團隊人口統計特征多元化與績效關系的元分析*

衛旭華 劉詠梅 陳思璇

(1蘭州大學管理學院, 蘭州 730000) (2中南大學商學院, 長沙 410083)

1 引言

中國自古以來就主張多元化人才策略, “一人計短, 兩人計長”、“三個臭皮匠賽過諸葛亮”等廣為流傳的諺語均體現了多元化所帶來的潛在好處。對于現代組織, 多元化人才配置策略也得到了企業管理者的高度重視, 企業往往通過選聘多學科和多職業背景人員來進行團隊建設。在團隊人員配置過程中, 團隊成員人口統計特征(如學歷和任期)多元化(diversity)是最直接、最容易操作的人員配置方式之一。這種配置方式之所以受到廣大企業的歡迎, 一個重要的原因在于團隊成員的人口統計特征可以被看作是他們認知框架的有效代理機制, 進而影響團隊成員的行為及其交互結果(Hambrick, 2007)。

盡管近年來團隊多元化得到了工業與組織心理學和管理學領域眾多研究者的關注(van Dijk &van Engen, 2013; van Knippenberg & Schippers,2007), 但其作用機理尚存在諸多不一致。一些研究者認為多元化是功能性的, 能夠為團隊帶來更多新觀點, 進而改善團隊工作質量(Guillaume, Dawson,Woods, Sacramento, & West, 2013; Williams &O'Reilly, 1998); 而另外一些研究者則認為多元化會帶來刻板印象, 產生內群體和外群體, 造成凝聚力和滿意度的下降, 并導致群體內沖突和離職概率的增加(Harrison & Klein, 2007)。

造成這些不一致的原因主要有兩個：一是團隊多元化具有不同類型(Harrison & Klein, 2007); 二是研究情境存在很大差異, 需要將它們分離出來(Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011)。首先,從團隊多元化分類角度來看, 依據其分布特征可以分為分離型多元化、多樣型多元化和不平等型多元化(Harrison & Klein, 2007)。這些分類有著不同的內涵、理論基礎和操作化測量方式, 因而會擁有不同的結果, 但以往研究卻把它們混為一談, 這在中國多元化研究中尤為明顯。其次, 從研究情境角度來看, 各個研究都有其特有的情境, 如不同研究可能采用不同類型的團隊績效作為結果變量, 也可能采用不同類型的團隊作為研究樣本。同時, 近年來,東方國家研究者對團隊多元化的關注與日俱增, 其中一些研究發現基于西方國家的多元化理論和實踐可能并不適用于東方國家。這說明不同情境下的多元化對團隊結果的影響可能會有所差異(Joshi &Roh, 2009), 因而需要將這些情境作為調節變量,并檢驗他們對研究結果的影響。

為了彌補這些不足, 本研究對國內外團隊多元化研究的現狀進行了回顧, 并選取了中外相關的實證研究進行了元分析(meta-analysis), 檢驗不同類型多元化與團隊績效的關系, 以及其中潛在的調節變量。

表1 團隊分離、多樣和不平等的測量

2 理論基礎與研究假設

2.1 團隊多元化的界定與分類

團隊多元化(team diversity)指的是團隊成員在個體屬性上的差異(Harrison & Klein, 2007; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007), 這些個體屬性既可以是顯性的人口統計特征, 也可以是隱性的心理特征。由于團隊成員隱性心理特征很難有效測量,因而研究者建議通過人口統計特征來近似代替這些不可見的心理特征(Hambrick, 2007)。在此基礎上,研究者對團隊人口統計特征多元化展開了廣泛研究, 但研究結論卻存在諸多不一致。鑒于此, 研究者開始嘗試對多元化進行分類, 并認為不同的多元化會對團隊結果產生不同的影響。其中, 近年來較具影響力的分類是由Harrison和Klein (2007)提出的。他們將團隊多元化分為分離型多元化(diversity as separation)、多樣型多元化(diversity as variety)和不平等型多元化(diversity as disparity)。

分離型多元化指的是團隊成員在立場和觀點上的差異程度, 通常是信念、價值觀或態度上的對立或者不一致(Harrison & Klein, 2007)。例如, 當團隊內年輕成員支持改革方案, 而年長成員由于保守而反對改革時, 就會形成年齡分離型多元化。從表1可以看到, 當團隊內所有成員擁有相同觀點時,分離型多元化程度最低; 而當團隊內形成兩個勢均力敵的極端派系時, 分離型多元化程度最高(Solanas, Selvam, Navarro, & Leiva, 2012)。分離型多元化往往通過標準差(standard deviation, SD)或平均歐幾里得距離(mean Euclidean distance, MED)進行衡量。

多樣型多元化通常指的是與知識和經歷相關的種類上的差異, 如專長、職能背景和行業經歷方面的多元化(Harrison & Klein, 2007)。從表1可以看到, 當團隊內所有成員處于同一分類時, 多樣型多元化程度最低; 而當團隊內所有成員所處的分類都不同的時候, 多樣型多元化程度最高(Harrison &Sin, 2006; Solanas et al., 2012)。多樣型多元化往往通過Blau系數或熵(Entropy)指數進行衡量。

不平等型多元化通常指的是團隊成員在有價值的資源或社會資產方面的差異(Harrison & Klein,2007; Magee & Galinsky, 2008)。例如, 任期較長的成員在占有組織各項資源上具有明顯優勢, 進而會形成團隊任期不平等型多元化。從表 1可以看到,當團隊內所有成員擁有相同資源時, 不平等型多元化程度最低; 當團隊所有資源被一個人所占有, 而其他成員均處于最底層, 沒有任何資源的時候, 不平等型多元化程度最高(Harrison & Sin, 2006)。不平等型多元化往往通過基尼系數(gini coefficient)或變異系數(coefficient of variation, CV)進行衡量。

2.2 團隊多元化與團隊績效

分離型多元化的理論基礎為相似性吸引理論和社會分類理論。相似性吸引理論認為團隊成員的相似性能夠降低分離型多元化, 此時所有成員的態度和觀點較為類似, 有助于產生更高的合作水平、信任和社會整合程度(Guillaume et al., 2013; Williams& O'Reilly, 1998)。而根據社會分類理論, 較高的分離型多元化往往會誘發團隊斷層(faultlines), 并促進團隊內部基于身份的子群體的產生(Carton &Cummings, 2012, 2013; Cooper, Patel, & Thatcher,2014)。此時子群體成員往往會更關心子群體內部成員的利益, 而將子群體以外成員當做威脅, 這會降低子群體之間的合作意愿和凝聚力。在這種消極氛圍的影響下, 分離型多元化可能會誘發更高的子群體間沖突(Carton & Cummings, 2013; Thatcher &Patel, 2011), 進而導致更差的任務績效(de Wit,Greer, & Jehn, 2012; O'Neill, Allen, & Hastings,2013)。因此提出如下假設：

假設1a：分離型多元化與團隊績效負相關。

多樣型多元化的理論基礎為信息加工理論和變異-選擇-保留理論, 這些理論通常認為擁有不同人口統計特征的成員可能擁有不同的經驗和看問題的方式, 會為團隊帶來不同的決策信息(Han,Han, & Brass, 2014), 能夠拓展團隊視野并促進團隊知識的整合, 從而促進更高的團隊創造性、更高的決策質量以及更高的團隊靈活性(Guillaume et al.,2013; van Dijk & van Engen, 2013)。因此, 由于積極的信息加工過程, 多樣型多元化能夠改善團隊和組織績效(Qian, Cao, & Takeuchi, 2013)。基于此, 提出如下假設：

