Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/67564
|
| Title: | 交融記憶系統與團隊創新 -團隊學習與團隊任務反思的中介與調節效果
The Influences of Transactive Memory System on Team Innovation: The Mediating and Moderating Effects of Team Learning and Task Reflexivity |
| Authors: | 黃玲貞
Huang, Ling Chen |
| Contributors: | 黃家齊
Huang, Jia Chi
黃玲貞
Huang, Ling Chen |
| Keywords: | 團隊交融記憶系統
團隊學習
探索式學習
應用式學習
團隊創新
漸進式創新
躍進式創新
團隊任務反思
transactive memory system
team learning
exploratory learning
exploitative learning
team innovation
incremental innovation
radical innovation
task reflexivity |
| Date: | 2013 |
| Issue Date: | 2014-07-21 15:33:42 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 現今環境變化快速，資訊量龐大，任務趨於複雜，個人要掌握所有工作上所需的知識非常困難，因此團隊成員傾向將自己非擅長的專業知識存放在他人腦裡，整合起來形成團隊的記憶系統，即稱為「團隊交融記憶系統」，而團隊交融記憶系統會如何影響現代商場上競爭優勢的關鍵-創新，將成為重要的課題。本研究以在企業環境中實際運作的工作團隊為研究對象，探討團隊交融記憶系統分別與躍進式創新及漸進式創新之關係，並且加入學習歷程作為中介變數，討論探索式學習在團隊交融記憶系統與躍進式創新間之中介效果，以及應用式學習在團隊交融記憶系統與漸進式創新間之中介效果。此外，本研究將進一步探討團隊任務反思和團隊交融記憶系統之交互作用與團隊學習與創新之關係。
本研究以70個創新團隊（70份團隊問卷與334份團隊成員）作為研究樣本，並以層級迴歸分析進行假設驗證。經實證分析結果，本研究發現，團隊交融記憶系統與躍進式創新、漸進式創新確實存在顯著正向關係，其中前者之關連性高於後者。此外，探索式學習在團隊交融記憶系統與躍進式創新之關係間具有中介效果。最後，雖然調節效果之相關假設並未獲得支持，但團隊任務反思與團隊交融記憶系統之交互作用與漸進式創新之正向關係接近顯著值，因此仍進一步探究。
Individuals handle all knowledge needs to work is so difficult in rapidly changing environments. So team members tend to store some knowledge which isn`t their expertise in other’s memories. The systems all individual memories integrated named “Transactive Memory System.” However, how transactive memory system influences team innovation that is the key point in competitive business markets becomes important issues now. The work teams in companies were the major samples of this study. First, we explored the influences of transactive memory system on incremental innovation and radical innovation. Additionally, we added exploratory learning and exploitative learning as a mediator in the model and examined the mediating effects on the relationship between transactive memory system and team innovation. Finally, we discussed about the relationship between not only team leaning and the interaction of transactive memory system and task reflexivity, but also team innovation and the interaction of transactive memory system and task reflexivity.
We collected from 70 innovation teams with 70 team leaders and 334members, and test the hypothesis by hierarchical regression. After the data analysis, the results show that transactive memory system has significant positive relationship with both incremental innovation and radical innovation. Furthermore, exploratory learning has the mediating effects on the relationship between transactive memory system and radical innovation. Finally, although interaction of transactive memory system and task reflexivity has no significant relationship with others, the value of the relationship between team innovation and the interaction of transactive memory system and task reflexivity is close to the significant value, thus this study still discussed more about it |
| Reference: | 1. Abernathy, W. J., K. Clark. 1985. Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Res. Policy 14 3–22.
2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
3. Akgun, A., Byrne, J., & Keskin, H. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42, 1105–1120.
4. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
5. Argyres, N. (1996). Evidence on the role of firm capabilities in vertical integration decision. Strategic 20 Management Journal, 17, 129-150.
6. Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. Y. (2007). Exploratory and exploitative in new product development: Asocial capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15,1-29.
7. Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2004). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research,58, 1652-1661.
8. Austin, J. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy in group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 866–878.
9. Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affilitation on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 741-758.
10. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676-707.
11. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28(2), 238-256.
12. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis.
13. Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 552-560.
14. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
15. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic management journal, 23(12), 1095-1121.
16. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent andreflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285-298. 21
17. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome independence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628-638.
18. De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 1191-1201.
19. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
20. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological bulletin, 112(2), 310.
21. Gibson, C. B. (2001). From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: Cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 121-134.
22. Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 102-115.
23. Gladstein, D. L., (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
24. Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15, 70-81.
25. James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of applied psychology, 67(2), 219.
26. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of applied psychology, 69(1), 85.
27. Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661-1674.
28. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31, 783–808.
29. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K (1993) The Wisdom of Teams. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
30. Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of psychology.
31. Kozlowski, Steve WJ, and Katherine J. Klein.(2000) "A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes." .
32. Levesque, L. L., & Wilson, J. M., & Wholey, D. R. (2001). Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 135-144.
33. Liang, D.W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.
34. Levinthal, D. A., J. G. March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14 95–112.
35. Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. P., & Carroll, T. N. (1999). The coevolution of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 10(5), 535-550.
36. Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587–604.
37. Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50, 1519-1533.
38. Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16, 581–598.
39. Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730.
40. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
41. McDaniel, S. W., & Kolari, J. W. (1987). Marketing strategy implications of the Miles and Snow strategic typology. The Journal of Marketing, 19-30.
42. McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight. The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 118-131.?
43. Michinov, E., Olivier-Chiron, E., Rusch, E., & Chiron, B. (2008). Influence of transactive memory onperceived performance, job satisfaction and identification in anesthesia teams. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 100, 327–332.
44. Moreland, R.L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 117–133.
45. Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Creativity and group innovation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 400-406.
46. Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory.
47. Pearsall, M., & Ellis, A. (2006). The effects of critical team member assertiveness onteam performance and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32, 575–594.
48. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Bell, B. S. (2010). Building the infrastructure: The effects of role identification behaviors on team cognition development and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 192-200.
49. Peltokorpi, V. (2008). Transactive memory systems. Review of General Psychology,12, 378-394.
50. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544.
51. Rau, D. (2005). The influence of relationship conflict and trust on the transactive memory: Performance relation in top management teams. Small Group Research, 36, 746–771.
52. Ren, Y., & Argote, L. (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985-2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences, Academy of Management Annuals, 5, 189-229.
53. Ren, Y., Carley, K.M., & Argote, L. (2006). The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science, 52, 671–682.
54. 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.
55. Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M. L., & West, M. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group and Organization Management, 29, 540-559.
56. Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W J. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp.253-276). New York: Springer-Verlag.
57. Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13,319-339.?
58. Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W. J.Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253-276). New York: Springer.
59. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G.R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 185-208). New York: Springer.
60. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923-929.
61. West, M.A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In West, M.A. (ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology. Wiley, London, pp. 555-79.
62. Yoo, Y., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001). Developments of transactive memory systemsand collective mind in virtual teams. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2), 187.
63. Zhang, Z., Hempel, P.S., Han, Y., & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Transactive memory systemlinks work team characteristics and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1722–1730. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所
101355044
102 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101355044 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [企業管理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
