شواهدی از مهندسی مجدد فرایندهای تجاری (BPR)
ترجمه نشده

شواهدی از مهندسی مجدد فرایندهای تجاری (BPR)

عنوان فارسی 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
مجله/کنفرانس: علوم تصمیم گیری - Decision Sciences
رشته های تحصیلی مرتبط: مدیریت
گرایش های تحصیلی مرتبط: مدیریت عملکرد، مدیریت منابع انسانی، مدیریت پروژه، مدیریت کیفیت و بهره وری
کلمات کلیدی فارسی: 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
نمایه: Master Journal List - JCR - Scopus
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12325
دانشگاه: Department of Industrial and Digital Innovation, University of Palermo
ناشر: وایلی - Wiley
نوع ارائه مقاله: ژورنال
نوع مقاله: ISI
سال انتشار مقاله: 2018
ایمپکت فاکتور: 2/413 در سال 2018
شاخص H_index: 97 در سال 2019
شاخص SJR: 1/331 در سال 2018
شناسه ISSN: 1540-5915
شاخص Quartile (چارک): Q1 در سال 2018
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی: PDF
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی: 38
وضعیت ترجمه: ترجمه نشده است
قیمت مقاله انگلیسی: رایگان
آیا این مقاله بیس است: بله
آیا این مقاله مدل مفهومی دارد: دارد
آیا این مقاله پرسشنامه دارد: ندارد
آیا این مقاله متغیر دارد: دارد
کد محصول: E12831
رفرنس: دارای رفرنس در داخل متن و انتهای مقاله
فهرست انگلیسی مطالب

ABSTRACT


INTRODUCTION


LITERATURE REVIEW


HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT


RESEARCH DESIGN


ANALYSES AND RESULTS


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION


REFERENCES

نمونه متن انگلیسی 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, ¨ 2016). 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.

  • اشتراک گذاری در

دیدگاه خود را بنویسید:

تاکنون دیدگاهی برای این نوشته ارسال نشده است

شواهدی از مهندسی مجدد فرایندهای تجاری (BPR)
نوشته های مرتبط
مقالات جدید
پیوندها