【作者】 黄小忠；

【导师】 王重鸣；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 应用心理学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 在组织变革中,外包作为一种聚焦企业核心竞争力的战略变革,受到了理论界和实务界的重视。外包,是指企业将自身业务需求通过契约形式委托给外部专业服务提供商来完成,使企业能专注核心业务,提高核心竞争力,更好实现企业经营目标。在信息化和知识化时代,外包能为企业的盈利能力提供无限宽广的机会,也为全球产业结构调整和资源优化配置提供了新的契机。外包改变了工作与组织的性质,承包方项目团队游走于发包方与承包方,需要同时对双方负责。外包项目团队的组织间问责模式与以往单纯的组织内的问责模式存在较大差异。其次,承包方高管、承包方项目团队与发包方之间的管理边界逐渐变得模糊,而要妥善处理好这三者之间关系,规范各方的管理行为,团队问责是关键。因而,以外包为背景开展团队问责研究具有较强的问题驱动理论导向。问责是受问责方就预定标准达成情况向问责方负责,进而促使受问责方履行责任、义务、期望和其它要求等。在问责研究的发展历程中,两个最具代表性的理论为社会权变模型与中观理论。社会权变模型解释了个体在决策与判断下,问责影响决策结果的过程机制,以及个体的应对策略。中观理论从个体与组织互动的角度,概况了组织问责体系对个体与组织的影响,以及其中的内部机制。然而,随着客观环境的变化,上述理论已无法很好的回答如下几个理论问题：(1)在团队工作模式下,团队问责呈现怎样的特点?包括几个维度?(2)团队问责如何影响团队绩效?其中有哪些关键的来自不同层面变量的作用?(3)在跨组织情境下,问责团队又会做出何种决策行为?背后的机制为何?为了回答上述三个问题,本研究以问责的社会权变模型与中观理论为理论基础,以承包方项目团队为对象,分别采用三个研究探讨外包关系下的团队问责及其机制问题。研究一采用三个子研究探讨了团队问责的结构。首先采用访谈法对5个项目团队领导者与成员进行了半结构式访谈,采用内容分析法对访谈内容进行分析,初步提炼出三个维度,即责任、透明、回应。在子研究一基础上,子研究二采用编制的团队问责量表对31个外包团队共计157人进行了施测,对结果进行探索性因素分析,形成14个条目的量表。以子研究二开发的量表为工具,子研究三以36个外包团队共计212人为调查对象,采用验证性因素分析,支持了三因素模型的有效性。在团队问责维度构建的过程中,本研究还分析了个体问责与团队问责、团队问责与团队责任的联系与区别。研究二探讨了团队问责对团队绩效、离职意愿等的跨层效应机制。以120个外包团队共计489名团队领导者和团队成员为对象,团队问责量表、团队凝聚力量表、工作压力量表、离职意愿量表、团队绩效量表等5个量表为工具,采用跨层结构方程建模分析方法,结果表明,团队问责影响员工的离职意愿,两者关系分别受到团队凝聚力与个体工作压力的中介影响。研究二还比较了承包方项目团队与一般团队在结果上的差异性,指出了外包下团队问责效应模式的情境性。团队问责可分为多种模式。其中最常见的是团队领导者问责,即团队领导者承担责任,下属直接向领导者负责。以团队领导者问责作为团队问责模式,研究三采用两个子研究探讨了团队在承包方与发包方双重问责下的决策神经机制。子研究一以大学本科生为被试,采用自编的猜硬币游戏为实验情境。结果表明,在面对单一问责方,不管问责方是承包方还是发包方,个体表现出明显的态度与行为转变,即行为反应尽可能地有利于单一问责方；在面对存在利益冲突的双重问责方时,倾向于采取深思熟虑的策略,努力达成让双方都满意的结果；个体在双重问责下的决策受到认知需求的调节,低认知需求者采取回避策略的比率要显著高于高认知需求者。沿用子研究一范式,子研究二以大学生为被试,ERP研究结果表明,承包方问责下的N1波幅分别显著高于无问责下的N1波幅、发包方问责下的N1波幅和双重问责下的N1波幅。结果揭示了个体在问责决策中的区分过程,以及区分努力的不同意图。与无问责下的随机性区分努力相比,个体在双重问责下的区分努力更多考虑如何平衡双方利益。基于上述三个研究,本文提出了团队问责的启发式整合模型,融合了问责研究范式,分析了研究结论的中国情境性。最后,本文阐述了研究结果的实践意义、研究局限与未来展望。更多还原

【Abstract】 Outsourcing, as a strategy of organizational change to focus on core competition, is highly valued by researchers and practitioners. Outsourcing refers to contracting business needs to professional service providers to focus on core business, improve core competence, and achieve objectives better. Outsourcing provides wide opportunities for organizational profitability, and new chances for global industrial restructuring and optimization of resource allocation in the age of information and knowledge. Outsourcing changes the nature of work and organization, in that vendor project team, wandering between vendor and client, is accountable to both of them. Accountability model between organizations is different from the one within organization. Besides, boundary management among vendor TMT, vendor project team, and client is becoming obscure. Team accountability is one solution to deal with the relationship and regulate administrative behavior. Thus, study on team accountability under outsourcing has strong problem-driven theoretical direction.Accountability refers to being answerable to audiences for performing up to certain prescribed standards, thereby fulfilling obligations, duties, expectations, and other charges. The two classical theories on accountability are social contingency model and meso-level theory. Social contingency model explains how accountability affects decision making, and individual coping strategies to accountability. From the view of interaction between individual and organization, meso-level theory introduces effects of organizational accountability system on individual and organization, and the mechanism. However, those theories can not answer the following questions well under the change of environment:(1) the characteristics and dimensions of team accountability;(2) the effect of