跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.84) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/12/08 20:04
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:李粵強
研究生(外文):Yueh-Chiang Lee
論文名稱:團隊多元化對創新的影響效果:凝聚力的團隊層次與跨層次之中介效果
論文名稱(外文):The influence of team diversity on innovation: An examination of the mediating effects of cohesiveness in team level and cross level
指導教授:嚴奇峰嚴奇峰引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ghi-Feng Yen
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:中原大學
系所名稱:商學博士學位學程
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:一般商業學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:英文
論文頁數:97
中文關鍵詞:團隊多元化抵銷效果凝聚力中介效果創新
外文關鍵詞:Team diversityInnovationCohesivenessOffsetting effectMediating effect
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:366
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:7
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究以團隊層次與跨層次的觀點,調查團隊多元化與團隊/個人創新的關係,並探討凝聚力於前項關係的中介效果。研究樣本為123個研發團隊與626位研發人員,並透過複迴歸與層級線性模式等研究方法進行假設檢定。分析結果如下:(1)團隊多元化與團隊/個人創新不具顯著性關係的結果,隱含著異質性團隊中可能存在抵銷效果(offsetting effect)。(2)任務相關多元化對個人創新的正向影響會被人口背景多元化的負向影響所抵銷。(3)不同型態的多元化對於團隊表現會有不同的脈絡影響效果:任務相關多元化的程度越高,會有較高的個人創新表現;人口背景多元化的程度越高,則會有較低的個人創新表現。(4)不同型態的多元化對於凝聚力會有不同的影響效果:任務相關多元化的程度越高,團隊凝聚力與其子構面(歸屬感)程度會越高;人口背景多元化的程度越高,則團隊凝聚力與其子構面(歸屬感與士氣)則會越低。(5)團隊凝聚力與其子構面(歸屬感與士氣)於團隊層次部份,顯示與團隊創新有正向關係;在跨層次部份,顯示對個人創新具有正向的脈絡影響效果。(6)人口背景多元化會負向影響團隊凝聚力與其子構面(歸屬感),進而降低團隊創新與個人創新表現。(7)任務相關多元化會正向影響團隊凝聚力的子構面(歸屬感),進而提升個人創新表現。
根據研究結果,本研究建議人力資源管理人員應充分了解團隊多元化對於創新績效表現的影響效果,並規劃團隊內部有關任務相關多元化與人口背景多元化的適當配置,以避免抵銷效果的發生。此外,應發展一套有效的甄選流程與訓練機制,以期建立具創新效率的團隊。最後,根據「投入-流程-產出」的觀點,本研究建議管理者應注意團隊凝聚力於團隊多元化與團隊/個人創新表現之間的關係,所會產生的中介效果。


This study investigates the relationship between team diversity and team/individual innovation by both team-level and cross-level perspectives, and explores whether cohesiveness mediates the aforementioned relationships. This paper uses multiple regression analysis and hierarchical linear model to test hypotheses. Analytical results from 123 teams and 626 respondents are summarized as follows: (1) the interesting finding for lack of significant relationship between team diversity and team/individual innovation implies that an offsetting effect exists in a heterogeneous team; (2) the positive effect of task-related diversity on individual innovation will be offset by the negative impact of bio-demographic diversity; (3) different types of diverse composition have different direct and contextual impacts on the team outcomes: the more task-related diversity is, the higher individual innovation will be; the more bio-demographic diversity is, the lower individual innovation will be; (4) different types of diverse composition have different effects on cohesiveness: the more task-related diversity is, the higher cohesiveness and its sub-dimension (sense of belonging) will be; the more bio-demographic diversity is, the lower cohesiveness and its dual sub-dimensions (sense of belonging and feelings of morale) will be; (5) cohesiveness and its dual sub-dimensions (sense of belonging and feelings of morale) correlate to team innovation positively in team-level, and have positive contextual effects on individual innovation in individual-level; (6) bio-demographic diversity affects cohesiveness as well as sense of belonging negatively, which, in turn, affects team innovation and individual innovation; (7) task-related diversity affects sense of belonging positively, which, in turn, affects individual innovation.
According to analytical results, this study suggests human resource (HR) professionals should pay more attention to the advantages and disadvantages of team diversity as well as the proportion of task-related diversity to bio-demographic diversity when dealing with the offsetting phenomenon. And a valid recruiting and selecting process should be created and a specific training be initiated in order to build an efficient team. Finally, based on Input-Process-Output view, this study suggests that managers should focus on the mediating effect of cohesiveness on the relationship between team diversity and team/individual innovation.


