Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0811106-140347 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0811106-140347
論文名稱
Title
工作團體凝聚力與工作績效關係之研究- 以工作型態作為干擾因子
Cohesiveness-Performance Effects in Work Groups- Work Patterns as a Moderator
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
74
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2006-07-12
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2006-08-11
關鍵字
Keywords
凝聚力、績效、人際吸引力、工作承諾、社會認同、工作型態
Cohesiveness, Performance, Interpersonal attraction, Task Commitment, Social Identity, Workflow
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5726 次,被下載 2186
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5726 times, has been downloaded 2186 times.
中文摘要
過去關於凝聚力與績效的研究萌芽於1950年代,大多以實驗團體的研究為主,而其相關研究的結果顯示出凝聚力對績效的影響正反不一而有所爭議。近年更有相關研究的學者指出,凝聚力本身為多構面式的結構,於是各別的去探討了凝聚力其子項目對績效的影響,結果如Mullen & Copper (1994) 的研究所顯示的只有‘對任務的承諾’才對績效的影響;另外更有學者如Beal et al.(2003)等人推翻了前者的結論,而指出凝聚力的三個組成分子(人際吸引力,對任務的承諾,以及對團體的認同)皆對績效有程度高低不等的影響,並且Beal et al.等人更指出,凝聚力對績效的影響力會受到工作型態使成員間所需的互依程度的干擾而呈正比的情形。
於是本研究的目的在於 (a)研究在真實運作的工作團體中凝聚力與績效的關係, (b)重新探討凝聚力的三個組成分子在真實工作團體內對凝聚力與績效的關係, (c)探究凝聚力中的哪一個分子會各別的影響不同標準的績效表現, 以及(d)重新檢驗在真實的工作團體中,工作型態對凝聚力與績效關係的干擾效果。
透過285份問卷加總成的69組團體資料所分析的結果,顯示出工作團體凝聚力的確對績效有正面的影響,而凝聚力組成分子中的人際間的吸引會導致行為面的績效表現,團體成員對任務的承諾則正面的影響了團體績效上效率層面的表現,最後本研究的結果得知工作團體的凝聚力與績效的關係並不受到工作型態的干擾影響,也就是說團體成員仍然向心於團體無論他們所從事的工作互依性高或低。
Abstract
Past studies of cohesiveness-performance effects thriving from 1950’s were mainly experimental studies and the results of whether group cohesiveness contributed to performance were always disputable. Researchers believed that the construct of cohesiveness was multidimensional; and the components of cohesiveness were therefore scrutinized to see its influence upon performance. Results varied from only task commitment contributed to performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994) to all three components bear significant influence to performance (Beal et al., 2003). Not only was the cohesiveness-performance relation discussed, but were cohesiveness components to performance criteria and work patterns as a moderator to cohesiveness-performance relation examined in Taiwanese work groups.
Consequently, the purposes of this study are to (a) have empirical study for cohesiveness-performance effect in real groups, (b) reexamine the influences of the three components of cohesiveness to cohesiveness-performance effect in work groups, (c) know which cohesiveness component brings about each kind of members performance, and (d) figure out how each type of workflows relates to cohesiveness- performance effect.
This study represented work groups’ cohesiveness- performance relation. Furthermore, cohesion components to performance criteria were reexamined for better understanding of which component can substantially benefit to which kind of performance. As a result, interpersonal attraction led to group members’ behaviors performance, and task commitment brought about group efficiency. Last, this study helped to realize the fact that work groups were cohesive disregarding how much interdependence the job required.
目次 Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Background 1
Motives & Purposes 2
Literature Review 4
Group Cohesiveness 4
Cohesiveness-Performance Effect 11
Components of Group Cohesiveness 14
The Nature of Work - Work Patterns 24
Methodology 28
Research Framework 28
Procedure and Sample 29
Measures 34
Analysis 40
Results 43
Descriptive Statistics of Variables 43
Cohesiveness, Components of Cohesiveness, and Performance 45
Components of Cohesiveness and Different Criteria of Performance 49
Moderating Effect of Work Patterns among Cohesiveness and Performance 51
Conclusions & Suggestions 53
Conclusion 53
Contribution 56
Limitations & Suggestions 57
References 59
Appendix : Questionnaire 64
參考文獻 References
Alexander, C. N., Jr., & Scriven, G. D. (1977). Role Playing: An essential component
of experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 455-466.
Anderson, A. B. (1975). Combined effects of interpersonal attraction and goal-path
clarity on the cohesiveness of task-oriented groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 31, 68-75.
Back, K. (1950). The exertion of influence through social communication. In L.
Festinger, K. Back, S. Schachter, H. H. Kelley & J. Thibaut (Eds.), Theory and
experiment in social communication, (pp. 21-36). Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards.
Back, K. W. (1951). Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 46, 9-23.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis: A method for the study of small
groups. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior, New York:
Harper and Row.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mediator-moderator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consideration.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Berkowitz, L. (1954). Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human
Relations, 7, 509-519.
