【作者】 张文勤；

【导师】 石金涛；

【作者基本信息】 上海交通大学 ， 企业管理， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 当代企业越来越依赖于富有创造性并能够对环境变化做出快速反应的团队,因为高效团队能够帮助团队应对不断增长的环境压力,实现稀缺资源共享与跨部门合作,通过不同职能部门之间的协同来成功地完成既定任务。但是,造就高效团队是一项需要很多投入的艰难工作,因为大多数团队,特别是从事创新活动的知识型团队都身处动态变化的环境之中。不确定性(对特定行为的后果与影响缺乏认识)与含糊性(在该做什么的问题上模棱两可、含糊不清)始终伴随着频繁从事创新活动的知识型团队。对于知识团队而言,要成功应对不确定性与含糊性,就必须密切关注周围环境的变化,并根据环境变化及时做出反应。团队自省性(Team Reflexivity)就是基于这一思想提出来的,团队自省性是团队关注环境并根据环境变化做出反应的关键所在。如果团队成员能对自己的工作方式和所处的工作环境进行公开反思,制定应变计划,并根据环境变化对自己的工作方式做出相应的调整,那么团队将会变得更加有效。团队自省性理论为研究知识团队绩效与知识员工行为提供了新的视角。为此,本文系统考察了知识员工行为理论、团队绩效理论、团队自省性理论与团队研究方法等相关研究的理论与实践成果。通过回顾以往文献,本文发现有四个理论问题有待解决:(1)在中国企业背景下,知识团队自省性有怎样的结构维度?(2)知识团队自省性受哪些因素的影响,应当如何有效提升团队自省性水平?(3)在知识经济时代,知识团队自省性如何影响团队的效能与效率?(4)在知识团队中,知识员工的行为是否会受到知识团队自省性的影响?为了回答这些问题,本文开展了以下研究。研究一:探索中国背景下知识团队自省性的结构维度。在前人研究的基础上,本研究将团队自省性界定为:团队成员对团队目标、策略与程序进行公开反思以使它们适应当前或预期环境变化的程度。通过借鉴国外相关研究结论、团内企业访谈与问卷调查,本研究编制了中国背景下的知识团队自省性问卷,并使问卷尽可能测量到团队自省性的不同要素与不同水平。对20支预试团队中148份有效成员样本数据的探索性因素分析表明,团队自省性量表由任务反思、过程反思与行动调整三个因素构成。对80支正式研究团队中352份有效成员样本数据的验证性因素分析证实了结构模型的合理性。通过对所有100支团队中500份成员样本数据的两层次验证性因素分析,表明团队自省性的三因素结构在个体层次与团队层次均得到了验证。从量表结构来看,知识团队自省性包含三个要素:一是任务反思,主要是对任务完成情况进行反思;二是过程反思,主要是对决策、沟通等团队过程进行反思,与任务反思相比,它是更深层次的反思;三是行动调整,主要用于测量团队根据环境变化对团队目标、决策和计划进行调整的程度。研究二:分析知识团队自省性的影响因素。首先通过理论推导,从不同层次提出了影响知识团队自省性的关键变量及其作用关系。这些关键因素包括:团队任务特征、团队成员特征、团队领导角色与心理安全气氛。通过对正式样本(134支知识团队,含134名团队主管与656名团队成员)的调查,运用层次回归分析方法对团队层次样本数据进行分析,研究发现,团队学习取向、促进型领导与团队心理安全为知识团队自省性的三个触发因素。进而通过构建结构方程模型,研究发现,触发因素对团队自省性的影响会受到任务依赖性与任务例行性的不同程度的调节作用,即在高、低任务依赖性与任务例行性的工作环境中,团队目标取向、团队领导角色与团队心理安全气氛对知识团队自省性会产生不同程度的影响。研究三:知识团队自省性的团队层次效应。首先通过理论推导,提出知识团队自省性对团队效能与团队效率的作用关系。通过对正式样本(134支知识团队,含134名团队主管与656名团队成员)的调查,借助结构方程建模技术,从两个方面分析了知识团队自省性的团队层次效应:(1)知识团队自省性对知识团队效能与效率的影响。研究发现,这种影响关系并非是简单的一一对应关系。在不同的团队任务特征下,任务反思、过程反思与行动调整的强弱差异、组合不同,将会对团队效能与团队效率造成不同程度的影响。(2)通过检验知识团队自省性的中介效应,打开了团队投入因素与团队绩效关系的“黑箱”。研究发现,团队学习取向、促进型领导及心理安全气氛对知识团队效能的影响,主要是通过其对知识团队自省性的影响而实现的。尤其需要注意的是,促进型领导与心理安全对任务绩效的影响是完全借助于团队自省性的中介作用来传递的。研究四:知识团队自省性的个体层次效应。知识员工的知识活动行为(知识员工行为)是一种复杂的组织行为,会受到不同层次因素的交互影响。研究首先通过理论推导,提出团队层次自省性与个体层次目标取向影响团队成员行为的作用关系。通过对正式样本(134支知识团队,含134名团队主管与656名团队成员)的调查,借助多层线性模型技术,研究发现:(1)团队自省性对知识员工的知识获取行为、创新行为与知识分享行为均具有显著正向影响,在高自省性的知识团队中,其成员的知识获取行为、创新行为与知识分享行为要显著高于低自省性的知识团队;(2)团队自省性除了具有这种主效应外,还对知识员工目标取向与知识员工行为间的关系具有不同程度的调节效应。研究发现,知识团队自省性对知识员工学习取向与证明取向对知识员工行为的影响起正向调节作用,而对知识员工回避取向对知识员工行为的影响起反向调节作用。团队自省性作为一种团队过程,会在知识员工个人特征与知识员工行为之间起到一种“调控”作用。经研究努力,本文在如下三个方面获得了理论创新:(1)团队自省性结构研究的新发现。本研究编制了中国背景下的知识团队自省性问卷,并使问卷尽可能测量到团队自省性的不同要素与不同水平。本研究并没有将深度反思从其他反思中区分出来,作者认为,深度反思不会像轻度反思与中度反思那样经常发生,特别是在中国背景下,大部分团队都趋于认同自己的文化,而不会经常讨论自身的文化准则与价值观。此外,本研究首次将行动调整因素真正纳入到测量团队自省性的量表中,使本研究开发的团队自省性量表具有“整体性”。因此,本文为研究者从事中国背景下的团队自省性研究提供了测量工具。(2)团队效能与效率研究的新视角。本文从团队自省性的全新视角研究知识团队绩效。研究发现,自省性对知识团队效能与团队效率的影响存在较大差异。团队自省性的三个维度,即任务反思、过程反思与行动调整对知识团队的效能均具有显著正向影响;但除了行动调整外,任务反思、过程反思对团队效率不会产生显著正向影响。通过研究还发现,任务依赖性与任务例行性对团队自省性与团队绩效的关系具有不同程度的调节作用。说明在任务特征的不同水平,团队自省性对团队绩效存在不同的回归效应。此外,研究发现,团队自省性作为一种团队过程,将会在知识团队自省性的触发因素与团队绩效之间起到一种中介作用。因此,本文丰富了团队自省性理论与团队绩效形成理论。(3)基于多层次的团队研究新思路。本论文同时涉及两种团队研究模式:同层模式与跨层模式。本研究中以触发因素为前因变量、自省性为中介变量以及以团队绩效为结果变量的结构模型构建,就是基于同层模式的研究。而本研究中用跨层次方式探讨个人层次目标取向与团队层次自省性对团队成员行为的交互影响,就是基于跨层模式的研究。因此,本研究从方法上为今后从事团队研究进行了有益的尝试与探索。总之,本论文基于多层次研究方法,提出并验证中国背景下知识团队自省性的多维度构思,深入分析了知识团队自省性与对知识团队绩效与知识员工行为的影响作用,开拓了知识团队绩效与知识员工行为研究的新视角。这些理论观点,为我国企业规范知识员工行为,提升知识团队绩效,适应内外环境变化,赢得并保持竞争优势,提供了思路。更多还原

【Abstract】 Effective teams are important cornerstones of successful organizations, especially for those operating in dynamic environments. As such, the large literature on factors explaining team effects on performance has generated significant understanding. However, an important assumption in most team studies is that teams and team properties are static, thus ignoring the possibility that at various stages of their existence, teams can have different characteristics. However, the reality for most teams involved in innovative projects is that they are facing a constantly changing environment, both internally and externally. Teams in innovative projects constantly face uncertainty (lack of knowledge about future events and consequences of specific actions) and equivocality (deeper level of ambiguity and confusion regarding what needs to get done). However, in order to cope successfully with such environmental contingencies, it is important for teams to constantly monitor their environment and react appropriately. One key aspect of the ability of teams to monitor and react to their environment is reflexivity. Team reflexivity is based on the notion that a team’s environment is ever changing and that there is a need for constant reflection and contemplation to assess the most current environment in order to apply the best action. Team reflexivity—the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning—has been identified as a possible important determinant of team effectiveness. When members collectively reflect on the way they work and the environment they work in, plan to adapt these aspects and make changes accordingly, teams will be more effective.The theory of Team Reflexivity gave a new perspective for knowledge team performance and knowledge worker behavior. After looking up key papers from the cited references, we confirmed four theoretical issues unresolved: (1) what were the connotation and constructs of Knowledge Team reflexivity (KTR) in the context of Chinese firms? (2) What were the antecedents of KTR, and how to build KTR? (3) How did KTR influence team effectiveness and team efficiency in the knowledge economy? (4) How did KTR influence knowledge workers’behaviors in the knowledge team? Four studies were conducted to answer these questions.Study 1 explored the construct of team reflexivity in Chinese context. After looking up key papers, Team reflexivity is defined as“the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about the group’s objectives, strategies and processes, and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances”, and then we conducted interviews and survey to obtain items for the Team Reflexivity Scale (TRS). And then, empirical and statistical methods were employed to assess the structure and psychometric properties of the TRS. The scale was tested with two different samples form high technology companies in China. The exploratory factor analysis on the first sample with 148 staff showed that Team reflexivity contains three dimensions. The three dimension constructs were confirmed by using a confirmatory factor analysis on the confirmation sample with 352 staff. In both samples, three factors of reflexivity were identified. They were labeled task reflection, process reflection and action adaptation. And then, the two-level structure of TRS was assessed by means of multi-level confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) on all samples(100 teams with 500 staff), indicating that the three dimension constructs of team reflexivity can be used both at individual and team level. Statistics from individual and team level showed good psychometric properties for the scale in both studies. We conclude that the scale forms a valid instrument to assess team reflexivity in Chinese firms.Study 2 analyzed the antecedents of KTR in the context of Chinese firms. Before the study, the researcher had put forwarded several critical variables which worked on KTR and had supposed their effects on KTR. These variables include team task characteristics, team members’characteristics, team leader roles, and psychological safety climate. Subsequently, we applied stepwise linear regression and structural equation model to validate the effect of antecedents on team reflexivity. With regards to our investigation of possible antecedents of KTR, some factors were positively related to team reflexivity. Especially, the study showed that team learning orientation, leader role as facilitator, and psychological safety climate were the key trigger factors of KTR. Moreover, the study showed there were moderating effects between the trigger factors and KTR by team task characteristics.Study 3 analyzed the performance mechanism of KTR on team level in two aspects, adopting questionnaire studying method, sampling on team level, and depending on structural equation modeling techniques. (1) The effects on team effectiveness and team efficiency made by team task characteristics and KTR. Empirical results show that the dimensions of team reflexivity have positive impact on team effectiveness, and action adaptation has positive impact on team efficiency. And it was found that task reflection, process reflection and action adaptation had influences on team effectiveness and team efficiency in various task environments. (2) It enabled to open up the black box between team input factors and team performance through testing the mediation effects of KTR. The effects on team performance made by team input factors were mainly through its effect on KTR. Especially, the effects on team performance made by team leader role as facilitator and psychological safety were fully through its effect on KTR. Study 4 analyzed the knowledge workers’behavior mechanism of KTR on cross level adopting questionnaire studying method, sampling on individual and team level, and depending on hierarchical linear modeling techniques. Based on the preliminary conclusions derived from the research of the theory of Goal Orientation, we proposed a theoretical model in which the KTR was included to examine the relationship between the goal orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors. At individual level, we examined the relationship between 3-factor individual goal orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors. At cross level, we also examined whether KTR can affect knowledge workers’behaviors, then analyzed whether KTR has a moderate effect between individual goal orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors. Results of cross level analysis showed that (1) positive effect of KTR on knowledge workers’behaviors such as knowledge acquiring behavior, innovation behavior, and knowledge sharing behavior is significant; (2) To varying degrees, KTR had positive moderating effect between learning orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors; (3) To varying degrees, KTR had positive moderating effect between proving orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors; (4) To varying degrees, KTR had negative moderating effect between avoiding orientation and knowledge workers’behaviors.The main contributions of the dissertation include:(1) The validity and reliability of Team Reflexivity Scale(TRS) was firstly modified and examined in China. (2) Form the perspective of Team Reflexivity, this dissertation analyzed the performance mechanism of KTR on team level. (3) At the same time, this dissertation carried out team research involving both two models: the single-level model and cross-level model.Based on cross-level view, this paper put forward and validated the multi-dimensions construct of KTR in Chinese firm context, and analyzed the performance and behavior mechanism of KTR. As a result, these theoretical opinions enabled the companies to be aware of the way how to manage knowledge workers’behaviors, improve knowledge team performance, adapt to Internal and external changes in the environment, and thus gain and maintain the competitive advantage.更多还原