team accountability on team performance, and the mechanism;(3) decision making of accountable team under inter-organization. In order to answer the aforementioned questions, based on social contingency model and meso-level theory of accountability, and vendor project team as subject, three studies explored team accountability and its mechanism under outsourcing.In study one, three sub-studies explored the structure of team accountability. In sub-study one, semi-structured interview with leader and member from five teams were conducted, and three dimensions emerged by adopting content analysis, including responsibility, transparency, and response. Based on sub-study one, sub-study two compiled team accountability scale to157participants from31vendor teams, and14items were finally formed after exploratory factor analysis. In sub-study three, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to212participants from36vendor teams, and the results supported the three dimensions of team accountability. Furthermore, the relationship among individual accountability, team responsibility, and team accountability was elaborated.Study two explored multi-level effect of team accountability on team performance and turnover intention and its mechanism.489leaders and members from120vendor teams as participants; five scales as tools, including team accountability scale, team cohension scale, job tension scale, turnover intension scale, and team performance scale; multilevel structural equation modeling as analytical method; the results showed that team accountability affected turnover intention, and the relationship was mediated by job tension and team cohension separately. The study two also compared the results between vendor project team and general team, indicating the context specificity of team accountability effect mode under outsourcing.Team leader accountability, referring to team leader takes full accountability and subordinates are accountable to leader, is common among team accountability modes. Assuming team leader accountability as team accountability model, study three explored the neural decision mechanism of team accountability to both vendor and client. Sub-study one employed undergraduates as subjects and coin toss game as experimental scenario. The results showed that when accountable to single audience, no matter who was vendor or client, individual adopted conformity to please the audience. When accountable to dual audience with conflict of interests, individual engaged in preemptive self-criticism, that is, she/he considered dual interests to achieve satisfactory results for both of them. Need for cognition moderated the coping tactics when accountable to dual audience, such that people with low need for cognition relied on evasion more than the ones with high need for cognition. With the same research paradigm and college students as subjects, event-related potentials revealed N1elicited by stimuli during vendor accountability was significantly larger than the ones elicited by stimuli during non-accountability, client accountability and dual accountability separately, reflecting the discrimination process of decision and the different intentions of discrimination efforts under accountability. Compared with the random discrimination efforts under non-accountability, individual discriminated to balance the dual interests under dual accountability.In conclusion, heuristic integration model of team accountability was proposed, research paradigm of accountability was integrated, and implication was excavated under Chinese context. Finally, the practical implication, research limitations, and future development were discussed.更多还原