The Double-edged Sword Effect of Paradox Mindset on Team Innovative Strategy Decision-making: An Event-analysis-based Quasi-Experimental Study

Li Chunxuan; Li Cirong; Yang Yanyu; Liu Jing

doi:10.6049/kjjbydc.2022020422

Science & Technology Progress and Policy >

2023 , Vol. 40 >Issue 9: 12 - 21

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6049/kjjbydc.2022020422

Innovation in Science and Technology Management

The Double-edged Sword Effect of Paradox Mindset on Team Innovative Strategy Decision-making: An Event-analysis-based Quasi-Experimental Study

Li Chunxuan ,
Li Cirong ,
Yang Yanyu ,
Liu Jing

Expand

(1.School of Business and Management, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China;2.Research Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Jilin University, Changchun 130022, China)

Received date: 2022-02-05

Revised date: 2022-04-21

Online published: 2023-05-10

Fold

Abstract

With the intensification of market competition, it has become a key driving force for the sustainable development of enterprises to seek technological breakthroughs to pursue or maintain competitive advantages. The technological innovation is characterized by situational dynamics, time urgency and path ambiguity. It has become an important process for enterprises to form unique competitiveness by making high-quality innovative strategic decisions in order to integrate innovation contradictions. The R&D team is the basic unit for performing innovation tasks in an enterprise and the core unit of solving contradictions. How can it achieve the above goals for the enterprise? This is an urgent problem in both theory and practice. With the development of innovative strategic decision research, scholars' attention has gradually been shifted to the internal psychological factors. Team mindset, especially team paradox mindset which is viewed as inner foundation of teams to deal with paradoxical problems has aroused concern. Despite the fact that the paradox mindset has been seen as the fundamental cognitive elements of creativity emergence, its complexity could induce the negative cognitive effect. Yet the positive and negative effects of this mindset are seldom tapped, which leads to the unclear role and function of team paradox mindset in the innovative strategic decision-making process of R&D team.#br#The paradox theory presumes that salient tensions can spur a virtuous cycle that enhances creativity, innovation, and sustainability, but tensions can also lead to a vicious cycle that increases anxiety and defensiveness. The cognitive fit theory states that the problem-solving mental representation and behavior are independent on whether problem-solving skills (such as knowledge level, cognitive ability, and thinking style) match the task representation, and task performance is affected accordingly. Paradox mindset refers to mental templates in which the actors recognizeand accept the persisting inconsistencies of contradictory forces.It can not only help teams to deal with diverse information and make reasonable judgments, but also avoid potential task conflicts in the interaction of knowledge and opinions among team members. Conversely, paradox mindset may be harmful when matched to inappropriate task representation. Controversy caused by abundant new information and ideas will lead to conflicts among members. In view of this, this study constructs a dual-path integration model of paradox mindset on team innovation strategy decision-making process to explore both the positive and negative effects of paradox mindset simultaneously.#br#　As mentioned above, the paradox mindset is not appropriate for all tasks or the entire course of a task. The matching of task representation with the characteristics of paradox mindset is the core to fully play its positive role. The external environment often undergoes unpredictable changes in innovation, so that the team also needs to face the adjustment of mission objectives and specific implementation plans. The analysis of the paradox mindset characteristics shows that it is more suitable for dealing with complex tasks which is high uncertainty and require broader knowledge and skills, rather than tasks with the standardized process. That means the paradox mindset may be more likely to play a positive role after the R&D tasks are adjusted. Therefore, this study regards R&D task adjustment as a key event to stimulate the positive effect path of team paradox mindset and explores the impact of paradox mindset on team innovation strategic decision-making process in different R&D task scenarios.#br#On the basis of the cognitive fit theory, this study investigates how team paradox mindset influences team innovative strategic decision-making process in “double sword” pathways. The hypotheses are tested by the longitudinal data from 145 teams with five measurement occasions over one-and-a-half-month period. The hierarchical linear model is used and the event analysis is conducted and both team members and supervisors are in a quasi-experiment setting. It is found that firstly before the R&D task adjustment, the team paradox mindset is positively related to team conflicts, and is negatively related to team decision complement. Secondly after the R&D task adjustment, the team paradox mindset is positively related to team decision complement and negatively related to team conflict. Thirdly the team workload/information elaboration mediates the relationships between team paradox mindset and team conflict/team decision comprehensiveness. The findings provide the practical evidence for R&D team cognition and task management.#br#

