博碩士論文 111423029 詳細資訊




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:44 、訪客IP:18.219.144.225
姓名 李博文(Po-Wen Lee)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 資訊管理學系
論文名稱 探討同儕壓力對軟體開發團隊在勞動敏捷性的影響: 大五人格作為調節作用
(The Effects of Peer Pressure on Workforce Agility in Software Development Teams : The Moderating Role of Big Five Personality)
相關論文
★ 專案管理的溝通關鍵路徑探討─以某企業軟體專案為例★ 運用並探討會議流如何促進敏捷發展過程中團隊溝通與文件化:以T銀行系統開發為例
★ 專案化資訊服務中人力連續派遣決策模式之研究─以高鐵行控資訊設備維護為例★ 以組織正義觀點介入案件指派決策之研究
★ 應用協調理論建立系統軟體測試中問題改善之協作流程★ 應用案例式推理於問題管理系統之研究 -以筆記型電腦產品為例
★ 運用限制理論於多專案開發模式的人力資源配置之探討★ 應用會議流方法於軟體專案開發之個案研究:以翰昇科技公司為例
★ 多重專案、多期再規劃的軟體開發接案決策模式:以南亞科技資訊部門為例★ 會議導向敏捷軟體開發及系統設計:以大學畢業專題為例
★ 一種基於物件、屬性導向之變更影響分析方法於差異化產品設計★ 會議流方法對大學畢業專題的團隊合作品質影響之實驗研究
★ 實施敏捷式發展法於大學部畢業專題之 行動研究 – 以中央大學資管系為例★ 建立一個用來評核自然語言需求品質的線上資訊系統
★ 結合本體論與模糊分析網路程序法於軟體測試之風險與風險關聯辨識★ 在軟體反向工程中針對UML結構模型圖之線上品質評核系統
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 (2029-6-30以後開放)
摘要(中) 為了適應競爭激烈及不斷變化的環境,軟體開發團隊需要快速因應客戶需求,並進行相應的反饋,因此勞動敏捷性在軟體開發團隊中非常重要。儘管強調敏捷性的軟體開發團隊擁有較少的官僚控制,但由於其扁平管理結構以及團隊成員的自主權增加可能會導致同儕壓力的產生,同儕壓力可能導致軟體開發團隊成員的勞動敏捷性下降。然而不同個體可能會因其的人格特質,對於同儕壓力與勞動敏捷性之間的關係有著不同的影響。目前有關同儕壓力與勞動敏捷性之間的關係以及大五人格特質作為調節作用的文獻相對匱乏。因此,本研究欲探討同儕壓力對軟體開發團隊成員的勞動敏捷性之影響以及大五人格特質作為調節作用。

綜上所述,本研究採問卷調查法收集樣本,共回收219份有效問卷。採用偏最小平方法(Partial Least Square)對資料做分析並檢視假說。研究結果表明,同儕壓力對勞動敏捷性呈負向的關係;神經質正向調節同儕壓力與勞動敏捷性的關係;盡責性人格特質負向調節同儕壓力與勞動敏捷性的關係;親和性人格特質正向調節同儕壓力與勞動敏捷性的關係。最終本研究結果將豐富現有軟體開發之研究,並提高對於勞動敏捷性文獻的理解。軟體開發團隊可以藉由本研究之發現與建議進行調整,以提升團隊成員之勞動敏捷性。此外,本研究亦針對不顯著之假說進行深入探討,並提出研究過程中的限制以及針對未來可進行的研究方向提出說明。
摘要(英) To adapt to the highly competitive and constantly changing environment, software development teams need to quickly respond to customer demands and provide corresponding feedback. Therefore, workforce agility is crucial in software development teams. Despite the reduced bureaucratic control in agile-focused software development teams, the flat management structure and increased autonomy of team members may lead to peer pressure. Peer pressure can potentially reduce the workforce agility of software
development team members. However, the relationship between peer pressure and workforce agility may vary among individuals due to their personality traits. Currently,
there is lack of literature on the relationship between peer pressure and workforce agility, as well as the moderating effect of the Big Five personality traits. Thus, this study aims to explore the impact of peer pressure on the workforce agility of software development team members and the moderating role of the Big Five personality traits.

In summary, this study collected samples using a questionnaire survey method, with a total of 219 valid questionnaires retrieved. The data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares (PLS) to examine the hypotheses. The results indicated that peer pressure has a negative relationship with workforce agility. Neuroticism positively moderates the relationship between peer pressure and workforce agility; conscientiousness negatively
moderates this relationship; and agreeableness positively moderates the relationship. The findings of this study will enrich existing research on software development and enhance
the understanding of iterature related to workforce agility. Software development teams can adjust based on the findings and recommendations of this study to improve the workforce agility of their team members. Moreover, this study provides further explanations for non-significant hypotheses,outlines the limitations encountered during the research process, and suggests directions for future research.
關鍵字(中) ★ 軟體開發團隊
★ 軟體開發敏捷性
★ 同儕壓力
★ 勞動敏捷性
★ 大五人格特質
關鍵字(英) ★ Software Development Teams
★ Software Development Agility
★ Peer Pressure
★ Workforce Agility
★ Big Five Personality Traits
論文目次 摘要 .................................................. ii
Abstract ............................................. iii
致謝 .................................................. iv
目錄................................................... v
圖目錄 ................................................ vii
表目錄 ................................................ viii
第一章 緒論............................................. 1
1-1. 研究背景與問題 .................................... 1
1-2. 研究目的與方法 .................................... 4
1-3. 研究範圍與假說..................................... 4
1-4. 研究架構 ....................................................... 4
第二章 文獻探討 ....................................................... 6
2-1. 勞動敏捷性(Workforce Agility) ..................... 6
2-2. 同儕壓力(Peer Pressure) ........................... 8
2-3. 大五人格特質(The Big Five Personality) ............ 10
第三章 研究模型與假說 ................................... 14
3-1. 同儕壓力與勞動敏捷性 ............................... 14
3-2. 調節因子 : 大五人格特質 ............................ 15
第四章 研究方法 ........................................ 21
4-1. 資料收集與樣本 .................................... 21
4-2. 變數定義 .......................................... 23
4-3. 問卷設計........................................... 23
4-4. 資料分析方法 ...................................... 28
4-5. 樣本數需求分析 .................................... 28
第五章 資料分析與結果 ................................... 30
5-1. 樣本結構分析 ...................................... 30
5-2. 樣本特徵分析 ...................................... 30
5-3. 測量模型分析 ...................................... 31
5-4. 共同方法變異(Common Method Variance) .............. 36
5-5. 結構模型分析 ...................................... 37
5-6. 調節效果分析 ...................................... 42
5-7. 多群組分析 ........................................ 44
第六章 結果與討論 ...................................... 46
6-1. 結果探討 ......................................... 46
6-2. 理論貢獻 ......................................... 49
6-3. 實務意涵 ......................................... 50
6-4. 效度威脅 ......................................... 51
第七章 結論............................................ 53
7-1. 結論............................................. 53
7-2. 研究限制與未來發展 ................................ 54
參考文獻 .............................................. 56
附錄一、問卷量表-第一份問卷 ............................. 68
附錄二、問卷量表-第二份問卷 ............................. 72
參考文獻 1. 黃堅厚. (1999). 人格心理學. 台北: 心理出版社
2. 彭台光、高月慈、林鉦棽(2006)。管理研究中的共同方法變異:問題本質、
影響、測試和補救。管理學報,23(1),77-98。
3. Acuña, S.T., Gómez, M., & Juzgado, N.J. (2009). How do personality, team processes and task characteristics relate to job satisfaction and software quality? Inf. Softw. Technol., 51, 627-639.
4. Akgün, Ali E., Halit Keskin, and John C. Byrne. (2010). Procedural Justice Climate in New Product Development Teams: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27 (7): 1096–111.
5. Alavi, S., Abd Wahab, D., Muhamad, N., & Arbab Shirani, B. (2014). Organic structure and organisational learning as the main antecedents of workforce agility. International Journal of Production Research, 52, 6273 - 6295.
6. Allen, J.P., Porter, M.R., McFarland, F.C.(2006). Leaders and followers in adolescent close friendships:Susceptibility to peer influence as a predictor of risky behavior, friendship instability, and depression. Development and Psychopathology 18 (1), 155–172.
7. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York Holt.
8. Amin, A., Rehman, M., Basri, S., Capretz, L. F., Goraya, M. A. S., & Akbar, R.(2023). The impact of stressors on the relationship between personality traits, knowledge collection behaviour and programmer creativity intention in software engineering. Information and Software Technology, 163, [107288].
9. Armstrong, J.S., & Overton, T. (1977). Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396 - 402.
10. Assen, M.V. (2000). Agile-based competence management: the relation between agile manufacturing and time-based competence management. International Journal of Agile Management Systems, 2, 142-155.
11. Bakker, A.B., Van der Zee, K.I., Lewig, K.A. & Dollard, M.F. (2006). The relationship between the Big Five Personality Factors and Burnout: A study Among Volunteer Counselors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 31-50.
12. Becker, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., & Völckner, F. (2015). How collinearity affects mixture regression results. Marketing Letters, 26, 643-659.
13. Bhattacharya, M., Gibson, D.E. and Doty, D.H. (2005) .The Effects of Flexibility in Employee Skills, Employee Behaviors, and Human Resource Practices on Firm Performance. Journal of Management, 31(4), 622-641.
14. Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., & Swader, W. M. (2005). Giving and receiving social support at work: The roles of personality and reciprocity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 476–489.
15. Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M., & Bridger, D. (2001). Workforce agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology, 17(1), 21–31.
16. Bunjak, A., Černe, M., Nagy, N., & Bruch, H. (2023). Job demands and burnout: The multilevel boundary conditions of collective trust and competitive pressure. Human Relations, 76(5), 657-688.
17. Byrne, K. A., Silasi-Mansat, C. D., & Worthy, D. A. (2015). Who Chokes Under Pressure? The Big Five Personality Traits and Decision-Making under Pressure. Personality and individual differences, 74, 22–28.
18. Cai, Z., Huang, Q., Liu, H., & Wang, X. (2018).Improving the agility of employees through enterprise social media: The mediating role of psychological conditions. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 52-63.
19. Calefato, F., Lanubile, F., & Vasilescu, B. (2019) .A large-scale, in-depth analysis of developers’ personalities in the apache ecosystem. Information and Software Technology, vol. 114, pp. 1–20.
20. Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic theoretical and factual study. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21. Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In W. W. Esposito Vinzi, J. H. Chin, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts,
methods and applications (Springer handbooks of computational statistics series, vol. ii)(pp. 655–690). Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer.
22. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. N.Y.: Routledge.
23. Cole, D. A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J., & Paul, G. (2006). Stress exposure and stress generation in child and adolescent depression: A latent trait-state-error approach to longitudinal analyses. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,115(1), 40-51.
24. Connor, K. M., Vaishnavi, S., Davidson, J. R. T., Sheehan, D. V., & Sheehan, K. H. (2007). Perceived stress in anxiety disorders and the general population: A study
of the Sheehan stress vulnerability scale. Psychiatry Research, 151(3), 249–254.
25. Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P. and O’Driscoll, M.P. (2001) Organizational Stress: A Review and Critique of Theory, Research, and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
26. Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121092.
27. Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of business and psychology, 29(1), 1-19.
28. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2),197–229.
29. De Vries, J., & Van Heck, G. L. (2002). Fatigue: Relationships with basic personality and temperament dimensions. Personality and Individual Diferences,33(8),1311–1324.
30. Dingsøyr, T. and Lassenius, C. (2016) Emerging Themes in Agile Software Development: Introduction to the Special Section on Continuous Value Delivery. Information and Software Technology, 77, 56-60.
31. Donnellan, B.M., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M., & Lucas, R.E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of
the personality. Psychological assessment, 18 2, 192-203 .
Big Five factors of personality. Psychological assessment, 18 2, 192-203 .
32. Dutra, E., & Santos, G. (2020). Organisational climate assessments of Agile teams - a qualitative multiple case study. IET Softw., 14, 861-870.
33. Dyer, L.D., & Ericksen, J. (2006). Dynamic Organizations: Achieving Marketplace Agility Through Workforce Scalability. CAHRS Working Paper Series, 06-12.
34. Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for crosscultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 68(4), 435-441.
35. Eschleman, K. J., Mathieu, M., & Cooper, J. (2017). Creating a recovery filled weekend: The moderating effect of occupation type on the relationship between non-work creative activity and state of feeling recovered at work. Creativity
Research Journal, 29(2), 97-107.
36. Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press.
37. Fink, L., Newman, S., 2007. Gaining agility through it personnel capabilities: the mediating role of it infrastructure capabilities. J. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 8 (8), 440-462.
38. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388.
39. Fornell, A. H., & Grover, V. (1998). Strategic information systems planning success: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. MIS Quarterly ,22(2), 139-164.
40. Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of business research, 69(8), 3192-3198.
41. Goldman, S., & Nagel, R. (1993). Management, technology and agility: The emergence of a new era in manufacturing. International Journal of Technology Management, 8(1), 18–38.
42. Graziano, W. G., & Tobin, R. M. (2009). Agreeableness. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 46–61). Guilford Press.
43. Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2003). Adaptable behaviours for successful work and career adjustment. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(2), 65-73.
44. Guenther, P., Guenther, M., Ringle, C.M., Zaefarian, G., & Cartwright, S. (2023). Improving PLS-SEM use for business marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management.
45. Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing : A framework for research and development. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1-2), 87-105.
46. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
47. Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458.
48. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
50. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31, 2-24. 51. Halkos, G., & Bousinakis, D. (2010). The Effect of Stress and Satisfaction on Productivity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 415-431.
52. Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (1996). Prediction of stress appraisals from mastery, extraversion, neuroticism, and general appraisal tendencies. Motivation and Emotion, 20(4), 299– 317.
53. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
54. Herzenberg, S.A., Alic, J.A., Wial, H.(1998). New Rules for New Economy: Employment and Opportunity in Postindustrial America. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
55. Herman, Andrew. (1982). Conceptualizing Control: Domination and Hegemony in the Capitalist Labor Process. Insurgent Sociologist 11 (3): 7–22.
56. Hiranrat, C., Harncharnchai, A., & Duangjan, C. (2021). Theory of Planned Behavior and the Influence of Communication Self-Efficacy on Intention to Pursue a Software Development Career. J. Inf. Syst. Educ., 32, 40-52.
57. Hopp, W.J., & Oyen, M.P. (2004). Agile workforce evaluation: a framework for cross-training and coordination. IIE Transactions, 36(10), 919 - 940.
58. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3(2),114–158.
59. John, O.P. & Srivastava, S. (1999) The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. In: Pervin, L.A. and John, O.P. Eds., Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Vol. 2, Guilford Press, New York, 102-138.
60. Karn, J.S., & Cowling, A.J. (2006). A follow up study of the effect of personality on the performance of software engineering teams. in Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering. pp. 232-241.
61. Kanij, T., Merkel, R., & Grundy, J. (2015). An empirical investigation of personality traits of software testers. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (pp. 1-7). IEEE Press.
62. Khanagha, S., Volberda, H., Alexiou, A., & Annosi, M. C. (2022). Mitigating the dark side of Agile teams: Peer pressure, leaders’ control, and the innovative output
of self-managing teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(3), 334-350.
63. Khattak, K., Qayyum, F., Naqvi, S.S., Mehmood, A., & Kim, J. (2023). A Systematic Framework for Addressing Critical Challenges in Adopting DevOps Culture in Software Development: A PLS-SEM Perspective. IEEE Access, 11, 120137-120156.
64. Kock, N. (2017). Common method bias: a full collinearity assessment method for PLS-SEM. In Partial least squares path modeling (pp. 245-257). Cham: Springer.
65. Kropp, M., Meier, A., Anslow, C., & Biddle, R. (2018). Satisfaction, practices, and influences in agile software development.Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, ACM, , pp. 112–121.
66. Lee, S., & Klein, H. J. (2002). Relationships between conscientiousness, self efficacy, self-deception, and learning over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1175–1182.
