:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:影響高科技產業研發團隊學習績效相關因素之研究
作者:田靜婷
作者(外文):Ching-Ting Tien
校院名稱:彰化師範大學
系所名稱:工業教育學系
指導教授:張火燦
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2003
主題關鍵詞:團隊學習團隊信任團隊互動團隊衝突認知型態團隊學習績效team learningteam trustteam interactionteam conflictcognitive styleteam learning performance
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:62
本研究旨在探討高科技產業團隊信任、團隊互動型態、團隊衝突型態與團隊學習績效之關係,以作為高科技產業推動研發團隊學習之參考。首先,本研究採文獻分析,從心理學和社會學探討團隊學習的理論基礎,其次探討團隊信任的影響因素、團隊互動的影響因素、團隊衝突型態的影響因素、團隊信任、團隊互動與團隊衝突之關係,以及影響團隊學習績效因素之相關研究,歸納整理形成研究架構,以作為本研究之理論依據。
問卷編製完成後,經專家學者指正後,進行預試,經信、效度分析並修改量表,以建構調查工具的效度與信度。
本研究採問卷調查研究法,以製造業排名前五百大之高科技產業為研究對象。採分層抽樣,抽出100家廠商,共寄發500份,回收241份,回收率為48.2%,有效樣本228份。問卷資料以單因子多變量變異數分析、典型相關分析、層級迴歸分析,以及LISREL之線性結構關係模式等統計方法進行研究假設之檢定,以為資料解釋的依據。
根據文獻探討與問卷調查之資料分析結果,本研究獲致下列六點結論。
一、高科技產業研發團隊信任的型態會隨外在環境、組織環境、認知型態、團隊發展階段、團隊年齡異質性、學歷異質性、公司年資異質性與團隊年資異質性等變項的不同而有所差異。
二、高科技產業研發團隊互動的型態會隨組織環境、認知型態、團隊發展階段與團隊年資異質性等變項的不同而有所差異。
三、高科技產業研發團隊衝突的型態會隨組織環境、認知型態、團隊發展階段、年齡異質性、學歷異質性等變項的不同而有所差異。
四、高科技產業研發團隊信任和團隊的「合作型」互動與「關係型」、「過程型」衝突有密切關係,且「競爭型」互動和團隊衝突亦有密切關係。
五、高科技產業研發團隊信任、團隊互動型態、團隊衝突型態對團隊學習績效有因果關係﹔且團隊信任對團隊學習績效有直接影響效果,團隊信任透過團隊互動型態有間接影響效果,而團隊衝突透過團隊信任對團隊學習有間接影響效果。
六、在背景變項控制下,團隊信任和團隊互動型態對團隊學習績效各構面有主要影響、聯合與交互影響;團隊衝突型態和團隊信任,及其交互作用對團隊學習績效各構面,具有主要、聯合影響,但交互影響不顯著。
根據本研究分析結果與結論,針對高科技產業研發團隊學習的建議如下:
一、強化組織對團隊學習的支持性。
二、強化團隊之良性互動以增加團隊信任基礎和團隊學習績效。
三、控制團隊衝突以增加團隊信任基礎和團隊學習績效。
四、慎選團隊成員組成以增加團隊學習績效。
This research was to investigate the relationship among team trust, interaction style, conflict style and team learning performance of R&D in high technology industries. It was expected that the results could be used as practical implications for the team learning in high technology industries.
The research reviewed selected prior studies on the theory of psychology and sociology based on team learning, the factors related to the team trust, team interaction, team conflict and team learning. To obtain empirical data, a measuring instrument was designed to elicit the information on the team trust, interaction, conflict and team learning. To ensure empirical validity and reliability, a pilot test was conducted after the instrument was modified with input from 5 experts in high technology industries and 6 professors in university.
The subjects involving in the study were selected by stratified sampling method from Top 500 manufacturing industries in Taiwan. There were 100 companies to be sampled from 237 high technology companies in top 500 manufacturing industries. Out of 500 samples participated by mail, 241 questionnaires were responded. The returned rate was 48.2%. After carefully evaluating, there were 228 available samples. The data were analyzed to test the hypothesis using statistical procedures: one-way multivariate analysis, canonical analysis and hierarchical regression analysis, and LISREL linear structure relation statistical methods.
There were 6 conclusions of this research stated as follows:
1.The team trust was significantly correlated with the external environment, organizational environment, cognitive style, team development stage, team heterogeneity in age, team heterogeneity in academic background, team heterogeneity in organizational tenure and team heterogeneity in team tenure on R&D in High Technology Industries.
