In corporate management practice, work performance is a key indicator of employees’ core capabilities and a major reflection of an enterprise’s sustainable competitive advantage. Knowing how to improve employees’ work performance is a critical concern for managers. Work performance is a multidimensional concept covering employees’ performance in various aspects within the organization. Early studies focused on task performance (Borman & Mototwidlo, 1993; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998); however, with changes in the organizational environment and employee needs, contextual, learning, and innovative types of performance have gradually gained attention, jointly forming a more comprehensive work performance model (Han et al., 2007). Factors influencing employees’ work performance include both personal abilities and external environmental factors (Hom & Kinicki, 2001). High job difficulty, excessive workload, heavy responsibilities, poor workplace relationships, and role conflicts can all cause significant work stress (Moorhead & Griffin, 1995; X. D. Xu, 1999), thereby reducing work performance (Adekanmbi & Ukpere, 2020). When exploring the multidimensional composition of employees’ work performance and its influencing factors, team psychological safety, as a key emotional and cognitive environmental factor, has gradually attracted attention in the management field (Edmondson, 1999).

 

Team psychological safety refers to an individual’s anticipation of potential physical or psychological risks and their sense of confidence or helplessness when responding, reflecting the perception of certainty and controllability of one’s situation in the team (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). As a common workplace psychological state, it is directly related to members’ work performance (Y. Zhang et al., 2022). Members in teams with high team psychological safety are more inclined to take the initiative to learn and improve their professional skills (Edmondson, 1999). Gu and Wang (2015) found that in organizations dominated by research and development personnel, higher team psychological safety led to greater enthusiasm among members for achieving innovative performance. In a study using cross-level data collection, Z. Zhang and Wang (2020) showed that employees’ team psychological safety can significantly enhance enterprise innovation performance. In this study I aimed to replicate and validate the established relationship between these two constructs in the current research context. Thus, I proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Team psychological safety will positively predict employees’ work performance.

 

Luthans et al. (2004) defined psychological capital as a positive psychological state exhibited by individuals in the process of growth and development that enables them to reach their best state, thereby generating positive work attitudes. As a core psychological element beyond human capital and social capital, psychological capital is a psychological resource that promotes personal growth and performance improvement (Xiong & Ye, 2014). At the individual level, it is a beneficial personality trait; at the organizational level, it is a psychological resource for maintaining competitiveness and enhancing work performance.

 

According to signaling theory, individuals acquire information by observing others’ behavior and the environment, which affects the observer’s attitude and behavior (Connelly et al., 2011). In a team context, psychological safety can be perceived as an environmental signal, which, in turn, has a significant impact on the formation and development of their psychological capital (Zou et al., 2018). Social cognitive theory emphasizes that individuals’ psychological state affects their behavior (Cheng, 2019). As a state-like variable (Ke et al., 2009), psychological capital can change personal behaviors by improving individuals’ cognitive level and psychological state, thereby affecting personal and organizational performance (Avey et al., 2010; Luthans et al., 2007). H. R. Zhang (2010) applied structural equation modeling and found that high psychological capital had a positive impact on the performance of knowledge workers. A growing body of research suggests that psychological capital can prompt individuals to exhibit better innovative performance (Y. X. Deng, 2015; Feng & Ma, 2018; Mao et al., 2018; Sui et al., 2012). Thus, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Psychological capital will play a mediating role between team psychological safety and employees’ work performance.

 

Team heterogeneity refers to the distribution of team members’ demographic characteristics, that is, the degree of similarity or difference in members’ gender, age, ethnicity, professional knowledge, values, and personality (Liu & Xu, 2006). J. Z. Deng and Wang (2008) found that the most prominent manifestation of team heterogeneity is team knowledge heterogeneity. When facing specific problems, people tend to trust their own knowledge and experience, which largely determine their problem-solving approaches.

