Subjects: Psychology >> Management Psychology submitted time 2023-11-20
Abstract： Performing explorative and exploitative behaviors simultaneously is a key means for teams to quickly adapt to environmental and task changes. How to improve team ambidexterity is an important topic of concern in theoretical and management practice. Although scholars have conducted preliminary analyses on the antecedents of team ambidexterity, conclusions at the between-team level can only be used to identify ambidextrous teams but not to answer the question of how to cultivate team ambidexterity. Based on the "differentiation-integration" framework, this study argues that the realization of team ambidexterity requires team members to obtain and process different types of information. Open collective reflexivity activities provide a rich source of information for teams. However, reflexivity activities are highly complex and resource-consuming, and companies need to use reflexivity interventions (e.g., team reflexivity training) to guide teams to engage in reflexivity activities on their own initiative. The team information processing model states that teams enhance team effectiveness and adaptability through two paths of information sharing and integration. Based on the above deduction, this study suggests that meta-knowledge sharing and perspective picking are the key cognitive mechanisms through which team reflexivity training positively influences team ambidexterity development.
We test our theoretical propositions in an experimental study and a quasiexperimental study. In Study 1, we conducted a course experiment with students and seven wave measurement waves over 4 months, resulting in 630 observations from 90 teams. We invited 360 undergraduates majoring in economics or management from a university in southern China. We randomly and equally assigned 360 college students into 90 teams and then divided the teams into experimental and control groups. We gave the experimental group team reflexivity training and assisted them with reflexivity activities in subsequent sessions, while the control group was given team building training to avoid a placebo effect. We measured team ambidexterity at all seven measurement waves and team reflexivity after and before intervention using established scales and items. Conditional latent growth modeling was applied to test the slope difference of the team ambidexterity trend between the experimental and control groups. To investigate the theoretical hypotheses in Study 2, we further conducted a quasiexperimental study, which took one year and involved three measurement waves; the study resulted in 222 observations from 74 teams. We invited a total of 656 employees from R&D teams in 26 companies engaged in high-tech industries related to information technology, precision instruments, and biopharmaceuticals in a southern Chinese province in this study. Seventy-four R&D teams were randomly and equally divided into experimental and control groups. We gave the experimental group team reflexivity training in the first month and required them to conduct a formal reflexivity activity at a regular time each week (or two weeks) thereafter. We measured team ambidexterity in the first and second measurement waves and meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking in the second and third measurement waves. To account for the mediating effect of meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking between team reflexivity training and team ambidexterity development, latent change score modeling was applied.
The statistical analyses supported our hypotheses. The results of Study 1 showed that teams that did not participate in team reflexivity training showed a nonsignificant downward trend in team duality; in contrast, teams that participated in reflexivity training showed a significant upward trend in team ambidexterity. Based on this, for Study 2, we further analyzed the mediating role of meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking and improved the external validity of the Study 1 finding with a quasiexperimental research design. It was found that teams' meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking improved after participating in reflexivity training, which led to an increase in team ambidexterity.
By increasing our understanding of how to improve team ambidexterity and the key information cognitive mechanisms of it, our study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, this study provides rich empirical evidence for ambidexterity research by confirming the role of team reflexivity training in sustainably enhancing team ambidexterity. The findings support the consistent view of team reflexivity training research that it is effective in enhancing team adaptability as a management intervention. At the same time, this study bridges the gap regarding how to help teams build the capacity to perform ambidextrous behaviors, responding to the call for research on "exploring how to guide paradoxical coping into a beneficial developmental process”. Second, based on the "differentiation-integration" framework and the team information processing model, this study infers and confirms that team meta-knowledge sharing and perspective taking are important cognitive processes that influence the development of team ambidexterity through team reflexivity training. The findings are not only consistent with the view that "information exchange and adoption among team members is necessary for team ambidexterity" but also expand ambidexterity research from a cognitive perspective. Meanwhile, the findings enrich the narrow research on the team information processing model in enhancing team adaptability and flexibility and reaffirm the fundamental role of efficient information processing in determining team effectiveness. Third, this study introduces the element of time in the empirical study of team ambidexterity for the first time, deepening the understanding of the nature of ambidexterity dynamics. The results found that team ambidexterity was unable to show positive trends over time, which is consistent with the expected negative self-reinforcing effect. This suggests that our team members are not willing to consistently adopt complex behavioral patterns such as ambidexterity for work but instead prefer specific activities due to behavioral inertia.
Our findings also offer empirical evidence that companies need to provide reflexivity courses for their teams to help members acquire and develop good work rethinking habits. At the same time, supervisors can activate and optimize the team information processing process by developing corresponding systems (e.g., a set time and frequency), providing necessary support (e.g., venue and accompanying guidance), and building a good team climate to continuously improve team ambidexterity.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Does significant new venture progress always encourage nascent entrepreneurs to dedicate more effort to new venture creation? Although previous entrepreneurship research has demonstrated that new venture progress influences entrepreneurs’ subsequent behavior (i.e., entrepreneurial effort), it has yet to come to a consistent conclusion on the positive or negative impact of significant new venture progress. Drawing on motivational self-regulation frame, we offered competing hypotheses with respect to the association between new venture progress and subsequent entrepreneurial effort. Furthermore, entrepreneurial self-efficacy played an important mediating role in these relationships. More specifically, consistent with prior findings of the self-regulation view on expanding the differences, we argue that the more progress entrepreneurs achieve, the more entrepreneurial self-efficacy they perceive, and the more effort they devote. However, the self-regulation view on narrowing the differences suggests that entrepreneurs gain vast progress at work, which boosts their entrepreneurial self-efficacy but subsequently leads them to reduce their efforts, possibly because of overconfidence. Therefore, we propose a novel, longitudinal mediated model of new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial effort. In addition, research on self-regulation has suggested that regulatory foci have always been a boundary condition in the self-regulation process. By integrating motivational self-regulation frame and regulation focus theory, we propose that regulation foci moderate these longitudinal mediated relationships.We test our theoretical propositions in two field surveys with nascent entrepreneurs. In Study 1, we conducted a field survey with three measurement waves over 6 months, resulting in 345 observations from 115 participants. We invited nascent entrepreneurs whose new ventures were still alive yet less than six months from the incubators of Jilin, Shandong, Guangdong, and Sichuan provinces. We measured new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial effort at all three measurement waves using established scales and items. We conducted the RI-CLPM approach to analyze the relationships between new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial effort. To investigate the theoretical hypotheses in Study 2, we further conducted another field survey, which took 15 months and six measurement waves, resulting in 420 observations from 70 participants. New venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial effort were collected at six measurement waves, and regulatory foci were collected at the first measurement wave. To account for the moderating effect of a between-person variable (i.e., regulatory foci) on the within-person relationships (i.e., the abovementioned relationships between new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial effort), random coefficient growth modeling was applied. The statistical analyses mostly supported our hypotheses. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediated the effect of new venture progress on entrepreneurial effort. Furthermore, the results showed that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is responsible for the negative effect of new venture progress on subsequent entrepreneurial effort. In other words, prior significant new venture progress would lead to high perceptions in one’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which may result in less subsequent entrepreneurial effort, possibly because of the overconfidence due to the high entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Additionally, our results showed that entrepreneurs’ promotion focus/prevention focus strengthened/attenuated the direct negative relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Tn) and entrepreneurial effort (Tn+1) and also strengthened the indirect negative relationship between new venture progress (Tn-1) and entrepreneurial effort (Tn+1). However, the negative relation between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial efforts became nonsignificant when the prevention focus was high. By increasing our understanding of the complex relationship between new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial effort, our study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, drawing on the self-regulation views on expanding and narrowing the differences, we contribute to the emerging yet still underresearched field concerning the role of entrepreneurs’ self-regulation. Previous research has complex and ambiguous, even contradicted conclusions regarding the relationship between new venture progress and subsequent entrepreneurial effort. However, by considering self-regulation views, our findings showed that the more progress the entrepreneurs made, the more self-efficacy they perceived, and the less effort they would subsequently devote. By clarifying it, our study offers a different yet comprehensive paradigm for understanding the dynamic nature of entrepreneurship under the self-regulation views. Second, by investigating the role of regulatory focus in modifying entrepreneurs’ self-regulation process, we further uncover the boundary condition of the abovementioned relationships and, more importantly, confirm the possible negative effect of promotion focus in the entrepreneurial process. In particular, our findings offer empirical evidence that entrepreneurs with high promotion focus dampen the development of negative effects stemming from high entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Since entrepreneurs’ states, behaviors, and situations fluctuate regularly and the result of the negative effect may be generally detrimental for nascent entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs with a high promotion focus should pay attention to their entrepreneurial self-efficacy to avoid a negative impact. Third, in revealing the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, we further uncovered the time-varying and progressive aspects of new venture creation. The conventional, time-invariant perspective fails to capture complex and dynamic states and only shows the positive aspects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. However, in our study, drawing on motivational self-regulation frame, we uncover the negative aspects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and confirm the progressive nature of the entrepreneurial process. By doing so, we offer a means to facilitate future entrepreneurship research to emphasize the constructs and their relationships with one another that may not be possible with a time-invariant, interindividual perspective.
Subjects: Psychology >> Management Psychology submitted time 2022-09-21
Abstract：
Does significant new venture progress always encourage nascent entrepreneurs to dedicate more effort to new venture creation? Although previous entrepreneurship research has demonstrated that new venture progress influences entrepreneurs’ subsequent behavior (i.e., entrepreneurial effort), it has yet to come to a consistent conclusion on the positive or negative impact of significant new venture progress. Drawing on motivational self-regulation frame, we offered competing hypotheses with respect to the association between new venture progress and subsequent entrepreneurial effort. Furthermore, entrepreneurial self-efficacy played an important mediating role in these relationships. More specifically, consistent with prior findings of the self-regulation view on expanding the differences, we argue that the more progress entrepreneurs achieve, the more entrepreneurial self-efficacy they perceive, and the more effort they devote. However, the self-regulation view on narrowing the differences suggests that entrepreneurs gain vast progress at work, which boosts their entrepreneurial self-efficacy but subsequently leads them to reduce their efforts, possibly because of overconfidence. Therefore, we propose a novel, longitudinal mediated model of new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial effort. In addition, research on self-regulation has suggested that regulatory foci have always been a boundary condition in the self-regulation process. By integrating motivational self-regulation frame and regulation focus theory, we propose that regulation foci moderate these longitudinal mediated relationships.We test our theoretical propositions in two field surveys with nascent entrepreneurs. In Study 1, we conducted a field survey with three measurement waves over 6 months, resulting in 345 observations from 115 participants. We invited nascent entrepreneurs whose new ventures were still alive yet less than six months from the incubators of Jilin, Shandong, Guangdong, and Sichuan provinces. We measured new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial effort at all three measurement waves using established scales and items. We conducted the RI-CLPM approach to analyze the relationships between new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial effort. To investigate the theoretical hypotheses in Study 2, we further conducted another field survey, which took 15 months and six measurement waves, resulting in 420 observations from 70 participants. New venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial effort were collected at six measurement waves, and regulatory foci were collected at the first measurement wave. To account for the moderating effect of a between-person variable (i.e., regulatory foci) on the within-person relationships (i.e., the abovementioned relationships between new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial effort), random coefficient growth modeling was applied.The statistical analyses mostly supported our hypotheses. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediated the effect of new venture progress on entrepreneurial effort. Furthermore, the results showed that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is responsible for the negative effect of new venture progress on subsequent entrepreneurial effort. In other words, prior significant new venture progress would lead to high perceptions in one’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which may result in less subsequent entrepreneurial effort, possibly because of the overconfidence due to the high entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Additionally, our results showed that entrepreneurs’ promotion focus/prevention focus strengthened/attenuated the direct negative relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Tn) and entrepreneurial effort (Tn+1) and also strengthened the indirect negative relationship between new venture progress (Tn–1) and entrepreneurial effort (Tn+1). However, the negative relation between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial efforts became nonsignificant when the prevention focus was high.By increasing our understanding of the complex relationship between new venture progress, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial effort, our study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, drawing on the self-regulation views on expanding and narrowing the differences, we contribute to the emerging yet still underresearched field concerning the role of entrepreneurs’ self-regulation. Previous research has complex and ambiguous, even contradicted conclusions regarding the relationship between new venture progress and subsequent entrepreneurial effort. However, by considering self-regulation views, our findings showed that the more progress the entrepreneurs made, the more self-efficacy they perceived, and the less effort they would subsequently devote. By clarifying it, our study offers a different yet comprehensive paradigm for understanding the dynamic nature of entrepreneurship under the self-regulation views. Second, by investigating the role of regulatory focus in modifying entrepreneurs’ self-regulation process, we further uncover the boundary condition of the abovementioned relationships and, more importantly, confirm the possible negative effect of promotion focus in the entrepreneurial process. In particular, our findings offer empirical evidence that entrepreneurs with high promotion focus dampen the development of negative effects stemming from high entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Since entrepreneurs’ states, behaviors, and situations fluctuate regularly and the result of the negative effect may be generally detrimental for nascent entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs with a high promotion focus should pay attention to their entrepreneurial self-efficacy to avoid a negative impact. Third, in revealing the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, we further uncovered the time-varying and progressive aspects of new venture creation. The conventional, time-invariant perspective fails to capture complex and dynamic states and only shows the positive aspects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. However, in our study, drawing on motivational self-regulation frame, we uncover the negative aspects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and confirm the progressive nature of the entrepreneurial process. By doing so, we offer a means to facilitate future entrepreneurship research to emphasize the constructs and their relationships with one another that may not be possible with a time-invariant, interindividual perspective.
Hits
YES
Hits
Downloads
Comment