- 1 -
中国科技论文在线
Having two conflicting minds? Examining the link among
leaders’ cognitive thinking style, employee creative
self-efficacy and employee creative performance# 5
Yuntao Bai
1
, Guohong Helen Han
2*
(1. School of Management, Xiamen University;
2. Williamson College of Business Administration, Youngstown State University)
Foundations: Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education(20110121120027)
Brief author introduction:Yuntao Bai(1980-), male, associate professor, leadership and creativity. E-mail:
Abstract: In this study, we integrate a cognitive style variable specific —leader dialectical
thinking,with an aim to explore its effects on employee creativity. Different culture shape the way 10
people think in different ways. Research has shown that Chinese are more likely to have a different
thinking style--dialectical thinking, which refers to the cognitive tendency to tolerate contradiction,
expect change, and think holistically. Unlike Western minds, East Asians are more pronetosee extremes
or opposites as being perpetually in a state of flux and transforming into its opposite. This study utilizes
ambivalence response amplification theory to explore the moderating role of employees’ creative 15
self-efficacy. The study examines whether an individual’s high creative self-efficacy will be considered
by his/her leaders as having the highest level of creativity. This study will have research and practical
implications in the workplace.
Key words: Leadership; Dialectical Thinking; Creative Self-efficacy; Employee Creativity
20
0 Introduction
In his very recently published book entitled “Dialectical thinking for integral leaders: a
Primer”, Laske argued that human thinking is essentially dialectical
[1]
. He explained Western
minds feel comforted by the notion that green is green and red is red all the time. Actually,
“green” consists of various and complex mixtures of slightly different pixels and shadings which 25
are simply labeled as “green” by our eyes and mind. So is the case with the world we live in. We
are comfortable to believe in those labels and shortcuts and yet the world is simply too
complicated to complex to be concerned about our comforts
[1]
. Therefore he calls for dialectical
thinking, a new deep thinking paradigm
[1]
. This view has been echoed in Martin’s article in
Harvard Business Review. Martin (2007)
[2]
asserts that management discussions over the recent 30
years have been shying away from thinking and leaning instead more towards doing. He insists
that it is inappropriate for us to focus on what the leader does, as practices that work in one
context may not be applicable to another, even at the same company or by the same leader. Rather,
he argues that we should focus on how a leader thinks---“the ways in which leaders’ cognitive
processes produce their actions”
[2]
. Having two seemingly opposing minds and being able to 35
coordinate, and cope with a multitude of ideas before finding the best solution is a crucial and
deeper thinking skill that every integral leader should possess. This is exactly the meaning of
dialectical thinking.
In this study, we integrated the cognitive style variable--- Leader dialectical thinking in the
China context with an aim to explore its effects on employee creativity. Cognitive style is defined 40
as a person’s favored ways in which they perceive, select and interpret information
[3]
. Research
has shown that Chinese are unique in their thinking style--dialectical thinking, which refers to the
cognitive tendency to endure contradiction, embrace change, and think in a holistic fashion
[4]
. This
thinking style consists of three dimensions: confidence in connection, recognition of contradiction,
and respect of change
[5]
. Unlike Western culture, individuals from East Asia are prone to see 45
- 2 -
中国科技论文在线
extremes or opposites as being perpetually in a state of flux and transforming into its opposite. For
example, hot/cold, light/dark, and love/hatred can be transferable back and forth. Western cultural
traditions however view change as more linear in nature and do not think it is harmonious to have
both opposites of one contradiction
[6]
.
This study aims to investigate the relationship between a leader’s dialectical thinking and an 50
employee’s creative performance. Given the rapidly changing global economy, more and more
organizations are aggressively promoting employees’ high levels of creativity
[7]
.Owing to the
popularity of teams, organizations are now called team-based organizations. Creativity, as an
inevitable factor in team interaction process, has been found to strongly predict team effectiveness
(. De Dreu & Weingart, 2003
[8]
; Jehn, 1995
[9]
). 55
In addition to exploring the relationship between a leader’s cognitive style and an employee’s
creative performance, we also make an effort to study one moderator: employee’s creative
self-efficacy. We want to explore how self-efficacy might moderate the effects of leader’s
dialectical thinking on creative performance. Hence, our research questions are as follows:
Will leader’s dialectical thinking be likely to be positively related with employee creativity? 60
Will employee creative self-efficacy be positively associated with employee creativity? Will
employee’s creative self-efficacy moderate the effects of leader’s dialectical thinking on one’s
creativity?