 

Team knowledge heterogeneity means members possess different knowledge, skills, and experience, which can bring broader information and perspectives, promoting innovative thinking and problem-solving abilities (Duan & Yang, 2014). Social exchange theory posits that team interactions in organizational settings are processes of resource exchange; while team knowledge heterogeneity provides individuals with more opportunities for exchange (Duan & Yang, 2014), it also increases the complexity of exchange behaviors due to difference in members’ knowledge bases and thinking patterns (Stahl et al., 2010). In highly heterogeneous teams, significant differences in members’ knowledge backgrounds and professional thinking patterns may cause communication barriers (Duan & Yang, 2014), misunderstandings (Lu et al., 2018), or even conflicts (X. N. Li & Ni, 2012). Such differences may trigger anxiety, stress, and distrust among members (Dang & Tang, 2007), reducing their willingness to communicate openly and express opinions in the team, thereby weakening team psychological safety (Newman et al., 2017).

 

Likewise, in highly heterogeneous teams, differences between members may lead to cognitive conflicts, communication barriers, and difficulties in information processing, which may increase individuals’ psychological stress and anxiety, inhibiting the exertion of psychological capital (Schulte et al., 2020). Especially when members feel unfamiliar with or misunderstand each other’s professional backgrounds and opinions, they may lack confidence and a sense of security, thereby reducing their self-confidence and resilience (Jehn, 1995). Therefore, team knowledge heterogeneity may play an important role in the impact of team psychological safety on work performance. Thus, this study proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: Team knowledge heterogeneity will moderate the direct effect of team psychological safety on employees’ work performance.

Hypothesis 3b: Team knowledge heterogeneity will moderate the indirect effect of team psychological safety on employees’ work performance via the mediator of psychological capital.

 

Numerous studies have explored the relationship between team psychological safety and employees’ work performance, but there remain certain limitations. First, existing research has mostly focused on individual-level factors and environmental influences (Moorhead & Griffin, 1995; X. D. Xu, 1999), while neglecting the impact of organizational factors. Second, research on the mechanism underlying the relationship between team psychological safety and work performance is insufficient. In particular, the role and influence mechanism of team knowledge heterogeneity, which Huang et al. (2022) described as a key contextual factor, has not been fully examined. Thus, in this study I explored this relationship and analyzed the mechanisms of psychological capital and team knowledge heterogeneity to determine how and under what conditions team psychological safety affects employees’ work performance. The findings will provide suggestions for improving economic efficiency. The proposed theoretical model of this study is shown in Figure 1.

I used cluster sampling to survey employees from multiple enterprises and institutions in Shandong Province, China. This study was approved by the institutional review board of my university. All participants were informed of the research details, confidentiality rules, and the voluntary nature of participation. Informed consent was obtained prior to data collection, and personal privacy was strictly protected throughout the process. Data were collected online via the survey platform Wenjuanxing (https://www.wjx.cn). Among 576 valid respondents, 420 (72.9%) were men and 156 (27.1%) were women. In terms of age, 212 (36.8%) participants were aged 19–29 years, 244 (42.4%) were aged 30–39 years, 96 (16.7%) were aged 40–49 years, and 24 (4.2%) were aged 50–59 years.

To measure team psychological safety, I used a seven-item scale developed by Yang and Zhang (2012). A sample item is “It is safe to take risks in this team.” Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with three items being negatively phrased and then reverse scored. The higher the total score, the higher the degree of team psychological safety. Cronbach’s alpha was .82 in this study, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

To measure work performance, this study adopted a 39-item scale developed by Han et al. (2007), which comprises four dimensions: task performance (10 items, e.g., “I am fully competent at my assigned work tasks”), contextual performance (14 items, e.g., “I support and encourage colleagues at the same level”), learning performance (seven items, e.g., “I master professional skills through learning”), and innovative performance (eight items, e.g., “I propose new ideas to improve the current situation”). Responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The higher the score on the scale, the higher the degree of work performance. Cronbach’s alpha was .98 in this study, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

