ایجاد ارتباط بین اعتبار خارجی درک شده و شناسایی جمعی به رفتارهای مشترک در تیم های R & D
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|4526||2011||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7746 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 38, Issue 7, July 2011, Pages 8199–8207
Research efforts have long been directed at understanding variations in collaborative behaviors among work teams with burgeoning interest in teams operating in knowledge-intensive settings. One of the largely unexplained issues is how does team image and collective identification facilitate collaborative behaviors. Here, survey data were collected from nineteen highly technical work teams engaging in software development in an R&D division of a multinational NASDAQ firm involved in multimedia communications and information processing technology. The relationships between perceived external prestige, collective team identification and team collaborative behaviors were examined. The results of the team-level analyses suggest that perceived external prestige augments collective team identification (measured at Time 1), which in turn engenders a high degree of collaboration and interaction within the team (measured at Time 2). When past team performance was controlled for, the results consistently supported the hypothesized model.
In high-velocity industries, a firm’s competitive advantage often depends on its ability to rapidly introduce new quality products and services (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995 and Clark and Fujimoto, 1991) through the processes of developing, carrying, reacting to and modifying ideas (Van de Ven, 1986). The complex and difficult process of new product development (Sawyer and Guinan, 1998 and Sheremata, 2000) is often executed by work teams (Ancona and Caldwell, 1990, Clark and Fujimoto, 1991 and Doolen et al., 2003), which are “the heart of efficient product development” (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995, p. 369). The underlying assumption is that work teams can improve the functioning of an organization. However, firms also realize that designing and managing teams that work well together is a complex challenge (see Hackman, 1987 and Hackman, 1990). Research on work teams has highlighted the role of factors such as group diversity, familiarity, leadership, goal setting and motivation (for a review, see Guzzo & Dickson, 1996) and production methods (Sawyer & Guinan, 1998), but it has overlooked how team collaborative behaviors (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001) and team social processes (Sawyer & Guinan, 1998) are facilitated. This is despite research which suggests teamwork process (Chi & Chen, 2009) marked by a high level of collaboration is vital as it allows team members to interact in such a way that facilitates knowledge acquisition, exchange and integration (Lee et al., 2009 and Zhuge, 2002). This is especially true for software development teams in which socially shared cognitive processes (i.e., coordinating expertise) are essential (Faraj & Sproull, 2000). Member identification has mainly been conceptualized as an individual level construct (see Elsbach, 1999). However, recent research has provided evidence for the importance of studying members’ shared sense of identification with a work group (i.e., a sense of collective team identification) (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). Social identity theorists and organizational researchers have noted the importance of construed external image (Dukerich et al., 2002 and Dutton et al., 1994) and perceived external prestige (Carmeli, 2005 and Smidts et al., 2001) in the development of member identification. However, these studies concentrated on the effects of the organization’s construed image or prestige and called for a group level analysis of these constructs (Carmeli & Shteigman, 2010). Researchers have directed much effort to theorizing and conceptualizing member identification (Dutton et al., 1994, Elsbach, 1999 and Pratt, 1998). Empirical studies have examined the impact of member identification at the individual level (Carmeli, 2005 and Dukerich et al., 2002), but relatively little research has been done at the team level (Carmeli and Shteigman, 2010 and Dimmock et al., 2005). What follows is a study that attempts to theorize and empirically test how team perceived external prestige (the way team members think outsiders [i.e., other teams] view and evaluate their team) helps develop a sense of collective team identification and facilitates collaborative behaviors among R&D team members. Members are likely to develop a shared sense of identification with their work group when they believe outsiders (i.e., other teams in the same organization) favorably evaluate the work group to which they belong. We attempt to extend the Dukerich et al. (2002) model of member identification by (1) investigating the construct of perceived external prestige, which is distinct from the concept of construed external image; (2) applying a group level analysis rather than an individual level construct, and (3) examining how team collaborative behaviors are facilitated using a social identity approach. We argue that collective team identification is a prime motivational source for team members to interact and collaborate with one another and act as a team. We suggest a social identity process that facilitates the development of collective team identification and collaborative behaviors in the context of highly technical software product development teams working in R&D divisions of a multinational corporation that competes in a high-velocity arena.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The results of this study are important because a firm that builds its R&D division around work teams needs to form and construct collaborative behaviors. We provide an additional insight beyond R&D team formation (Fan, Feng, Jiang, & Fu, 2009), and point to collaboration as essential process for innovation (Van de Ven, 1986) and for enabling the firm as a whole to speedily introduce new quality products and services (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995 and Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). Our research documents the growing recognition by product development scholars (Sawyer & Guinan, 1998) that social and behavioral processes within product development teams are critical for their success. Furthermore, this study documents an important but largely ignored phenomenon of work team research; namely, the social identity process through which team collaborative behaviors is developed. In doing so, we addressed a recent call to examine identification as a group-level construct, how it is affected by perceived external prestige and how it affects collaborative behaviors within a work team, thus responding to the need for further research on the implications of identification (Riketta & Van Dick, 2005). This model was applied in a rapid-paced work setting: software development teams in the R&D division of a multinational software company. The results of this study document the role of collective team image and identification in facilitating collaborative behaviors. Our results confirm that the prestige outsiders (members outside the team but within the same organization) attribute to a particular work team as collectively construed by its members (i.e., perceived external prestige) is positively linked to members’ shared sense of identification with a work group (i.e., a sense of collective team identification within a work group). This not only confirms theoretical reasoning (Dutton et al., 1994) and the results of previous studies (e.g., Smidts et al., 2001), but goes beyond