基于知识势的领导过程研究

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2024.0185

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

领导者和追随者之间的知识关系将如何影响领导过程？为了回答这个问题，本研究以势科学为基础，关注领导者-追随者二元关系的知识构成属性，提出了“知识势”的概念，将领导者相对追随者的知识势定义为领导者和追随者之间某一些领域的知识差别与另一些领域的知识联系的乘积，认为领导者和追随者在某一些领域的知识差别越大，而在另一些领域的知识联系越紧密时，知识势就越大，越有助于领导过程的顺利开展。本研究通过理论研究得出：（1）领导者和追随者在某一些领域的知识差别有助于领导者建立说服过程中的可信度、指出追随者在工作中出现的问题并提供反馈与指导、培养追随者使其提升工作能力和职业素养；（2）领导者和追随者在某一些领域的知识联系有助于双方降低沟通和协调的成本并且构建更高质量的领导-成员交换关系；（3）基于“差别×联系=势”的思想，领导者和追随者在不同领域的知识差别和知识联系相互促进、相互补充，协同影响领导过程；（4）究竟是哪些领域的知识差别，又是哪些领域的知识联系构成了知识势，取决于情境因素。最后，本研究探讨了知识势对于领导力、团队知识构成以及势科学文献的理论贡献，以及它对组织和领导者提供的实践启示。

关键词: 知识势, 势科学, 领导力, 领导-成员关系, 团队知识构成

Abstract:

How does the knowledge relationship of leader-follower influence the leadership process To answer this question， it focuses on the knowledge composition characteristic of leader-follower dyad. Based on potential science， a new construct， “knowledge potential”， is introduced，which describes the product of differences and overlaps in knowledge between a given leader and follower. It is proposed that within a leader-follower dyad， as the knowledge differences in some domains increases， and the knowledge overlaps in other domains also increases， the knowledge potentialgrows larger， which further contribute to the leadership process. It is theorized that （1） knowledge differences of a leader-follower dyad in certain domains can enhance the credibility of the leader during persuasion process， enable leader to discern the challenge encountered by follower in his or her tasks then offer pertinent feedback and guidance， foster the development of follower’ work competencies and professional demeanor；（2） knowledge overlaps of a leader-follower dyad in other domains facilitate the reduction of communication and coordination costs and foster the construction of higher-quality leader-member exchange relationships；（3） Based on the argument that “difference × overlap = potential，” the knowledge differences and overlaps of a leader-follower dyad in different domains mutually reinforce and complement each other， collaboratively influencing the leadership process；（4）Which domains does knowledge differences and knowledge overlaps come from depend on contextual factors. Lastly， the theoretical contributions of knowledge potential to leadership， team knowledge composition and potential science literature are discussed， as well as its practical implications for organizations and leaders.

Key words: knowledge potential, potential science, leadership, leader-member relationship, team knowledge composition

中图分类号:

C936

陈国权,罗庆烨,王婧懿, 等. 基于知识势的领导过程研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2026, 34(1): 128-141.

Guoquan Chen,Qingye Luo,Jingyi Wang, et al. A Leadership Process Research Based on Knowledge Potential[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2026, 34(1): 128-141.