67. Leshargie CT, Alebel A, Kibret GD, Birhanu MY, Mulugeta H, Malloy P, et al. (2019) The impact of peer pressure on cigarette smoking among high school and university students in Ethiopia: A systemic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE
14(10).
68. Liu, Y. (2022). A Survey of the Causes and Effects of Peer Pressure in College Students. Proceedings of the 2022 3rd International Conference on Mental Health, Education and Human Development (MHEHD 2022).
69. Luo, J., Zhang, B., Cao, M., & Roberts, B. W. (2023). The Stressful Personality: A Meta-Analytical Review of the Relation Between Personality and Stress. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(2), 128-194.
70. Magpili, Nina Cristina, and Pilar Pazos. (2018). Self-Managing Team Performance: A Systematic Review of Multilevel Input Factors. Small Group Research 49 (1): 3–33.
71. Mayeh, M., Ramayah, T., & Mishra, A. (2016). The role of absorptive capacity, communication and trust in ERP adoption. J. Syst. Softw., 119, 58-69.
72. McAdams, D. (2006). The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of personality, 60, 329–361.
73. McCoy, S.S., Dimler, L.M., Samuels, D.V., Natsuaki, M.N., 2019. Adolescent susceptibility to deviant peer pressure: Does gender matter? Adolescent Research Review 4 (1), 59–71.
74. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1987). Validation of the five‐factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
75. McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PIR) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
76. McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516.
77. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the FiveFactor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.
78. Misra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., Fantazy, K., & Akhter, M. (2012). Agile software development practices: Evolution, principles, and criticisms. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(9), 972-980.
79. Muduli, A., & Muduli, A. (2016). Exploring the facilitators and mediators of workforce agility: An empirical study. Management Research Review, 7(1), 11–20.
80. Mutia, A.T., & Sukmawati, I. (2019). Relationship Between Peer Pressure and Self Esteem in Adolescents. Jurnal Neo Konseling.
81. Nawaz Kalyar M., Shafique I., Ahmad B. (2019). Job stress and performance nexus in tourism industry: a moderation analysis. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J. 67, 6–21.
82. Nouri, B. A., & Mousavi, M. M. (2020). Effect of cooperative management on organizational agility with the mediating role of employee empowerment in public
transportation sector. Cuadernos de Gestion, 20(2), 15-46.
83. Owens, Bradley P., and David R. Hekman. (2016). How Does Leader Humility Influence Team Performance? Exploring the Mechanisms of Contagion and Collective Promotion Focus.Academy of Management Journal 59 (3): 1088–111.
84. Paruma-Pabón, O.H., González, F.A., Aponte, J., Camargo, J.E., & Restrepo-Calle, F. (2016). Finding Relationships between Socio-Technical Aspects and Personality Traits by Mining Developer E-mails. in Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. New York, NY, USA: ACM, pp. 8–14.
85. Pawar, R.P. (2015). A Comparative study of Agile Software Development Methodology and traditional waterfall model.
86. Penley, J.A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1215–1228.
87. Pervin, L. A. (1996). The science of personality. N.Y.: Wiley.
88. Plonka, F. (1997). Developing a lean and agile work force. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 7(1), 11–20.
89. Poeschla, B., Strachan, E., Dansie, E., Buchwald, D. S., & Afari, N. (2013). Chronic fatigue and personality: A twin study of causal pathways and shared liabilities. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(3), 289–298.
90. Purnomo K. S. H., Lustono L., Tatik Y. (2021). The effect of role conflict, role ambiguity and job stress on employee performance. Econ. Educ. Anal. J. 10, 532-542.
91. Purwanto, A., & Sudargini, Y. (2021). Partial least squares structural squation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis for social and management research: a literature review. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management Research, 2(4), 114- 123.
92. Qin, R., & Nembhard, D. A. (2015). Workforce agility in operations management. Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science, 20(2), 55-69.
93. Roberts, B. W. (2009). Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality development. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 137–145.
94. Rožman, M., & Štrukelj, T. (2020). Organisational climate components and their impact work engagement of employees in
medium-sized organisations. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 34, 775 - 806.