the organizational level previous research has advocated up to now by analyzing this link at a group level. This clearly raises some important research questions. What are the implications of work behaviors and outcomes at the individual, group and organizational levels? Given, for instance, favorable perceived external prestige at the organization level, but poorly construed external prestige at the work group level, how might these different images influence attitudes, interpersonal dynamics, behaviors, and outcomes at the individual, group, and organizational levels? The findings of this study make another important contribution by documenting the positive link between collective team identification and team collaborative behaviors. It indicates just how important it is for members to share a strong sense of identification with a work group in order to enhance collaborative behaviors within a work team. This is consistent with Dutton et al.’s (1994) theoretical study of patterns of social interactions that could be developed through identification processes, and social identification theory which identifies the core elements of in-group member and intra-group cohesion (Kramer, 1991 and Turner, 1985). However, our research provides a more fine-grained look into whether identification facilitates each one of the six collaborative behaviors. Specifically, the results suggest a more complicated picture than expected; identification was positively associated with communication, mutual support, effort, and cohesion whereas no significant relationship was found with coordination and balance of member contribution. This indicates that identification is vital mechanism for facilitating relational-based collaboration but may not be sufficient for cultivating more structural-based collaboration. Clearly, this issue necessitates further research to better understand in which conditions relational vs. structural-based collaboration is facilitated. This research also has some practical implications. Team leaders may need to understand how prestigious their team is. This is vital because understanding that team prestige can cultivate collective team identification and facilitate collaborative behaviors among team members. In addition, team leaders may need to seek ways to increase their team prestige because of its potential to facilitate work team processes. Thus, understanding what constitutes prestige and factors that may shape the ways others evaluate the team may be important for facilitating team collaboration. In a similar vein, it is important to look into mechanisms that may help redress the poor prestige of a particular team. This is vital because organizational members may be inclined not to join teams that do not enjoy favorable prestige, despite their importance to organizational functioning. Organizations, thus, need to consider the variation in teams’ prestige and find ways to encourage members to join and strengthen them. 5.1. Limitations and future research directions Important questions about identification and collaborative behaviors in work teams still need to be addressed. There is an issue related to loss of prestige; what happens when an organization loses its prestige but individual work teams have performed remarkably well? Or in cases that do not involve fraud at high levels, what happens when teams are extremely good but management is not? These questions remained largely open and necessitate further investigation. Another issue is concerned with “too much” or over-identification that may give rise to between-team competitive behaviors which ultimately undermine organizational goals (see Simon, 1976). Over-identification exemplifies situations in which people may be inclined to adopt counterproductive behaviors. In addition, our definition and operationalization of collective team identification incorporates only two of the three cognitive and emotional components of this concept. Thus, future research is needed to examine the cognitive, emotional, and evaluative aspects of identification (see Tajfel, 1982). This study also joins a growing body of the literature that indicates the mediating role of identification in the relationship between perceived external prestige or construed external image and work behaviors (e.g., Dukerich et al., 2002 and Dutton et al., 1994). This means that a favorable image does not translate directly into positive patterns of behavioral interactions, but goes through an intervening process of social group identification. Thus, an assessment that is not perceived by a social group (i.e., organization, work team) as attractive has a limited role in fostering positive collaborative behaviors. Prestige is important when it is attractive and when it augments a sense of identification. The latter, in turn, translates into positive work behaviors (see Dutton et al., 1994). However, one should also consider possible tradeoffs. We know that people may also be attracted to less prestigious teams. One motivating driver for this move is the opportunity to meet a great challenge: that of turning a poor team into a successful one. We clearly need to further investigate why some people choose to join more or less prestigious groups or organizations. In particular, recent research points to the challenge of facilitating collaboration in virtual teams (Chen & Chen, 2009); however, knowledge on team prestige and identification as a source of collaboration in such teams has yet to be accumulated. Although the current study presents a theory-driven model of prestige, identification and collaborative behaviors within work teams, the results should be considered as preliminary. We collected data from a small number of software development work teams in a particular multinational company. Thus, the stability of our findings remains uncertain (cf. Klein, Conn, & Sorra, 2001). Clearly, the results should be replicated using a larger and more diverse sample. In addition, future research could extend the research model by collecting objective performance measures at the conclusion of each work team’s formal task. This would allow for a more complete picture of social identity theory in work teams. In this study, we collected data from team members at two points in time but the findings are limited by the possibility of response–response bias associated with a lack of data from informants outside the work teams. Although we cannot entirely rule this out, we relied on multiple respondents in each team and found support for aggregating the data to the group level. Previous studies have shown that counting on more than one person in an organizational unit is generally more reliable (Bowman & Ambrosini, 1997). Clearly, as mentioned above, it would be of importance to consider objective observers to evaluate team collaborative behaviors and subsequent performance. Previous research has provided empirical evidence for the positive link between various forms of collaborative behaviors (e.g., coordination) and objective performance (e.g., Hoegl et al., 2004). Although we collected data at two points in time, one should be cautious in making any causal interpretations. Although it has been argued that perceived team prestige may influence collective team identification, it should also be acknowledged that collective team identification may also influence perceived team prestige. Finally, as in every study, there are possibly unobserved variables that could enrich the overall model. For example, identification is not only affected by membership by also by the meaning one derives from her/his work. Therefore, future research may benefit from studying the role of meaningfulness found in work and at work in fostering identification (see Pratt & Ashforth, 2003).