Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/122776| 題名: | 團隊年齡與年資多元性對團隊績效及創意之影響：僕人領導的調節效果 The Effects of Age and Tenure Diversity on Team Performance and Creativity:The Moderating Effects of Servant Leadership |
作者: | 簡嘉炫 Jian, Chia-Xuan |
貢獻者: | 林姿葶 簡嘉炫 Jian, Chia-Xuan |
關鍵詞: | 團隊年齡多元性 團隊年資多元性 僕人領導 任務相關訊息精緻化 團隊績效 創意 |
日期: | 2019 | 上傳時間: | 1-Apr-2019 | 摘要: | 基於少子化與高齡化的現況，研究者認為隨著人口結構改變團隊內部擁有高度年齡與年資多元性的情況會逐漸增加，其效果應受到關注。在過往研究中團隊年齡多元性對於績效的效果多為負向；反之，年資多元性通常被認為帶來正向效果，因此學者們也致力於找到一個解答得以改善年齡多元性之負向效果，並發揮年資多元性之正向效果。本研究使用僕人領導作為調節變項，期望在高僕人領導風格之下，團隊成員能夠尊重彼此之間的差異性，並願意透過討論、整合來自不同面向的資訊，受惠於差異性所帶來的成果，因此假設任務相關訊息的精緻化能夠中介團隊年齡多元性至團隊績效之間的效果，而僕人領導能夠調節其中介效果，為一調節式中介模式。研究採用問卷法，從台灣的正職工作團隊中收集44組團隊資料，並以SPSS作為分析工具，檢驗調節式中介之效果。分析結果後發現團隊年齡多元性對於整體團隊績效有正向直接效果，但其效果並非透過任務相關訊息精緻化所中介；而團隊年齡多元性對於創意、團隊年資多元性對於團隊績效及創意皆無效果，僕人領導對於任務相關訊息精緻化之調節式中介效果也未達統計顯著。在額外分析中，發現僕人領導能夠透過任務相關訊息精緻化影響創意的發生。最後根據研究結果作討論，並將結果提供給未來研究及實務工作者參考之方向。 | 參考文獻: | 林姿葶、何其霞（民106）工作團體多工作業多元性團體表現：團體時間規劃程度、任務相依性的調節式中介模式人力資源管理學報，17(3)，59-84。\n林思伶（民93） 析論僕人式/服務領導（Servant–Leadership）的概念發展與研究，高雄師大學報，16， 39-57。\n人口年齡結構指標。台北市：內政部戶政司。2018年3月5日。取自https://www.ris.gov.tw/346\nAncona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization science, 3(3), 321-341.\nBarbuto Jr, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326.\nBlau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure (Vol. 7): Free Press New York.\nBliese, 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: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.Boehm, S. A., & Kunze, F. (2015). Age diversity and age climate in the workplace. In Aging workers and the employee-employer relationship (pp. 33-55): Springer.\nBrewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.\nCampion, 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(4), 823-847.\nChen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 549-556.\nEhrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 57(1), 61-94.\nGotsis, G., & Grimani, K. (2016). The role of servant leadership in fostering inclusive organizations. Journal of Management Development, 35(8), 985-1010.\nGreen, M. T., Rodriguez, R. A., Wheeler, C. A., & Baggerly-Hinojosa, B. (2016). Servant leadership: A quantitative review of instruments and related findings. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 2(2), 76-96.\nHarrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What`s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of management review, 32(4), 1199-1228.\nHarrison, 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. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029-1045.\nHoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2016). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of management , 44(2), 501-529.\nHorwitz, 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(6), 987-1015.\nIlmakunnas, P., & Ilmakunnas, S. (2011). Diversity at the workplace: whom does it benefit? De Economist, 159(2), 223-255.\nJackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass..\nJames, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of applied psychology, 78(2), 306-309.\nJehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 703-729.\nJoshi, 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.\nKearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: the promise of transformational leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 94(1), 77-89.\nKearney, 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.\nKlein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of applied psychology, 86(1), 3-16.\nKonrad, A. M., Prasad, P., & Pringle, J. (2005). Handbook of workplace diversity: Newbury Park, CA: Sage.\nKozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of applied psychology, 77(2), 161-167.\nKunze, F., & Menges, J. I. (2017). Younger supervisors, older subordinates: An organizational‐level study of age differences, emotions, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(4), 461-486.\nLaub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization. Development of the servant organizational leadership (SOLA) instrument, Doctoral dissertation, Boca Raton, Florida.\nLi, J., Chu, C. W. L., Lam, K. C., & Liao, S. (2011). Age diversity and firm performance in an emerging economy: Implications for cross‐cultural human resource management. Human Resource Management, 50(2), 247-270.\nParris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of business ethics, 113(3), 377-393.\nPodsakoff, 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.\nPreacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral research, 42(1), 185-227.\nSchneid, M., Isidor, R., Steinmetz, H., & Kabst, R. (2016). Age diversity and team outcomes: a quantitative review. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), 2-17.\nSchneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel psychology, 40(3), 437-453.\nSendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57-64.\nSendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.\nShore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1262-1289.\nSpears, L. C., & Wagner-Marsh, F. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. New York, Wiley.\nTsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O`Reilly III, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 549-579.\nVan Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532-547.\nVan Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of management, 37(4), 1228-1261.\nVan Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249-267.\nVan Dierendonck, D., Sousa, M., Gunnarsdóttir, S., Bobbio, A., Hakanen, J., Pircher Verdorfer, A., . . . Rodriguez-Carvajal, R. (2017). The Cross-Cultural Invariance of the Servant Leadership Survey: A Comparative Study across Eight Countries. Administrative Sciences, 7(2), 8-18.\nVan Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 544-562.\nVan Dijk, H., Van Engen, M. L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 38-53.\nVan Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), 1008-1022.\nWegge, J., Jungmann, F., Liebermann, S., Shemla, M., Ries, B., Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K.-H. (2012). What makes age diverse teams effective? Results from a six-year research program. Work, 41(Supplement 1), 5145-5151.\nWegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K.-H., & Kanfer, R. (2008). Age and gender diversity as determinants of performance and health in a public organization: the role of task complexity and group size. Journal of applied psychology, 93(6), 1301-1313.\nWilloughby, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of forty years of research. Research in organizational behavior, 20, 77-140.\nYoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1395-1404.\nZhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696. | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 心理學系 105752016 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105752016 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 201601.pdf | 1.86 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.