图/表 2

参考文献 77

[1]	Anderson C， Brown C E. The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy［J］. Research in Organizational Behavior， 2010， 30： 55-89.
[2]	Mumford M D， Todd E M， Higgs C， et al. Cognitive skills and leadership performance： The nine critical skills［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2017， 28（1）： 24-39.
[3]	Van Vugt M. Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership［J］. Personality and Social Psychology Review， 2006， 10（4）： 354-371.
[4]	Connelly M S， Gilbert J A， Zaccaro S J， et al. Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to leader performance［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2000， 11（1）： 65-86.
[5]	Derue D S， Nahrgang J D， Wellman N， et al. Trait and behavioral theories of leadership： An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity［J］. Personnel Psychology， 2011， 64（1）： 7-52.
[6]	Judge T A， Colbert A E， Ilies R. Intelligence and leadership： A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2004， 89（3）： 542-552.
[7]	Lord R G， de Vader C L， Alliger G M. A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions： An application of validity generalization procedures［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 1986， 71（3）： 402-410.
[8]	Lu J G， Swaab R I， Galinsky A D. Global leaders for global teams： Leaders with multicultural experiences communicate and lead more effectively， especially in multinational teams［J］. Organization Science， 2022， 33（4）： 1554-1573.
[9]	Truninger M， Ruderman M N， Clerkin C， et al. Sounds like a leader： An ascription–actuality approach to examining leader emergence and effectiveness［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2021， 32（5）： 101420.
[10]	Kelley R E. In praise of followers［M］. Brighton， MA， USA： Harvard Business Review Case Services， 1988.
[11]	Oc B， Chintakananda K， Bashshur M R， et al. The study of followers in leadership research： A systematic and critical review［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2023， 34（1）： 101674.
[12]	Antonakis J， House R J， Simonton D K. Can super smart leaders suffer from too much of a good thing The curvilinear effect of intelligence on perceived leadership behavior［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2017， 102（7）： 1003-1021.
[13]	Bass B M， Stogdill R M. Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership： Theory， research， and managerial applications［M］. 3rd ed. New York： Free PressLondon： Collier Macmillan， 1990.
[14]	Shamir B. From passive recipients to active co-producers： Followers’ roles in the leadership process［M］//Shamir B， Pillai R， Bligh M， et al. Follower-centered Perspectives on Leadership： A tribute to The Memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwhich： Information Age Publishers， 2007： 9-39.
[15]	Mumford M D， Scott G M， Gaddis B， et al. Leading creative people： Orchestrating expertise and relationships［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2002， 13（6）： 705-750.
[16]	李德昌. 势论［J］. 系统科学学报， 2008， 16（1）： 35-40.
	Li D C. View building potential［J］. Chinese Journal of Systems Science， 2008， 16（1）： 35-40.
[17]	Peeters T L P R， Salaga S， Juravich M. Matching and winning the impact of upper and middle managers on firm performance in major league baseball［J］. Management Science， 2020， 66（6）： 2735-2751.
[18]	Uhl-Bien M， Riggio R E， Lowe K B， et al. Followership theory： A review and research agenda［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2014， 25（1）： 83-104.
[19]	Bunderson J S， Van der Vegt G S. Diversity and inequality in management teams： A review and integration of research on vertical and horizontal member differences［J］. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior， 2018， 5： 47-73.
[20]	Gray S M， Bunderson J S， van der Vegt G S， et al. Leveraging knowledge diversity in hierarchically differentiated teams： The critical role of hierarchy stability［J］. Academy of Management Journal， 2023， 66（2）： 462-488.
[21]	Mohammed S， Rico R， Alipour K K. Team cognition at a crossroad： Toward conceptual integration and network configurations［J］. Academy of Management Annals， 2021， 15（2）： 455-501.
[22]	van Vianen A E M. Person-environment fit： A review of its basic tenets［J］. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior， 2018， 5： 75-101.
[23]	Gooty J， Thomas J S， Yammarino F J， et al. Positive and negative emotional tone convergence： An empirical examination of associations with leader and follower LMX［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2019， 30（4）： 427-439.
[24]	Graham K A， Dust S B， Ziegert J C. Supervisor-employee power distance incompatibility， gender similarity， and relationship conflict： A test of interpersonal interaction theory［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2018， 103（3）： 334-346.
[25]	Zhang Z， Wang M， Shi J. Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes： The mediating role of leader-member exchange［J］. Academy of Management Journal， 2012， 55（1）： 111-130.
[26]	Zhang Y， Waldman D A， Han Y L， et al. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management： Antecedents and consequences［J］. Academy of Management Journal， 2015， 58（2）： 538-566.
[27]	Halevy N， Chou E Y， Galinsky A D. A functional model of hierarchy： Why， how， and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance［J］. Organizational Psychology Review， 2011， 1（1）： 32-52.
[28]	Magee J C， Galinsky A D. 8 Social hierarchy： The self-reinforcing nature of power and status［J］. Academy of Management Annals， 2008， 2（1）： 351-398.
[29]	Yukl G. Leadership in organization （8th ed.）［M］. New York： Prentice Hall， 2012.
[30]	Berger J， Cohen B P， Zelditch M. Status characteristics and social interaction［J］. American Sociological Review， 1972， 37（3）：241-255.
[31]	Cheng J T， Tracy J L， Foulsham T， et al. Two ways to the top： Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence［J］. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology， 2013， 104（1）： 103-125.
[32]	Goodall A H， Pogrebna G. Expert leaders in a fast-moving environment［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2015， 26（2）： 123-142.
[33]	Spitzberg D B H， Cupach D W R. Interpersonal communication competence［M］. Beverly Hills： Sage Publications， Inc， 1984.
[34]	Alavi M， Leidner D E. Review： Knowledge management and knowledge management systems： Conceptual foundations and research issues ［J］. MIS Quarterly， 2001， 25（1）： 107-136.
[35]	Dane E. Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility： A cognitive entrenchment perspective［J］. Academy of Management Review， 2010， 35（4）： 579-603.
[36]	李德昌. 中国管理情境下的势与复杂——势科学视角［J］. 管理学报， 2011， 8（3）： 332-339.
	Li D C. Shi and the complexity under the Chinese management situation： A view from Shi science［J］. Chinese Journal of Management， 2011， 8（3）： 332-339.
[37]	Huang X， Hsieh J P， He W. Expertise dissimilarity and creativity： The contingent roles of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2014， 99（5）： 816-830.
[38]	段光，杨忠. 知识异质性对团队创新的作用机制分析［J］. 管理学报， 2014， 11（1）： 86-94.
	Duan G， Yang Z. Would knowledge diversity promote team Innovation An analysis based on mediated moderator model［J］. Chinese Journal of Management， 2014， 11（1）： 86-94.
[39]	Bor A. Evolutionary leadership theory and economic voting： Warmth and competence impressions mediate the effect of economic perceptions on vote［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2020， 31（2）： 101295.
[40]	Bass B M， Bass R. The bass handbook of leadership： Theory， research， and managerial applications ［M］. New York： Simon and Schuster， 2009.
[41]	Morgeson F P， DeRue D S， Karam E P. Leadership in teams： A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes［J］. Journal of Management， 2010， 36（1）： 5-39.
[42]	Hovland C I， Janis I L， Kelley H H. Communication and Persuasion： Psychological studies of opinion change［M］. New Heaven： Yale University Press， 1953.
[43]	Petty R E， Cacioppo J T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion［M］//Berkowitz L. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York： Academic Press， 1986： 123-205.
[44]	青霖. 四渡赤水. 读·党史第28辑［M］.北京：中共党史出版社， 2017.
	Qing L. Crossing the chishui river four times［M］. Beijing： Communist Party History Press， 2017.
[45]	陈国权. 时空论［M］. 清华大学出版社， 2024.
	Chen Guoquan. Time space theory［M］. Tsinghua University Press， 2024.
[46]	Pearce C L， Sims H P. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams： An examination of aversive， directive， transactional， transformational， and empowering leader behaviors［J］. Group Dynamics： Theory， Research， and Practice， 2002， 6（2）： 172-197.
[47]	Avolio B J， Waldman D A， Einstein W O. Transformational leadership in a management game simulation： Impacting the bottom line［J］. Group & Organization Studies， 1988， 13（1）： 59-80.
[48]	Garicano L， Wu Y. Knowledge， communication， and organizational capabilities［J］. Organization Science， 2012， 23（5）： 1382-1397.
[49]	Isaacson W. Steve Jobs： Die autorisierte Biografie des Apple-Gründers［M］. Gütersloh： C. Bertelsmann Verlag， 2011.
[50]	Kim Y， Min B， Cha J. The roles of R&D team leaders in Korea： A contingent approach［J］. R&D Management， 1999， 29（2）： 153-166.
[51]	Bandura A， Walters R H. Social learning theory［M］. Englewood Cliffs， NJ： Prentice hall， 1977.
