團隊結構化程度與團隊衝突關係之研究 -探討專案不確定性的干擾效果

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：40

、訪客IP：3.144.124.136

姓名

朱心誼(Hsin-i Chu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

團隊結構化程度與團隊衝突關係之研究 -探討專案不確定性的干擾效果

相關論文

★ 以第四方物流經營模式分析博連資訊科技股份有限公司	★ 探討虛擬環境下隱性協調在新產品導入之作用--以電子組裝業為例
★ 動態能力機會擷取機制之研究－以A公司為例	★ 探討以價值驅動之商業模式創新－以D公司為例
★ 物聯網行動支付之探討-以Apple Pay與支付寶錢包為例	★ 企業資訊方案行銷歷程之探討-以MES為例
★ B2C網路黏著度之探討-以博客來為例	★ 組織機制與吸收能力關係之研究－以新產品開發專案為例
★ Revisit the Concept of Exploration and Exploitation	★ 臺灣遠距醫療照護系統之發展及營運模式探討
★ 資訊系統與人力資訊科技資源對供應鏈績效影響之研究-買方依賴性的干擾效果	★ 資訊科技對知識創造影響之研究-探討社會鑲嵌的中介效果
★ 資訊科技對公司吸收能力影響之研究－以新產品開發專案為例	★ 探討買賣雙方鑲嵌關係影響交易績效之機制 ─新產品開發專案為例
★ 資訊技術運用與協調能力和即興能力對新產品開發績效之影響	★ 團隊組成多元性影響任務衝突機制之研究─ 以新產品開發專案團隊為例

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

在現今競爭激烈且迅速變動的環境下，過去的文獻專注的焦點多在組織的結構在多變的環境下是否需要靈活的運用機制。但卻未明確的研討出，在一般固有的組織下所使用的控制機制是否都適宜，亦會因為多變的任務下，如專案的特性之下而有所影響。有鑑於過去的學者主要都針對在探討新產品開發的專案特性，與績效間相關要素的影響，而沒有考慮到在專案特性下高程度的不確定性會增加設計任務的困難度，而引發不同類型的衝突，進而影響團隊績效。
所以我們試著探討團隊的結構化程度可能導致不同種類的衝突發生，即使過去文獻中有關於衝突的定義相當廣泛，所以本研究進一步針對任務型、關係型及流程型衝突深入討論。
本研究著重探討於團隊的結構化程度如何影響衝突，及探討在以新產品開發專案為基礎的情況下，團隊的結構化程度對於衝突的影響，並以專案特性之不確定性當作調節變數來衡量。
本研究乃將理論與實務進行配合，以實證的方式驗證理論概念。針對台灣大型製造業廠商為研究主體，並且以曾經參與過新產品開發的專案人員為研究對象，所得有效樣本為180 份。經實證研究結果發現，團隊的結構化程度會降低任務型、關係型和流程型衝突的發生，而「專案特性之不確定性程度」的使用，會削弱團隊的結構化程度對衝突的負向影響。
因此，本研究建議團隊的結構化程度必須與專案之特性協同一致，才能達到組織所追求的目標與結果。舉例來說，如組織在為降低衝突以增加團隊績效的目標為出發點，高程度的團隊結構化程度即可以很有效的降低其衝突，但同時又應該考量其專案特性之影響，進而達成組織的所預期的目標。

摘要(英)

In today’s highly competitive and rapidly changing environment, previous research focused on whether the organizational structure in the changing environment requires flexible use of mechanisms. Yet, little was known that the control mechanisms inherent in the general organizations are suitable for use, especially affected under the unstable factors, such as the characteristics of the projects.
Previous researches mainly focus on the impact of project characteristics in new development project and team performance, without taking into account that in the high degree of project uncertainty will increase the difficulty of designing tasks, and lead to different type of conflicts, thereby affecting team performance.
Since few studies have investigated from the view of task, relational and process type of conflict, we further discuss all three types in depth. Our research focus on the impact of dealing with stable tasks, greater team structure--higher levels of specialization, formalization, and hierarchy—can affect different types of conflicts. Project characteristics (e.g Project uncertainty) are especially introducing to investigate the relation between the degree of team structure and conflicts.
Our empirical analysis focuses on Taiwan manufacturing industry and we send the questionnaires to who joined the NPD team, totally collecting 180 questionnaires. The empirical results demonstrate that high degree of team structure can reduce the conflict. Moreover, project uncertainty foster as a key catalyst for conflict, mitigating the negative effect between the degree of team structure and conflict.