2.The team interaction style was significantly correlated with the organizational environment, cognitive style, team development stage and team heterogeneity in team tenure on R&D in High Technology Industries.
3.The team conflict style was significantly correlated with the organizational environment, cognitive style, team development stage, team heterogeneity in age and team heterogeneity in academic background on R&D in High Technology Industries.
4.Team trust was related to cooperative interaction, relational conflict and process conflict, and competitive interaction was relation with conflict style on R&D in High Technology Industries.
5.Team trust, team interaction style and team conflict style had causality relations to team learning performance on R&D in High Technology Industries; team trust had direct influence on team learning performance; team trust had indirect influence through team interaction style on team learning performance; and team conflict style had indirect influence through team trust on team learning performance.
6.In control variables of controlled, team trust and team interaction style had main effect, joint effect and interaction effect on every domain of team learning performance; team conflict style and team trust had main effect and joint effect on every domain of team learning performance.
There were 4 applications of this research stated as follows:
1.Improve organizational support to team learning.
2.Improve the good team interaction to added team trust base and team learning performance.
3.Control team conflict to improve team trust base and team learning performance.
4.Carefully select team member to improve team performance.
參考書目
一、 中文部分
天下雜誌(民91),2001年一千大特刊。台北:天下。
方俊明(民82),認知心理學與人格教育。台北:水牛。
王文科(民84),教育研究法。台北:五南。new window
王文科主譯(民78),學習心理學─學習理論導論(B. R. Hergenhahn 原著)。台北:五南。
王思峰、黃家齊與鄭俐敏(民91),團隊知識轉換與知識創造的實驗研究─知識螺旋理論的驗證。管理與系統,9(1),頁29-60。new window
王如哲著(民89),知識管理的理論與應用。台北:五南。
朱瑞玲(民82a),中國人的社會互動:試論面子的運作(上)。律師通訊,167期,頁41-50。new window
朱瑞玲(民82b),中國人的社會互動:試論面子的運作(下)。律師通訊,168期,頁56-62。new window
吳曲輝譯(民81),社會學理論的結構(Jonathan H. Turner原著)。台北:桂冠。
吳秉恩(民88),分享式人力資源管理。台北:翰蘆。
吳復新等著(民91),組織行為。台北:空中大學。
李世君譯(民87),你的企業是知識型組織嗎? (Harari,Oren原著)世界經理文摘,138期,頁78-87。
李再長譯(民88),組織理論與管理(Richard L. Daft原著)。台北:華泰。
李金泉(民84),SPSS/PC實務與應用統計分析。台北:松崗。
李青芬、李雅婷和趙慕芬譯(民90),組織行為學(S.P.Robbins原著)。台北:華泰文化。
李茂興譯(民90),組織行為(Stephen P. Robbins原著),頁254。台北:揚智。
李嘉聖、陳益世(民88),高科技產業特性、工作壓力、工作滿意度暨離職傾向之相關性研究:以新竹科學園區高科技廠商研發技術人員為例。人力資源學報,11期,第93-116頁。
李銘哲(民71),行銷權力之衝突分析。政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
李聲吼(民85),建立有效率的工作團隊。人力發展月刊,34,61-65。
林宗鴻譯(民86),人格心理學(Jerry M. Burger原著)。台北:揚智。
林晉寬(民90),團隊成員特質對團隊信任程度之影響。中華管理評論,4(1),55-66。
林益昌(民87),建構企業學習行組織之研究。台灣師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文。
林財丁、林瑞發譯(民85),組織行為(Stephen P. Robbins原著)。台中:滄海。
林清山譯(民85),教育心理學─認知取向(Richard E. Mayer原著)。台北:遠流。
林震岩(民80),終端使用者應用管理策略之研究。政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。new window
邱皓政(民89),量化研究與統計分析。台北:五南。
施貞夙譯(民87),經營優質團隊(Ros Jay原著)。台北:生產力中心。
洪明洲(民86),創造組織學習。台北:桂冠。
洪榮昭(民90),知識創新與學習型組織。台北:五南。new window
洪碧霞等譯(民75),認知心理學。台北:復文。
苗延威、張君玫譯(民87),社會互動。台北:巨流。
夏林清、鄭村棋譯(民80),行動科學─實踐中的探究。台北:巨流。
馬康莊、陳信木譯(民84),社會學理論。台北:巨流。
張火燦(民77),問卷調查研究法之探討。教育學院學報,13期。
張玉文&莊素玉(民89),張忠謀與台積的知識管理。台北:天下遠見。
張玉文譯(民89),知識管理。台北:天下遠見。
張吉成(民89),團隊學習理論在組織之應用。泰山職訓學報,3期,頁73-90。
張承漢(民87),社會組織與社會關係。台北:幼獅。
張金鑑(民74),管理學新論。台北:五南。
張春興(民81),心理學。台北:東華。
張春興(民90),教育心理學─三化取向的理論與實踐。台北:東華。
張春興編著(民78),張氏心理學辭典。台北:東華。
張添洲(民82),生涯發展與規劃。台北:五南。
張紹勳、張紹評、林秀娟(民90),SPSS For Windows 統計分析、初等統計與高等統計。台北:松崗。
張德永(民88),學習社會的社會學基礎,輯於中華民國成人教育學會主編,學習社會(頁129-156)。台北:師大書苑。
張鐵軍譯(民90)。談判學(Roy J. Lewicki, David M. Saunders & John W. Minton原著)。台北:華泰。
許士軍(民87),不確定時代的前瞻管理。世界經理文摘,143期,頁90-99。
郭進隆譯,彼得聖吉著(民82),第五項修練。台北:天下。
郭靜晃、吳幸玲譯(民84)。發展心理學---心理社會理論與實務(Philip R. Newman & Barbara M. Newman原著)。台北:揚智。new window
陳正文等譯(民86)。人格理論(Duane Schultz & Sydney Ellen Schultz 原著)。台北:揚智。
陳光中、秦文立與周愫嫻譯(民85),社會學。台北:桂冠。
陳素勤譯(民90),組織行為( Robert Kreitner & Angelo Kinicki原著)。台北:麥格羅西爾。
陳順宇(民89),多變量分析。台北:華泰。
陳順宇(民89),迴歸分析。台北:華泰。
陳聰浪(民88),高職校長權利運用與學校行政主管政治行為相關之研究。彰化師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文。new window
彭懷真等譯(民80),社會學辭典。台北:五南。
曾介宏(民89),現代組織的團隊式學習。公教資訊,4(1),頁13-23。
曾華源、劉曉春譯(民89)。社會心理學(Robert A. Baron & Donn Byrne原著)。台北:洪葉。
曾端真、曾玲珉譯(民89)。人際關係與溝通(Rudoph F. Verderber & Kathleen S. Verderber原著)。台北:揚智。
湯淑貞(民88),管理心理學。台北:三民。
黃希庭、李文權與張慶林譯(民81)。認知心理學(Robert L. Solso原著)。台北:五南。
黃秀瑄、林瑞欽譯(民80)。認知心理學(John B. Best原著)。台北:師大書苑。
黃明月(民88),學習社會的心理學基礎,輯於中華民國成人教育學會主編,學習社會(頁157-176)。台北:師大書苑。
黃俊英(民89),多變量分析。台北:華泰。
黃德祥(民89),自我調節學習的理論與應用。未出版。
黃囇莉、李茂興譯(民80),組織行為─管理心理學理論與實務(S. P. Robbins原著)。台北:心理出版社。
楊子江、王美音譯(民86),創新求勝─智價企業論。台北:遠流。
萬家春(民85),班度拉的社會學習論,輯於郭為藩主編,現代心理學說(頁229-336)。台北:師大書苑。
經濟部統計處(民90),各行業工廠名錄。台北:經濟部統計處。
葉重新(民72),心理學。台北:華泰。
潘正德(民88),團體動力學。台北:心理出版社。new window
蔡文輝(民80),社會學。台北:三民。
蔡靜婷(民89),工作團隊多元化、衝突與任務績效之相關研究。國立中正大學勞工研究所碩士論文。
鄭昭明(民85)。認知心理學─理論與實踐。台北:桂冠。new window
龍冠海(民68),社會學。台北:三民書局。
鍾瑞文(民85),皮亞傑的認知發展論,輯於郭為藩主編,現代心理學說(頁342-362)。台北:師大書苑。
鍾漢清譯(民86),加速度組織。台北:麥格羅希爾。
二、英文部分
Allinson, C. W. & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 119-135.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148.
Amason, A. C. & Mooney, A. C. (1999). The effect of past performance on top management team conflict in strategic decision making. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(4), 340-359.
Amason, A. C. & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effect of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive conflict and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4), 459-516.
Amason, A. C. & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational peroformance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(2), 239-253.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D.& Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational team. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625-642.
Anderson, R. H. & Snyder, K. J. (1989). Team training. Training & Development Journal, 43(2), 58-61.
