社會鑲嵌與團隊衝突影響產品創新與效用之研究

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：18.118.12.222

姓名

方姿懿(Zi-yi Fang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

社會鑲嵌與團隊衝突影響產品創新與效用之研究
(The impact of Social Embeddedness and Team Conflict on Product Innovation and Effectiveness)

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)

在全球競爭越來越劇烈的環境之下，組織必須要靠不斷創新去維持競爭能力，才能夠在此環境下生存。除了創新之外，還必須去提升產品的效用，真正地解決客戶的問題以及滿足客戶之需求才能夠脫穎而出。
而組織是一個人與人不斷互動的有機體，又衝突不可避免地會存在於組織當中，因此去了解彼此藉由互動所形成的社會鑲嵌程度如何去影響衝突，並且其對於組織的利與弊是當前迫切的問題。
社會鑲嵌之研究大部分是針對組織與組織間、公司與公司間。鮮少研究針對於組織內部；衝突之間的關係也鮮少有人進行深入的研究；衝突對於組織績效的影響也存在正反面的說法。因此，針對此三項缺口，將進行本研究。
研究之總效果顯示社會鑲嵌對於產品創新以及產品效用都有正向的影響。然而，中介效果表示，雖然社會鑲嵌程度提升，透過關係型衝突，再經由任務型衝突的產生，使得產品創新與效用程度下降。本研究認為，此中介關係可能由於過度鑲嵌的問題使團隊成員關係過於緊密，團隊無法獲得外部資源與資訊，導致任務型衝突下降，使得關於產品的想法沒有經過充分腦力激盪或是真正討論到任務的癥結點，最終讓產品創新以及產品效用下降。

摘要(英)

In competitive global environment, the enterprises in order to have advantage in competition must to be innovative. Besides, the enterprises not only have to be innovative but also have to enhance the product effectiveness. The organization is an organism established by interaction between members. And the conflict inevitably exists in the organization. Therefore, we have to realize how social embeddedness affects the conflict in the organization. There are many researches about the social embeddedness between firm and firm, but few papers focus on social embeddedness in the team or in the organization. Few empirical researches on the relationship between conflicts, moreover, previous studies on conflicts had pros and cons about the impact of conflict on team performance. According to the research gap, we have to find the context of social embeddedness, conflicts, and the performance.
According to the result, the total effect between social embeddedness and product innovation and effectiveness are positive, however, the mediation effect shows if enhance the level of social embeddedness, the product innovation and effectiveness will decline through the relationship conflict and task conflict. According to the outcome, over embeddedness is the reason why product innovation and effectiveness will go down.

關鍵字(中)

★ 社會鑲嵌
★ 團隊衝突
★ 衝突
★ 產品創新
★ 產品效用
★ 過度鑲嵌

關鍵字(英)

★ Social Embeddedness
★ Team Conflict
★ Conflict
★ Product Innovation
★ Product Effectiveness
★ Over Embeddedness

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vi
表目錄 vii
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 2
第三節研究流程 3
第四節、章節架構 4
第二章文獻探討與研究假說 5
第一節社會鑲嵌 5
第二節衝突 9
第三節衝突與產品創新及產品效用 11
第三章研究設計 14
第一節研究架構 14
第二節研究假說 15
第三節變數定義與衡量 15
第四節結構方程模型 20
第五節抽樣方法與問卷設計 24
第四章實證分析 26
第一節樣本基本資料分析 26
第二節測量模型之評估 29
第三節結構模型之評估 36
第四節研究假設分析 39
第五章結論與建議 42
第一節研究結果 42
第二節管理意涵 47
第三節研究限制未來研究建議 48
參考文獻 49
附錄研究問卷

參考文獻

Acur, N., Kandemir, D., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., & Song, M. (2010). Exploring the Impact of Technological Competence Development on Speed and NPD Program Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 915-929.
Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison, A. W. (1995). Conflict – An Important Dimension in Successful Management Teams.Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35.
Bagozzi, Richard P, & Yi, Youjae. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265.
Bentler, Peter M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological bulletin, 112(3), 400.
Boulding, K. E. (1963). Conflict and Defense. New York: Harper and Row.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming: Psychology Press.
Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent′s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1-17.
Chin, Wynne W, & Todd, Peter A. (1995). On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: a note of caution. MIS quarterly, 237-246.
Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue & directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 317-356.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83-107.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191-1201.
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360-390.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms.Organization Science, 3(2), 179-202.
Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task Conflict and Team Creativity: A Question of How Much and When. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173-1180.
Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J. M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77-90.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An Analysis of Conflict in Decision-Making Groups. Human Relations, 7, 367-382.
Hair, Joseph F, Anderson, Rolph E, Tatham, Ronlad L, & Black, William C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis, 5th. NY: Prentice Hall International.
Heide, J. B., & Miner, A. S. (1992). The Shadow of The Future – Effects of Anticipated Interaction and Frequency of Contact on Buyer-Seller Cooperation.Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 265-291.
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615-632.
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.
Hu, Li-tze, & Bentler, Peter M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological methods, 3, 424-453.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of The Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict.Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). Qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 25, 25, 187-242.
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.
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. 4
Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology and measurement.
Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S. S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1222-1252.
Lazzarini, S. G., Miller, G. J., & Zenger, T. R. (2008). Dealing with the Paradox of Embeddedness: The Role of Contracts and Trust in Facilitating Movement Out of Committed Relationships. Organization Science, 19(5), 709-728.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams′ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779-793.
Matsuo, M. (2006). Customer orientation, conflict, and innovativeness in Japanese sales departments. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 242-250.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11), 1033-1055.
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding the Elusive Black Box of Dynamic Capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 239-273.
Polanyi, K. (1957). The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press
Priem, R. L., & Price, K. H. (1991). Processand Outcome Expectations For TheDialectical Inquiry, Devil Advocacy, and Consensus Techniquesof Strategic Decision-Making. Group & Organization Studies, 16(2), 206-225.
Salomo, S., Talke, K., & Strecker, N. (2008). Innovation field orientation and its effect on innovativeness and firm performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 560-576.
Sekaran, Uma. (2003). Research Methods For Business 4"‘Ed: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(3), 217-241.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674-698.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67.
Vodosek, M. (2007). Intragroup conflict as a mediator between cultural diversity and work group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(3-4), 345-375.
Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology- and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42-60.
Zukin, S., & DiMaggio, P. (1990). Structure of Capital: The Social Organization of the Economy.

指導教授

陳炫碩

審核日期

2014-6-25

推文