團隊間協調、團隊基礎人力資源措施與團隊績效─以環境不確定性為干擾變項

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：30

、訪客IP：3.12.34.211

姓名

張藍云(Lan-Yun Chang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所

論文名稱

團隊間協調、團隊基礎人力資源措施與團隊績效─以環境不確定性為干擾變項
(Interteam Coordination, Team-based Human Resource Policies and Team Performance ─ Environment Uncertainty as a Moderator)

相關論文

★ 空服員之工作特性、工作壓力源與個人壓力反應	★ 人力資源管理活動對員工離職意願之影響- 以工作滿意度為中介變項
★ 直線主管之管理訓練與其參與人力資源管理活動之關聯	★ 直線經理參與人力資源管理活動之影響因素探討
★ 員工風險承擔對個人持股意願之影響	★ 人力資本投資、知識分享與組織績效之關聯
★ 人力資源部門跨界活動對企業採行高績效人力資源管理實務之影響	★ 賦權感知、工作滿意、組織承諾與服務行為之相關性研究―以某連鎖便利商店為例
★ 業務代表人格特質與核心職能對績效影響的探討 —以某藥廠為例	★ 實施利益分享制度對心理賦權感及工作滿意之影響
★ 員工股票獎酬對員工心理所有權之影響---以內外控人格特質為干擾變項	★ 組織氣候感知、組織承諾與組織公民行為之關聯
★ 人力資源高績效工作實務、創新氣候與組織績效之關聯－以IC設計產業為例	★ 高績效工作實務對員工知識分享行為之影響 -
★ 人格特質與工作績效之關係研究─以航空服務業空服人員為例	★ 員工對功能彈性氣候的感知對工作滿意度的影響以工作自主與工作要求為中介變項

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)

傳統的階層式組織已漸漸難以應付快速的環境變化，因此，利用「團隊」作為組織的彈性機制已愈來愈普遍且備受重視。然而，當組織內團隊愈來愈多時，不可避免地，將使得管理的議題更為複雜，此時組織便需要一些互補性的措施來協助團隊的運作。本研究將團隊間協調與以團隊為基礎的人力資源措施視為影響團隊績效重要的組織背景因素，進一步探討此兩項組織互補性措施與團隊績效的關係。此外，由於組織疆界趨於模糊且逐漸轉移到團隊層次上的影響，使得環境對於團隊的衝擊要比以往來的更為直接，因此，本研究將環境不確定性作為干擾變項，試圖以權變觀點來瞭解不同程度的環境不確定性下，團隊間協調與以團隊為基礎的人力資源措施兩者對團隊績效的關係是否有所不同。本研究以科技產業團隊為主要研究對象，樣本共包含119組團隊（744位參與者）。研究結果發現，團隊間協調與以團隊為基礎的人力資源措施都對團隊績效有著非常顯著的正向影響。不過，環境不確定性的干擾效果僅出現在團隊創新能力上，對團隊間協調與團隊創新能力是負向的干擾效果、對以團隊為基礎的人力資源措施與團隊創新能力是正向的干擾效果。最後，針對研究結果提出理論上與實務上的討論。

摘要(英)

Teams as a kind of flexible mechanism become popular in recent years. As team-based organizations are highly acceptable and more teams are applied in core process, they also complicate managerial issues. Therefore, organizational context is needed to be complementarities in order to support team operations especially in changeable environment. The purpose of the study is to find out the importance of organizational context, including interteam coordination and team-based human resource policies, on team performance and the moderating effect of environment uncertainty on them. The study includes 119 teams (744 participants) in technology industry. Results support the assumptions that interteam coordination and team-based human resource policies have strongly positive effect on team performance. However, the moderating effect only shows on team innovation. On the one hand, environment uncertainty as a moderator has positive influence on the relationship of team-based human resource policies and innovation. On the othet hand, environment uncertainty has negative moderating effect on interteam coordination and innovation. Following the results, theoretical and practical implications are discussed in the final section.

關鍵字(中)

★ 團隊間協調
★ 以團隊為基礎的人力資源措施
★ 環境不確定性

關鍵字(英)

★ interteam coordination
★ team-based human resource policies
★ environment uncertainty

論文目次

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................... 1
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................... 4
2.1. TEAM, TEAM TYPES AND TEAM PERFORMANCE ............ 4
2.2. INTERTEAM COORDINATION AND TEAM PERFORMANCE ...... 6
2.3. TEAM-BASED HUMAN RESOURCE POLICIES AND TEAM PERFORMANCE ........................................... 8
2.4. MODERATING ROLE OF ENVIRONMENT UNCERTAINTY........ 10
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY................................. 14
3.1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................ 14
3.2. DATA COLLECTION .................................. 15
3.3. MEASUREMENT ...................................... 17
3.4. DATA AGGREGATION ................................. 19
3.5. DATA ANALYSIS .................................... 20
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS .................................... 21
4.1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTIC ............................ 21
4.2. HYPOTHESIS TESTING ............................... 24
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ................................. 30
5.1. THEORETICAL IMPLICATION .......................... 30
5.2. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION ............................ 34
5.3. LIMITATION AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH..... 35
REFERENCES ............................................ 37
APPENDIX: CONSTRUCT AND MEASUREMENTS .................. 43

參考文獻

1. Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., & Burton-Taylor, S. (2007). Inter-team coordination activities as a source of customer satisfaction. Human Relations, 60(1): 59-98.
2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Allison, P. D. (1978). Measures of inequality. American Sociological Review, 43: 865-880.
4. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4): 634-665.
5. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1998). Rethinking coalition composition from the outside in. In D. H. Gruenfeld (Ed.), Research on managing groups’’ and coalitions’’ composition (Vol. 1, pp. 21-37). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
6. Balkin, D. B., & Montemayor, E. F. (2000). Explaining team-based pay: A contingency perspective based on the organizational life cycle, team design, and organizational learning literatures. Human Resource Management Review, 10(3): 249-269.
7. Bartol, K. M., & Hagmann, L. L. (1992). Team-based pay plans: A key to effective teamwork. Compensation & Benefits Review, 24: 24-29.
8. Batt, R., & Doellgast, V. (2006). Groups, teams, and the division of labor. In S. Ackroyd, R. Batt, P. Thompson, & P. S. Tolbert (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Work & Organization (pp. 138-161), NY: Oxford University Press.
9. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10. Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 355-373.
11. Bowen, D.E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkage: The role of the “strength” of the HRM System. Academy of Management Review, 29: 203-221.
12. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4): 823-850.
13. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49: 429-452.
14. Chi, N. W., Huang, Y. M., & Lin, S. C. (2008). A double-edged sword? Exploring the curvilinear relationship between organizational tenure diversity and team innovation: The moderating role of team-oriented HR practices. Group Organization Management, 34(6): 698-726.
15. Choi, J. N. (2002). External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoratical development. Small Group Research, 33(2): 181-208.
16. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3): 239-290.
17. Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2010). From an intrateam to an interteam perspective of effectiveness: The role of interdependence and boundary activities. Small Group Research, 41(2): 143-174.
18. Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2008). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: Current themes and future prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4): 677–690.
19. Elmes, M. D., & Wilemon, D. (1991). A field syudy of intergroup integration in technology-based organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 7: 229-250.
20. Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2005). High performance work systems and organizational performance: The mediating role of international social structure. Journal of Management, 31: 758-775
21. Farah, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3): 604-617.
22. Galia, F., & Legros, D. (2005). Testing for complementarities between team incentives, training and knowledge management: evidence from France. Paper presented at workshop on Organizing the Search for Technological Innovation, Copenhagen Business School, October.
23. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Group in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517.
24. Gupta, P. P., Dirsmith, M. W., & Fogarty, T. J. (1994). Coordination and control in a government agency: Contingency and institutional theory perspectives on GAO audits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 264-284.
25. Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
26. Hackman, J. R. (1983). A Normative Model of Work Team Effectiveness. New Haven, CT: Yale University
27. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. L. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28. Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1): 38-55.
29. Hogel, M. & Weinkauf, K. (2005). Managing task interdependencies in multi-team progects: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6): 1288-1308.
30. Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6): 987-1015.
31. Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50(3): 553-585.
32. Jennings, Jr., E. T., & Ewalt, J. A. G. (1998). Interorganizational coordination, administrative consolidation, and policy performance. Public Administration Review, 58(5): 417-428.
33. Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. (2009). Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 731-759.
34. Kazanjian, R. K., Drazin, R., & Glynn, M. A. (2000). Creativity and technological learning: the roles of organization architecture and crisis in large-scale projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17: 273-298.
35. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58-74.
36. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375). London: Wiley.
37. Lawler, E. E., & Cohen, S. (1992). Designing pay systems for teams. American Compensation Association Journal, 1: 6-19.
38. Lin, X. H., & Germain, R. (2003). Organizational structure, context, customer orientation, and performance: Lessons from Chinese state-owned enterprises. Strategic Mnagement Journal, 24(11): 1131-1151.
39. Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36(4): 911-940.
40. Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 97-108.
41. Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Multi-team systems. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 289-313). London: Sage.
42. Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Taylor, S. R., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2007). An examination of the effects of organizational district and team contexts on team processes and performance: A meso-mediational model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 891-910.
43. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3): 410-476.
44. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, Jr., A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work (1sted.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
45. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2008). Job and team design: Toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Vol. 27, pp. 39-92). Bradford, England: Emerald Group.
46. Morgeson, F. P., Medsker, G. J., & Campion, M. A. (2006). Job and team design. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (3th ed) (pp. 429-455).
47. Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr., H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2): 172-197.
48. Piña, M. I. D., Martínez, A. M. R., & Martínez, L. G. (2008). Teams in organizations: A review on team effectiveness. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2): 7-21.
49. Rusell, R. D., & Rusell, C. J. (1992). An examination of the effects of organizational norms, organizational structure, and environmental uncertainty on entrepreneurial strategy. Journal of Management, 18(4): 639-656.
50. Sarin, S. & McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences, 34(4): 707-739.
51. Scott, S. G., & Einstein, W. O. (2001). Strategic performance appraisal in team-based organizations: One size does not fit all. Academy of Management Executive, 15(2): 107-116.
52. Souder, W. E., & Moenaert, R. K. (1992). An information uncertainty model for integrating marketing and R&D personnel in new product development projects. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 485-512.
53. Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team Structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2): 135-148.
54. Stewart, G. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1999). Team work and group dynamics. New York: John & Wiley & Sons.
55. Stieglitz, N. & Heine, K. (2007). Innovations and the role of complementarities in a strategic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 1-15.
56. Teachman, J. D. (1980). Analysis of population diversity. Sociological Methods and Research, 8: 341-362.
57. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
58. Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(4): 587-605.
59. Waldman, D. A., Ramírez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 134-143.
60. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1992). Building the learning organisation: a new role for human resource developers. Studies in Continuing Education, 14(2): 115-129.
61. Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and macro human resource management research. Journal of Management, 28(3): 247-276.
62. Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B. & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27: 701-721.
63. Yan, A., & Louis, M. R. (1999). The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level: Buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations, 21(1): 25-47.

指導教授

劉念琪(Nien-Chi Liu)

審核日期

2012-1-13

推文