To measure psychological capital, I adopted a 40-item scale developed by Ke et al. (2009), which consists of two primary dimensions: transactional psychological capital and interpersonal psychological capital. Transactional psychological capital focuses on individuals’ psychological traits in work tasks and self-development, and encompasses four subdimensions: self-confidence and courage (five items, e.g., “I am confident in my work abilities”), optimism and hope (five items, e.g., “I always focus on positive outcomes in uncertain situations”), initiative and progress (five items, e.g., “I enjoy setting increasingly higher goals for myself”), and resilience and perseverance (five items, e.g., “I never give up until the very end”). Interpersonal psychological capital emphasizes psychological qualities in workplace interactions and includes four subdimensions: tolerance and forgiveness (five items, e.g., “I can adapt to any leadership style”), respect and courtesy (five items, e.g., “I treat the organization’s leaders with the same respect children show their parents”), humility and steadiness (five items, e.g., “When faced with questions I don’t understand, I humbly seek help from colleagues”), and gratitude and dedication (five items, e.g., “I feel it is my duty to help colleagues”). Responses are made on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicating stronger positive psychological abilities. Cronbach’s alpha was .97 in this study, indicating the scale is reliable.

 

To measure team knowledge heterogeneity, I used a six-item scale developed by Y. Wu (2014). A sample item is “Team members have significantly different educational backgrounds.” Responses are made on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater team knowledge differences among team members. Cronbach’s alpha was .96 in this study, indicating the scale is reliable.

I used SPSS 26.0 for statistical analysis and applied Model 59 of the PROCESS macro v4.0 to test the moderated mediation effect (Hayes, 2013).

Team psychological safety was positively correlated with psychological capital and work performance, and negatively correlated with team knowledge heterogeneity. Furthermore, psychological capital was positively correlated with team knowledge heterogeneity and work performance, and team knowledge heterogeneity was positively correlated with work performance. In addition, age was positively correlated with psychological capital and work performance (see Table 1). Gender was significantly correlated with age, and age was significantly correlated with psychological capital and work performance. Therefore, I controlled for gender and age in subsequent analyses.

This study conducted a regression analysis with team psychological safety as the independent variable and work performance as the dependent variable. As shown in Table 2, after controlling for gender and age, team psychological safety significantly predicted work performance. After adding psychological capital as the mediating variable, the direct effect of team psychological safety on work performance remained significant. Team psychological safety significantly predicted psychological capital, and psychological capital significantly predicted work performance. The mediating effect of psychological capital between team psychological safety and work performance was significant, .28, 95% confidence interval [0.20, 0.37]. Therefore, psychological capital played a partial mediating role between team psychological safety and work performance, accounting for 47.50% of the total effect.

As shown in Table 3, after controlling for gender and age, team knowledge heterogeneity significantly moderated the team psychological safety → psychological capital path, the psychological capital → work performance path, and the team psychological safety → work performance path.

To clarify how team knowledge heterogeneity moderated the relationship between team psychological safety and work performance, I split the data into high-scoring (M + 1 SD) and low-scoring (M − 1 SD) groups. As shown in Figure 2, for the first half of the team psychological safety → psychological capital path, under conditions of low team knowledge heterogeneity, team psychological safety positively predicted psychological capital, β simple = .51, t = 7.40, p < .001. Under conditions of high heterogeneity, team psychological safety also positively predicted psychological capital, β simple = .38, t = 3.92, p < .001.

Figure 3 shows that for the direct effect path, team psychological safety positively predicted work performance under conditions of low team knowledge heterogeneity, β simple = .35, t = 8.71, p < .001, and high team knowledge heterogeneity, β simple = .28, t = 4.93, p < .001.

As shown in Figure 4, for the psychological capital → work performance path, psychological capital positively predicted work performance under conditions of low team knowledge heterogeneity, β simple = .50, t = 20.37, p < .001, and high team knowledge heterogeneity, β simple = .42, t = 12.72, p < .001.

This study found that team psychological safety significantly and positively predicted employees’ work performance, consistent with the findings of previous empirical studies (Edmondson, 1999; N. Li & Yan, 2007). This indicates that when members perceive a safe and trustworthy environment within their team, they are more willing to actively participate in teamwork, demonstrating higher work enthusiasm and motivation, thereby improving work performance (Lin et al., 2016; Tu et al., 2017).

 

This result may be attributed to the fact that team psychological safety can enhance team members’ intrinsic motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). When members feel respected and accepted, and do not fear punishment for mistakes, they are more willing to open up, share opinions, and actively participate in team discussions and decision making (Edmondson, 1999). This stimulates individual work enthusiasm and creativity, promotes team cooperation and collaboration, and ultimately improves work performance (Hess, 2023). Researchers have also suggested that team psychological safety can reduce team members’ anxiety (Abdul Jalil et al., 2023). In a trusting and supportive team environment, members can better cope with work challenges and stress and worry less about being evaluated or criticized (Z. P. Wu & Chen, 2011), thus maintaining a positive mindset, focusing more on work itself, and improving work efficiency and quality (Cai, 2016).

My results indicated that psychological capital played a mediating role between team psychological safety and employees’ work performance, suggesting that team psychological safety can promote work performance by enhancing individuals’ psychological capital levels. This mediating mechanism also supports signaling theory and social cognitive theory: In a trusting and supportive team environment, members can obtain recognition and encouragement from others. Such signaling information affects individuals’ behavior, enhances their self-confidence and self-efficacy, improves their cognitive level, and encourages them to be innovative in applying work methods, thereby improving work performance.

This study found that team knowledge heterogeneity had a significant moderating effect on the direct path of team psychological safety to employees’ work performance, as well as on the first half and second half of the mediating paths via psychological capital. Although some previous studies have indicated that team knowledge heterogeneity has a positive impact on innovation performance (Dai & Hu, 2016; Meng et al., 2022; Wang & Ji, 2013), until now no research had explored its moderating effect on the impact of team psychological safety on work performance. The results of this study showed that as an environmental factor, team knowledge heterogeneity had a complex impact on employees’ work performance, specifically manifested as follows: First, team knowledge heterogeneity weakened the positive impact of team psychological safety on work performance, with the impact being weaker when heterogeneity was high and stronger when it was low. This is because team psychological safety, as a trust foundation that enables open sharing (Cui et al., 2021; Edmondson, 1999; Kahn, 1990), effectively promotes communication (Edmondson et al., 2016) and collaboration in teams with consistent knowledge backgrounds, thereby boosting performance (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018). In highly heterogeneous teams, however, diverse perspectives (Mo & Xu, 2009) may bring higher psychological pressure, restricting open interaction. In addition, per information processing theory, significant differences in knowledge and information processing methods increase cognitive load, reducing cooperation openness and thus weakening the role of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; Sweller, 1988).

 

Second, team knowledge heterogeneity weakened the positive effect of team psychological safety on psychological capital, with the effect being stronger in low-heterogeneity teams and weaker in high-heterogeneity ones. As per social identity theory (Y. T. Xu, 2024), members in low-heterogeneity teams have stronger group identification, so psychological safety better facilitates open communication and emotional support, enhancing psychological capital such as confidence and resilience (Dong & Zhao, 2019). In contrast, high heterogeneity reduces members’ sense of belonging due to diverse backgrounds, making them focus more on individual identities, which limits the role of psychological safety and weakens its predictive effect on psychological capital (N. Li & Ge, 2018).

 

Last, team knowledge heterogeneity weakened the positive impact of psychological capital on work performance, with the impact being stronger in low-heterogeneity teams and weaker in high-heterogeneity ones. Psychological capital (e.g., confidence, resilience, hope) typically improves performance by enhancing emotional regulation and coping abilities (J. M. Zhang & Zhang, 2019). In highly heterogeneous teams, diverse viewpoints and working styles may cause conflicts and cognitive inconsistencies. Although psychological capital helps maintain positive attitudes, increased information processing complexity and cognitive conflict make it hard to translate into actual performance, with its positive effects possibly offset by such factors. In low-heterogeneity teams, stronger consensus and smoother communication enhance the efficiency of information transfer. This allows psychological capital to contribute directly to improved work performance (Avey et al., 2011).

 

In summary, although team knowledge heterogeneity can, to some extent, help enhance a team’s innovation capability and work performance, when other factors (e.g., team psychological safety and psychological capital) play a role, team knowledge heterogeneity may weaken the positive effect due to the cognitive load and communication barriers it triggers. This, in turn, can have a negative impact on work performance.

This study enriches research on the factors influencing work performance and expands understanding of the mechanism underlying team psychological safety. I found that team psychological safety not only directly affected work performance but also indirectly influenced it by enhancing individuals’ psychological capital. Additionally, team knowledge heterogeneity, as a moderating variable, weakened the positive impact of team psychological safety and psychological capital on work performance, such that the positive impact was stronger when team knowledge heterogeneity was low, and weaker when it was high.

 

My findings provide practical guidance for enterprise managers to improve employees’ work performance. First, managers should attach importance to building team psychological safety by creating an open, inclusive, and trusting team atmosphere; encouraging active participation and full expression of team members; and providing support and assistance to them, thereby enhancing their psychological capital and ultimately improving team performance to achieve organizational goals. Second, managers should configure team knowledge heterogeneity based on core tasks, rather than pursuing broadly high levels of team knowledge heterogeneity. For efficiency-focused teams (e.g., production, customer service), managers should recruit members with consistent expertise (low heterogeneity) to cut cognitive conflicts and communication costs, letting psychological safety and capital boost performance. For innovation teams (e.g., research and development), managers should introduce cross-disciplinary members, foster an inclusive atmosphere, and organize knowledge-sharing training to ease cognitive load, avoiding weakening those positive effects and enhancing knowledge integration and performance.

This study has some limitations that need to be addressed in future research. I adopted a cross-sectional design, which cannot determine the causal relationships between variables. Future studies could use a longitudinal design to more accurately assess the dynamic impact of team psychological safety, psychological capital, and team knowledge heterogeneity on employees’ work performance. This study collected data via self-report questionnaires, which may be affected by common method bias. Future research could adopt multiple measurement methods, such as behavioral observation and performance evaluation, to improve the reliability of the results. The sample of this study was drawn from multiple enterprises and institutions in Shandong Province, with limited representativeness. Future studies could expand the research scope and collect data from enterprises in different regions and industries to improve the generalizability of the results.

Abdul Jalil, N. I., Tan, S. A., Ibharim, N. S., Musa, A. Z., Ang, S. H., & Mangundjaya, W. L. (2023). The relationship between job insecurity and psychological well-being among Malaysian precarious workers: Work–life balance as a mediator. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), Article 2758. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032758

 

Adekanmbi, F. P., & Ukpere, W. (2020). Work stress, perceived organizational support, demographics, and burnout of registered nurses in Nigeria. Psychology and Education, 57(8), 1136–1145.

 

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of positive psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(2), 430–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308329961

 

Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20070

 

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). Jossey Bass.

 

Cai, J. (2016). The impact of employee voice on work engagement—The mediating role of leader–member exchange (Unpublished master’s thesis) [In Chinese]. Nanjing University of Finance and Economics.

 

Cheng, Y. (2019). A study on residents’ willingness to participate in the construction of an agricultural characteristic town—Taking Wuquan Town in Yangling as an example (Unpublished master’s thesis) [In Chinese]. Northwest Agricultural and Forestry Science and Technology University.

 

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419

 

Cui, Z. S., Wang, H. Y., & Li, M. R. (2021). Secure-base leadership and employee innovative behavior [In Chinese]. Foreign Economics & Management, 43(1), 108–120 + 135. https://doi.org/10.16538/j.cnki.fem.20200904.403

 

Dai, Y., & Hu, M. F. (2016). Research on the impact of industry-university-research partnership heterogeneity on cooperative innovation performance: Based on the perspective of organizational learning [In Chinese]. Higher Education Exploration, 32(1), 5–10.

