-170.
[26] LOVELACE K, SHAPIRO D L, WEINGART L R. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective[J].Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44(4): 779-793.
[27] PIERCE J L, JUSSILA I, LI D. Development and validation of an instrument for assessing collective psychological ownership in organizational field settings[J].Journal of Management Organization, 2018, 24(6): 776-792.
[28] OWENS B P, JOHNSON M D, MITCHELL T R. Expressed humility in organizations:implications for performance, teams, and leadership[J].Organization Science, 2013, 24(5): 1517-1538.
[29] JONASON P K, WEBSTER G D. The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad[J].Psychological Assessment, 2010, 22(2): 420-432.
[30] ROSENTHAL S A, PITTINSKY T L. Narcissistic leadership[J].The Leadership Quarterly, 2006, 17: 617-633.
[31] WILLER R. Groups reward individual sacrifice:the status solution to the collective action problem[J].American Sociological Review, 2009, 74(1): 23-43.
[32] 常涛, 李雅馨, 刘智强. 地位冲突不对称与团队创造力的曲线关系研究[J].管理学报, 2022, 19(1): 46-55, 84.
[33] BEELER L, ZABLAH A, JOHNSTON W J. How critical events shape the evolution of sales organizations:a case study of a business-to-business services firm[J].Journal of Business Research, 2017,74(5): 66-76.
[34] 严瑜, 李彤. 工作场所不文明行为受害者向实施者反转的机制[J].心理科学进展, 2018, 26(7): 1307-1318.
[35] FERRARO F, BEUNZA D. Creating common ground:a communicative action model of dialogue in shareholder engagement[J].Organizational Science. 2018, 29(6): 1187-1207.
[36] 尤树洋, 蔡亚华, 贾良定. CEO兼具自恋和谦卑特质与组织双元性的关系研究[J].经济管理, 2020, 42(5): 71-87.
|
|
|
|