關鍵字(中)

★ 團隊的結構化程度
★ 衝突
★ 專案特性之不確定性程度

關鍵字(英)

★ team structure
★ conflict
★ project characteristics

論文目次

目錄
摘要 i
Abstract ii
致謝 iii
圖目錄 vi
表目錄 vi
第一章緒論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究目的與問題 3
第三節研究流程 4
第二章文獻探討及假說 5
第一節團隊的結構化程度 5
2.1.1 團隊的結構化程度(Team Structure)之定義 5
2.1.2團隊的結構化程度之專門化構面(Specialization) 6
2.1.3團隊的結構化程度之階層化構面(Hierarchy) 6
2.1.4 團隊的結構化程度之程序化構面(Formalization) 7
第二節衝突 8
2.2.1衝突的定義 (conflict) 8
2.2.2衝突的類型 9
第三節團隊的結構化程度與衝突 11
2.3.1團隊的結構化程度與衝突 11
第四節團隊的結構化程度與衝突以及專案特性之不確定性程度 14
2.4.1專案的定義 14
2.4.2專案特性的定義 15
第三章研究設計 21
第一節研究架構 21
第二節研究假說 23
第三節衡量變數定義 24
3.3.1組織架構衡量指標 24
3.3.2衝突衡量指標 25
3.3.3專案特性之專案不確定性程度 26
第四節結構化模型 27
第五節抽樣方法與問卷設計 29
3.5.1 抽樣方法 29
3.5.2 問卷設計 29
3.5.3 問卷前測 29
第四章實證分析 31
第一節樣本基本資料之統計分析 31
第二節衡量變數評估 33
4.2.1信度分析 34
4.2.2收斂效度 35
4.2.3區別效度 37
4.2.4調節效果分析 38
第三節結構模型之評估 44
4.3.1假說檢定 44
4.3.2結構模型的評估 44
第四節研究假設分析 46
4.4.1團隊的結構化程度與衝突之研究假設分析 46
4.4.2團隊的結構化程度與衝突以及專案不確定性程度之研究假設分析 47
第五章結論與建議 48
第一節研究結果與貢獻 48
5.1.1團隊的結構化程度對於衝突之影響 48
5.1.2專案特性之不確定性程度對於團隊的結構化程度與衝突間關係的影響 48
第二節研究限制與未來研究建議 49
5.2.1研究限制 49
5.3.2 管理意涵及未來研究建議 50
參考文獻 53
附錄 61