Banks, A. P. & Millward, L. J. (2000). Running shared model as a distributed cognitive process. British Journal of Psychology, 11(4), 513-531.
Bantel, K. A. & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(special), 107-124.
Blau, P. M. (1989). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Boulding, K. E. (1988). Conflict and defense: A general theory. Lanham: University Press of America.
Brooks, A. K. (1994). Power and the production of knowledge: Collective team learning in work organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5(3), 213-235.
Browning, L. D., Beyer, J. M. & Shetler, J. C. (1995). Building cooperation in a competitive industry: SEMATECH and the semiconductor industry. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 113-151.
Bushe, g. R. & Coetzer, G. (1995). Appreciative inquiry as a team-development intervention: A controlled experiment. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 31(1), 13-30.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming . New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Capozzoli, T. K. (1999). Conflict resolution — A key ingredient in successful teams. Supervision, 60(11), 14-16.
Carey, R. (1998). Form follows function. Successful Meeting, 47(3), 97-101.
Case, C. J. (2000). Building student teams: A self-managed work team cooperative learning model. [http://hsb.aylor.edu/ramsower/ais.ac.97/papers/case.htm, 2000/11/02].
Chen, Ming-Huei (2001). Investigation of a new model of team development through the development and testing of a self-report inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Manchester Business School, UK.
Cooke, R. A. & Szumal, J. L. (1994). The impact of group interaction styles on problem-solving effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 30(4), 415-437.
Cooper, C. L. (1979). Armchair speculation, data collection and theory building about group process, In Cary L. Cooper (Ed.). Theories of Groups Processes. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Coutu, D. L. (1998). Organization: Trust in virtual teams, Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 20-21.
Cozzarelli, C., Hoekstra, S. J. & Bylsma, W. H. (2000). General versus specific mental models of attachment: Are they associated with different outcomes? Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(5), 605-618.
Cunha, P. V.& Louro, M. L. (2000). Building teams that learn. Academy of Management Executive. 14(1). 152-153.
D Andrea-O Brien, C. & Buono, A. F. (1996). Building effective learning teams: Lessons from the field. Sam Advanced Management Journal,61(3),4-9.
Dessler, G. (1984). Personnel Management (3 rd ed.). US: Reston.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Emerson, R. M. (1982). Toward a theory of value in social exchange. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Social exchange theory. Newbury Park: Sage.
Eskildsen, J. K., Dahlgaard, J. J. & Norgaard, A. (1999). The impact of creativity and learning on business excellence. Total Quality Management, 10(4), 523-530.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). The measure of creativity, In Margaret A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of Creativity. US: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Francis, D. & Young, D. (1979). Improving work groups: A practical manual for team building. San Diego: University Associates.
Garder, B & Korth, S. J. (1998). A framework for learningn to work in teams. Journal of Education for Business, 74(1), 28-33.
Garson, B. E. & Stanwyck, D. J. (1997). Locus of control and incentive in self-managing teams, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(3).
Gibbons, S. (1999). Learning teams: Action learning for leaders. The Journal for Quality & Participation ,22(4), 26-29.
Gregory, M. (1994). Accrediting work-based learning: Action learning -- A model for empowerment. Journal of Management Development, 13(4), 41-52.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate Data Analysis With Reading(3rd ed.) New York: Macmillan.
Hare, A. P. (1962). Handbook of small group research. New York: Macmillan.
Harter, S. (1999). Symbolic interactionism revisited: Potential liabilities for the self constructed in the crucible of interpersonal relations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(4), 677-703.
Herzog, V. L. (2001). Trust building on corporate collaborative project teams. Project Management Journal, 32(1), 28-37.
Hinsz, V. B. (1995). Mental model of groups as social system. Small Group Research, 26(2), 200-233.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(2), 223-238.
Jehn, K. A. & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academic of Management Journal, 44(2), 238-251.
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (1975). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Kahle, D. (2000). Teaching your organization to learn. Agency Sales Magazine, 30(9), 61-64.
Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliance. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96-108.
Kaye, B. & Jacobson, B. (1995). Mentoring: A group guide. Training & Development, 49(4), 23-27.
Kiefer, C. F.(1998). Team learning. Executive Excellence, 15(9), 18.
Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational Learning. Sloan Management Review, Fall.
Kinlaw, D. C. (1987). Teaming up for management training. Training & Development Journal, 41(11), 44-46.
Kirkman, B. L. & Rosen, B. (2000). Powering up team. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 48-66.
