跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.231.230.177) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/04 00:16
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:胡瑞珊
研究生(外文):Jui-shan Hu
論文名稱:團隊多元化、衝突與團隊績效之探討
論文名稱(外文):The Study of Team diversity, conflict and Team performance
指導教授:趙必孝趙必孝引用關係
指導教授(外文):Bih-Shiaw Jaw
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中山大學
系所名稱:人力資源管理研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:100
中文關鍵詞:團隊多元化團隊衝突團隊績效團隊情緒智商
外文關鍵詞:Team performanceGroup emotional intelligenceTeam conflictTeam diversity
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:13
  • 點閱點閱:387
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
摘 要

論文題目:團隊多元化、衝突與團隊績效之探討
頁數: 92
院校系所:國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所
畢業時間及提要別:九十五學年度第二學期碩士論文摘要
研究生:胡瑞珊(Jui-Shan Hu) 指導教授:趙必孝(Bih- Shiaw Jaw) 博士
論文提要內容:
由於全球化企業的競爭,團隊的多元化與日俱增,使得產生衝突的機會大增,有關團隊多元的研究,大部份都是針對團隊特性來研究,鮮少針對情緒面來探討;若有關情緒面的研究,也大都以個人情緒智商為研究主軸。每個人有不同的情緒,相對地,每種團隊也有不同的情緒。研究指出,有高情緒智商的團隊較有能力面對與處理成員間意見上的差異,所以能有較好的團隊績效(Druskat & Wolff, 2001;轉引自Jordan et al.,2004)。團隊情緒智商的建立可以鼓勵開放與接受意見不合與爭論,可以增強衝突帶來的正面效果且減低衝突帶來的負面效果(Jehn, 1995)。由此可知,團隊如何在文化中透過團隊情緒智商的建立,來減低衝突帶來的負面影響對團隊的績效亦有助益。就像拔河一樣,每人的性格都不同,需透過凝聚共識才能贏得勝利。
本研究基於這樣的背景下,欲從團隊績效的角度出發,探討團隊多元化對團隊衝突的影響,並研究團隊情緒智商與團隊衝突的交互作用對團隊績效的干擾情形。
本研究使用問卷調查法,經採244個團隊的有效問卷為樣本,並以迴歸分析統計技術以進行資料分析,結果顯示:
(1)團隊內的任務衝突會提高團隊績效。
(2)團隊內的關係衝突會降低團隊績效。
(3)團隊情緒智商調節關係衝突與團隊績效之間的關係,顯示在團隊內建立團隊情緒智商,能使團隊成員產生信任,有助於降低關係衝突對績效的負面影響,例如:人際關係上的不和及負面情緒等。
Abstract:
Title:The Study of Team diversity, conflict and Team performance
School:National Sun Yat-Sen University
Department : Institute of Human Resource Management
Academic year:2007
Author:Jui-Shan Hu Adviser:Dr. Bih- Shiaw Jaw

Due to globalization competition of companies, the team diversity trend of managing team aggravates day by day, and team conflict-generating probability increase greatly. The previous literature related to multi-tonic team concentrates on team specialty and characteristic mainly, rarely focuses on the emotion and discusses it. If any research covers the emotional issues, the scope limits in individual emotion quotient as the major thread. Every person has different emotion, relatively, every team has different emotion also, some discovery indicates the team with higher emotion quotient has better ability to conduct and negotiate opinion difference of members, hence, producing better team performance. (Druskat & Wolff, 2001; transferred from Jordan et al., 2004) Group emotional intelligence establishment enables to encourage open and accept non-identical opinions and argumentation, enables to strengthen the positive effect the crash stimulates and weaken the negative impact the crash also gives (Jehn, 1995), hence, how can team pass through emotion quotient establishment in such culture, to reduce the negative impact the crash brings, so benefit the whole team performance. It is like , each member has his own characteristic, needing to pass collection and consensus reaching to gain the victory, this article is based on such background, envisage in the angle of team performance to understand how the team diversity influences team inharmonic and investigate the interference eclipsing team performance by correlation between group emotional intelligence and team conflict.
This article uses questionnaire survey, by 244 effective samples from team’s response, and by iterative analytic skill to process dates analyze, the result shows:
1. The task crash inside the team can boost team performance.
2. The relationship crash inside the team may eclipse team performance.
3. The group emotional intelligence adjustment dominates the relationship between crash and team performance, it approves establishing group emotional intelligence inside the team makes team members produce reliability, it can help reduce the negative impact the crash brings on the performance, for example: the inharmonic and negative temp on people relationship.
目  錄 頁數
目 錄........................................................................... Ⅰ
表目錄....................................................................... Ⅱ
圖目錄....................................................................... Ⅲ
第一章 緒論........................................................... 1
第一節 研究背景與動機....................................... 1
第二節 研究目的................................................... 3
第三節 研究流程................................................... 4
第二章 文獻探討 .................................................. 6
第一節 團隊.............................................................. 6
第二節 團隊多元化................................................. 10
第三節 團隊衝突..................................................... 12
第四節 團隊績效..................................................... 15
第五節 團隊多元化與團隊衝突............................. 16
第六節 團隊衝突與團隊績效................................ 18
第七節 團隊情緒智商............................................ 20
第三章 研究方法 ................................................. 26
第一節 研究架構................................................  26
第二節 研究假設.............................................. ... 27
第三節 研究工具................................................  28
第四節 修正後的研究架構.................................. 37
第五節 研究變項與操作性定義.......................... 38
第六節 研究設計.................................................. 41
第七節 資料分析方法.......................................... 44
第四章 研究結果與分析......................................... 46
第一節 各研究變項之描述性統計分析................. 46
第二節 團隊屬性對各研究變項之變異數分析....... 49
第三節 各研究變項之相關分析.............................. 63
第四節 各研究變項之迴歸分析............................... 67
第五節 團隊情緒智商的干擾效果分析.................. 69
第六節 研究假設驗證結果彙整.............................. 71
第五章 結論及建議.................................................. 73
第一節 結論............................................................. 74
第二節 實務意涵..................................................... 75
第三節 研究限制及後續研究的建議...................... 78
參考文獻.......................................................... .......... 80
附錄................................................................ ........... 89

表目錄 頁數
表2-7-1 團隊情緒智商規範.................................... 21
表3-3-1 各主要衡量變項的信度分析結果. .......... 31
表3-3-2 團隊多元化因素分析結果 ..................... 33
表3-3-3 團隊衝突因素分析結果............................. 33
表3-3-4 團隊衝突構面之信度分析........................ 34
表3-3-5 團隊績效因素分析結果............................. 34
表3-3-6 團隊績效構面之信度分析..........................35
表3-3-7 團隊情緒智商之因素分析結果與信度......35
表3-3-8 團隊情敘智商分量表之信度分析..............36
表3-6-1 問卷回收情況............................................. 41
表3-6-2 研究樣本之團隊產業別分佈表................ 42
表3-6-3 研究樣本之團隊類型分佈表..................... 42
表3-6-4 研究樣本之團隊人數分佈表..................... 43
表4-1-1 各研究變項統計量彙整表......................... 48
表4-2-1 團隊屬性對團隊多元之平均數與標準差. 52
表4-2-2 團隊屬性對團隊衝突之平均數與標準差..53
表4-2-3 團隊屬性對團隊情緒智商之平均數與標準差.54
表4-2-4 團隊屬性對團隊績效之平均數與標準差...55
表4-2-5 團隊屬性對團隊多元之變異數分析...........59
表4-2-6 團隊屬性對團隊衝突之變異數分析...........60
表4-2-7 團隊屬性對團隊情緒智商之變異數分析...61
表4-2-8 團隊屬性對團隊績效之變異數分析...........62
表4-3-1 各變項之Pearson相關分析................... . .66
表4-4-1 團隊多元化對關係衝突及任務衝突的
迴歸分析 結果..............................................67
表4-4-2 關係衝突及任務衝突對團隊績效的迴
歸分析結果.................................................. 68
表4-5-1 團隊情緒智商對團隊衝突與團隊績效
之迴歸分析................................................. 70
表4-7-1 研究假設驗證結果................ .................. 73

圖目錄 頁數
圖1-3-1 本研究流程圖.......................................... 5
圖2-7-2 團隊情緒智商規範的綜效............... ........ 25
圖3-1-1 本研究概念性架構.................................... 26
圖3-4-1 修正後的架構........................................... 37
圖4-5-2 團隊情緒智商與關係衝突對團隊績效
的影響.......................................................... 70
參考文獻

一、中文部份
丁志達(民91),績效管理,台北:揚智文化事業股份有限公司。
丁秀麗(民96),公部門多元化與社會資本之探討,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
丹尼爾•高曼(Daniel Goleman) (1998), EQ II:工作EQ,時報出版社(李瑞玲等譯)。
王馨(民91),文化、人格心理因素、高績效人力資源管理實務與組織績效,國立成功大學國際企業研究所碩士論文。
江文慈(民88),情緒調整的發展軌跡與模式建構之研究,國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文。
池進通(民83),衝突與協調,載於郭崑謨等著,管理學(479-508頁),台北:空中大學。
吳明隆(民83),SPSS統計應用學習實務,台北:知城數位。
吳毓瑩(民83),情緒智力的構念-想法與方向,教育資料與研究,19,11-19。
呂俊甫(民83),EI、EQ情緒智慧和情緒教育,台灣教育,559期,9-11。
巫玉芳(民90),人格特質及EQ對於工作績效之分析,義守大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
李青芬、李雅婷、趙慕芬編譯 (民82),Robbins, S.P.,組織行為學,台北:華泰出版社。
林詩穎(民93),團隊多元性及衝突對團隊績效的影響,國立中央大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
張吉江(民72),組織內之衝突與管理,教育學院學報,8,438-447。

張富湖(民91)情緒教育課程對提昇國中學生情緒智力效果之研究。
國立屏東師範學院教育心理與輔導研究所碩士班。
曹中瑋(民84),情緒的認識與掌控,學生輔導雙月刊 51,26-39。
許彩娥(民85),多元化管理理論與實務,台北,1996:天一圖書
陳彰儀(民84),組織心理學,台北市:心理。
曾渙釗(民76),為企業做健康檢查-績效評估的方法,現代管理月刊,第142期,頁87-90。
游恆山譯(民91),情緒心理學:情緒理論的透視,台北市:五南。
黃家齊、蔡達人(民92),團隊多元化與知識分享、知識創造及創新積效,台大管理論叢,第十三卷第二期,頁233-280。
黃麗莉 (民87),人際和諧與衝突:本土化的理論與研究,台北:桂冠出版社。
董怡君(民92),團隊多元化及衝突對團隊學習行為的影響,中央大學企業管理所碩士論文。
劉秀雯 (民93),國際團隊多元性、團隊領導與企業組織環境支援之探討,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
蔡岱伶(民94),國際團隊多元性、衝突、知識分享之探討,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
蔡淑鈴(民94),業務人員逆境商數、情緒商數及工作績效之關係,國立台灣師範大學國際人力教育與教育發展研究所碩士論文。
蔡達人 (民 90),團隊多元性對知識分享、創造、創新績效之影響-以衝突為中介變項,東吳大學企業管理學系碩士論文。



二、英文部份
Amason, A. C. and Schweiger, D. M. (1994), “Resolving the paradox of conflict strategic decision making and organizational performance”, International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, pp.239-254.
Amason, Allen C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of funcational and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management journal, 39, 123-148.
Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. F. (1997), “Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, pp.634-995.
Ashkanasy, N. M. & Daus, S. C. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organization Behavior, 25, 441-452.
Aubert, B. A. and Kelsey, B. L. (2003), “Further understanding of trust and performance in virtual teams”, Small Group Research, 34, 5, pp.575-618.
Baba, L. M., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wanger, H. K. (2004). The contexts of knowing: Natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organization Behavior, 25, 547-587.
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, pp.1173-1182.


