Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/58023Full metadata record
| ???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陸洛 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yi-Ting Hsu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 許逸婷 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T08:04:44Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2024-12-31 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2014-07-08 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2014-06-30 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
一、 中文文獻 黃芳銘（2004）。《結構方程式模式理論與應用》。台北: 五南圖書出版公司。 鄭華清、楊富傑（2009）。〈服務導向重複性購買理論之實證研究：以結構方程式觀點〉。《商管科技季刊》，10(4)，671-706。 二、英文文獻 Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity In Social Exchange. 2, 267-299. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 Allen, N. J. , & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Arbuckle, J. L. (1994). Computer announcement amos: Analysis of moment structures. Psychometrika, 59(1), 135-137. Aube, Caroline, & Rousseau, Vincent. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 189-204. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189 Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78-102. Bandalos, D. L, & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. New Developments and Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling, 269, V296. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee 'Citizenship'. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595. doi: 10.2307/255908 Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal Appllied Psychology, 88(6), 989-1004. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? The Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 232-244. doi: 10.2307/256481 Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment : An empirical test. Journal of Organization Behavior, 14, 177-190. Beyerlein, M., & Porter G. (2000). Historic roots of team theory and practice. In M. M. Beyerlein, (Ed.). Work teams: Past, present and future (pp. 3-24). Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (1997). How commitment affects team performance. HR Magazine, 42(2), 107-111. Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 439-450. Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1113-1132. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 241-261. Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Goldriech, R. (2011). Linking perceived external prestige and collective identification to collaborative behaviors in R & D teams. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(7), 8199-8207. Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32(4), 379-405. Che, Y. K., & Yoo, S. W. (1996). Optimal incentives for teams. Forthcoming in American Economic Review, 91(3), 525-541. Chou, L. F., Wang, A. C., Wang, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Shared work values and team member effectiveness: The mediation of trustfulness and trustworthiness. Human Relations, 61(12), 1713-1742. doi: 10.1177/0018726708098083 Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325-334. Dobbins, G. H., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1986). The effects of group cohesion and leader behavior on subordinate satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 11(3), 203-219. Earley, C. P, & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 26-49. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362. Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991a). Group cohesion and performance a meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22(2), 175-186. Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991b). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22(2), 175-186. Fandt, P. M. (1991). The relationship of accountability and interdependent behavior to enhancing team consequences. Group & Organization Management, 16(3), 300-312. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5), 271-282. Festinger, L., Back, K. W, & Schachter, S. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing: Stanford University Press. Foa, E. B, & Fao, U. G. (1980). Resource Theory Social Exchange (pp. 77-94): Springer. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18(1), 39-50. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Oxford, England: Bobbs-Merrill. Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26(4), 497-520. doi: 10.1177/1046496495264003 Gully, S. (2000). Work teams research. In M. M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Work Teams: Past, Present and Future (pp. 25-44). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Yayla, A. A. (2011). Social capital, collective transformational leadership, and performance: A resource-based view of self-managed teams. Journal of Managerial Issues, 23(1), 31-45. Guzzo, R. A., & Sbea, G. P. (2011). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York, NY: Macmillan. Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2(3), 233-256. Hirokawa, R. Y. (1983). Group communication and problem‐solving effectiveness: An investigation of group phases. Human Communication Research, 9(4), 291-305. Hirschi, & Travis. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, University of California Press. Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, P. (2006). Autonomy and teamwork in innovative projects. Human Resource Management, 45(1), 67-79. 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. Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7(1), 53-75. doi: 10.1080/01639625.1986.9967695 Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597-606. doi: 10.2307/2772990 Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Oxford, England: Harcourt, Brace. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. Jackson, C. L., & Hansen, S. D. (2004). Antecedents and cnsequences of scial echange rlationships. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University. Scott, K. D., & Townsend, A. M. (1994). Teams why some perform and others do not. HR Magazine, 8, 62-67. Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L, Levinger, G., . . . Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. New York: WH Freeman.. Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. The Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 499-508. Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design : Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145-172. Kirkman, B. L., & Benson, R. (1999). Beyond self management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Understanding why team members won’t share an examination of factors related to employee receptivity to team-based rewards. Small Group Research, 31(2), 175-209. Kirkman, B. L, & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700-718. Klein, H. J, & Mulvey, P. W. (1995). Two investigations of the relationships among group goals, goal commitment, cohesion, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61(1), 44-53. Kline, R.B. (1998). Software review: Software programs for structural equation modeling: Amos, EQS, and LISREL. Journal of Psychoeducational Asessment, 16(4), 343-364. Krohn, M. D., & Massey, J. L. (1980). Social control and delinquent behavior: An examination of the elements of the social bond. The Sociological Quarterly, 21(4), 529-544. doi: 10.2307/4106137 Larson, C. E, & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong (Vol. 10): Sage. Laursen, B., & Jensen-Campbell, L. A. (1999). The nature and functions of social exchange in adolescent romantic relationships. The Development of Romantic Relationships in Adolescence, 50-74. Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1996). Commitment in exchange relations: test of a theory of relational cohesion. American Sociological Review, 61(1), 89-108. doi: 10.2307/2096408 Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta–analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37-57. Lin,C. P. (2007). To share or not to share: modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel Review, 36(3), 457-475. doi: 10.1108/00483480710731374 Liu, Y., Keller, R. T., & Shih, Hsi-An. (2011). The impact of team-member exchange,differentiation, team commitment, and knowledge sharing on R&D project team performance. R & D Management, 41(3), 275-287. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194. Meeker, B. F. (1971). Decisions and exchange. American Sociological Review, 36(3), 485-495. doi: 10.2307/2093088 Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Dechurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. Journal Appllied Psychology, 94(2), 535-546. doi: 10.1037/a0013773 Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover (Vol. 153). New York: Academic Press.. Muethel, M., Siebdrat, F., & Hoegl, M. (2012). When do we really need interpersonal trust in globally dispersed new product development teams? R & D Management, 42(1), 31-46. Nasser, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2003). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling on measures of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(5), 729-757. Nord, W. R. (1969). Social exchange theory: An integrative approach to social conformity. Psychological Bulletin, 71(3), 174-208. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA, England: Lexington Books. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133-151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Podsakoff, P. M, & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. Porter, T. W., & Lilly, B. S. (1996). The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on project team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(4), 361-376. Powell, A., Galvin, J., & Piccoli, G. (2006). Antecedents to team member commitment from near and far: A comparison between collocated and virtual teams. Information Technology & People, 19(4), 299-322. doi: 10.1108/09593840610718018 Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2004). Individualism/collectivism, perceived task interdependence and teamwork attitudes among Irish blue-collar employees: a test of the main and moderating effects? Human Relations, 57(3), 347-366. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240. doi: 10.2307/3556658 Redman, T., & Snape, E. (2005). Exchange ideology and member-union relationships: An evaluation of moderation effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 765-773. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.765 Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825-836. Richard S., & Kwun, S. K. (1999). Peer evaluation in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(9), 450-462. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Vandyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61-72. Rosehan, D. L., Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1974). Affect moderates self-generation and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 546-552. Russell C., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory : An integrative review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900. Salas, E., Stagl, K. C., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2007). Fostering team effectiveness in organizations: toward an integrative theoretical framework . Paper presented at the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Sargent, L. D, & Christina S. C. (2001). Does diversity affect group efficacy? The intervening role of cohesion and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 32(4), 426-450. Savalei, V., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling. Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. Schacter, S., Ellertson, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations., 4(3), 229-238. doi: 10.1177/001872675100400303 Shapiro, D. L, & Kirkman, B. L. (1999). Employees’ reaction to the change to work teams: The influence of “anticipatory” injustice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1), 51-67. Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 617-640. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00244.x Sue Y. C., Heeseok L., & Yoo, Y. (2010). The impact of information technology and transactive memory system on knowledge share and team performance. MIS quarterly, 34(4), 855-870. Swift, M. L., & Virick, M. (2013). Perceived support, knowledge tacitness, and provider knowledge sharing. Group & Organization Management, 38(6), 717-742. doi: 10.1177/1059601113507597 Thomas, E. J. (1957). Effects of facilitative role interdependence on group functioning. Human Relations, 10, 347-366. Tjosvold, D., Sasaki, S., & Moy, J. W. (1998). Developing commitment in Japanese organizations in Hong Kong: Interdependence, interaction, relationship, and productivity. Small Group Research, 29(5), 560-582. doi: 10.1177/1046496498295002 Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004. Turner, A. N, & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker: Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management, 23(2), 124-143. doi: 10.1177/1059601198232003 Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (2000). Team members' affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4), 633-655. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600403 Van Der Vegt, G. S, Van De Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 715-727. Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559-577. Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organization Behavior, 18, 139-158. Watson, W. E., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1988). Group interaction behaviors that affect group performance on an intellective task. Group & Organization Management, 13(4), 495-516. Witt, L. A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes‐organizational citizenship behaviors relationships1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(18), 1490-1501. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/58023 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究欲了解團隊成員間，非正式要求的自然互動活動與公司正式工作要求的互動，對於團隊績效的影響差異。其中，本研究將非正式要求的自然互動活動定義為「團隊分享活動」，而公司正式工作要求的互動則以「任務依賴性」為代表，並加入了團隊承諾及團隊凝聚力作為中介變項，藉由結構方程模式（SEM)分析團隊成員互動與團隊績效間的影響關係。本研究以台灣地區內參與過團隊工作之全職工作者為樣本，進行結構性問卷施測，採立意及滾雪球抽樣，每個團隊至少三位成員填答問卷，共回收388份有效問卷。
研究結果顯示，不論是團隊分享活動還是任務依賴性，其直接影響團隊績效的效果都小於其藉由團隊凝聚力及團隊承諾之中介變項間接影響團隊績效之效果；此外，團隊凝聚力對於團隊互動影響團隊績效之中介效果大於團隊承諾在此影響關係中之中介效果。但此結果可提供企業進行團隊任務設計之參考，讓企業將有效的互動方式納入團隊的設計理念之中，以提高團隊凝聚力，進而改善團隊成員的工作績效。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study was to understand the differences between informal interaction and formal interaction among team members and their influence on team performance. In this study, the informal interaction is defined as team sharing activities while the formal interaction as task interdependence assigned by company. In addition, we used team cohesion and team commitment as mediators and further analyzed the relationship between interaction activities and team performances by using structural equation modeling (SEM). A structured questionnaire was distributed to full-time workers who had experiences in teamwork in Taiwan. A combination of judgmental and snowball sampling techniques was used in the sampling design. At least three members from each team filled out the questionnaire and the final sample included 388 participants.
Results revealed that both team sharing activities and task interdependence had significant influence on team performance mediated by team cohesion and team commitment. Besides, as a mediator, team cohesion showed greater effect on the relationship between interaction activities and team performance than team commitment. The outcome of this study provides insight into teamwork design. Employers are encouraged to incorporate effective interaction activities into their teamwork plan to produce better team performance. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T08:04:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R01741034-1.pdf: 1053721 bytes, checksum: 4d99e39ea77f151f22c708dde00e161b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
口試委員會審定書 I 致謝 II 摘要 III ABSTRACT IV 目錄 V 表目錄 VI 圖目錄 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 4 第二章 文獻回顧 5 第一節 社會交換理論與團隊分享活動 5 第二節 任務依賴性 10 第三節 團隊凝聚力與團隊承諾在團隊中的角色 14 第三章 研究方法 17 第一節 研究架構與假設 17 第二節 研究對象 19 第四章 研究結果 22 第一節 樣本描述 22 第二節 研究變項描述性統計分析 26 第三節 主要研究變項之性別差異 27 第四節 變項間之相關性分析 28 第五節 結構方程模式 30 第五章 結論與建議 45 第一節 研究結果討論 45 第二節 管理意涵 49 第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 51 參考文獻 53 附錄：問卷 66 表目錄 表4-1樣本描述性統計（n=388） 24 表4-2團隊樣本描述性統計（n=101） 25 表4-3主要研究變項描述性統計 26 表4-4主要研究變項之性別差異 27 表4-5人口學變項間之相關 28 表4-6人口學變項與主要變項間之相關 29 表4-7未調整前整體衡量結構模式分析表 （CFA） 32 表4-8整體模型適配度評量表 34 表4-9修正前後整體模型適配度比較表 35 表4-10修正後整體衡量結構模式分析表 （CFA） 38 表4-11研究變項間之相關係數矩陣 41 表4-12團隊分享活動、任務依賴性對團隊績效之間接效果 44 表5-1研究結果整理表 46 圖目錄 圖3-1研究架構圖 17 圖4-1 SEM 42 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 團隊分享活動 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 團隊承諾 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 團隊績效 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | SEM | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 團隊凝聚力 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 任務依賴性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | SEM. | en |
| dc.subject | task interdependence | en |
| dc.subject | team cohesion | en |
| dc.subject | team commitment | en |
| dc.subject | team performance | en |
| dc.subject | team sharing activity | en |
| dc.title | 團隊分享活動、任務依賴性對團隊績效之影響：以團隊承諾及團隊凝聚力為中介變項 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The impacts of team sharing activities and task interdependence on team performance and mediated by team commitment and group cohesion | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 102-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張婷婷,吳欣蓓 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 團隊分享活動,任務依賴性,團隊凝聚力,團隊承諾,團隊績效,SEM, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | team sharing activity,task interdependence,team cohesion,team commitment,team performance,SEM., | en |
| dc.relation.page | 68 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2014-06-30 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | zh_TW |
| Appears in Collections: | 商學研究所 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-102-1.pdf Restricted Access | 1.03 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.