This paper will make three contributions. Firstly, among the emerging and yet still limited
stream of research on creative self-efficacy, the construct of creative self-efficacy has been mainly 65
studied as an independent variable or mediator. In our knowledge, we have not found any studies
that have explicitly examined the moderating role of creative self-efficacy. This will be the first
study that has specifically studied the moderating role of creative self-efficacy. Secondly, many of
the studies on creative self-efficacy have been conducted in the lab. Only in 2002 did Tierney and
Farmer
[10]
provide the first field test that self-efficacy perceptions influence employee creativity 70
and their study supported the positive linkage. Our study aims to address this gap as it was
conducted in three high-tech manufacturing firms in China. Thirdly, we will use ambivalent
response amplification theory (ARA) and conservation of resources theory (COR), which are both
understudied in the field of management, to explore the link between leader’s dialectical thinking
and employee creative performance. 75
1 Motivation, Background and Hypotheses
Dialectical thinking and employee creativity
As suggested by research, Chinese are more inclined to tolerate conflicting ideas
[11]
. They
tend to recognized objects in two opposing sides (., ying/yang, good/bad) can coexist at the
same time while Westerners tend to view this as incompatible and feel more comfortable to 80
consider objects as bipolar in nature
[12]
. Recently, researchers have incorporated dialecticism as an
additional dimension to account for East-West differences (in addition to Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions.) This has gained support from empirical findings. To illustrate, studies have found
that Asians usually hold mixed emotions (., Hui, Fok, & Bond, 2009
[13]
), show greater coping
flexibility
[14]
, are more salient of indirect, longer-term consequences when explaining events
[15]
, 85
and more importantly, tend to prefer a “middle road” approach to deal with conflict, and are more
willing to share information with a potential competitor
[16]
.
Creativity refers to the production of innovative and useful concepts
[17]
. Employee creative
performance can be demonstrated in basically offering simple suggestions for continuous
- 3 -
中国科技论文在线
improvement or at an advanced level creating new products
[18] [19]
. No wonder researchers have 90
argued that against the background of increasingly complex and dynamic world, employee’s
creative performance play a crucial role in propelling organizational survival and growth.
Conservation of resources (COR) theory
[20]
may help to explain the impact of leader dialectical
thinking on employee’s level of creativity. According to COR theory, individuals have a strong
need in securing and maintaining resources which help them to accomplish success. These 95
resources may comprise “objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued
by the individual or that serve as a means for attainment of these objects”
[20]
. A threatened or
real loss can result in employee distress
[21]
. Indeed, a great number of Leader-Member Exchange
(LMX) studies have lent strong empirical support that supervisory support are significant
resources for employees
[22]
. We argue that dialectical leaders might be more likely to provide 100
supervisory support. In the team context, dialectical leaders may provide opportunities for team
members to express their different viewpoints. They might be more willing to accept the
ostensibly contradictory ideas from employees and to believe that different perspectives could
give a full picture of the problem. This open communication of ideas and information channels
more towards higher levels of creativity
[23][24]
. Moreover, Amabile (1998)
[18]
has argued that the 105
three most crucial components of creativity are: expertise, critical thinking and motivation.
Supervisory support as manifested in encouragement and having one’s voices being heard may
motivate employees to be creative. As a matter of fact, Bai and his colleague’s recent empirical
study
[25]
has backed up the notion that leader’s dialectical thinking style is significantly correlated
with employee creativity. Hence we hypothesis that: 110
H1: Leader’s dialectical thinking style would be positively related to employee creativity.
Moderating role of creative self-efficacy
Tierney and Farmer (2002)
[26]
defined creative self-efficacy as “the belief one has the ability
to produce creative outcomes” (p. 1138). Since it is specific to creativity, this construct of creative
self-efficacy is not equivalent to general self-efficacy, which refers to a much broader and overall 115
picture of one’s confidence and beliefs
[26]
. In spite of the potential association of self-efficacy and
creativity, researchers have argued that very meager effort has been devoted to examine the
concept in the context of creativity
[26]
. Tierney and Farmer (2002)
[26]
contend that creative
self-efficacy can expedite creative performance for the following reasons. Firstly, Creative
self-efficacy bolsters one’s perseverance level and drives an individual to cope with challenges 120
more efficiently
[26] [27]
. Secondly, Creative self-efficacy facilitates cognitive ability as manifested
in broader information searches and better memories
[28]
, which ultimately lead to higher creative
performance. Several empirical studies bear out the above assertion. To clarity, Tierney and
Farmer’s study (2002)
[26]
on two corporate firms found that creative self-efficacy predicts creative
performance beyond the predictive effects of job self-efficacy. Similar findings have been 125
corroborated in the team context
[29]
. In addition to cross-sectional results, the significant
relationship between creative self-efficacy and employee creativity has also been confirmed in a
longitudinal development examination
[30]
. Likewise, Gong, Huang, and Farh (2009)
[7]
found that
creative self-efficacy mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employee
creativity. Thus, we hypothesize that: 130
H2: An employee’s creative self-efficacy is positively related with his/her creative
performance.
Researchers have discussed that highly dialectical thinkers are likely to experience
ambivalent thinking and emotions
[13]
. This study specifically explores reactions to ambivalence in
- 4 -
中国科技论文在线
the team context, based on the predictions of ambivalence response amplification theory (ARA)
135
[31]
. Ambivalence response amplification (ARA) theory is mainly about socio-psychological
determinants of positive and negative reactions to others. It holds individuals’ conflicting feelings
towards others are likely to lead to behavioral instability towards the object of ambivalence. In an
effort to reduce cognitive dissonance, responses are likely to be amplified, which creates
extremely positive or negative reactions depending on the way that the specific situation is shaped. 140
From the above, we can argue a highly dialectical thinking leader is more likely to be
ambivalent towards employees’ performance. Therefore, applying ARA in the team context, the
attitudes of leaders with highly dialectical thinking style towards employees are likely to be
amplified in two ways, depending on whether employees exhibit high or low creative self-efficacy.
To illustrate, when they interact with employees with high creative self-efficacy which is 145
considered as a favorable trait, they are more likely to exaggerate the effect and view those
individuals as more creative than they are and are likely to view those individuals as the most
creative. In the same fashion, low creative self-efficacy is regarded as an unfavorable trait by the
leaders. Therefore, leaders might be inclined to amplify the negative effect. Consequently, they are
likely to view those individuals with low creative self-efficacy having the lowest creative 150
performance.
Consequently, we hypothesize:
H3: Employee’s creative self-efficacy would moderate the relationship between leader’s
dialectical thinking style and employee creativity to such an extent that those individuals with high
creative self-efficacy will have the highest level of creativity and those individuals with low 155
creative self-efficacy will have the lowest level of creativity.
2 Method
Sample and Procedure
Data was collected from three high-tech manufacturing companies in East China. In total,
287 questionnaires were distributed, but only 222 (%) within 43 teams were returned and 160
deemed usable. The overall average age of the employees was years, with average job
tenure of years ( % male).
Measurement
The surveys were written using standard back translation: a native speaker translated all of
the materials from English to Chinese, and then another native speaker translated them back to 165
English to ensure clarity and consistency.
Leader Dialectical Thinking. The brief 14-item version of the Dialectical Self Scale (DSS)
developed by Spencer-Rodgers et al. (2008)
[32]
was used to measure leader’s dialectical thinking
style (α=.89).
Employee Creative Self Efficacy. We used Tierney and Farmer's (2002)
[26]
4-item measure of 170
creative self-efficacy. The reliability was (α=.79).
Employee creativity. The 4-item scale developed by Farmer, Tierney, and Kung-Mcintyre
(2003)
[11]
was used to assess employee creativity (α=.87).
- 5 -
中国科技论文在线
3 Result
Analysis of Measurement Model 175
Table 1 presents the results of the Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with all variables
included. The fit statistics indicated that the baseline model with the three factors (dialectical
thinking, creative self-efficacy, and creativity) had a good model fit (2=, df= 545,
2/df<3; RMSEA = ; CFI = , IFI=; SRMR=).In addition, all of the items loaded
significantly onto their respective factors. Further, several competing CFA models were tested for 180
discriminant validity of the measures. As shown in Table 1, all alternative rival models (RM1
combined leader’s dialectical thinking and self-efficacy; RM2 combined dialectical thinking and
creativity; RM3 combined self-efficacy and creativity) had worse fits than our baseline model,
indicating that the three factors were distinct constructs. A summary of the descriptive statistics
and correlations among variables is presented in Table 2. 185
Tab. 1 Results of CFA
Note: n = 222 at Level 1, n = 43 at Level 2. * p< .
Tab. 2 Correlation Table
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
Level 1
1 Employee age
2 Employee gender .30 .46 .16
3 Employee tenure .60*
4 creative self-efficacy .97 .04 (.79)
5 Employee creativity .04 .11 .23* (.87)
Level 2
1 Leader age
2 Leader gender .23 .43 .10
3 Leader tenure .72*
4 Dialectical thinking .17 (.89)
Note: n = 222 at Level 1, n = 43 at Level 2. * p< .
190
Model Factors
2 df Δ
2 RMSEA CFI SRMR
Baseline
Model
Dialectical thinking at team level,
self-efficacy, and creativity at
individual level
225 .04 .07
Rival
Model 1
Combine dialectical thinking and
creative self-efficacy
227 (2)* .05 .07
Rival
Model 2
Combine dialectical thinking and
creativity
227 (2)* .05 .07
Rival
Model 3
Combine creative self-efficacy and
creativity
227 (2)* .05 .07
- 6 -
中国科技论文在线
Analytic Technique
Since the three variables were at different levels (leader dialectical thinking was at team-level
and the other two were at individual-level), hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used because
it was the more appropriate approach than the OLS regression for the multilevel analyses.
Hypotheses Testing 195
H1 proposed that leader dialectical thinking was positively related to employee creativity.
Results of Model 2 in Table 3 showed that the impact coefficient was non-significant (M2: β =
, p> ), providing no support for our H1. H2 proposed that creative self-efficacy was
positively related to employee creativity. Results of Model 3 in Table 3 confirmed the significant
relationship (M3: β = , p< ), thus, our Hypothesis 2 was supported. 200
H3 proposed the moderating role of employee creative self-efficacy on the relationship
between leader dialectical thinking and employee creativity. We followed the recommendation for
examining moderating effects
[33]
. As shown in Model 4 of Table 3, the interaction term of leader
dialectical thinking and employee creative self-efficacy was positively related to employee
creativity (M5: β = , p< ), and the test of the chi-square difference supported the 205
introduction of the interaction term (Δχ2(1)= , p< ). Thus, H3 was supported that
employee creative self-efficacy had a positive moderating effect on the relationship between
leader dialectical thinking and employee creativity performance. To clarify the interaction, we
plotted leader dialectical thinking and employee self-efficacy at values one standard above and
below the mean (Aiken & West, 1991). The plot of the interaction was shown in Figure 2. The 210
simple slopes of the regression lines shown in Figure 1 were tested, and we found the following
results: when employee had low creative self-efficacy, leader dialectical thinking would not help
to improve employee creativity (simple slope = , p>); when employee scored high on
creative self-efficacy, there was a significant, positive relationship between leader dialectical
thinking and employee creativity (simple slope = , p< ). As independent variable and 215
moderator can exchange methodologically, when we regard dialectical thinking as moderator, the
finding would be: when leader is low on dialectical thinking, employees' creative self-efficacy
would not lead to their creativity (simple slope = , p> ), and only when leader is
characterized as high dialectical thinking, then employees' creative self-efficacy could be in effect
(simple slope = , p< ). 220
Tab. 3 HLM Analyses
Variables
M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5
Creativity Creativity Creativity Creativity Creativity
Follower age
Follower gender
Follower tenure
Leader age
Leader gender
Leader tenure
DTK
CSE * * *
DTK*CSE *
Devianceb
Note: n = 222 at Level 1, n = 43 at Level 2. DTK stands for leader dialectical thinking. CSE stands for employee self-efficacy. DTK
and leader demographics were in the Level-2 equation. CSE and employee demographics were in the Level-1 equation. * p< .
- 7 -
中国科技论文在线
225
Fig. 1 Interaction Effect on Employee Creativity
4 Conclusion
This study supports that one’s creative self-efficacy is highly correlated with one’s creative
performance. Although the study did not find the significant link between leader’s dialectical
thinking and an employee’s creative performance, what makes our finding interesting is that when 230
an employee has confidence in his/her creative self-efficacy and he/she happens to have a boss
who has high dialectical thinking skills, then he/she will thrive the most in terms of creativity.
This has offered great implications. Theoretically, it expands and contributes to the current
literature that has investigated the concept of creative self-efficacy and it’s outcomes in the
corporate settings since many studies on creative self-efficacy and creativity have been conducted 235
in the lab and produced controversial findings
[30]
. In addition, most of the extant research has
focused either on the main effect of creative self-efficacy and outcome, or on the mediating role of
creative self-efficacy. Rarely can we find any studies that have investigated the moderating role of
creative self-efficacy. Undoubtedly, our study on the moderating role of creative self-efficacy in a
corporate setting has made a great effort to address this gap. 240
Practically, supervisors play influential role in shaping and cultivating employee efficacy
[34]
.
In that sense, companies can provide trainings to supervisors to help elevating employees creative
self-efficacy. As we all know, creativity is so crucial that it affects whether the organization can
grow or even survive. One significant step in fostering employee creative performance is whether
leaders can be open minded, and encourage team members to vocalize those seemingly 245
contradictory ideas, which will provide a very healthy and productive environment for employees
to think outside the box. More importantly, this study highlights the importance for the leaders to
have integrative/integral thinking. Creative self-efficacy becomes more important when he/she
happens to have a boss who has high dialectical thinking skills. Having an integrative thinking
boss exerts the most dramatic impact on highly creative self-efficacy individuals as an integrative 250
leader will help to stimulate and facilitate an employees’ potential to be creative and unique.
References
[1] Laske, thinking for integral leaders: A primer[M]. Integral Publishers, Tucson, Arizona,2015.
[2] Martin, R. How successful leaders think[J]. Harvard Business Review, 2007: 75-83. 255
[3] Armstrong, S. J., & Cools, E. Cognitive styles and their relevance for business and management: A review of
development over the past two decades[M]. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), perspectives on the Nature of
Intellectual Styles (pp. 253-290). Heidelberg, NY: Springer, 2009.
[4] Chen, S. X. H., Benet-Martinez, C., Wu, W. C. H., Lam, C. P., & Bond, M. H. The role of dialectical self and
bicultural identity integration in psychological adjustment[J]. Journal of Personality, 2013, 81: 61-75. 260
- 8 -
中国科技论文在线
[5] Hou, Y. B. Research on the structure of Chinese thinking styles and its influence (unpublished doctoral
dissertation)[Z]. Peking University, Beijing, 2004.
[6] Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., & Peng, K. Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance
for contradiction: A decade of empirical research[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2010, 14:
296-312. 265
[7] Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership and employee
creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy[J]. Academy of management Journal, 2009, 52:
765-778.
[8] De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L .R. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance and team member
satisfaction: A meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88: 741-749. 270
[9] Jehn, K. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict[J]. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1995, 40: 256-282.
[10] Baer, M. Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations[J]. Academy of
Management Journal, 2012, 55, 1102-1119.
[11] Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role 275
identity theory[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2002, 46: 618-630.