95. Russo, D. (2021). The Agile Success Model. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 30, 1 - 46.
96. Salmen, K., & Festing, M. (2021). Paving the way for progress in employee agility research: a systematic literature review and framework. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 33, 4386 - 4439.
97. Santor, D.A., Messervey, D., Kusumakar, V., 2000. Measuring peer pressure, popularity, and conformity in adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school performance, sexual attitudes, and substance abuse. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 29 (2), 163–182.
98. Sanza, C.D. (2011). Work, personality and psychological distress : direct and moderating effects of the Big Five personality traits.
99. Sathe, C. A., & Panse, C.(2022). Analyzing the impact of agile mindset adoption on software development teams productivity during COVID-19. Journal of Advances in Management Research,vol. 20(1), pages 96-115.
100. Shashi, S., Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Ertz, M. (2020). Agile supply chain management: Where did it come from and where will it go in the era of digital transformation? Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 324–345.
101. Sherehiy, B. (2008). Relationships between agility strategy, work organizationand workforce agility. Relationships between agility strategy, work organization and workforce agility [Ph.D. 2008].
102. Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37(5), 445–460.
103. Sherehiy, B., & Karwowski, W. (2014). The relationship between work organization and workforce agility in small manufacturing enterprises. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44(3), 466–473.
104. Shetty P, Bharath S, Nagesh P. (2023) Nexus between Workforce Agility and Employee Loyalty - An IT Sector Perspective. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 16(14): 1056-1061.
105. Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines
for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322–2347.
106. Singh, P., & Suar, D. (2013). Health consequences and buffers of job burnout among indian software developers. Psychological Studies, 58, 20–32.
107. Sim, T. N., & Koh, S. F. (2003). Domain Conceptualization of Adolescent Susceptibility to Peer Pressure. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 58–80.
108. Smith, E.K., Bird, C., & Zimmermann, T. (2016). Beliefs, Practices, and Personalities of Software Engineers: A Survey in a Large Software Company. 2016 IEEE/ACM Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), 15-18.
109. Söllner, M., Bitzer, P., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2018). Process is king: Evaluating the performance of technology-mediated learning in vocational software training. Journal of Information Technology, 33(3), 233-253.
110. Streukens, S., & Leroi-Werelds, S. (2016). Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. European management journal, 34(6), 618-632.
111. Storme, M., Suleyman, O., Gotlib, M., & Lubart, T. (2020). Who is agile ? An investigation of the psychological antecedents of workforce agility. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(6), 28- 38.
112. Tessarini, G., Saltorato, P., (2021) Workforce agility: A systematic literature review and a research agenda proposal. Innovar, 31(81), 155-168.
113. Tompkins, Philip K., and George Cheney. (1985). Communication and Unobtrusive Control in Contemporary Organizations. Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions 13: 179–210.
114. Vishnubhotla, S. D., Mendes, E., & Lundberg, L. (2020). Investigating the relationship between personalities and agile team climate of software professionals in a telecom company. Information and Software Technology, 126, 106335.
115. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 18–31.
116. Williams, P. G., Smith, T. W., Gunn, H. E., & Uchino, B. N. (2011). Personality and stress: Individual differences in exposure, reactivity, recovery, and restoration. In R. J. Contrada & A. Baum (Eds.), The handbook of stress science:
Biology, psychology, and health (pp. 231–245). Springer.
117. Wright, B.M., & Barker, J.R. (2000). Assessing concertive control in the term environment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 345-361.
118. Yang, C., & Liu, H. M. (2012). Boosting firm performance via enterprise agility and network structure. Management Decision, 50(6), 1022-1044.
119. Yusuf, Y. Y., Sarhadi, M., & Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: The drivers, concepts and attributes. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1-2), 33-43.
120. Zhang, Y., Tang, Y., Li, P., & Jia, X. (2021). Popularity matters: Moderating role of popularity on the relation between perceived peer pressure for intervention and Chinese adolescents’ bystander behaviours in bullying.European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 511 - 527.
121. Zhang, R., Li, A., & Gong, Y. (2021). Too much of a good thing: Examining the curvilinear relationship between team-level proactive personality and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 74(2), 295-321.
指導教授 陳仲儼(Chung-Tang Chen) 審核日期 2024-7-3
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明