參考文獻

1. Ahmad, S., Mallick, D. N., & Schroeder, R. G. (2013). New Product Development: Impact of Project Characteristics and Development Practices on Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2), 331-348.
2. Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of management, 23(4), 495-516.
3. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 43.
4. Barrow, N. J., & Shaw, T. C. (1976). Sodium bicarbonate as an extractant for soil phosphate, II. Effect of varying the conditions of extraction on the amount of phosphate initially displaced and on the secondary adsorption. Geoderma, 16(2), 109-123.
5. Blau, P. M. (1974). Presidential address: Parameters of social structure. American Sociological Review, 615-635.
6. Booz. (1968). Management of new products. Booz, Allen & Hamilton.
7. Boulding (1963). Conflict and defence: A general theory. Harper & Row.
8. Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2013). The structural context of team learning: effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organization Science, 24(4), 1120-1139.
9. Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 577-594.
10. Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2010). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21(3), 609-624.
11. Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1-22.
12. Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development process. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
13. Cleland, D. I., & King, W. R. Systems Analysis and Project Management. 1983.
14. Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Toward a theory of social conflict. Journal of conflict resolution, 170-183.
15. David, F. R., Pearce, J. A., & Randolph, W. A. (1989). Linking technology and structure to enhance group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 233.
16. Devaux, C., Menard, J., Alexandre, J. M., Idatte, J. M., Meyer, P., & Milliez, P. (1968). Variations in renin and its substrate after binephrectomy. The Lancet, 291(7537), 300.
17. Drucker, P. F. (1998). Management’s new paradigms. Forbes Magazine, 10, 98.
18. Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Learning from failure in health care: frequent opportunities, pervasive barriers. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(suppl 2), ii3-ii9.
19. Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: the challenges are the benefits*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 123-138.
20. Edmondson, A. C., Roberto, M. A., & Watkins, M. D. (2003). A dynamic model of top management team effectiveness: Managing unstructured task streams. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 297-325.
21. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
22. Fink, C. F. (1968). Some conceptual difficulties in the theory of social conflict. Journal of conflict resolution.
23. Fitzsimmons, J. A., Kouvelis, P., & Mallick, D. N. (1991). Design strategy and its interface with manufacturing and marketing: a conceptual framework. Journal of Operations Management, 10(3), 398-415.
24. Fitzsimmons, J. A., Kouvelis, P., & Mallick, D. N. (1991). Design strategy and its interface with manufacturing and marketing: a conceptual framework. Journal of Operations Management, 10(3), 398-415.
25. Fjeldstad, Ø. D., Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Lettl, C. (2012). The architecture of collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 734-750.
26. Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
27. Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization design: An information processing view. Interfaces, 4(3), 28-36.
28. Gersick, C. J., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 47(1), 65-97.
29. Gerwin, D., & Barrowman, N. J. (2002). An evaluation of research on integrated product development. Management Science, 48(7), 938-953.
30. Gist, M. E., Locke, E. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1987). Organizational behavior: Group structure, process, and effectiveness. Journal of Management, 13(2), 237-257.
31. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative science quarterly, 29(4).
32. Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 578.
33. Griffin, A. (1997). The Effect of Project and Process Characteristics on Product Development Cycle Time. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 34(1).
34. Grinyer, P. H., Yasai-Ardekani, M., & Al-Bazzaz, S. (1980). Strategy, structure, the environment, and financial performance in 48 United Kingdom companies. Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 193-220.
35. Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(1), 1-15.
36. Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human relations.
37. Haenlein, M., Kaplan, A. M., & Beeser, A. J. (2007). A model to determine customer lifetime value in a retail banking context. European Management Journal, 25(3), 221-234.
38. Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization science, 16(3), 290-307.
39. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative science quarterly, 256-282.
40. Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative science quarterly, 530-557.
41. Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in organizational behavior, 25, 187-242.
42. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of management journal, 44(2), 238-251.
43. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of management journal, 44(2), 238-251.
44. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.
45. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.
46. Johansson, J. K., & Yip, G. S. (1994). Exploiting globalization potential: US and Japanese strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 15(8), 579-601.
47. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
48. Kailath, T., & Sayed, A. H. (1995). Displacement structure: theory and applications. SIAM review, 37(3), 297-386.
49. Kaplan, A. M., Schoder, D., & Haenlein, M. (2007). Factors influencing the adoption of mass customization: The impact of base category consumption frequency and need satisfaction. Journal of product innovation management, 24(2), 101-116.
50. Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 67-87.
51. Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1985). Project performance and the locus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 67-87.
52. Keck, S. L. (1997). Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental context. Organization Science, 8(2), 143-156.
53. Kier, L. B., & Hall, L. H. (1999). Molecular structure description.
54. Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management science, 47(1), 1-21.
55. Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management science, 47(1), 1-21.
56. Langerak, F., & Hultink, E. J. (2005). The impact of new product development acceleration approaches on speed and profitability: Lessons for pioneers and fast followers. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 52(1), 30-42.
57. Leonard, H. S., & Lang, F. (2010). Leadership development via action learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(2), 225-240.
58. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual review of psychology, 41(1), 585-634.
59. Lipman, B. S., & Massie, E. (1965). Clinical scalar electrocardiography. Academic Medicine, 40(8), 815.
60. Loomis, C. P. (1967). In praise of conflict and its resolution. American Sociological Review, 875-890.
61. MacCormack, A., & Verganti, R. (2003). Managing the sources of uncertainty: Matching process and context in software development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(3), 217-232.
62. Makabe, M., & Ouchi, K. (1979). Structural analysis of NaOH-alcohol treated coals. Fuel, 58(1), 43-47.
63. March, J. G. (1958). HA Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: WileyMarchOrganizations1958.
64. McCann, J., & Galbraith, J. R. (1981). Interdepartmental relations. Handbook of organizational design, 2, 60-84.
65. McDonough III, E. F., & Leifer, R. P. (1986). Effective control of new product projects: the interaction of organization culture and project leadership. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3(3), 149-157.
66. Meyer, M. W. (1968). The Two Authority Structures of Bureaucratic Organizatino. Administrative Science Quarterly, 211-228.
67. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structures in fives. Designing Effective Organiza.
68. Molinari, H., Montanari, F., Quici, S., & Tundo, P. (1979). Polymer-supported phase-transfer catalysts. High catalytic activity of ammonium and phosphonium quaternary salts bonded to a polystyrene matrix. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 101(14), 3920-3927.
69. Olson, E. M., Walker Jr, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995). Organizing for effective new product development: the moderating role of product innovativeness. The Journal of Marketing, 48-62.
70. Olson, E. M., Walker Jr, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995). Organizing for effective new product development: the moderating role of product innovativeness. The Journal of Marketing, 48-62.
71. Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C., Ruekerf, R. W., & Bonnerd, J. M. (2001). Patterns of cooperation during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(4), 258-271.
72. Peraire, J., Vahdati, M., Morgan, K., & Zienkiewicz, O. C. (1987). Adaptive remeshing for compressible flow computations. Journal of computational physics, 72(2), 449-466.
73. Perrow, C., Wilensky, H. L., & Reiss, A. J. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (Vol. 3). New York: McGraw-Hill.
74. Ping Jr, R. A. (1996). Improving the detection of interactions in selling and sales management research. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16(1), 53-64.
75. Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict. Journal of applied psychology, 75(2), 117.
76. Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success: definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Institute.
77. Priem, R. L., & Price, K. H. (1991). Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry, devil′s advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making. Group & Organization Management, 16(2), 206-225.
78. Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1976). Organizational structure in its context: The Aston Programme I (Vol. 1). Lexington Books.
79. Quinn, J. B. (1985). Managing innovation: controlled chaos. Harvard business review, 63(3), 73-84.
80. Rahim, M. A. (1985). A strategy for managing conflict in complex organizations. Human Relations, 38(1), 81-89.
81. Robbins, K. T., Medina, J. E., Wolfe, G. T., Levine, P. A., Sessions, R. B., & Pruet, C. W. (1991). Standardizing neck dissection terminology: official report of the Academy′s Committee for Head and Neck Surgery and Oncology. Archives of Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery, 117(6), 601.
82. Ruekert, R. W., Walker Jr, O. C., & Roering, K. J. (1985). The Organization of Marketing Activities: A Contingency Theory of Structure and Performance. Journal of marketing, 49(1).
83. Schmidt, S. M., & Kochan, T. A. (1972). Conflict: Toward Conceptual Clarity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3).
84. Schmidt, S. M., & Kochan, T. A. (1972). Conflict: Toward Conceptual Clarity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3).
85. Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group decision and negotiation, 2(2), 149-165.
86. Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization science, 4(3), 367-392.
87. Smith, D. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Too hot to handle? How to manage relationship conflict. California Management Review, 49(1), 6-31.
88. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of experimental social psychology, 31(3), 244-265.
89. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 75-88.
90. Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team Self-management, Organizational Structure, and Judgments of Team Effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(2).
91. Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265-274.
92. Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team Diagnostic Survey Development of an Instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373-398.
93. Wakefield, R. L., Leidner, D. E., & Garrison, G. (2008). Research Note-A Model of Conflict, Leadership, and Performance in Virtual Teams. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 434-455.
94. Williamson, O. E. (1999). Strategy research: governance and competence perspectives.
95. Wold, S., Martens, H., & Wold, H. (1983). The multivariate calibration problem in chemistry solved by the PLS method. In Matrix Pencils (pp. 286-293). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
96. Yu, A. S. O., Figueiredo, P. S., & de Souza Nascimento, P. T. (2010). Development resource planning: complexity of product development and the capacity to launch new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(2), 253-266.
97. Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 501-518.
98. Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organization context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 501-518.
99. Zirger, B. J., & Hartley, J. L. (1996). The effect of acceleration techniques on product development time. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 43(2), 143-152.

指導教授

陳炫碩(Hsuan-shuo Chen)

審核日期

2014-7-3

推文