 

Dang, X. H., & Tang, X. J. (2007). Study on knowledge background differences among staff and knowledge transfer within organizations [In Chinese]. Science Research Management, 28(6), 50–55 + 75. https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2007.06.007

 

Deng, J. Z., & Wang, C. M. (2008). Research on the adverse impact of team diversity on knowledge sharing [In Chinese]. Scientific Management Research, 26(6), 25–27 + 53. https://doi.org/10.19445/j.cnki.15-1103/g3.2008.06.007

 

Deng, Y. X. (2015). Research on the impact of sincere leadership on employee performance: The mediating role of psychological capital and the moderating role of enterprise nature [In Chinese]. Human Resource Management, 10(12), 102–106.

 

Dong, J., & Zhao, C. (2019). Influence of family support on farmers’ entrepreneurial motivation: The substitution of interpersonal relationships [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 33(1), 61–75 + 127.

 

Duan, G., & Yang, Z. (2014). Does knowledge diversity promote team innovation? A mediated moderation model [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Management, 11(1), 86–94. https://manu68.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_glxb/CN/abstract/abstract10370.shtml

 

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

 

Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J.-F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.002

 

Edmondson, A. C., Higgins, M., Singer, S., & Weiner, J. (2016). Understanding psychological safety in health care and education organizations: A comparative perspective. Research in Human Development, 13(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2016.1141280

 

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305

 

Feng, X.-C., & Ma, H.-L. (2018). Associations of job satisfaction and psychological capital with job performance among auditors [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 34(5), 759–762. https://doi.org/10.11847/zgggws1114551

 

Gu, Q.-X., & Wang, L.-H. (2015). Influence process of social capital on innovative performance in R&D teams: Integration of the team’s psychological safety and learning behaviors. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 18(5), 68–78. https://jmsc.tju.edu.cn/jmsc/article/abstract/20070502?st=article_issue

 

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

 

Han, Y., Liao, J. Q., & Long, L. R. (2007). Model development and empirical study of the employee job performance construct [In Chinese]. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 10(5), 62–77.

 

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

 

Hess, D. W. (2023). Improving team effectiveness through psychological safety. Chemical Engineering Progress, 119(10), 35–39.

 

Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 975–987. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069441

 

Huang, C., Sun, L., Liu, Q., Yan, Y., & Li, C. (2022). The impact of team knowledge heterogeneity on entrepreneurial opportunity identification: A moderated mediation model. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S337464

 

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638

 

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/256287

 

Ke, J.-L., Sun, J.-M., & Li, Y.-R. (2009). Psychological capital: Development of a Chinese scale and comparison of its validity with the Western scale [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(9), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2009.00875

 

Li, N., & Ge, B. S. (2018). The impact of cognitive diversity in entrepreneurial teams on team performance: A moderated double-mediation model [In Chinese]. Business and Management Journal, 40(12), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.19616/j.cnki.bmj.2018.12.008

 

Li, N., & Yan, J. (2007). The mechanism of how trust climate impacts on individual performance [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(6), 1111–1121.

 

Li, X. N., & Ni, X. D. (2012). A knowledge-integrated study based on lean knowledge heterogeneity structure [In Chinese]. Science and Technology Progress and Policy, 29(17), 132–137. https://doi.org/10.6049/kjjbydc.2011090480

 

Lin, H.-C., Dang, T. T. H., & Liu, Y.-S. (2016). CEO transformational leadership and firm performance: A moderated mediation model of TMT trust climate and environmental dynamism. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4), 981–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9468-x

 

Liu, J., & Xu, Y. (2006). Team diversity: Measurement, outcomes and moderators [In Chinese]. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(4), 636–640.