Key words： Paradox Mindset; Innovative Strategic Decision-making; Workload; Information Elaboration; Research Task Adjustment

Cite this article

Li Chunxuan , Li Cirong , Yang Yanyu , Liu Jing . The Double-edged Sword Effect of Paradox Mindset on Team Innovative Strategy Decision-making: An Event-analysis-based Quasi-Experimental Study[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2023 , 40(9) : 12 -21 . DOI: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2022020422

References

[1] 韩杨,罗瑾琏,钟竞. 双元领导对团队创新绩效影响研究——基于惯例视角[J]. 管理科学, 2016, 29(1): 70-85.
[2] TUSHMAN M L, O'REILLY C A. Sorting organizational hardware[J]. The Journal of Business Strategy, 1997, 18(4): 43.
[3] YE Q, WANG D, GUO W. Inclusive leadership and team innovation: the role of team voice and performance pressure[J]. European Management Journal, 2019, 37(4): 468-480.
[4] SMITH W K, LEWIS M W. Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(2): 381-403.
[5] WALDMAN D A, PUTNAM L L, MIRON-SPEKTOR E, et al. The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2019, 155（5）: 1-6.
[6] MIRON-SPEKTOR E, INGRAM A, KELLER J, et al. Micro-foundations of organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about the problem[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2018, 61(1): 26-45.
[7] SHAO Y, NIJSTAD B A, TUBER S. Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: the double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2019, 155（5）: 7-19.
[8] MENNECKE B E, VALACICH J S, WHEELER B C. The effects of media and task on user performance: a test of the task-media fit hypothesis[J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2000, 9(6): 507-529.
[9] SMITH W K, TUSHMAN M L. Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams[J]. Organization Science, 2005, 16(5): 522-536.
[10] LI C R, LIU Y Y, LIN C J, et al. Top management team diversity, ambidextrous innovation and the mediating effect of top team decision-making processes[J]. Industry and Innovation, 2016, 23(3): 260-275.
[11] 罗瑾琏, 唐慧洁, 李树文, 等. 科创企业创新悖论及其应对效应研究[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(3): 105-122，108.
[12] LI C R, LIN C J, TIEN Y H, et al. A multilevel model of team cultural diversity and creativity: the role of climate for inclusion[J]. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2017, 51(2): 163-179.
[13] CANILS M C, SEMEIJN J H, RENDERS I H. Mind the mindset! the interaction of proactive personality, transformational leadership and growth mindset for engagement at work[J]. Career Development International, 2018, 23(1): 48-66.
[14] ZHENG W, KARK R, MEISTER A L. Paradox versus dilemma mindset: a theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion[J]. The Leadership Quarterly, 2018, 29(5): 584-596.
[15] YIN J. Effects of the paradox mindset on work engagement: the mediating role of seeking challenges and individual unlearning[J]. Current Psychology, 2023, 42(4): 2708-2718.
[16] LIU Y, XU S, ZHANG B. Thriving at work: how a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior[J]. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2020, 56(3): 347-366.
[17] MITCHELL R, NICHOLAS S, BOYLE B. The role of openness to cognitive diversity and group processes in knowledge creation[J]. Small Group Research, 2009, 40(5): 535-554.
[18] SIMONS T, PELLED L H, SMITH K A. Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1999, 42(6): 662-673.
[19] 姚艳虹, 季凡祺. 悖论思维对创造力的“过犹不及”效应研究[J]. 中国人力资源开发. 2021, 38(4): 40-53.
[20] CALIC G, HLIE S, BONTIS N, et al. Creativity from paradoxical experience: a theory of how individuals achieve creativity while adopting paradoxical frames[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2018, 23(3): 397-418.
[21] KILBY C J, SHERMAN K A, WUTHRICH V. Towards understanding inter-individual differences in stressor appraisals: a systematic review[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2018, 135(5): 92-100.
[22] 雷晶, 袁勤俭, 刘影. 认知匹配理论的演化评述[J]. 现代情报, 2018, 38(10): 152-156,177.