Bonner, H. (1956). Group Dynamics: Principles and application. New York: Ronald
Press.
Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team Performance and Measurement: Theory,
methods, and applications, (pp.197-224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brewer, M. B. and Campbell, D. T. (1976).Ethnocentrism and Intergroup Attitudes:
East African evidence. New York: Sage.
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of
Psychology, 24, 317-336
Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction as a function of affiliation need and attitude
similarity. Human Relations, 14, 285-289.

Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of goal
setting process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 265-287.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sports groups: Interpretations and
considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.

Carter, L. F., Haythorn, W. W., & Howell, M. A. (1950). A further investigation of the
criteria of leadership. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 350-358.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright and A.
Zander (eds). Group Dynamics: Research and theory (3rd Eds). London:
Tavistock.
Cavior, N., Miller, K., & Cohen, S. H. (1975). Physical attractiveness, attitude
similarity, and length of acquaintance as contributors to interpersonal attraction
among adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 133-141.
Deutsch, M. (1959). Some factors affecting membership motivations and achievement
motivation in a group. Human Relations, 12, 81-95.
Evans, N. J. and Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and re-evaluation.
Small Group Behavior, 11, 359-370.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57,
271-282.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A
study of human factors in housing. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). The effect of intergroup competition on group members
adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 20, 33-44.
Graham, G. H. (1986). Interpersonal attraction as a basis of informal organization.
Academy of Management Journal, 14, 438-495.
Gruber, J. J., & Gray, G. R. (1981). Factor patterns of variables influencing
cohesiveness at various levels of basketball competition. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 52, 19-30.
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, 497-520.
Hackman, J. R. (1968). Effects of task characteristics on group products. Journal of
Experimental Social psychology, 4, 162-187.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 12, 435-350.
Hogg, M. A. and Abrams, D. (1988). Social Indefifications: A social psychology of
intergroup relations and group processes. London and New York: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From attraction
to social identity. New York: New York University Press.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting
process: problems, prospects, and proposals for future Research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 212-220.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). An empirical examination of
the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 18-23.
Homans, G. C. (1950). The Human Group. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Howard, J. K., & Mulvey P. W. (1995). Two investigations of the relationships among
group goals, goal commitment, cohesion, and performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 44-53.
Isreal, J. (1956). Self-evaluation and Rejection in Groups. Stockholm: Almqvist and
Wiksell.
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance:
An examination of mediation processes in friendship and acquaintance groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775-790.
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, 44-53.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Conflicts. New York: Harper.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness, communication level and
conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408-412.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self- evaluation of
one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.
McDavid, J., & Harari, H. (1968). Social Psychology: Individuals, groups, societies.
New York: Harper and Row.
Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of confusion. Small
Group Behavior, 20, 37-49.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
Nixon, H. L. (1977). Reinforcement effects of sports team success
cohesiveness-related factors. International Review of Sports Sociology, 12,
17-38.
Porter, T. W., & Lilly, B. S. (1996). The effects of conflicts, trust, and task
commitment on project team performance. International Journal of Conflict
Management, Oct 1996, 7, 361-375.
Rousseau, J. (1754/1984). A discourse on inequality (M. Cranston, Trans.). New York:
Viking Penguin.
Schachter, S. (1952). Comment. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 554-562.
Schachter, S., Ellerston, N., McBride, D., & Gregory, D., (1951). An experimental
study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4, 229-238.
Shaw, M. E. (1976/1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior
(2nd / 3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1956). An Outline of Social Psychology. New York:
Harper and Row.
Smith, M. (1945). Social situation, social behavior, and social group. Psychological
Review, 52, 224-229.
Steiner, I. (1927). Group processes and productivity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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.
Stogdill, R. M. (1959). Individual Behavior and Group Achievement: A theory, the
experimental evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26-43.
Tajfel, H. (1957). Value and the perceptual judgment of magnitude. Psychological
Review, 64, 192-204.
Tajfel, H. (1959). Quantitative judgment of social perception. British Journal of
Psychology, 50, 16-29.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin and S. Worchel (eds). The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. PP.
33-47. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Tesluk, P. E., Mathieu, J. E., Zaccaro, S. J., & Marks, M. A. (1997). Task and
aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In M. T.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel
(ed.). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. PP. 15-40. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive
theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (ed.). Advances in Group Processes:
Theory and research. Vol. 2. PP. 77-122. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Peicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the Social Group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford and New
York: Blackwell.
Tziner, A. (1982). Differential effects of group cohesiveness types: A clarifying
overview. Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 227-239.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation(3rd ed). N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Webster, J. M., Duvall, J., Gaines, L. A., & Smith, R. H. (2003). The roles of praise
and social comparison information in the experience of pride. The Journal of
Social Psychology. 143, 209-232.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive
task: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128,
547-558.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code