مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد تنظیم عملکرد تیم عملیاتی در حضور تصمیم گیری شدید اجماع/تضاد توسط رهبری مشترک – وایلی ۲۰۱۸

wiley

 

مشخصات مقاله
ترجمه عنوان مقاله رهبری مشترک عملکرد تیم عملیاتی را در حضور تصمیم گیری شدید اجماع/تضاد تنظیم می کند: شواهدی از مهندسی مجدد فرایندهای تجاری (BPR)
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله Shared Leadership Regulates Operational Team Performance in the Presence of Extreme Decisional Consensus/Conflict: Evidences from Business Process Reengineering
انتشار مقاله سال ۲۰۱۸
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی ۳۸ صفحه
هزینه دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد.
پایگاه داده نشریه وایلی
مقاله بیس این مقاله بیس میباشد
نمایه (index) Master Journal List – JCR – Scopus
نوع مقاله ISI
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی  PDF
ایمپکت فاکتور(IF)
۲٫۴۱۳ در سال ۲۰۱۸
شاخص H_index ۹۷ در سال ۲۰۱۹
شاخص SJR ۱٫۳۳۱ در سال ۲۰۱۸
شناسه ISSN ۱۵۴۰-۵۹۱۵
شاخص Quartile (چارک) Q1 در سال ۲۰۱۸
مدل مفهومی دارد
پرسشنامه ندارد
متغیر دارد
رفرنس دارد
رشته های مرتبط مدیریت
گرایش های مرتبط مدیریت عملکرد، مدیریت منابع انسانی، مدیریت پروژه، مدیریت کیفیت و بهره وری
نوع ارائه مقاله
ژورنال
مجله  علوم تصمیم گیری – Decision Sciences
دانشگاه Department of Industrial and Digital Innovation, University of Palermo
کلمات کلیدی پارادوکس ابیلین، مهندسی مجدد فرایندهای تجاری، تصمیم گیری گروهی، تفکر گروهی، رهبری مشترک، تیم عملیاتی و عملکرد
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی Abilene Paradox، Business Process Reengineering، Group Decision-Making، Groupthink، Shared Leadership، Operational Team، and and Performance
شناسه دیجیتال – doi
https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12325
کد محصول E12831
وضعیت ترجمه مقاله  ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.
دانلود رایگان مقاله دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی
سفارش ترجمه این مقاله سفارش ترجمه این مقاله

 

فهرست مطالب مقاله:
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

LITERATURE REVIEW

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

RESEARCH DESIGN

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

 

بخشی از متن مقاله:

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on decision-making within operational teams. Grounding our argumentation on group decision-making literature, we argue that adverse behavior patterns may affect the way in which consensus is achieved within the team, and that team performance has an inverted U-shaped relationship with the level of consensus. Then, by relying on leadership literature, we pose the hypothesis that the level of shared leadership inside the group moderates this U-shaped relationship. To empirically test our literaturebased argumentation, we use longitudinal data collected in the years 2014 and 2015 from Business process reengineering projects, each lasting three months, conducted by 141 Master of Science Students grouped in 34 teams. We conclude by emphasizing that it is important to control for the occurrence of behaviors which lead to “fake” consensus within operational teams, by observing the individuals’ satisfaction with respect to the group decision as well as their active participation in the decision-making process.

INTRODUCTION

As long as organizations deal with increasing demands for efficiency and responsiveness, team-based work structures have become a pervasive organizational model to face such challenges (Boyett & Conn, 1992). Relying on effective and efficient groups at all organization’s levels is fundamental in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. In fact, not just top management teams, but also operational teams play a crucial role in determining processes’ efficiency, customer satisfaction, and company success (Bamford & Griffin, 2008). The effectiveness of a group decision-making process may be, however, threatened by a few psychological behaviors which influence the way groups make the decision (Riccobono, Bruccoleri, & Großler, 2016; Swaab, Phillips, & Schaerer, ¨ ۲۰۱۶). Two organizational behavior theories exist underlining the potential pitfalls of a group decision-making process, but they explain two different phenomena: the “Abilene Paradox (AP)” (Harvey, 1974), and “Groupthink (GT)” (Janis & Mann, 1977). The extent to which such phenomena could be a real threat in an operational context has been described by Riccobono et al. (2016) and an example of how they lead groups to ineffective behaviors is reported by McAvoy and Butler (2009), in their empirical study on two software development teams trying to reach consensus on the way a software package must be developed. In one case, the group chose to adopt a prioritization method different from the one recommended by the Agile Software Development approach, and, even if it was proven to be ineffective, the group seeking for unanimous consensus persisted in adopting it. Here the authors identify GT behavior, where the team achieves consensus mostly because of their “seeking for unanimity” willingness. In the other case, the group, even though not all group members agreed, decided to follow standardized company procedures in the adoption of the Agile approach that were not fitting the specific project, and that finally led to the failure of the project. Here the authors recognize the presence of the AP behavior, where the group decision is made, even with little consensus, because of the team members’ “conforming to the others” inclination.

ارسال دیدگاه

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد.