What kinds of organizational support do productive scientists need? An empirical study on the match between individual cognitive styles and organizational resources.

Abstract

Abstract: When scientific organizations provide support resources, they seldom consider the differences in the individual needs of scientists. Based on the matching hypothesis of cognitive style and environment, the study attempts to divide the cognitive style of scientists into three types: original style, efficient style and group tyle, from the perspective of scientists’ cognitive style that affects individual organizational resource preference. By exploring what kind of organizational support scientists with different cognitive styles need to match in order to produce higher scientific research output, improve the regularity of the differences in demand for organizational support resources of different scientists, and provide research support for more accurate support resources for scientific scientists with different cognitive styles. Firstly, the study uses fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to explore the interactive relationship between organizational support resources and researchers' cognitive style under higher scientific research output. Secondly, according to the configuration results of qualitative comparative analysis, stepwise regression is used to verify the moderating role of different styles in the influence of organizational support on scientific research output, and to verify the mechanism of the two types of elements acting on scientific research output. The study found that the three types of scientists can achieve higher scientific output, but the emphasis of organizational support required by the three styles is different: scientists with original style need to match higher salary, and scientists with efficient style need to match promotion opportunities, and group style scientific researchers need to match better emotional care and promotion opportunities.

摘要： 目前科研组织在提供支持性资源时，较少考虑科研人员的个体需求差异。本文基于认知风格与环境的匹配假设，从影响个体组织资源偏好的科研人员认知风格入手，尝试将科研人员在科研活动中的认知风格划分为原创型、效率型和团队型三类。通过探索不同认知风格个体需要匹配何种组织支持才能产生较高科研产出，提高对不同科研人员组织支持资源需求差异的规律性认识，为不同风格科研人员提供更加精准的支持资源提供研究依据。首先，采用模糊集定性比较分析，探索了较高科研产出情景下组织支持资源与科研人员认知风格的交互情况。其次，根据定性比较分析的组态结果，采用逐步回归检验了不同风格在组织支持影响科研产出中发挥的调节作用，验证了两类要素作用于科研产出的作用机制。研究发现，三类风格科研人员均能产生较高科研产出，但三类风格所需核心组织支持的侧重点不同：原创型风格的科研人员需要匹配薪酬待遇，效率型风格的科研人员需要匹配职业晋升机会，而团队型风格的科研人员则需要匹配更好的情感关怀和晋升机会。

关键词: 组织支持, 认知风格, 科研产出, 定性比较分析, 结构方程模型

刘意温珂游玎怡. 高产出科学家需要什么样的组织支持? ———个体认知风格与组织资源匹配的实证研究 [J]. 科学学研究, 2024, 42(8): 1675-1684.

References

[1 ] 滕堑,虞华君,蒋玉石,苗苗.高校教师激励结构模型及激励效果群体差异研究[J].西南交通大学学报(社会科学版),2018,19(05):41-51. TENG Q, YU HJ, JIANG YS, MIAO M. A Group Difference Study on the Motivation Structure Model of and the Motivation Effects on University Teachers[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University (Social Sciences) ,2018, 19(05):41-51. [2] Chilton M A, Hardgrave B C, Armstrong D J. Person-Job Cognitive Style Fit for Software Developers: The Effect on Strain and Performance[J]. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2005, 22(2):193-226. [3] Kozhevnikov M, Evans C, Kosslyn S M. Cognitive Style as Environmentally Sensitive Individual Differences in Cognition: A Modern Synthesis and Applications in Education, Business, and Management[J]. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2014, 15(1):3-33. [4] Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 44, 573–588. [5] CHILTON MA, HARDGRAVE BC and ARMSTRONG DJ (2005) Person-job cognitive style fit for software developers. Journal of Management Information System 22(2), 193–226. [6] Bloodgood J M, Chilton M A. Performance implications of matching adaption and innovation cognitive style with explicit and tacit knowledge resources[J]. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2012, 10(2):106-117. [7] Santos JM, Horta H, Zhang, LF. The association of thinking styles with research agendas among academics in the social sciences[J]. Higher Education Quarterly,2020,74(2): 193-210. [8] 陈志霞. 知识员工组织支持感对工作绩效和离职倾向的影响[D].华中科技大学,2006. Chen Zhixia. Chinese Knowledge-workers’ Perceived Organizational Support and Its Influence on Their Job Performance and Turnover Intention[D]. Huazhong University of Science & Technology,2006. [9]周默涵, 朱佳妮, 吴菡. 组织支持对高校海归教师科研进展满意度的影响分析——以上海21所高校为例[J]. 高教探索, 2019(12):7. Zhou Mohan, Zhu Jiani. An empirical study of Organizational Support on the Satisfaction of Scientific Research Progress among Returning Scholars at Universities in Shanghai[J]. Higher Education Exploration, 2019(12):7. [ 0] Richard J E, Plimmer G, Fam K S, et al. Publishing success of marketing academics: Antecedents and outcomes[J]. European Journal of Marketing, 2015, 49(1-2):123. [ 1] Aydin, O.T. Research performance of higher education institutions: A review on the measurements and affecting factors of research performance. J. High. Educ. Sci. 2017, 7, 312. [ 2]李欢,杨希.“双一流”建设学科团队青年教师晋升标准对科研产出的影响[J].重庆高教研究,2019,7(05):45-56. Li Huan, Yang Xi. "Double first-class" construction discipline team promotion standards for young teachers Impact on Research Output[J]. Chongqing Higher Education Research,2019,7(05):45-56. [ 3] Tran, T.; Trinh, T.-P; Le, C.-M.; Hoang, L.-K.; Pham, H.-H. Research as a Base for Sustainable Development of Universities: Using the Delphi Method to Explore Factors Affecting International Publishing among Vietnamese Academic Staff. Sustainability 2020,12, 3449. [14] 顾远东, 周文莉, 彭纪生. 组织支持对研发人员创新行为的影响机制研究[J]. 管理科学, 2014, 27(1):11. [15] Heng K, Hamid M O, Khan A . Factors influencing academics' research engagement and productivity: a developing countries perspective[J]. Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Inc. 5/202 Coode Street, Como, Western Australia 6152, Australia. e-mail: editor@iier.org.au; Web site: http://www.waier.org.au, 2020(3). [ 6] Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M. and Graen, G.B. (1999) An Examination of Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Relevance of Traits and Relationships.Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620 [ 7] Tejokusumo A. Critical Review: "Being successful in a creative profession: The role of innovative cognitive style, self-regulation, and self-efficacy". 2015. [ 8] Emir, S. (2013). Contributions of teachers' thinking styles to critical thinking dispositions (Istanbul-Fatih sample). Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 337–347. [ 9] Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of applied psychology, 61(5), 622-629. [20] Kim, M. J., Choi, J. N., Park, O. S. Intuitiveness and Creativity in Groups: Cross-level Interactions between Group Conflict and Individual Cognitive Styles. Social Behavior & Personality an International Journal, 2012, 40(9): 1419-1434 [2 ] Miron-Spektor E, Erez M, Naveh E. The Effect of Conformist and Attentive-To-Detail Members on Team Innovation: Reconciling the Innovation Paradox[J]. The Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54(4). [22] Goncalo, G. A., & Staw, B. M. 2006. Individualism collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100:96 –109. [23] Liu SW, Zhang YW, Liu YM, He LY, Xiao YC. The influence of supervisor creative feedback environment on team creativity: The role of the ambidextrous learning and creative cognitive style. Frontiers In Psychology,13(2022) 1007947. [24] Barrick M R, Mount M K, Judge T A. Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT, 2001(12). [25] Lomberg C, Kollmann T, Stoeckmann C. Different Styles for Different Needs – The Effect of Cognitive Styles on Idea Generation[J]. Creativity & Innovation Management, 2017, 26(1):49-59. [26] Grendstad, G. (2007). Causal Complexity and Party Preference. European Journal of Political Research 46: 121–149. [27]唐建荣, 赵菲, 张鑫和. "文化逆势"情境下的跨国并购驱动机制——基于QCA方法与多元回归的双重分析[J]. 江苏社会科学, 2018(5):11. Tang Jianrong, Zhao Fei, Zhang Xinhe. The Driving Mechanism of Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions under the Context of "Cultural Adversity"——Double analysis based on QCA method and multiple regression[J]. Jiangsu Social Sciences,2018(5):11. [28] Greckhamer T, Misangyi V F, Fiss P C. Chapter 3 The Two QCAs: From a Small-N to a Large-N Set Theoretic Approach[M]. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2013. [29]罗安娜. 研究型大学高层次人才组织支持感、敬业度和工作绩效作用机制研究[D].武汉大学,2014. Luo Anna. Research on the Relationship between Perceived Organizational Support, Engagement and Performance of High-level Talents in Research-intensive Universities [D]. Wuhan University,2014. [30] Bagozzi R P, Foxall G R. Construct validity and generalizability of the Kirton Adaption–Innovation Inventory[J]. European Journal of Personality, 1995.208-232. [31]王精文,李建道,李珍玫.创造力人格、创造力工作环境与研发绩效关系分析-以某研发中心为例[C].第四届两岸产业发展与经营管理学术研讨会，台南成功大学，2005. Wang JW, Li JD, Li ZM. The analysis of the relationship between creative personality, creative work environment and R&D performance-taking a R&D center as an example [C]. The 4th Cross-Strait Industrial Development and Management Symposium, National Cheng Kung University, 2005. [32] FISS P C. Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research[J]. Academy of management journal,2011,54(2):393-420. [33] Ragin,C. C. Redesigning Social Inquiry： Fuzzy Sets and Beyond [M]. Chicago：University of Chicago Press,2008. [34] Ilias O. Pappas, Arch G. Woodside.Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 58(2021)102310. [35] Lomberg C, Kollmann T, Stoeckmann C. Different Styles for Different Needs – The Effect of Cognitive Styles on Idea Generation[J]. Creativity & Innovation Management, 2017, 26(1):49-59. [36] 代毓芳, 张向前. 面向 2035 年我国青年科技人才薪酬激励研究 [J]. 科技管理研究, 2021, (9): 131-7. Dai Yufang, Zhang Xiangqian, Research on Compensation Incentives for Young Scientific Talents in China Facing 2035[J]. Science and Technology Management Research. 2021, (9): 131-7. [37] Foxall, Gordon R. Cognitive requirements of competing neuro-behavioral decision systems: some implications of temporal horizon for managerial behavior in organizations[J]. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2014, 8. [38] Goncalo, G. A., & Staw, B. M. 2006. Individualism collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100:96 –109.