[23] PHILLIPS W J, FLETCHER J M, MARKS A D, et al. Thinking styles and decision making: a meta-analysis[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 2016, 142(3): 260.
[24] DELLY F, REINMOELLER P. The effect of paradox mindset diversity on team innovativeness[J]. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018, 2018(1): 18893.
[25] 康丽群, 刘汉民. 复杂组织目标体系的构成与权重：理论分析和实证检验[J]. 商业经济与管理, 2019,39 (1): 35-48.
[26] BIRKINSHAWI J, GIBSON C B. Building an ambidextrous organisation[J]. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2004, 45(3): 47-55.
[27] SIGGELKOW N, LEVINTHAL D A. Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation[J]. Organization Science, 2003, 14(6): 650-669.
[28] FARJOUN M. Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2010, 35(2): 202-225.
[29] SAWYER R K. Educating for innovation[J]. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2006, 1(1): 41-48.
[30] 刘璇, 张向前. 团队冲突理论分析与展望[J]. 软科学, 2016, 30(4): 80-84.
[31] MIRON-SPEKTOR E, EREZ M, NAVEH E. The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: reconciling the innovation paradox[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54(4): 740-760.
[32] SHIN J,TAYLOR M S,SEO M G.Resources for change: the relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees' attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2012, 55(3): 727-748.
[33] HANCOCK P A, MATTHEWS G. Workload and performance: associations, insensitivities, and dissociations[J]. Human Factors, 2019, 61(3): 374-392.
[34] ILIES R, SCHWIND K M, WAGNER D T, et al. When can employees have a family life: the effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict and social behaviors at home[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, 92(5): 1368-1379.
[35] 周海明, 孙怡, 时勘, 等. 工作要求对研发人员工作绩效的影响——心理解脱与工作投入的作用[J]. 现代管理科学, 2016,35(8): 27-29.
[36] 王敏, 李淑敏. 工作负荷对个体感知到的团队内冲突的影响——控制点及情感信任的调节作用[J]. 管理评论, 2017, 29(4): 122-133.
[37] VAN KNIPPENBERG D, DE DREU C K, HOMAN A C. Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, 89(6): 1008-1022.
[38] STEWART G L, BARRICK M R. Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43(2): 135-148.
[39] LI C R, LI C X, LIN C J. The effect of individual task conflict on employee creativity: a moderated mediation model[J]. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2019, 31(5): 112-124.
[40] SLEESMAN D J. Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: paradox mindset and escalation of commitment[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2019, 155(5): 83-96.
[41] PAN Z. Paradoxical leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour: the serial mediating effect of a paradoxical mindset and personal service orientation[J]. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2021, 42(6): 869-881.
[42] SAGIV L, ARIELI S, GOLDENBERG J, et al. Structure and freedom in creativity: the interplay between externally imposed structure and personal cognitive style[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2010, 31(8): 1086-1110.
[43] MILLER C C, BURKE L M, GLICK W H. Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives: implications for strategic decision processes[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 19(1): 39-58.
[44] MORGESON F P. The external leadership of self-managing teams: intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005, 90(3): 497-508.
[45] NUNN N, QIAN N. The potato's contribution to population and urbanization: evidence from a historical experiment[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2011, 126(2): 593-650.
[46] 赵锴, 向姝婷. 如何解决团队创新悖论？基于成员认知风格“组型”与“构型”视角的探究[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 1-18.
[47] SCHAD J, LEWIS M W, SMITH W K. Quo vadis, paradox: centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development[J]. Strategic Organization, 2019, 17(1): 107-119.
[48] LOIGNON A C, WOEHR D J, LOUGHRY M L, et al. Elaborating on team-member disagreement: examining patterned dispersion in team-level constructs[J]. Group & Organization Management, 2019, 44(1): 165-210.

Options

Outlines

模态框（Modal）标题

Abstract

Cite this article

References