Bantel, K. A. and Jackson S. E. (1989), “Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a different”, Strategic Management Journal, 10, pp.107-124.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W.(2002). A typology of virtual teams: implications of effective leadership. Group and Organization Management, 27(1), 14-49.
Bettenhausen, Kenneth, & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350-372.
Bostrom, P. G.(1989). Successful application of communication techniques to improve the systems development process. Information & Management, 16, 279-295.
Borisoff. D., & Victor, D. A. (1998). Conflict management: A communication skills approach. Boston, MA : Allyn & Bacon.
Brett, Jeanne M. (1991). Negotiating group decisions. Negotiation journal, 7, 291-310.
Cai, D. A. and Fink, E. L. (2002), “Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists”, Communication monographs, 691, pp.67-81.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. and Higgs, A. C. (1993), “Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups”, Personnal Psychology, 46, pp.823-825.
Cummings, N. J. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 105-120.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organization Behavior, 22, 309-328.
Dreu, C. K. W. and Weingart , L. R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 4, pp.741-749.
DiStefano, J. J. & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45-63.
Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for organizational research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp.611-628.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001a). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 79, 81-90.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001b). Group emotional intelligence and its influence in group effetiveness. In C. Cherniss, & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotional intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations (pp. 132-155).
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L. and Bourageis, L. J. (1997a), “How management teams can have a good fight”, Harvard Business Review, 75, 4, pp.77-85.
Eisenhardt, K., Kahwajy, J., & Bourgeois, L. (1997b). Conflict ans strategic choice: How top management teams disagree. Conflict Management Review, 39, 42-62.

Evan W. (1965), “Conflict and performance in R&D organizations”, Industrial Management Review, 7, pp.37-46.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984), “Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, pp.499-517.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Govindarajan, V. & Gupta, A. K. (2001). Building an effective global business team. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 63-71.
Guest, D. E. (1995). Human resource management ans performance: A review ans research agenda. The International Jouranl of Human Resource Management, 5, 267-299.
Guetzkow, H. and Gyr, J. (1954), “An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups,” Human Relations, 7, pp.367-381.
Hackman, J. R. (1987), “The Design of Work Teams”, in Lorsch, J. W. (Eds.), Handbook of Organization al Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp.67-102.
Hackman, J. R. and Morris, C. G. (1975), “Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, pp.45-99.
Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H. G. (2001), “Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence”, Organization Science, 12, 4, pp.435-449.
Jackson, S., Stone, V. and Alvarez, E. (1993), “Socialization amidst diversity: Impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers”, Research in Organizational behavior, 15, 45-109.

Jehn, K. A. (1994), “Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict”, International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, pp.223-238.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.
Jehn, K. A. & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptural conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 56-73.
Jehn, K. A. and Mannix, E. A. (2001), “The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance,” Academic of Management Journal, 44, 2, pp.238-251.
Jehn, K. A. & Bendersky, Corinne (2003). Intrgroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187-242.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution: Implicatioans for human resource development. Advances in developing human resources, 4(1), 62-79.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human Performance,17, 195-218.
Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2002), “The dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams." Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11, 3, pp.187-213.
Kline, T. B. and McGrath, J. (1998), “Development and validation of five criteria for evaluating team performance”, Organizational Development Journal, 16, 3, pp.19-27.
Knouse, S. B. and Dansby, M. R. (1999), “Percentage of work-group diversity and work-group effectiveness,” Journal of Psychology, 133, 5, pp.486-495.
Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (1999), “The effect of performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 1, pp.123-136.
McAllister, D. J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1, pp.24-59.
Milliken, F. J. and Martins, L. L. (1996), “Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review, 21, 2, pp.402-433.
Nelson, R. E. (1989), “Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 10, pp.125-141.
Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M. H. (2006). A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of Management Review, 31, 569-582.
Pelled, L, H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-44.


Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M. and Frey, D. (2002), “ Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, pp.563-586.
Simons, T. and Peterson, R. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, pp.102-111.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationaship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111.
Wall, J. A. and Callister, R.R. (1995), “Conflict and its management”, Journal of Management, 21, pp.515-558.
Waller, M. J., Huber, G. P, and Glick, W. H. (1995), “Organizational demography and turnover in top management groups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, pp.74-92.
Williams, K. Y. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research”, Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, pp.77-140.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology , 89(6), 1008-1022.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top