Kumar, N. (1996). The power of trust in manufacturer-retailer relationship, Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 92-106.
Lee, J. (2000). Knowledge management: The intellectual revolution. Management,32(10), 34-37.
Lewis, J. D. & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality, Social Focus, 63(4), 967-985.
Lichtenstein, R., Alexander, J. A., Jinnett, K. & Ullman, E. (1997). Embedded intergroup relations in interdisciplinary teams. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 33(4), 413-434.
Maani, K. & Benton, C. (1999). Rapid team learning: Lessons from team New Zealand America’s cup campaign. Organization Dynamics, 27(4), 48-62.
Madhavan, R. & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: New product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 1-12.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Action learning in action: Transforming problems and people for world-class organizational learning. California: Davies-Black.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
Mondy, R. W., Sharplin, A. & Premeaux, S. R. (1991). Management: Concepts, practices, and skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Myers, G. E. & Myers, M. T. (1992). The dynamics of human communication: A laboratory approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M. & Xin, K. P. (1996). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368-376.
Raisinghani, M. S. (2000). Knowledge management: A cognitive perspective on business and education. American Business Review, 18(2), 105-112.
Rayner, S. & Riding, R. (1997). Towards a categorization of cognitive styles and learning sytles. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 5-28.
Riding, R. & Mathias, D. (1991). Cognitive styles and preferred learning mode, reading attainment and cognitive ability in 11-year old children. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 383-393.
Riding, R. & Pearson, F. (1994). The relationship between cognitive style and intelligence. Educational Psychology, 14(4), 413-425.
Riding, R. & Sadler-Smith, E. (1992). Type of instructional material, cognitive style and learning performance. Educational Studies, 18(3), 323-340.
Robbins, S. P. (2000). Organizational Behavior (6th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Robbins, S. P. & Coulter, M. (1999). Management (6th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.
Roberts, E. (1997). Team training: When is enough … enough? Journal for Quality & Participation, 20(3), 16-20.
Robbins, T. L. & Fredenall, L. D. (2001). Correlates of team success in higher education. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(1), 135-136.
Sadler-Smith, E., Allinson, C. W. & Hayes, J. (2000). Learning preferences and cognitive style. Management Learning, 31(2), 239-256.
Sadler-Smith, E., Spice, D. P. & Tsang, F. (2000). Validity of the cognitive style index: Replication and extension. British Journal of Management, 11(2), 175-181.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1999a). Intuition-analysis cognitive style and learning preferences of business and management students: A UK exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(1), 26-38.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1999b). Intuition-analysis style and approaches to studying. Educational Studies, 25(2), 159-173.
Sadler-Smith, E. & Badger, B. (1998). Cognitive style, learning and innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 247-265.
Sashkin, M. & Franklin, S. (1993). Anticipatory team learning: What is it and how does it happen? Journal of Management Development, 12(6),34-43.
Schneider, S. K. & Northcraft, G. B. (1999). Three dilemmas of workforce diversity in organizations: A social identity perspective. Human Relations, 52(11), 1445-1467.
Seibert, K. W. (1999). Refection-in-action: Tools for cultivating on-the-job learning conditions. Organization Dynamics, 27(3), 54-65.
Shaw, M. E. (1983). Group composition. In Herbert H., Valerie Kent & Martin F. Davies (Eds.), Small Group and Social Interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., O’Bannon, D. P. & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 745-772.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strong, K. & Weber, J. (1998). The myth of a trusting culture: A global, empirical assessment. Business and Society, 37(2), 157-183.
Van der Krogt, F. J. (1998). Learning network theory: The tension between learning systems and work systems in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly,9(2),157-177.
Vennix, J. A.M. (1996). Group model building facilitating team learning using system dynamics. England: John Wiley.
Verderber, R. F. & Venderver, K. S. (1995). Inter-Act using interpersonal communication skills. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1995). Treatment teams that work (and those that don’t): An application of Hackman’s Group effectiveness model to interdisciplinary teams in psychiatric hospitals. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 31(3), 303-327.
Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups? Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-172.
Watkins, K. E. & Marsick, V. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Webber, S. S. & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis, Journal of Management, 27, 141-162.
Wiersema, M. F. & Bird, A. (1993). Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 996-1025.
Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development, Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 377-396.
Wills,V. J. (2000). Invited reaction: Learning on their own. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 127-131.
Wilson, J. R. & Rutherford, A. (1989). Mental models: Theory and applications in human factors, Human Factors, 31, 617-634.
Zahara, S. A. & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension, Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 229-239.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE