:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:企業文化雙歧干擾職能雙歧、認知雙歧及領導雙歧對工作績效之影響
作者:周鈺家
作者(外文):Chou,Yu-Jia
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:人力資源管理研究所
指導教授:張火燦
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2017
主題關鍵詞:職能雙歧認知風格雙歧領導雙歧企業文化雙歧工作績效competency ambidexteritycognitive style ambidexterityleadership ambidexteritycorporate culture ambidexterityjob 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(0) 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:0
在多變的全球化商業環境中,雙歧能力己被廣泛的認可。不止是企業本身需要有雙歧能力來適應多變的市場需求,而且個人也要更具有雙重能力來增加競爭力。在商管學門雙歧理論建構的論文,己形成潮流本研究是根據補充性適配理論及序列式雙歧管理理論的文獻,提出雙歧的概念:一個機構組織或個人,同時具有完全不同處理過程的職能、結構及模式,並將這雙重功能在情境需求下輪流做出高度的發揮,是否對工作績效有影響?在研究探討中,先探討職能雙歧對個人工作績效是否有正向影響?搭配認知型態雙歧,與領導雙歧,探討是否能加強對工作績效的正向影響?最後探討在企業文化雙歧情境下對工作績效的干擾效果。
本研究係以科學園區所公佈的廠商名錄中487家中,同時涵蓋研發與製造單位的高科技企業作為研究抽樣母群體,填答者以研發部門之主管及員工為主,共發出27間樣本公司,發出350份配對問卷(1位直屬主管配對3~5個員工),有效配對問卷為226份。
研究結果顯示:一、高度職能雙歧對工作績效有正向影響;二、高認知風格雙歧與高職能雙歧適配會增強對工作績效的正向影響;三、高領導雙歧與高職能雙歧適配會增強對工作績效的正向影響。四、企業文化雙歧無法干擾認知風格雙歧與職能雙歧適配對工作績效的正向影響;也無法干擾領導雙歧與職能雙歧適配對工作績效的正向影響。
本研究結果可供人力資源管理建議:對於同時注重研發與製造的企業,可招募及培養高職能雙歧人才及主管。並可透過認知風格量表作為聘用人員之參考。而對於後續研究可再跨足其他產業,找出不同雙歧職能或雙歧職能在完全研發單位及完全製造單位的比較;以及考慮跨層次的其他干擾變項。
There is more and more conceptual understanding of ambidexterity in business unit gaining competitive advantages. Not only do enterprises take flexible business strategies, but also individuals require diversity to meet unpredictable markets. Plenty of previous study indicated that ambidexterity was associated with job performance. In the current study, extracting the supplementary fit theory and drawing the view of sequential ambidexterity, focusing on adopting phased shifts of two different structures in realigning environmental change.
With 3-month-period questionnaire survey, in the 27 high-tech sample manufacturers, which both involve in R&D and manufacture. The 350 questionnaires in which respondents were the R & D engineers paired with their direct supervisors (1 supervisor match 3~5 engineers), and reclaimed 226 valid respondents. The results indicated that 1. Competency ambidexterity positively affects job performance. 2. The fit of high cognitive style ambidexterity and high competency ambidexterity strengthens the effect on job performance. 3. The fit of high leadership ambidexterity and high competency ambidexterity strengthens the effect on job performance. However, corporate culture ambidexterity doesn’t moderate the effect of cognitive style and competency ambidexterity fit or leadership and competency ambidexterity fit on job performance.
The results of the study provide some valuable implications. Recruiting and cultivating engineers and leaders with ambidexterity is necessary to those corporations that put the same emphasis on R&D and manufacturing productivity. And the measure of cognitive style ambidexterity could be a useful reference to deploy in management. For future research, one may try to compare ambidexterity in industries only involving in R&D or only manufacture, and may be find out some cross-level moderating variables.
余泰魁,(2006). 認知型態與網路教學課程採用行為意向之實證研究. 教育與心理研究(TSSCI), 29(4), 687-717.
Allinson, C.W. & Hayers, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 119-135.
Armstrong J.S. (2010). The influence of individual cognitive style on performance in management education. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 323-339.
Armstrong, S. & Priola, V. (2001). Individual differences in cognitive style and their effects on task and social orientations of self-managed work teams. Small group research, 32, 283–312.
Avolio, J.B., Bass, M.B. & Jung, I.D. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). The implication of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, teams, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 231-272.
Berson, Y., Oreg, S. & Dvir (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615–633.
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. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brislin, R.W. (1985). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, 2(2), 349-444.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Cable, M.D. & Edwards, R.J. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822–834.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796.
Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (1999) Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guilford Press, New York.
Christensen, C., Cook, S., & Hall, T. (2005). Marketing malpractice. Harvard Business Review, 12, 74-83.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crosby, P.B. (1989). Let’s talk quality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Damanpour, F. (1996). Bureaucracy and innovation revisited: effects of contingency factors, industrial sectors, and innovation characteristics. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 7(2), 149-173.
Edwards, J.R. (1991). Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 6, 283–357.
Feldman, M.S., & Pentland, B.T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94 –118.
Geerts, A., Blindenbach-Driessen, F., & Gemmel, P. (2010). Achieving a balance between exploration and exploitation in service firms: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management, 1, 1-6.
Gibson, B.C. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating roles of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
Gilson, L.L., Mathieu J.E., Shalley, C.E. & Ruddy, T.M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3), 521–531.
Gilson, L.L., & Shalley, C.E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30, 453– 470.
Good, D. & Michel, J.E. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of Psychology, 147(5), 435–453
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.
Gregory, W.R. & Keil, M. (2014), Blending bureaucratic and collaborative management styles to achieve control ambidexterity in IS projects. European Journal of Information Systems, 23, 343–356
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harreld, J.B., O'Reilly, C.A., & Tushman, M.L, (2007). Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action. California Management Review, 49, 21-43.
Hsieh, Y.M. & Hsieh, A.T. (2001). Enhancement of service quality with job standardization. The Service Industries Journal, 21 (3), 147-166.
Hsieh, Y. M. & Hsieh, A.T. (2003). Does job standardization increase job burnout? International Journal of Manpower, 24, (5), 590-641.
Hills, T.T., Todd, P.M., & Goldstein, R.L. (2010). The central executive as a search process: Priming exploration and exploitation across domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 590–609.
Hill, S.A., & Birkinshaw, J. (2014). Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1899-1931.
Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J.A. (2004). Values: Reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 30,359–393.
Junni, P., Sarala, M.R., Taras, V. & Tarba, Y.S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
Kilmann, R.H. (1998). Beyond the Quick: Managing Five Tracks to Organizational Success. London: Josscy-Bass.
Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8, 283-312.
Lubatkin, H.M. Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. & Veiga, F.J. (2006). Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646-672.
Laureiro-Martinez, D., Brusoni, S., & Zollo, M. (2010). The neuroscientific foundations of the exploration-exploitation dilemma. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 3, 95–115.
March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitations in organizational learning. Organization Science, 21, 71– 87.
Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 59-74.
Mom, T.J., Van Den Bosch, F.A., & Volberda, H.W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910-931.
Narayanan,V.K. & Chen, T. (2012). Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges. Research Policy, 41 (8) 1375–1406.
O’Reilly, A.C., Tushman, L.M., (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
Piao, M. (2010). Thriving in the new: Implication of exploration on organizational longevity. Journal of Management, 36, 1529-1554.
Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-408.
Rosing, K., Frese, M & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956–974.
Scott, S.G., & Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 580-607.
Sias, P.M., Smith, G., & Avdeyeva, T. (2003). Sex and sex-composition differences and similarities in peer workplace friendship development. Communication Studies, 54(3), 322-340.
Soka, P., & O'Cass, A. (2015). Examining the new product innovation – performance relationship: Optimizing the role of individual-level creativity and attention-to-detail. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 156–165.
Tellis, G.J., Prabhu, J.C. Chandy, R. (2009). Radical innovation across nations: The preeminence of Corporate Culture. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 3-23.
Visser, M. & Faems. D. (2015). Exploration and exploitation within firms: The impact of CEOs’ cognitive style on incremental and radical innovation performance. Creativity and innovation management, 24(3), 359-372.
Wallach, E.J. (1983). Individuals and Organizations: The cultural match. Training & Development Journal, 37(2), 28-36.
Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-332.
West, M.A., & Farr, J.L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Taylor, F.W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social sciences bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Yuan, F. & Woodman, R.W., (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342.
Zacher, H., Robinson, A.J. & Rosing, K. (2014). Ambidextrous Leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24–46.
Zacher, H. & Wilden, G.R. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self-reported employee innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 813–820.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關博士論文
 
無相關書籍
 
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE