Previous research has merely explored the positive relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, but the potential negative side of cognitive diversity might also prevail and should be examined together with its positive side. To address this gap, our study, drawing on the categorization–elaboration model framework, explored both the positive and negative effects of cognitive diversity on creativity/innovation in a single model. Using data collected from 101 teams (including both team leaders and team members) in 10 Chinese manufacturing companies, we identified a dual pathway – namely, task reflexivity (i.e., positive pathway) and relationship conflict (i.e., negative pathway) – in the linkage of cognitive diversity and innovative work behaviour (i.e., IWB). Cognitive diversity encouraged IWB via the task reflexivity pathway, but impeded IWB via the relationship conflict pathway. We further demonstrated that perceived support for innovation moderated the relationships between cognitive diversity and task reflexivity/relationship conflict, with cognitive diversity more related to task reflexivity and less related to relationship conflict when perceived support for innovation was high. Moderated mediation effects also indicated that the positive indirect effect of cognitive diversity on IWB through task reflexivity existed only when support for innovation was high and that the negative indirect effect of cognitive diversity on IWB through relationship conflict occurred only when support for innovation was low. Practitioner points This study informs team managers about the double‐edged‐sword effect of cognitive diversity on innovative work behaviour and calls for future research on how to manage diverse teams composed of individuals with different cognitions. Cognitive diversity was found to influence innovative work behaviour positively via task reflexivity and negatively via relationship conflict. Therefore, team managers should encourage their employees to rethink and re‐evaluate task‐related issues but not translate this into emotional exclusion. Perceived support for innovation strengthened the positive effect of cognitive diversity and weakened its negative influence. Therefore, team managers should build up such an environment by showing support and encouragement of innovation in teams of employees with different cognitions.

No abstract

Growth-mediated feedback between synthetic gene circuits and host organisms leads to diverse emerged behaviors, including growth bistability and enhanced ultrasensitivity. However, the range of possible impacts of growth feedback on gene circuits remains underexplored. Here, we mathematically and experimentally demonstrated that growth feedback affects the functions of memory circuits in a network topology-dependent way. Specifically, the memory of the self-activation switch is quickly lost due to the growth-mediated dilution of the circuit products. Decoupling of growth feedback reveals its memory, manifested by its hysteresis property across a broad range of inducer concentration. On the contrary, the toggle switch is more refractory to growth-mediated dilution and can retrieve its memory after the fast-growth phase. The underlying principle lies in the different dependence of active and repressive regulations in these circuits on the growth-mediated dilution. Our results unveil the topology-dependent mechanism on how growth-mediated feedback influences the behaviors of gene circuits.

Leaders are encouraged to show benevolence to followers in paternalistic cultures. Yet, there remains debate about whether the influence of increasingly benevolent leadership on follower outcomes is linearly favorable. Grounded in the too‐much‐of‐a‐good‐thing effect and resource allocation theory, we developed and tested a model considering a potential curvilinear relationship between benevolent leadership and team performance while also examining the mediating role of team action processes. We further reasoned that this curvilinear indirect effect would be moderated by team commitment, which could neutralize the diminishing performance returns resulting from excessive benevolent leadership. To test these ideas, we carried out two studies. In the first study, multisource and time‐lagged data collected from 381 employees working in 104 research and development teams showed that benevolent leadership exhibited an inverted U‐shaped relationship with team performance, but this curvilinear relationship disappeared in teams with high team commitment. In the second study, we replicated and extended our results using a sample of 417 employees from 101 hotel management teams of a large hotel chain. Specifically, we found an inverted U‐shaped relationship between benevolent leadership and team action processes, which mediated the inverted U‐shaped relationship between benevolent leadership and team performance. Moreover, this indirect curvilinear effect only held in teams with low team commitment. We discuss the implications of our findings for both theory and practice.

The leader self‐sacrifice literature has largely drawn on the norm of reciprocity to examine the positive impacts of leader self‐sacrifice on employee attitudes and behaviours, but little attention has been paid to the potential negative impacts of leader self‐sacrifice on leaders’ own work outcomes. Grounded in social exchange theory and ego depletion theory, our research focuses on why leader self‐sacrifice brings about both beneficial and detrimental effects and considers how leader competence shapes these effects. Two field studies were conducted to test our hypotheses. Study 1 explored the underlying mechanisms through which leader self‐sacrifice influences team/leader work engagement. Study 2 replicated and extended the findings of Study 1 by further testing the moderating role of leader competence. Our results indicated that team affective commitment to leaders acts as a key mediator of the positive relationship between leader self‐sacrifice and team work engagement, and that leader depletion serves as a crucial mechanism underlying the negative relationship between leader self‐sacrifice and leader work engagement. Additionally, leader competence affects how team members view self‐sacrificing leaders and the extent to which self‐sacrificing leaders consume their energy. For competent leaders, the positive influence of leader self‐sacrifice on team work engagement (via team affective commitment to leaders) is stronger, and the negative influence of leader self‐sacrifice on leader work engagement (via leader depletion) is weaker. Practitioner points To avoid self‐sacrificing leaders being seriously depleted, organizations should design activities or training programmes to help leaders replenish self‐control resources and, if possible, increase their self‐control capacity. To encourage team members’ investment in their work, leaders may need to establish psychological attachment and bonds with members to motivate them to repay sacrificial behaviours by fully engaging in the work. Organizations can provide systematic training to enhance leader competence to magnify the beneficial impacts and buffer the detrimental impacts of leader self‐sacrifice.