 

Lu, L., Li, F., Leung, K., Savani, K., & Morris, M. W. (2018). When can culturally diverse teams be more creative? The role of leaders’ benevolent paternalism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2238

 

Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007

 

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195187526.001.0001

 

Mao, C. Y., Lin, X., & Hou, W. J. (2018). The impact of work stress on work performance of the new generation of employees: An empirical study based on the mediating role of psychological capital [In Chinese]. China Collective Economy, 34(12), 88–91.

 

Meng, T. T., Chai, J. M., & Zheng, M. Y. (2022). The influence of knowledge heterogeneity on team creativity: The mediating role of knowledge integration ability and the moderating role of subjective relationship experience [In Chinese]. Journal of Technical Economics & Management, 43(4), 41–45.

 

Mo, Y. F., & Xu, G. F. (2009). A review of research on the impact of team heterogeneity on team performance [In Chinese]. Coastal Enterprises and Science and Technology, 14(12), 82–84.

 

Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (1995). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

 

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001

 

Schulte, N., Götz, F. M., Partsch, F., Goldmann, T., Smidt, L., & Meyer, B. (2020). Linking diversity and mental health: Task conflict mediates between perceived subgroups and emotional exhaustion. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01245

 

Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A. A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(6), 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85

 

Sui, Y., Wang, H., Yue, Y.-N., & Fred, L. (2012). The effect of transformational leadership on follower performance and satisfaction: The mediating role of psychological capital and the moderating role of procedural justice [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(9), 1217–1230. 

 

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

 

Tu, X. Y., Zhang, Q., Wang, Z. Y., & He, X. (2017). Trust climate, perceived insider status and employee’ in-role performance: A mediated moderation model [In Chinese]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00083

 

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/256902

 

Wang, X. Y., & Ji, Z. H. (2013). The relationship between knowledge heterogeneity and innovation performance in interdisciplinary teams [In Chinese]. Science Research Management, 34(3),14–22.

 

Wu, Y. (2014). Influence of knowledge heterogeneity on the entrepreneurial performance of entrepreneurial teams [In Chinese]. Science Research Management, 35(7), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2014.07.011

 

Wu, Z. P., & Chen, F. T. (2011). The development of a scale measuring team psychological safety climate in a Chinese cultural context [In Chinese]. Chinese Journal of Management, 8(1), 73–80.

 

Xiong, M., & Ye, Y.-D. (2014). The concept, measurement, influencing factors and effects of psychological capital [In Chinese]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 32(3), 84–92. https://xbjk.ecnu.edu.cn/EN/abstract/abstract8818.shtml

 

Xu, X. D. (1999). Work stress and its management in modern organizations [In Chinese]. China Labor, 50(9), 33–35.

 

Xu, Y. T. (2024). The effects of intergenerational mobility perception and expectations on young people’s willingness to have children [In Chinese]. Journal of Hubei University of Economics, 22(6), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-626x.2024.06.002

 

Yang, F., & Zhang, L. H. (2012). The impact of cognitive style on innovative behavior: The moderating role of team psychological safety and work unit structure [In Chinese]. Nankai Business Review, 15(5), 13–25.

 

Zhang, H. R. (2010). An empirical study of the impact of psychological capital on job performance [In Chinese]. Jiangxi Social Sciences, 31(12), 228–232.

 

Zhang, J. M., & Zhang, Q. L. (2019). The development of individual career adaptability in social transformation [In Chinese]. Journal of Southwest Minzu University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 40(10), 217–224.

 

Zhang, Y., Rong, S. Y., & Xiong, P. Z. (2022). A study on conflict management mode, psychological safety and virtual team performance [In Chinese]. Journal of Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, 38(2), 101–110.

 

Zhang, Z., & Wang, Y. Y. (2020). The cross-level influence of differentiated transformational leadership on employee creative performance [In Chinese]. Science and Technology Progress and Policy, 37(12), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.6049/kjjbydc.2019060206

 

Zou, Y., Peng, J., & Yin, T. (2018). The effect of team learning climate on team psychological capital: A social information processing perspective [In Chinese]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 16(3), 402–407. https://psybeh.tjnu.edu.cn/EN/Y2018/V16/I3/402