假設1b：多樣型多元化與團隊績效正相關。

不平等型多元化的理論基礎為公平理論和社會等級理論, 這些理論通常認為不平等能夠增加團隊成員之間的競爭, 降低成員之間的溝通意愿, 并提升成員的不公平感(Connelly, Tihanyi, Crook, &Gangloff, 2014)。團隊成員的人口統計特征往往會與團隊內有價值的資源發生關聯(Harrison & Klein,2007; van Dijk & van Engen, 2013)。因此, 當人口統計特征不平等程度較高的時候, 與這種人口統計特征發生關聯的團隊資源的不平等程度也較高(Harrison & Klein, 2007)。這可能會誘發某些團隊成員的不滿, 降低團隊成員的投入、工作積極性和合作水平, 進而降低團隊的績效水平(Trevor, Reilly,& Gerhart, 2012)。基于此, 提出如下假設：

假設1c：不平等型多元化與團隊績效負相關。

2.3 績效類型的調節作用

團隊多元化與績效的關系可能會隨著績效類型的不同而不同。常見的團隊績效可以分為創新績效(即創新過程的效率和產出)和一般任務績效(既一般任務過程的效率和產出)兩類(Bell et al., 2011;Joshi & Roh, 2009)。從不同類型的多元化來看, 多樣型多元化能夠整合團隊成員不同的信息來源, 有利于提升團隊創新績效(van Knippenberg &Schippers, 2007)。然而, 在創新過程中, 多樣型多元化往往會引發消極的團隊沖突(Qian et al., 2013),進而降低團隊任務績效(de Wit et al., 2012)。因此,多樣型多元化與創新績效的正向關系可能會強于其與一般任務績效的關系。從分離型多元化和不平等型多元化來看, 分離和不平等會降低團隊成員的合作意愿, 這種不合作既不利于團隊創新, 也會進一步影響團隊任務績效表現。此外, 分離和不平等會產生消極的交互過程, 如較低的凝聚力(Thatcher& Patel, 2011)和較高的不公平感(Halevy, Chou, &Galinsky, 2011), 更加不利于任務績效的提升。因此,與創新績效相比, 分離型多元化和不平等型多元化與一般任務績效的負面關系更強。故提出如下假設：

假設2：績效類型會調節團隊多元化與團隊績效的關系, 即多樣型多元化與創新績效的正相關程度高于一般任務績效, 而分離型多元化、不平等型多元化與團隊一般任務績效的負相關程度高于創新績效。

2.4 國家地域的調節作用

一些研究者指出團隊多元化的作用機理可能會隨著國家和地域的不同而不同(Johnson,Schnatterly, & Hill, 2013)。借鑒先前組織管理領域的元分析, 本研究將國家地域分為東方國家和西方國家兩類(Anderson et al., 2010), 處于同一地域的國家往往擁有相似的價值觀和文化(Gupta, Hanges,& Dorfman, 2002)。西方研究者多認為分離型多元化會造成團隊沖突, 進而導致團隊績效的下降(Carton & Cummings, 2012)。然而, 對于集體主義思想占主流的東方國家而言, 人們更加傾向于維持和諧的氛圍, 盡力回避潛在的競爭和沖突行為(Qian et al., 2013), 這也意味著分離型多元化在東方國家中的負面作用會被削弱。對于多樣型多元化而言, 同西方國家相比, 諸如中國、日本、韓國等東方國家的員工更加傾向于相互合作(Kim, Wang,Kondo, & Kim, 2007; Wang, Jing, & Klossek, 2007),因而更可能從成員多樣中獲益, 并產生更高的團隊績效。對于不平等型多元化而言, 由于東方集體主義國家的任務依賴程度更高, 增加了團隊對等級和不平等的需求, 能夠更好的發揮等級和不平等的排序和激勵作用(Halevy et al., 2011), 從而改善團隊績效。基于此, 提出如下假設：

假設3：國家地域會調節團隊多元化與團隊績效之間的關系, 即與西方國家相比, 東方國家中的多樣型多元化與團隊績效的正面關系會更強; 而與東方國家相比, 西方國家中的分離型多元化和不平等型多元化與團隊績效的負面關系會更強。

2.5 團隊類型的調節作用

團隊類型也可能會調節多元化與績效之間的關系(Joshi & Roh, 2009)。常見的團隊類型包括高管團隊、研發團隊和一般工作團隊等(Bell et al., 2011;de Wit et al., 2012)。從團隊的工作內容來看, 高管團隊通常面臨大量復雜的決策任務, 研發團隊通常需要創造和開發新的產品與服務, 而一般工作團隊則以常規任務為主(Bell et al., 2011)。

從分離型多元化角度來看, 分離往往形成團隊斷層和子群體, 并誘發子群體間沖突(Thatcher &Patel, 2011, 2012), 而團隊沖突領域的研究者則發現團隊沖突的負面作用在高管團隊以外的團隊類型中表現的更為明顯(de Wit et al., 2012)。因此, 本研究預期高管團隊的分離型多元化與團隊績效的負相關程度低于研發團隊和一般工作團隊。

從多樣型多元化角度來看, 高管團隊和研發團隊面臨的任務具有一定的非常規性和不確定性, 經常需要一些獨到的觀點和新穎的方案, 因而更加需要團隊成員多樣的觀點來彌補單個高管決策的不足(de Wit et al., 2012; 任兵, 魏立群, 周思賢,2011)。而對于一般工作團隊而言, 由于其所面臨的任務相對較為常規, 解決起來相對比較容易, 因而對團隊多樣的需求較低(Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007)。這說明與一般工作團隊相比, 高管團隊和研發團隊更能從團隊多樣中獲益。

從不平等型多元化角度來看, 不平等可能會在權力更高的團隊(如高管團隊)中發揮更大的負面作用。研究表明, 當團隊成員的權力都很低時(如研發團隊和一般工作團隊), 團隊不平等有助于解決沖突, 促進團隊和諧; 而當團隊成員的權力都很高時(如高管團隊), 團隊成員更傾向于權力爭斗, 此時的不平等不利于團隊沖突的解決, 進而引發低績效(Greer & van Kleef, 2010)。這說明團隊不平等對于高管團隊更加有害。基于此, 提出如下假設：

假設4：團隊類型會調節團隊多元化與團隊績效的關系, 即與其他類型團隊相比, 高管團隊中的分離型多元化與績效的負向關系更低, 一般工作團隊中的多樣型多元化與績效的正相關程度更低, 高管團隊中的不平等型多元化與績效的負向關系更強。