[12] Peng, K., Ames, D. R., & Knowles, E. D. Culture and human inference: Perspectives
from three traditions. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of Culture and Psychology (pp. 245-264)[M]. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2001.
[13] Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., Wang, L., & Hou, Y. Dialectical self-esteem and East-West differences in 280
psychological well-being[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2004, 30: 1416-1432.
[14] Hui, C. M., Fok, H. K., & Bond, M. H. Who feels more ambivalence? Linking dialectical thinking to mixed
emotions[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2009, 46: 493-498.
[15] Cheng, C. Dialectical thinking and coping flexibility: A multimethod approach[J]. Journal of Personality,
2009, 77: 471-494. 285
[16] Maddux, W. W., & Yuki, M. The "ripple effect": Cultural differences in perceptions of the consequences of
events[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2006, 32: 669-683.
[17] Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., & Jin, Y. Reasoning about perceived opposites and competition in teams[Z].
Unpublished manuscript, University of Austin, TX, 2010.
[18] Amabile, T. M. How to Kill Creativity[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1998, 76, 76-87. 290
[19] Zhou, J., & George, J. M. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice[J].
Academy of Management Journal, 2001, 44: 682-696.
[20] Hobfoll, S. E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress[J]. American Psychologist,
1989, 44, 513-524.
[21] Halbesleben, J. & Buckley, . Burnout in organizational life[J]. Journal of Management, 2004, 30, 295
859-879.
[22] Brewer, E. W., & Shapard, L. Employee burnout: A meta-analysis of the relationship between age or years of
experience[J]. Human Resource Development Review, 2004, 3: 102-123.
[23] Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network
perspective[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2003, 28: 89-107. 300
[24] Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can
foster or hinder creativity[J]. Leadership Quarterly, 2004, 15: 33-53.
[25] Bai, Y. T., Harms, P. P., Han, H. H., & Cheng, W. W. Good and bad simultaniously? leaders using dialectical
thinking foster positive conflict and employee performance[J]. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2015,
26: 245-267. 305
[26] Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative
performance[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2002, 45: 1137-1148.
[27] Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change[J]. Psychological Review, 1977, 84:
191-215.
[28] Cervone, D., & Peake, P. K. Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on 310
self-efficacy judgments and behavior[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 50: 492-501.
[29] Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D. V., & Baer, M. Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in
team contexts: Cross-level interactions with team informational resources[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012,
97, 1282-1290.
[30] Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. self-efficacy development and creative performance over time[J]. 315
Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011, 96: 277-293.
[31] Katz I, Glass D C. An ambivalence-amplification theory of behavior toward the stigmatized[J]. The social
psychology of intergroup relations, 1979, 55: 70.
[32] Spencer-Rodgers, J., Srivastava, S., Boucher, ., English, ., Paletz, ., Hou, Y.,
Wang, L. and Peng, K. The Dialectical Self Scale[Z]. Unpublished Manuscript. University of California, Berkeley, 320
2008.
[33] Aiken, L., & West, S. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions[M]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
1991.
[34] Eden, D. Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies in
organizations[J]. Leadership Quarterly, 1992, 3: 271-305. 325
- 9 -
中国科技论文在线
领导认知模式、员工自我创新效能感以及员
工创新力关系研究 330
白云涛1，韩国红2
（1. 厦门大学，管理学院；
2. 美国扬斯敦州立大学，工商管理学院）
摘要：本文考察一项领导认知特征--辩证思维,对员工创新力的影响。不同的文化铸造了不同
的认知模式，研究发现中国人擅长于辩证式思维，而这一辩证思维倾向于忍受不确定性、模335
糊性，并整体性地看待问题。本研究利用矛盾放大理论来考察员工的创新自我效能感在辩证
式思维提升员工创新力上的调节作用。研究结论发现当员工具有创新自我效能时，他/她面
对具有辩证式思维的领导会提升自己的创新力，而自我效能感低的员工，面对辩证式思维的
领导，其创新力就会变差。研究进一步提出了结果发现的理论和现实意义。
关键词：领导力；辩证式思维；创新自我效能；员工创新力 340
中图分类号：