Contents
Chinese Abstract I
English Abstract II
Acknowledgment IV
Contents V
List of Tables VIII
List of Figures X
ChapterⅠ
Introduction 1
Background and Rationales 1
Significance and Purposes of this Study 4
ChapterⅡ
Literature Review 7
Team diversity 7
Definition of team diversity 7
Classification of team diversity 7
Actual and perceived diversity within a team 8
Appropriating measurement for team diversity 9
The influence of team diversity on performance 12
Cohesiveness 13
Definition of Cohesiveness 13
Evolution of the conceptions of cohesiveness 13
Multidimensional construct of cohesiveness 16
Appropriating measurement for cohesiveness 18
The influence of cohesiveness on team performance 19
Team/Individual Innovation 21
The relationships among team diversity, cohesiveness, and performance 23
The relationship between team diversity and cohesiveness 23
The relationships among diversity, cohesiveness and team/individual innovation 24
ChapterⅢ
Conceptual Framework and Research method 26
Conceptual Framework 26
Research Hypotheses 28
The influence of team diversity on team innovation 28
The relationship between team diversity and cohesiveness 29
The relationship between cohesiveness and team innovation 31
The mediating effect of cohesiveness on the team diversity-team innovation relationship 32
The influence of team diversity and cohesiveness on individual innovation 33
The mediating effect of cohesiveness on the team diversity-individual innovation relationship 34
Measures 35
Team diversity 35
Cohesiveness 36
Team innovation/ Individual innovation 36
Controlled Variables 36
Subjects and Sampling Methods 37
Analyses 39
ChapterⅣ
Results 40
Reliability and Validity 40
Aggregate Variable 44
Correlation Coefficient Analyses 45
Team-Level Examination 47
Cross-Level Examination 54
Results of Hypotheses Test 62
ChapterⅤ
Conclusion and Suggestions 63
Discussions 63
The effect of team diversity on team innovation/individual innovation 63
The effect of team diversity on cohesiveness 64
The effect of cohesiveness on team innovation/individual innovation 64
The mediating effect of cohesiveness on team diversity-innovation relationship 65
Exploring the potential reasons for inconsistent relationship between team diversity and performance 66
Implications for Managerial Practice 67
A right team composition for innovation 67
Consideration to the intervening role of cohesiveness 68
Responsibility under the related laws 69
Limitations and Future Research Suggestions 69
References 71
Appendix- Questionnaires 84

List of Tables
Table 2-1 Classification of team diversity 11
Table 3-1 Descriptive statistics by Samples 38
Table 4-1 Reliability analysis for scales 40
Table 4-2 Reliability analysis and validity analysis for perceived team diversity and cohesiveness 42
Table 4-3 Reliability analysis and validity analysis for team and individual innovation 43
Table 4-4 Information of rwg , ICC(1), and ICC(2) 45
Table 4-5 Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients 46
Table 4-6 Multiple regression analysis of team diversity for team innovation 47
Table 4-7 Multiple regression analysis of cohesiveness for team innovation 48
Table 4-8 Multiple regression analysis of team diversity for cohesiveness 49
Table 4-9 Multiple regression analysis of team diversity for sense of belonging 49
Table 4-10 Multiple regression analysis of team diversity for feelings of morale 50
Table 4-11 Mediational analysis for regressing the mediator variables on the initial variables 51
Table 4-12 Mediational analysis for regressing the dependent variable on both the initial variables and the mediator variables 52
Table 4-13 Mediational analysis for testing the mediating effects 53
Table 4-14 Single-level and multilevel equations for meditational analysis 55
Table 4-15 HLM analysis for the relationship among individual innovation, team diversity, and cohesiveness 56
Table 4-16 HLM analysis for the relationship among individual innovation, two dimensions of team diversity, and cohesiveness 57
Table 4-17 HLM analysis for the relationship among individual innovation, two dimensions of team diversity, and sense of belonging 59
Table 4-18 HLM analysis for the relationship among individual innovation, two dimensions of team diversity, and feelings of morale 60
Table 4-19 Single-level and multilevel equations for HLM analysis 61
Table 4-20 HLM analysis of cohesiveness for individual innovation 61
Table 4-21 Results of hypotheses test 62

List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Level of team diversity 10
Figure 2-2 Level of bio-demographic diversity 11
Figure 2-3 Level of task-related diversity 11
Figure 2-5 Level of cohesiveness 19
Figure 3-1 Conceptual framework 27



1.Agrell, A. & Gustafson, R. (1996). Innovation and creativity in work groups. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology. London: Wiley Press.
2.Allred, B. B., Snow, C. C., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Characteristics of managerial careers in the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 17-27.
3.Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.
4.Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341.
5.Back, K. (1951). Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 9-23.
6.Bantel, K. A. (1994). Strategic planning openness. Group and Organization Management, 19(4), 406-424.
7.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 (summer special issue), 107-124.
8.Baregheh A, Rowley J & Sambrook S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation, Management decision, 47(8), 1323–1339.
9.Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator variable distinction in Social Psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
10.Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.
11.Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., and McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A meta-analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989-1004.
12.Beswick, C & Gallagher, D. (2010). The road to innovation. UK: LTB Press.
13.Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and Heterogeneity. NY: The Free Press.
14.Bliese, P. D. & Halverson, R. R. (1996). Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: An examination of work hours, cohesion, and well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1171-1189.
15.Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein and S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Press.
16.Bollen, K. A. & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination, Social Forces, 69(2), 479-504.
17.Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305-327.
18.Braaten, L. J. (1991). Group cohesion: A new multidimensional model, Group, 15(1), 39-55.
19.Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models for social and behavioural research: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Press.
20.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, 823–850.
21.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.
22.Carron, A. V. & Hausenblas, H. A. (1998). Group Dynamics in Sport (2rd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology Press.
23.Carron, A. V., & Ramsay, M. C. (1994). Internal consistency of the Group Environment Questionnaire modified for university residence settings. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 79, 141-142.
24.Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
25.Carron, A.V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.
26.Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). NY: Harper & Row Press.
27.Chin, W. W., Salisbury, W. D., Pearson, A. W., & Stollak, M. J. (1999). Perceived cohesion in small groups-adapting and testing the perceived cohesion scale in a small-group setting, Small Group Behavior, 30(6), 751-766.
28.Cho, M. T. & Yen, G. F. (2010). Reexamining the black box: An analysis of team diversity, conflict, and innovation in a Chinese context. 2010 Business and Information Conference Proceeding.
29.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2th ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press.
30.Conger, A. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational Psychological Measurement, 34, 35-46.
31.Cox T. & Blake S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness, Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45-56.
32.Dion, K. L. (1979). Intergroup conflict and intragroup cohesiveness. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Press.
33.Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4(1), 7-26.
34.Dion, K. L., & Evans, C. R. (1992). On cohesiveness: Reply to Keyton and other critics of the construct. Small Group Research, 23, 242-250.
35.Drach-Zahavy, A. & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(2), 111-123.
36.Dumaine, B. (1991). The bureaucracy busters, Fortune, June 17, 36-50.
37.Eisman, B. (1959). Some operational definitions of cohesiveness and their interactions. Human Relations, 12, 183-189.
38.Evans, C. R. & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance- a meta-analysis, Small Group Research, 22(2), 175-186.
39.Evans, N. J. & Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion- a review and reevaluation, Small Group Behavior, 11(4), 359-370.
40.Ferris, G. R. & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/Human resources management: A political influence perspective, Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.
41.Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
42.Fornell, C. (1982). A second generation of multivariate analysis: Methods. New York, NY: Praeger Press.
43.George, J. M & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.
44.Ghiselin, B. (1995). Work teams and diversity, Leadership in Action, 15(1), 1-5.
45.Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
46.Gross, N., & Martin, W. E. (1952). On group cohesiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 546-554.
47.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.
48.Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D.Dunnette & L. H. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
49.Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.
50.Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis with readings (6th ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Press.
51.Hambrick D. C., Cho T. S., & Chen M. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 659–684.
52.Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107.
53.Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-Level diversity on group functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029-1045.
54.Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group & Organization Management, 29(5), 560-587.
55.Hoffman, L., & Maier, N. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 62(2), 401-407.
56.Horwitz, S. (2005). The compositional impact of team diversity on performance: Theoretical considerations. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 219-245.
57.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, 987-1015.
58.Huang, J. C. & Huang, H. T. (2006). The effect of team member goal orientation self-efficacy, collective efficacy and innovation: A multilevel study, Journal of Management, 23(3), 327-246 (in Chinese).