本研究的概念模型如圖1所示。

圖1 研究模型

3 研究方法

3.1 文獻查找

文獻查找的時間范圍限定于1984～2014年間公開發表的學術論文。中文文獻為發表在心理學CSSCI期刊(如心理學報、心理科學)以及國家自然科學基金委認定的30種管理科學重要期刊上(如管理世界、南開管理評論)的論文, 通過在中國知網(CNKI)搜索主題包含“團隊”或“群體”, 并且包含“異質性”、“多元化”、“多樣性”、“性別”、“年齡”、“任期”、“教育背景”、“學歷”、“職能背景”或“人口統計”等關鍵詞, 并結合檢索到文章的參考文獻進行查漏補充, 初步篩選出254篇文獻。隨后本研究按照如下標準對文獻進行二次篩選：(1)實證研究;(2)采用SD、MED、Blau、Entropy、CV或gini來衡量團隊人口統計特征多元化; (3)文章涉及績效變量;(4)文章中明確報告了相關的效應值(effect size); (5)樣本與其他研究沒有重復。根據這五個標準, 最終得到33篇中文文獻。英文文獻在Web of Knowledge中檢索公開發表的 SSCI期刊(如 Academy of Management Journal、Strategic Management Journal),搜 索 主 題 包 含 “team”或 “group”, 并 且 包 含“heterogeneity”、“diversity”、“dispersion”、“gender/sex”、 “age”、 “tenure”、 “education”、 “function background”或“demography”等關鍵詞。為了減少發表偏差(publication bias), 本研究也通過參考以往元分析的文獻部分進行查漏補缺, 初步篩選出 663篇文獻。根據前面五條文獻篩選標準, 最終得到104篇相關英文文獻。這137篇中英文獻共涉及49個期刊(期刊目錄詳見附錄), 包含 345個效應值,79639個團隊, 所涉及個體超過 537071人。其中,西方國家研究論文86篇, 東方國家研究論文51篇(中國44篇, 東西方國家地域區分詳見下文)。

3.2 變量編碼

本研究遵循Harrison和Klein (2007)的界定及其操作化測量方式, 將通過SD或者MED來衡量多元化的變量編碼為分離型多元化; 將通過 Blau或者Entropy指數來衡量多元化的變量編碼為多樣型多元化; 將通過CV或gini來衡量多元化的變量編碼為不平等型多元化。本研究中的團隊績效是指常規任務過程和創新過程中的效率和產出(Joshi &Roh, 2009)。除了收集各類多元化與績效的效應值之外, 還收集了通過量表測量的團隊主觀績效的內部一致性信度系數, 以用于后續元分析的測量誤差修正。對于某些未報告信度的主觀績效變量, 通過元分析樣本中的信度平均值替代。對于團隊多元化和客觀績效變量, 由于都是客觀數據, 因而假定其不存在測量誤差(Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado,2009)。

績效類型、國家地域和團隊類型依據各論文研究方法部分的樣本描述進行識別。績效類型主要包含一般任務績效和創新績效。其中, 一般任務績效主要是指一般任務過程的效率和產出(Joshi & Roh,2009), 而創新績效主要是指創新過程的效率和產出(Bell et al., 2011)。國家地域類型主要包括西方國家和東方國家。本研究通過對Hofstede (1984)研究中所報告的 50個國家的文化數據進行聚類分析,將樣本中的美國、荷蘭、德國、以色列、瑞典、西班牙、愛爾蘭、英國、加拿大、澳大利亞和意大利歸類為西方國家, 將中國內地、中國臺灣、中國香港、新加坡、韓國和日本歸為東方國家和地區。這一結果與Gupta等(2002)基于61個國家的文化聚類分析結果類似。本研究借鑒Bell等(2011)關于團隊的分類, 將團隊類型劃分為高管團隊、研發團隊和其他團隊(即混合工作團隊)。

為了保證多元化類型、效應值數據以及各情境調節變量編碼的準確性, 由兩名博士生對所有實證研究進行獨立編碼, 隨后進行比對。各變量的評定者間信度介于0.83到1.00之間, 均值為0.92, 說明變量編碼存在較高的一致性。對于有差異的數據,兩名博士生再次檢查核對論文中的原始數據, 對于仍存在差異的數據在討論后達成一致。

3.3 元分析過程

元分析軟件采用Comprehensive Meta Analysis 2.0, 首先使用Hunter和Schmidt (2004)的元分析程序估計未修正的基于樣本加權的平均相關系數

r

,其次估計根據測量誤差(信度)修正后的總體相關系數

ρ

, 并基于此計算修正后的總體相關系數的 95%置信區間。本研究遵循Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins和Rothstein (2011)的建議, 在元分析過程中全部采用隨機效應模型。在進行各組變量關系的元分析之前, 首先采用漏斗圖法、Egger檢驗法以及Begg和Mazumdar檢驗法來檢驗各組變量關系效應值的發表偏差問題(Borenstein et al., 2011)。整體而言, 各組變量關系效應值的漏斗圖顯示效應值多呈對稱分布, 且集中在平均值附近; Egger檢驗以及 Begg和Mazumdar檢驗結果均未達到統計上的顯著性水平, 說明本研究所包含樣本的發表偏差效應并不明顯。元分析過程中調節變量的顯著性通過統計量

Q

進行衡量, 如果該統計量顯著, 則表明效應值在不同類別間存在顯著差異。

Q

是進行組內異質性檢驗的統計量, 如果顯著則表明組內仍存在未被識別的調節變量。

4 結果

從表2可以看到, 分離型多元化與績效弱負相關, 但未達到顯著水平; 多樣型多元化與績效顯著正相關(

ρ

= 0.07,

p

< 0.001); 不平等型多元化與績效的關系不顯著。因而, 假設1b得到支持, 假設1a和1c沒有得到驗證。從表2的異質性檢驗可以看到, 所有效應值的

Q

統計量均達到顯著水平, 說明在不同類型多元化與團隊績效的關系鏈中存在一些潛在的情境調節變量。由于本研究的團隊績效既包含一般任務績效,也包含創新績效(Bell et al., 2011; Joshi & Roh,2009), 因此我們也比較了團隊多元化與不同類型績效之間關系的差異, 即績效類型的潛在調節作用(見表3)。可以看到, 多樣型多元化與創新績效(

ρ

=0.12,

p

< 0.001)和任務績效(

ρ

= 0.05,

p

< 0.01)的正相關程度存在顯著差異(

Q

= 6.43,

p

< 0.001), 而不平等型多元化與創新績效(

ρ

= 0.05,

p

< 0.05)和任務績效(

ρ

= –0.02,

p

= 0.18)的關系也存在顯著差異(

Q

= 5.87,

p

< 0.05), 說明績效類型能夠顯著調節多元化與績效之間的關系。因此, 假設2得到部分驗證。表 4列出了地域作為潛在調節變量的分析結果。可以看到, 地域對多樣型多元化與績效的調節作用顯著(

Q

= 7.63,

p

< 0.01)。在東方國家中, 多樣型多元化與績效強相關(

ρ

= 0.10,

p

< 0.001); 而在西方國家中, 多樣型多元化與績效邊際正相關(

ρ

=0.03,

p

< 0.10)。地域對不平等型多元化與績效的調節作用也是顯著的(

Q

= 4.62,

p

< 0.05)。在東方國家中, 盡管不平等型多元化與績效的關系不顯著,但表現出了一定正相關的趨勢; 而在西方國家中,不平等型多元化與績效邊際負相關(

ρ

= –0.02,

p

<0.10)。然而, 地域對分離型多元化與績效關系的調節作用不顯著。因而, 假設3得到了部分驗證。表5列出了團隊類型作為潛在調節變量的分析結果。可以看到, 團隊類型對多樣型多元化與績效關系的調節作用顯著(

Q

= 24.34,

p

< 0.001), 多樣型多元化與研發團隊績效(

ρ

= 0.23,

p

< 0.001)和高管團隊績效(

ρ

= 0.07,

p

< 0.001)顯著正相關, 但多樣型多元化與混合工作團隊績效關系并不顯著。團隊類型對其他類型多元化與績效關系的調節作用不顯著, 因此假設4得到部分驗證。為了更進一步理解團隊和地域的調節作用, 我們對團隊類型和地域進行了交叉, 以比較特定團隊類型中地域的調節作用, 結果如表6所示。可以看到, 東、西方國家研發團隊的多樣型多元化與績效關系存在顯著差異(

Q

= 4.98,

p

< 0.05), 與西方國家研發團隊相比(

ρ

= 0.06,

p

= 0.52), 東方國家研發團隊多樣型多元化與績效的正相關程度更強(

ρ

=0.31,

p

< 0.001)。此外, 與東方國家高管團隊相比,西方高管團隊的不平等型多元化表現出顯著的負面作用(

ρ

= –0.03,

p

< 0.05), 說明地域對于高管團隊中的不平等型多元化與績效關系的調節作用顯著(

Q

= 5.93,

p

< 0.05)。

表2 團隊分離、多樣與不平等對團隊績效的影響

表3 績效類型對團隊多元化與團隊績效關系的調節作用

表4 地域對團隊多元化與團隊績效關系的調節作用

表5 團隊類型對團隊多元化與團隊績效關系的調節作用

表6 不同團隊類型中地域的調節作用

5 討論

5.1 不同類型多元化與團隊績效

從元分析的主效應來看, 多樣型多元化與團隊績效正相關, 這與信息加工理論的基本假設相一致。然而, 分離型多元化和不平等型多元化與團隊績效的主效應并不顯著。這些結果說明對團隊多元化進行合理分類是非常必要的, 并不是所有的團隊人口統計特征多元化都會對團隊結果產生顯著影響。通過對以往國內文獻的回顧, 我們發現國內研究很少明確區分這些維度, 并采用與之匹配的理論和操作化測量方式。相反, 國內研究多是通過 CV衡量連續型人口統計特征多元化, 通過 Blau或Entropy指數衡量離散型人口統計特征多元化。我們的研究結果表明這種研究取向是不可取的。從理論角度而言, 不同的測量對應于不同的多元化類型(見表 1), 而不同類型的多元化又具有不同的理論含義及影響機理。研究者必須根據理論基礎來選擇相對應的操作化方式。如果研究者將團隊多元化界定為多樣型多元化, 本應通過Blau或Entropy指數進行操作化, 但在實際操作過程中卻采用CV或SD的測量方式, 就可能會導致錯誤的結果。此外, 從元分析中所涉及的中文實證研究來看, 中國學者對分離型多元化的關注度較低, 限制了對該類型多元化在中國文化背景下作用機制的理解, 這也有待今后研究者進行拓展。

5.2 績效類型對多元化-績效關系的調節作用

調節效應檢驗結果顯示, 團隊多元化與不同類型績效的關系存在顯著差異。多樣型多元化與創新績效的相關性高于與一般任務績效的相關性, 這說明多樣型多元化有利于促進新想法的產生, 但在轉化為最終團隊輸出的時候, 其效力有所下降。令我們感到意外的是, 不平等型多元化能夠顯著提升團隊創新績效, 但與任務績效關系并不顯著。這可能得益于社會等級帶來的溝通效率的提升(Magee &Galinsky, 2008), 進而改善團隊創新績效水平, 但與此同時, 不平等可能對團隊成員態度造成消極影響(Harrison & Klein, 2007), 進而削弱了創新向任務結果的轉化。因此, 我們建議研究者在進行團隊多元化的相關研究時, 需要明確區分團隊結果變量類型以及多元化類型, 提升研究結論的針對性和可靠性。

5.3 國家地域對多元化-績效關系的調節作用

先前的研究很少比較不同國家團隊多元化研究結果的差異。我們的研究結果證實了國家地域的調節作用, 這說明在不同國家地域中, 企業應當采取不同的多元化管理策略。盡管多樣型多元化對于東西方國家都具有積極作用, 但是在受儒家思想影響較大的東方國家中, 多樣型多元化與績效的相關性明顯高于西方國家。這可能得益于東方國家的集體主義取向, 在團隊協作方面較西方團隊更勝一籌(Wang et al., 2007), 因而東方國家的團隊更能夠發揮多樣型多元化的優點。此外, 與社會等級理論的核心觀點相一致, 元分析結果表明西方國家不平等型多元化的負面作用更強。這是因為西方國家以高個體主義和低權力距離價值觀為主, 彼此之間的相互依賴程度較低, 且更加注重組織和團隊公平, 因而團隊資源的不平等配置往往會帶來消極的結果(Halevy et al., 2011)。同時, 儒家思想所倡導的關系取向使東方人更加注重內部和諧(Chen, Chen, &Huang, 2013), 這也使得東方國家不平等型多元化的負面作用較西方國家明顯下降。

5.4 團隊類型對多元化-績效關系的調節作用

元分析結果驗證了團隊類型對多元化和績效關系的調節作用。對于決策型的高管團隊和智力型的研發團隊而言, 由于成員彼此之間的相互依賴程度較高, 多樣型多元化能夠較好地促進知識和經歷的整合, 因而其積極作用更大; 而對于一般的工作團隊而言, 由于工作任務的相互依賴程度較低, 多樣型多元化并不能發揮信息整合的優勢。

同時, 通過進一步的元分析, 我們發現研發團隊、高管團隊的多元化與績效的關系也存在地域差異。在東方國家中, 研發團隊的多樣型多元化表現出了更強的正面作用, 我們認為這主要是得益于東方國家人們在研發任務中展示出較高的合作水平(Kim et al., 2007); 而在西方國家中, 研發團隊的多樣型多元化與績效的關系并不顯著, 其可能的原因在于西方個體主義國家的人們在研發任務中更加傾向于說服其他人, 展示出較多的競爭行為(O'Neill et al., 2013), 進而削弱了研發團隊的績效。此外, 在西方國家中, 高管團隊不平等型多元化表現出了較強的負面作用, 這與西方的高管團隊等級研究結果較為一致; 而在東方國家中, 高管團隊不平等型多元化與績效的關系并不顯著, 可能的原因在于中國是高權力距離社會, 對于不平等的接納程度更高(Hofstede, 1984), 從而在一定程度上削弱了團隊不平等的消極作用。

5.5 研究啟示和局限

從企業實踐的角度來講, 本文的研究結果有助于跨國企業和中國本土企業通過合理的多元化管理來提升團隊和企業績效。企業應當意識到多樣型多元化所帶來的好處, 尤其是在東方國家以及研發和高管團隊中所發揮的重要作用。同時, 企業也應當意識到團隊所處情境的重要性, 必須根據自身特點制定適合自己的人才多元化管理策略。東方國家團隊管理者更應該重視多樣型多元化配置策略, 發揮集體的作用; 而西方國家團隊管理者除了發揮團隊多樣的潛在好處之外, 還要避免團隊成員特征的不平等配置。

本研究也不可避免的存在一些缺陷。首先, 部分元分析的效應值數量偏少, 可能會限制其有效性。其次, 本文所關注的調節變量是遠遠不夠的,元分析結果中很多組內效應異質性檢驗的

Q

統計量也是顯著的, 表明仍有很多情境變量尚未考慮進來, 也需要今后研究進一步探索。本研究也試圖對行業等情境變量進行編碼, 但是國內外研究對行業的界定非常不同, 行業交叉現象非常嚴重, 且很多研究沒有報告行業類型, 最終不得不放棄對行業調節作用的檢驗。本研究建議今后的研究在樣本描述上更加規范, 為后續的元分析提供良好的數據參考。

需要指出的是, 本研究主要關注的是團隊人口統計多元化與績效之間的關系, 并沒有關注深層多元化對績效的影響, 如團隊能力多元化、人格多元化(Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998)、情感多元化(Barsade & Gibson, 2012)與團隊績效的關系。當前國內深層次多元化與團隊績效關系的研究尚不多見, 也值得研究者進行進一步的探索。此外,團隊多元化不僅僅局限于個體成員之間的差異, 也可以表現為團隊斷層和團隊子群體之間的差異(Carton & Cummings, 2012)。例如, 分離型多元化會形成基于分離的斷層, 進而產生基于身份的子群體; 多樣型多元化會形成基于多樣的斷層, 進而產生基于知識的子群體; 不平等型多元化會形成基于不平等的斷層, 進而產生基于資源的子群體(Carton & Cummings, 2012)。因而, 未來研究者也可以關注團隊斷層、團隊子群體多元化對團隊交互過程和結果的影響。

6 結論

團隊人口統計特征多元化問題越來越受到理論界和實踐界的關注, 但其研究結論存在諸多不一致。鑒于此, 研究者開始嘗試對多元化進行分類,以期解釋產生這些相矛盾結論的原因。本研究在借鑒 Harrison和 Klein (2007)分類方法的基礎上, 運用元分析的方法檢驗了團隊分離型多元化、多樣型多元化與不平等型多元化對團隊績效的影響。結果顯示不同類型的團隊多元化與績效關系存在較大差異, 且這些關系會受到績效類型、國家地域和團隊類型的調節。具體表現為如下四個方面：(1)從主效應來看, 團隊多樣型多元化對績效有正向影響,而分離型多元化和不平等型多元化與績效的關系并不顯著; (2)從績效類型來看, 多樣型多元化、不平等型多元化與創新績效的相關性顯著高于其與一般任務績效的相關性; (3)從國家地域角度來看,東方國家的多樣型多元化表現出了更強的正面作用, 而西方國家的不平等型多元化表現出了更強的負面作用; (4)從團隊類型角度來看, 多樣型多元化在研發團隊和高管團隊中的正面作用更強。

致謝

：感謝加拿大西安大略大學心理學系Helen Lee博士對本文英文摘要的修訂!

*表示元分析用到的文獻

*Ali, M., Ng, Y. L., & Kulik, C. T. (2014). Board age and gender diversity: A test of competing linear and curvilinear predictions.

Journal of Business Ethics, 125

, 497–512.*Amason, A. C., Shrader, R. C., & Tompson, G. H. (2006).Newness and novelty: Relating top management team composition to new venture performance.

Journal of Business Venturing, 21

, 125–148.*Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance.

Organization Science, 3

, 321–341.Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman,B. J., Sakamoto, A., …Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review.

Psychological Bulletin, 136

, 151–173.*Andrevski, G., Richard, O. C., Shaw, J. D., & Ferrier, W. J.(2014). Racial diversity and firm performance: The mediating role of competitive intensity.

Journal of Management, 40

,820–844.*Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2006). Diversity at the executive suite: A resource-based approach to the customer orientation–organizational performance relationship.

Journal of Business Research, 59

, 564–572.*Balkundi, P., Kilduff, M., Barsness, Z. I., & Michael, J. H.(2007). Demographic antecedents and performance consequences of structural holes in work teams.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28

, 241–260.*Bantel, K. A. (1993). Top team, environment, and performance effects on strategic planning formality.

Group & Organization Management, 18

, 436–458.*Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?

Strategic Management Journal,10

(S1), 107–124.*Barkema, H. G., & Shvyrkov, O. (2007). Does top management team diversity promote or hamper foreign expansion?

Strategic Management Journal, 28

, 663–680.Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K.(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83

, 377–391.Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2012). Group affect: Its influence on individual and group outcomes.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21

, 119–123.*Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J.A. (2000). To your heart's content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 45

, 802–836.*Baugh, S. G., & Graen, G. B. (1997). Effects of team gender and racial composition on perceptions of team performance in cross-functional teams.

Group & Organization Management,22

, 366–383.*Bayazit, M., & Mannix, E. A. (2003). Should i stay or should i go? Predicting team members' intent to remain in the team.

Small Group Research, 34

, 290–321.Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs,A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Management, 37

, 709–743.*Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth.

Academy of Management Journal, 40

, 152–170.*Boone, C., & Hendriks, W. (2009). Top management team diversity and firm performance: Moderators of functionalbackground and locus-of-control diversity.

Management Science, 55

, 165–180.*Boone, C., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2005). Team locus-of-control composition, leadership structure, information acquisition, and financial performance: A business simulation study.

Academy of Management Journal, 48

,889–909.Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H.R. (2011).

Introduction to meta-analysis

. Chichester,United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.*Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects.

Academy of Management Journal, 45

, 875–893.*Buyl, T., Boone, C., Hendriks, W., & Matthyssens, P. (2011).Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: The moderating role of CEO characteristics.

Journal of Management Studies, 48

, 151–177.*Cady, S. H., & Valentine, J. (1999). Team innovation and perceptions of consideration what difference does diversity make?

Small Group Research, 30

, 730–750.*Cai, L., Liu, Q., & Yu, X. Y. (2013). Effects of top management team heterogeneous background and behavioural attributes on the performance of new ventures.

Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30

, 354–366.*Cannella, A. A. Jr, Park, J. H., & Lee, H. U. (2008). Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty.

Academy of Management Journal, 51

, 768–784.*Carpenter, M. A. (2002). The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance.

Strategic Management Journal, 23

, 275–284.Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams.

Academy of Management Review,37

, 441–470.Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2013). The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 98

,732–758.Chen, C. C., Chen, X. P., & Huang, S. S. (2013). Chinese

guanxi

: An integrative review and new directions for future research.

Management and Organization Review, 9

, 167–207.*Chen, X., Li, S. M., & Zhu, X. N. (2005). Demographic diversity and top management turnover: An investigation of China's Listed IT companies.

Management Review, 17

(8),9–16.[陳璇, 李仕明, 祝小寧. (2005). 團隊異質性與高層更換:我國上市IT公司的實證研究.

管理評論, 17

(8), 9–16.]*Chen, Y., He, Y. Q., & Chen, X. J. (2011). The mediating role of TMT characteristics on the relationship between diversification and firm performance.

Forecasting, 30

(1),10–17.[陳昀, 賀遠瓊, 陳向軍. (2011). TMT特征對多元化與企業績效關系的調節效應研究.

預測, 30

(1), 10–17.]*Chi, N. W., Huang, Y. M., & Lin, S. C. (2009). A doubleedged sword? Exploring the curvilinear relationship between organizational tenure diversity and team innovation: The moderating role of team-oriented HR practices.

Group &Organization Management, 34

, 698–726.Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Crook, T. R., & Gangloff, K. A.(2014). Tournament theory: Thirty years of contests and competitions.

Journal of Management, 40

, 16–47.Cooper, D., Patel, P. C., & Thatcher, S. M. (2014). It depends:Environmental context and the effects of faultlines on top management team performance.

Organization Science, 25

,633–652.*Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity,and knowledge sharing in a global organization.

Management Science, 50

, 352–364.*Curseu, P. L., Raab, J., Han, J., & Loenen, A. (2012).Educational diversity and group effectiveness: A social network perspective.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27

,576–594.*Cur?eu, P. L., Schalk, R., & Schruijer, S. (2010). The use of cognitive mapping in eliciting and evaluating group cognitions.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40

, 1258–1291.*Cur?eu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict? Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust.

Group dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14

, 66–79.*Daniel, S., Agarwal, R., & Stewart, K. J. (2013). The effects of diversity in global, distributed collectives: A study of open source project success.

Information Systems Research,24

, 312–333.*Díaz-García, C., González-Moreno, A., & Sáez-Martínez, F. J.(2013). Gender diversity within r & d teams: Its impact on radicalness of innovation.

Innovation: Management, Policy& Practice, 15

, 149–160.*de Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & van der Zee, K. I. (2014).Leadership and organizational tenure diversity as determinants of project team effectiveness.

Group &Organization Management, 39

, 532–560.de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 97

, 360–390.*Der Foo, M., Kam Wong, P., & Ong, A. (2005). Do others think you have a viable business idea? Team diversity and judges' evaluation of ideas in a business plan competition.

Journal of Business Venturing, 20

, 385–402.*Dezs?, C. L., & Ross, D. G. (2012). Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation.

Strategic Management Journal, 33

,1072–1089.*Drach-Zahavy, A., & Freund, A. (2007). Team effectiveness under stress: A structural contingency approach.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28

, 423–450.*Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures.

Group dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5

, 111–123.*Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2002). Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness.

Journal of Educational Administration, 40

, 44–66.*Du, X. Q. (2014). Does confucianism reduce board gender diversity? Firm-level evidence from China.

Journal of Business Ethics

, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2508-x.*Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25

, 755–780.*Faems, D., & Subramanian, A. M. (2013). R & d manpower and technological performance: The impact of demographic and task-related diversity.

Research Policy, 42

, 1624–1633.Greer, L. L., & van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 95

, 1032–1044.*Gu, J. J., & Hu, B. (2008). Relation of heterogeneity of knowledge framework and occupation background about top management team and enterprise technological innovation performance: An empirical study based on enterprise of industry cluster.

R & D Management, 20

(2), 28–33.[古家軍, 胡蓓. (2008). TMT知識結構, 職業背景的異質性與企業技術創新績效關系——基于產業集群內企業的實證研究.

研究與發展管理, 20

(2), 28–33.]Guillaume, Y. R., Dawson, J. F., Woods, S. A., Sacramento, C.A., & West, M. A. (2013). Getting diversity at work to work: What we know and what we still don't know.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86

, 123–141.Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings.

Journal of World Business, 37

, 11–15.Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009).Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94

, 1128–1145.Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance.

Organizational Psychology Review, 1

, 32–52.Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update.

Academy of Management Review, 32

, 334–343.*Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms'competitive moves.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 41

,659–684.*Han, J., Han, J., & Brass, D. J. (2014). Human capital diversity in the creation of social capital for team creativity.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35

, 54–71.Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference?Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 32

,1199–1228.*Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T.(2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning.

Academy of Management Journal, 45

, 1029–1045.Harrison, D. A., & Sin, H. (2006). What is diversity and how should it be measured. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K.Pringle (Eds.),

Handbook of workplace diversity

(pp.191–216). Newbury Park, USA: Sage.*Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., &Atkins, C. (2010). Investing with prejudice: The relationship between women's presence on company boards and objective and subjective measures of company performance.

British Journal of Management, 21

, 484–497.*He, W. F., & Liu, Q. L. (2010). A study on the relationship between the characteristics of the background of the top managers of China's listed companies and their behavior of financial restatement.

Management World,

(7), 144–155.[何威風, 劉啟亮. (2010). 我國上市公司高管背景特征與財務重述行為研究.

管理世界,

(7), 144–155.]*He, X. G., & Shen, Y. (2008). The growth of entrepreneurial companies: Empirical study based on capitals of entrepreneur team.

Management World,

(1), 82–95.[賀小剛, 沈瑜. (2008). 創業型企業的成長: 基于企業家團隊資本的實證研究.

管理世界,

(1), 82–95.]*Henneke, D., & Lüthje, C. (2007). Interdisciplinary heterogeneity as a catalyst for product innovativeness of entrepreneurial teams.

Creativity and Innovation Management,16

, 121–132.*Hoch, J. E. (2014). Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29

,541–564.*Hoch, J. E., Pearce, C. L., & Welzel, L. (2010). Is the most effective team leadership shared? The impact of shared leadership, age diversity, and coordination on team performance.

Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9

, 105–116.Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning.

Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1

, 81–99.Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography.

Journal of Management, 33

, 987-1015.*Huang, H. C., Lai, M. C., Kao, M. C., & Chen, Y. C. (2012).Target costing, business model innovation, and firm performance: An empirical analysis of Chinese firms.

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 29

, 322–335.*Huang, Y., Yang, N. D., & Zhang, C. L. (2011). Influence of the top management team heterogeneity and the firm performance: To focus on ownership concentration.

Management Review, 23

(11), 120–125.[黃越, 楊乃定, 張宸璐. (2011). 高層管理團隊異質性對企業績效的影響研究——以股權集中度為調節變量.

管理評論, 23

(11), 120–125.]Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004).

Methods of meta-analysis:Correcting error and bias in research findings

. Newbury Park, USA: Sage.*Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in social context:A multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales performance.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25

,675–702.*Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25

, 703–729.Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence social capital, human capital, and demographics.

Journal of Management, 39

,232–262.Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review.

Academy of Management Journal, 52

, 599–627.*Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94

, 77–89.*Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members' need for cognition.

Academy of Management Journal, 52

, 581–598.*Keller, R. T. (1994). Technology-information processing fit and the performance of r & d project groups: A test of contingency theory.

Academy of Management Journal, 37

,167–179.*Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity,communications, job stress, and outcomes.

Academy of Management Journal, 44

, 547–555.*Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R., & Mehra, A. (2000). Top management-team diversity and firm performance:Examining the role of cognitions.

Organization Science, 11

,21–34.Kim, T. Y., Wang, C. W., Kondo, M., & Kim, T. H. (2007).Conflict management styles: The differences among the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 18

, 23–41.*Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader-team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness.

Group & Organization Management, 29

,334–368.*Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Organizational performance consequences of age diversity: Inspecting the role of diversity-friendly HR policies and top managers'negative age stereotypes.

Journal of Management Studies,50

, 413–442.*Lee, C., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Joint effects of group efficacy and gender diversity on group cohesion and performance.

Applied Psychology, 53

, 136–154.*Lee, H. U., & Park, J. H. (2006). Top team diversity,internationalization and the mediating effect of international alliances.

British Journal of Management, 17

, 195–213.*Li, H. J., & Xing, X. D. (2007). TMT and CES: An empirical analysis based on the integration of theories.

Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 28

(9), 139–144.[李華晶, 邢曉東. (2007). 高管團隊與公司創業戰略: 基于高階理論和代理理論融合的實證研究.

科學學與科學技術管理, 28

(9), 139–144.]*Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams.

Academy of Management Journal, 48

,794–813.*Li, W. N., Li, D. Y., Meng, D. Y., & Han, X. (2014). An empirical study on TMT heterogeneity and firm performance in Chinese manufacturing companies with declined performance.

Chinese Journal of Management, 11

, 819–827.[李衛寧, 李丹陽, 孟德穎, 韓旭. (2014). 績效下滑制造企業 TMT 異質性與企業績效關系的實證研究.

管理學報,11

, 819–827.]*Li, W. N., & Wu, D. (2014). Study on the relationship between demographic characteristics of new CEO and improvement of corporate performance: TMT heterogeneity moderation effect.

Chinese Journal of Management, 11

,1158–1167.[李衛寧, 吳荻. (2014). 基于 TMT 年齡和任期異質性調節效應的新任 CEO 顯性特征與經營績效關系研究.

管理學報, 11

, 1158–1167.]*Lin, X. M., Bai, X. W., & Lin, L. (2014). Effects of similarity and accuracy indices of shared mental models on team creativity.

Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46

, 1734–1747.[林曉敏, 白新文, 林琳. (2014). 團隊心智模型相似性與正確性對團隊創造力的影響.

心理學報, 46

, 1734–1747.]*Lin, X. M., Lin, L., Wang, Y. L., & Bai, X. W. (2014).Empowering leadership and team performance: The transative memory system as a medium variable.

Management Review,26

(1), 78–87.[林曉敏, 林琳, 王永麗, 白新文. (2014). 授權型領導與團隊績效: 交互記憶系統的中介作用.

管理評論, 26

(1), 78–87.]*Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001).Maximizing cross-functional new product teams'innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective.

Academy of Management Journal, 44

, 779–793.*Ma, F. P., & Guo, X. C. (2010). A study on the correlation between heterogeneity of TMT and technological innovation performance: The moderating role of behavioral integration of TMT.

Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 31

(12), 186–191.[馬富萍, 郭曉川. (2010). 高管團隊異質性與技術創新績效的關系研究——以高管團隊行為整合為調節變量.

科學學與科學技術管理, 31

(12), 186–191.]*Ma, L., Wu, J. N., & Shi, Z. Y. (2012). Determinants of science project performance: An empirical analysis of general programs of the DHS in NSFC.

Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 33

(7), 12–20.[馬亮, 吳建南, 時仲毅. (2012). 科研項目績效的影響因素:醫學科學基金面上項目的實證分析.

科學學與科學技術管理, 33

(7), 12–20.]*MacCurtain, S., Flood, P. C., Ramamoorthy, N., West, M. A.,& Dawson, J. F. (2010). The top management team,reflexivity, knowledge sharing and new product performance: A study of the irish software industry.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 19

, 219–232.Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status.

The Academy of Management Annals, 2

, 351–398.*Mayo, M., Pastor, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (1996). The effects of group heterogeneity on the self-perceived efficacy of group leaders.

The Leadership Quarterly, 7

, 265–284.*Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diversification posture and top management team characteristics.

Academy of Management Journal, 35

, 9–37.*Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict.

Journal of Organizational Behavior,25

, 1015–1039.*Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel,W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity,and team performance.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114

, 153–164.*Niu, F., Zhang, Y. L., & Yang, J. (2011). Heterogeneity of entrepreneurial team and new ventures’ performance: The moderating role of team leaders’ optimism.

Management Review, 23

(11), 110–119.[牛芳, 張玉利, 楊俊. (2011). 創業團隊異質性與新企業績效:領導者樂觀心理的調節作用.

管理評論, 23

(11), 110–119.]O'Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013).Examining the “pros” and “cons” of team conflict: A team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict.

Human Performance, 26

, 236–260.*Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Twigg, N. W. (2006).Mediating role of strategic choice between top management team diversity and firm performance: Upper echelons theory revisited.

Journal of Business & Management, 12

,111–126.*Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2003). The effects of sex composition on small-group performance in a business school case competition.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2

, 128–138.*Pegels, C. C., Song, Y. I., & Yang, B. (2000). Management heterogeneity, competitive interaction groups, and firm performance.

Strategic Management Journal, 21

, 911–923.*Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999).Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44

, 1–28.*Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2014). A social composition view of team creativity: The role of member nationality-heterogeneous ties outside of the team.

Organization Science, 25

, 1434–1452.*Peters, L., & Karren, R. J. (2009). An examination of the roles of trust and functional diversity on virtual team performance ratings.

Group & Organization Management,34

, 479–504.*Polzer, J. T., Milton, L. P., & Swarm, W. B. (2002).Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 47

, 296–324.*Post, C. (2012). Deep-level team composition and innovation:The mediating roles of psychological safety and cooperative learning.

Group & Organization Management, 37

, 555–588.*Qian, C. L., Cao, Q., & Takeuchi, R. (2013). Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment.

Strategic Management Journal, 34

, 110–120.*Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 48

,387–400.*Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks,diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate r&d teams.

Organization Science, 12

, 502–517.*Ren, B., Wei, L. Q., & Zhou, S. X. (2011). TMT diversity and organizational innovation: The role of network ties and collaborative decision making.

Chinese Journal of Management, 8

, 1630–1637.[任兵, 魏立群, 周思賢. (2011). 高層管理團隊多樣性與組織創新: 外部社會網絡與內部決策模式的作用.

管理學報, 8

, 1630–1637.]*Ren, T., & Wang, Z. (2010). Female participation in TMT and firm performance: Evidence from Chinese private enterprises.

Nankai Business Review, 13

(5), 81–91.[任颋, 王崢. (2010). 女性參與高管團隊對企業績效的影響:基于中國民營企業的實證研究.

南開管理評論, 13

(5),81–91.]*Richard, O. C., Kirby, S. L., & Chadwick, K. (2013). The impact of racial and gender diversity in management on financial performance: How participative strategy making features can unleash a diversity advantage.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24

,2571–2582.*Richard, O. C., & Shelor, R. M. (2002). Linking top management team age heterogeneity to firm performance:Juxtaposing two mid-range theories.

TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Management, 13

, 958–974.*Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration.

Journal of Management, 33

, 111–132.*Rodriguez, R. A. (1998). Challenging demographic reductionism a pilot study investigating diversity in group composition.

Small Group Research, 29

, 744–759.*Ruiz-Jiménez, J. M., del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M., &Ruiz-Arroyo, M. (2014). Knowledge combination capability and innovation: The effects of gender diversity on top management teams in technology-based firms.

Journal of Business Ethics

, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2462-7.*Schippers, M. C., den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., &Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24

, 779–802.*Shin, S. J., Kim, T. Y., Lee, J. Y., & Bian, L. (2012).Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction.

Academy of Management Journal, 55

, 197–212.*Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92

, 1709–1721.*Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams.

Academy of Management Journal, 42

, 662–673.*Smith, A., Houghton, S. M., Hood, J. N., & Ryman, J. A.(2006). Power relationships among top managers: Does top management team power distribution matter for organizational performance?

Journal of Business Research, 59

, 622–629.*Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims Jr, H. P.,O'Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 39

, 412–438.Solanas, A., Selvam, R. M., Navarro, J., & Leiva, D. (2012).Some common indices of group diversity: Upper boundaries.

Psychological Reports, 111

, 777–796.*Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams.

Journal of Management, 32

, 132–157.*Stewart, M. M., & Johnson, O. E. (2009). Leader-member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and team performance.

Group &Organization Management, 34

, 507–535.*Sun, H. F., Yao, Z. H., & Yan, M. S. (2006). The effect of demographic traits of TMT on performance of textile and IT corporations.

Nankai Business Review, 9

(6), 61–67.[孫海法, 姚振華, 嚴茂勝. (2006). 高管團隊人口統計特征對紡織和信息技術公司經營績效的影響.

南開管理評論,9

(6), 61–67.]Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Demographic faultlines: A meta-analysis of the literature.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96

, 1119–1139.Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, and guide to future research.

Journal of Management, 38

, 969–1009.*Tihanyi, L., Ellstrand, A. E., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R.(2000). Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification.

Journal of Management, 26

,1157–1177.*Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity,interdependence, and team performance.

Small Group Research, 31

, 592–606.Trevor, C. O., Reilly, G., & Gerhart, B. (2012). Reconsidering pay dispersion's effect on the performance of interdependent work: Reconciling sorting and pay inequality.

Academy of Management Journal, 55

, 585–610.*Umans, T., Collin, S. O., & Tagesson, T. (2008). Ethnic and gender diversity, process and performance in groups of business students in sweden.

Intercultural Education, 19

,243–254.*van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification.

Academy of Management Journal, 48

, 532–547.*van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, S., & Kuipers, B. (2010).Why turnover matters in self-managing work teams:Learning, social integration, and task flexibility.

Journal of Management, 36

, 1168–1191.van Dijk, H., & van Engen, M. L. (2013). A status perspective on the consequences of work group diversity.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86

, 223–241.van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity.

Annual Review of Psychology, 58

, 515–541.*Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 18

, 345–375.*Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1984).Organizational demography and turnover in top-management group.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 29

, 74–92.*Wang, D. Y., & Liu, J. H. (2011). The relationship between TMT characteristics and technological innovation.

Science Research Management, 32

(7), 45–52.[王德應, 劉漸和. (2011). TMT特征與企業技術創新關系研究.

科研管理, 32

(7), 45–52.]Wang, G. F, Jing, R. T., & Klossek, A. (2007). Antecedents and management of conflict: Resolution styles of Chinese top managers in multiple rounds of cognitive and affective conflict.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 18

,74–97.*Wang, X. L., Ma, L., & Wang, Y. L. (2013). The impact of TMT functional background on firm performance: Evidence from IT public listed companies in China.

Nankai Business Review, 16

(4), 80–93.[王雪莉, 馬琳, 王艷麗. (2013). 高管團隊職能背景對企業績效的影響: 以中國信息技術行業上市公司為例.

南開管理評論, 16

(4), 80–93.]*Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K. H., & Kanfer,R. (2008). Age and gender diversity as determinants of performance and health in a public organization: The role of task complexity and group size.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 93

, 1301–1313.*Wei, L. Q., & Lau, C. M. (2012). Effective teamwork at the top: The evidence from China.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23

, 1853–1870.*Wei, L. Q., & Wang, Z. H. (2002). Empirical study on the relationship between characteristics of TMTs and firm performance of Chinese businesses.

Nankai Business Review,5

(4), 16–22.[魏立群, 王智慧. (2002). 我國上市公司高管特征與企業績效的實證研究.

南開管理評論, 5

(4), 16–22.]*Wei, L. Q., & Wu, L. Z. (2013). What a diverse top management team means: Testing an integrated model.

Journal of Management Studies, 50

, 389–412.*Wei, X. K. (2006). Relationships between top management team characteristics and firm R&D investment.

Studies in Science of Science, 24

(S2), 553–557.[韋小柯. (2006). 高層管理團隊特征與企業 R&D投入關系研究.

科學學研究, 24

(S2), 553–557.]*Wei, X. H., & Liu, Y. M. (2014). A mediated moderation analysis of the relations among past performance, team efficacy and team conflict.

Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 35

(9), 152–160.[衛旭華, 劉詠梅. (2014). 團隊過往績效、效能感與沖突關系研究.

科學學與科學技術管理, 35

(9), 152–160.]*Welbourne, T. M., Cycyota, C. S., & Ferrante, C. J. (2007).Wall street reaction to women in ipos an examination of gender diversity in top management teams.

Group &Organization Management, 32

, 524–547.*Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. (1993). Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group heterogeneity,individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover.

Academy of Management Journal, 36

, 996–1025.Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 20

, 77–140.

*Wu, B., & Huang, M. F. (2011). Firm performance, human

resources' characteristics of senior managers and control right allocation: Evidence from small and medium board's venture enterprises in China.

China Soft Science,

(4), 161–174.[吳斌, 黃明峰. (2011). 企業績效, 高管人力資本特征與控制權配置——基于我國中小企業板風險企業的經驗數據.

中國軟科學,

(4), 161–174.]*Xiao, T., Liu, H., & Ye, F. (2013). An empirical study on relation between TMT heterogeneity and business model innovation performance: Evidence from listed service firms.

China Soft Science,

(8), 125–135.[肖挺, 劉華, 葉芃. (2013). 高管團隊異質性與商業模式創新績效關系的實證研究: 以服務行業上市公司為例.

中國軟科學,

(8), 125–135.]*Xue, H. Z. (2011). Founding team, formal structure, and new ventures performance.

Journal of Management Science,24

(1), 1–10.[薛紅志. (2011). 創業團隊, 正式結構與新企業績效.

管理科學, 24

(1), 1–10.]*Xue, Y. Z., & Li, G. D. (2009). Empirical study on internationalization strategy implementation and top management composition.

Chinese Journal of Management,6

, 1478–1485.[薛有志, 李國棟. (2009). 國際化戰略實施與高層管理團隊構成實證研究.

管理學報, 6

, 1478–1485.]*Yang, J., Tian, L., Zhang, Y. L., & Wang, W. Y. (2010).Innovation or imitation: The role of entrepreneurial teams'experience heterogeneity and conflicts.

Management World,

(3), 84–96.[楊俊, 田莉, 張玉利, 王偉毅. (2010). 創新還是模仿: 創業團隊經驗異質性與沖突特征的角色.

管理世界,

(3), 84–96.]*Yap, C. M., Chai, K. H., & Lemaire, P. (2005). An empirical study on functional diversity and innovation in SMEs.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 14

, 176–190.*Zeng, P., & Wu, Q. H. (2012). The impact of female executives participation on technological innovation: Evidence from Chinese GEM companies.

Studies in Science of Science,30

(5), 773–781.[曾萍, 鄔綺虹. (2012). 女性高管參與對企業技術創新的影響——基于創業板企業的實證研究.

科學學研究, 30

(5),773–781.]*Zhang,G., & Xiong, L. (2009). Member diversity and team performance: The transactive memory system as a medium variable.

Science Research Management, 30

(1), 71–80.[張鋼, 熊立. (2009). 成員異質性與團隊績效: 以交互記憶系統為中介變量.

科研管理, 30

(1), 71–80.]*Zhang, L., Ji, W., Tao, J. L., & Wang, Q. (2011). Who shall leave? How CEO preference and power affect executive turnover in Chinese listed companies.

Corporate Governance:An International Review, 19

, 547–561.*Zhang, L., & Liu, H. (2009). The effect of the dissimilarities in population characteristics in the vrtical leadership in top management teams on top management leaving office.

Management World,

(4), 108–118.[張龍, 劉洪. (2009). 高管團隊中垂直對人口特征差異對高管離職的影響.

管理世界,

(4), 108–118.]*Zhang, P. (2006). Research on top management team heterogeneity and firm performance.

Management Review,18

(5), 54–61.[張平. (2006). 高層管理團隊異質性與企業績效關系研究.

管理評論, 18

(5), 54–61.]*Zhang, Y., & Hou, L. (2012). The romance of working together:Benefits of gender diversity on group performance in China.

Human Relations, 65

, 1487–1508.*Zhang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2012). The influence of gender diversity on group performance and creativity.

Science Research Management, 33

(3), 81–88.[張燕, 章振. (2012). 性別多樣性對團隊績效和創造力影響的研究.

科研管理, 33

(3), 81–88.]*Zhou, J., & Li, X. Q. (2012). Empirical study on the effect of cognitive heterogeneity of board on firm innovation strategy.

Journal of Management Science, 25

(6), 1–12.[周建, 李小青. (2012). 董事會認知異質性對企業創新戰略影響的實證研究.

管理科學, 25

(6), 1–12.]*Zona, F. (2014). Board leadership structure and diversity over CEO time in office: A test of the evolutionary perspective on italian firms.

European Management Journal, 32

, 672–681.*Zoogah, D. B., Vora, D., Richard, O., & Peng, M. W. (2011).Strategic alliance team diversity, coordination, and effectiveness.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22

, 510–529.

附錄 元分析中所涉及的期刊及其論文數