[52]	Parker S K， Williams H M， Turner N. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2006， 91（3）： 636-652.
[53]	Sherf E N， Morrison E W. I do not need feedback！ Or do I Self-efficacy， perspective taking， and feedback seeking［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2020， 105（2）： 146-165.
[54]	Kraiger K， Ford J K， Salas E. Application of cognitive， skill-based， and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 1993， 78（2）： 311-328.
[55]	Dragoni L， Park H， Soltis J， et al. Show and tell： How supervisors facilitate leader development among transitioning leaders［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2014， 99（1）： 66-86.
[56]	Myers C G. Coactive vicarious learning： Toward a relational theory of vicarious learning in organizations［J］. Academy of Management Review， 2018， 43（4）： 610-634.
[57]	Desouza K C， Awazu Y. Knowledge management at SMEs： Five peculiarities［J］. Journal of Knowledge Management， 2006， 10（1）： 32-43.
[58]	Shteynberg G， Hirsh J B， Bentley R A， et al. Shared worlds and shared minds： A theory of collective learning and a psychology of common knowledge［J］. Psychological Review， 2020， 127（5）： 918-931.
[59]	Simonin B L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances［J］. Strategic Management Journal， 1999， 20（7）： 595-623.
[60]	Cool K O， Dierickx I， Szulanski G. Diffusion of innovations within organizations： Electronic switching in the bell system， 1971-1982［J］. Organization Science， 1997， 8（5）： 543-559.
[61]	Prieto-Pastor I， Martín-Pérez V， Martín-Cruz N. Social capital， knowledge integration and learning in project-based organizations： A CEO-based study［J］. Journal of Knowledge Management， 2018， 22（8）： 1803-1825.
[62]	Reagans R， McEvily B. Network structure and knowledge transfer： The effects of cohesion and range［J］. Administrative Science Quarterly， 2003， 48（2）： 240-267.
[63]	Hwang E H， Singh P V， Argote L. Knowledge sharing in online communities： Learning to cross geographic and hierarchical boundaries［J］. Organization Science， 2015， 26（6）： 1593-1611.
[64]	Mariano S， Awazu Y. I hear you： constructing common knowledge practices in the context of organizational meetings［J］. Journal of Knowledge Management， 2021， 25（10）： 2567-2592.
[65]	Wajcman J， Rose E. Constant connectivity： Rethinking interruptions at work［J］. Organization Studies， 2011， 32（7）： 941-961.
[66]	Tengblad S. Is there a ‘new managerial work’ a comparison with henry mintzberg’s classic study 30 years later［J］. Journal of Management Studies， 2006， 43（7）： 1437-1461.
[67]	Hinds P J， Patterson M， Pfeffer J. Bothered by abstraction： The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2001， 86（6）： 1232-1243.
[68]	Claggett J L， Karahanna E. Unpacking the structure of coordination mechanisms and the role of relational coordination in an era of digitally mediated work processes［J］. Academy of Management Review， 2018， 43（4）： 704-722.
[69]	Lindenberg S， Foss N J. Managing joint production motivation： The role of goal framing and governance mechanisms［J］. Academy of Management Review， 2011， 36（3）： 500-525.
[70]	Dulebohn J H， Bommer W H， Liden R C， et al. A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange： Integrating the past with an eye toward the future［J］. Journal of Management， 2012， 38（6）： 1715-1759.
[71]	Byrne D E. The attraction paradigm［M］. New York： Academic Press， 1971.
[72]	Uhl-Bien M. Relational leadership theory： Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing［J］. The Leadership Quarterly， 2006， 17（6）： 654-676.
[73]	陈国权，陈科宇. 基于时空理论的团队最优区分管理框架研究［J］. 管理工程学报， 2024， 38（2）： 35-50.
	Chen G Q， Chen K Y. A study on the team management framework for optimal distinctiveness based on time-space theory［J］. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management， 2024， 38（2）： 35-50.
[74]	Kristof-Brown A L， Stevens C K. Goal congruence in project teams： Does the fit between members’ personal mastery and performance goals matter ［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2001， 86（6）： 1083-1095.
[75]	Choi Y， Ingram P， Han S W. Cultural breadth and embeddedness： The individual adoption of organizational culture as a determinant of creativity［J］. Administrative Science Quarterly， 2023， 68（2）： 429-464.
[76]	Huang X， Hsieh J P， He W. Expertise dissimilarity and creativity： The contingent roles of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing［J］. Journal of Applied Psychology， 2014， 99（5）： 816-830.
[77]	Markus H R， Kitayama S. Culture and the self： Implications for cognition， emotion， and motivation［J］. Psychological Review， 1991， 98（2）： 224-253.