59.Huang, Y. M., Lin S. C., & Lin, Y. Y. (2009). The relationships of team diversity and innovative performance: The mediating effects of external activity and team cohesiveness. Sun Yat-Sen Management Review, 17(4), 847-882 (in Chinese).
60.Israel J. (1956). Self-evaluation and rejection in groups. Stockholm, Swed.: Almqvist & Wiskell Press.
61.Jackson, S. E. (1992). Diversity in the Workplace: Human Resources Initiatives. NY: Guildford Press.
62.Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Press.
63.James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.
64.James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf G. (1993). rwg :An assessment of within group interrater agreement, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
65.Janssen, O. 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039–1050.
66.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(4), 741-763.
67.Jehn, K.A. & Katerina, B. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 703-29.
68.Joshi, A. & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.
69.Judd, C.M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Estimating the effects of social interventions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
70.Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. NY: Simon and Schuster Press.
71.Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581–598.
72.Keller, R. T. (1983). Predicting absenteeism from prior absenteeism, attitudinal factors, and nonattitudinal factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 536-540.
73.Keller, R. T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in R & D organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 715-726.
74.Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229.
75.Krull, J. L., & Mackinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(2), 249-277.
76.Langfred, C. W. (1998). Is group cohesiveness a double-edged sword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness on performance, Small Group Research, 29(1), 124-143.
77.Langred, C. & Shanley, M. (1997). The importance of organizational context, I: A conceptual model of cohesiveness and effectiveness in work groups, Public Administration Quarterly, 349-369.
78.Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 325–340.
79.Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8, 1-22.
80.Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
81.Libo, L. M. (1953). Measuring group cohesiveness. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Press.
82.Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness: A learning phenomenon. Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 275-286.
83.Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779-793.
84.Luecke, R; Katz, R (2003). Managing Creativity and Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
85.MacKinnon, Krull, and Lockwood. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173-181.
86.Max, M. (2008). The truth about innovation. London: Prentice Hall.
87.McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston Press.
88.McGrath, J., Berdahl, J., & Arrow, H. (1996). Traits, expectations, culture and clout: The dynamics of diversity in work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Rudeman (Eds.), Work Team Diversity: Paradigms and Perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
89.Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21 (2), 402–433.
90.Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness- A legacy of confusion? Small Group Behavior, 20(1), 37-49.
91.Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
92.Nemeth, C. J. (1986). The differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
93.Newcomb, T. M., Turner R. H., & Converse P. E. (1965). Social Psychology. NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston Press.
94.Nkomo, S. M. (1996). Identity and the complexity of diversity. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Rudem (Eds.), Work Team Diversity: Paradigms and Perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
95.O’Reilly III, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 (1), 21–37.
96.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), 1-28.
97.Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., Lacroix, R., Richardsen, A. M., & Jones, B. D. (1983). Cohesion as a basic bond in group, Human Relations, 36(2), 93-108.
98.Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management. 12, 531-544.
99.Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within the groups: Past developments, contradictions, and new directions. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 19, 131-173.
100.Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitude: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 342-358.
101.Robbins, S. T. & Judge, T. (2007). Organization Behavior (12th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Press.
102.Sargent, L. D. & Sue-Chan, C. (2001). Does diversity affect group efficacy? : The intervening role of cohesion and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 32, 426-450.
103.Schachter, S. (1952). Comment. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 554-562.
104.Schulze, W., & Mathieu, J.E. (2006). The influence of team knowledge and formal plans on episodic team process--> performance relationships. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 605-619.
105.Shapcott, K. M., Carron, A. V., Burke, S. M., Bradshaw, M. H., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2006). Member diversity and cohesion and performance in walking groups. Small Group Research, 37(6), 701-720.
106.Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709-1721.
107.Shin, S. Y. & Park, W. W. (2009). Moderating effects of group cohesiveness in competency-performance relationships: A multi-level study. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 1, pp. 1-15.
108.Shrout, P. E. & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
109.Siebold, G. L. (2000). The evolution of measurement of cohesion, Military Psychology, 11(1), 5-26.
110.Simons, T, Pelled, L.H. & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams, Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662-673.
111.Singh, R., & Tan, L. S. C. (1992). Attitudes and attraction: A test of the similarity-attraction and dissimilarity-repulsion hypotheses, British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 227-238.
112.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 (3), 412–438.
113.Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology. Washington DC: American Sociological Association Press.
114.Spink, K. S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport and Exercise Physiology, 12, 301-311.
115.Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-54.
116.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, 135-148.
117.Strauss, J. P., Barrick, M. R., & Connerley, M. L. (2001). An investigation of personality similarity effects (relational and perceived) on peer and supervisor ratings and the role of familiarity and liking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 637-657.
118.Teachman, J. D. (1980). Analysis of population diversity. Sociological Methods & Research, 8, 341-362.
119.Triandis, H. C., Kurowski, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (1994). Workplace diversity. In H. C. Triandis, M. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
120.Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 228-234.
121.Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 524-536.
122.Tziner, A. (1985). How team composition affects task performance: Some theoretical insights. Psychological Reports, 57, 1111-1119.
123.Van Bergen, A. & Koekebakker (1959). Group cohesiveness in laboratory experiments. Acta Psychological, 16, 81-98.
124.Van der Vegt, G. S. & Janssen, O. (2003) Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation, Journal of Management , 29, 729–751.
125.Van der Vegt, G. S. (2002). Effects of attitude dissimilarity and time on social integration: A longitudinal panel study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 439-452.
126.Van Knippenberg, D., Dreu C. K. W. D., & Homan A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008-1022.
127.Van Offenbeek, M., & Koopman, P. (1996). Interaction and decision making in project teams. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology. London: Wiley Press.
128.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.
129.Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K. W., Steel, R. P., & Bennett, N. (1998). Does work group cohesiveness affect individuals’ performance and organizational commitment? A cross-level examination. Small group research, 29(4), 472-494.
130.West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. 1989. Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4, 15–30.
131.West, M. A., & Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in health care teams. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 303-315.
132.Wiersema, W. F. & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 91-121.
133.Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in organizational behavior, 20, 77-140.
134.Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387-399.
135.Zaccaro, S. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 547-558.
136.Zaccaro, S. J., & McCoy, M. C. (1988). The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 837-851.
137.Zander, A. (1982). Making Groups Effective. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Press.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 孔憲法、閻永祺、吳牧學(2008)。台灣文化產業關聯效果之分析。都市與計劃,35(3),177-204。
2. 王國樑(1995)。多樣化經濟實證方法再探討:以台灣旅行業為例。中國統計學報,34(2),97-114。
3. 王淑美、溫蓓章(2010)。開放陸客來臺旅遊經濟效益分析。遠景基金會季刊,11(3),133-175。
4. 王塗發(1986)。投入產出分析及其應用─臺灣地區實證研究。臺灣銀行季刊,37(1),186-218。
5. 吳宗瓊、潘治民(2004)。觀光慶典活動遊客花費與整體經濟效果之評估研究-以國際童玩節為例。戶外遊憩研究,17(1),1-21。
6. 李君如(2004)。臺灣旅行業研究之發展回顧與評析。觀光研究學報,11(2), 113-134。
7. 李君如、莊惠晶(2008)。節慶活動經濟效益評估-以2007日月潭九族櫻花祭為例。觀光休閒學報,14(1),1-27。
8. 林聖偉、李君如(2006)。品牌形象、知覺價值、顧客滿意度與顧客忠誠度關係之研究-以旅行社海外團體套裝旅遊為例。旅遊管理研究,6(1),63-81。
9. 張宏生、曾建銘(2008)。台灣旅行業關鍵成功因素之初探。臺灣觀光學報,5,17-31。
10. 張景棠(2010)。挑戰2008觀光客倍增計畫之經濟效益分析。運動健康與休閒學刊,15,89-104。
11. 曹勝雄、張德儀(1995)。消費者對旅行社選擇偏好之研究。觀光研究學報,1(3),53-75。
12. 曹勝雄、許福松(2008)。旅行業導入創新之動機與關鍵成功因素。餐旅暨家政學刊,5(2),115-137。
13. 曹勝雄、陳嘉隆、王國欽(1995)。旅行社組織氣候、工作壓力對員工離職傾向之影響研究。觀光研究學報,1(2),1-18。
14. 許惠美、陳思倫(2002)。旅行業者對國際觀光旅館企業形象整體評價之研究。觀光研究學報,8(2),1-17。
15. 陳光華、黃榮鵬(2005)。建構最佳的旅行業業務員薪資結構制度。戶外遊憩研究,18(4),69-92。