簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 賴永茂
Yung-Mao Lai
論文名稱: 領導者人格特質、團隊學習與團隊表現之關聯性研究─以跨領域設計課程為例
A Study of the Relationships between Leader Personality, Team Learning, and Team Performance – Evidence from Cross-Functional Design Courses
指導教授: 宋同正
Tung-jung Sung
口試委員: 王韋堯
Wei-yao Wang
許言
Yen Hsu
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 設計學院 - 設計系
Department of Design
論文出版年: 2010
畢業學年度: 98
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 71
中文關鍵詞: 跨領域設計課程領導者人格特質團隊學習團隊表現
外文關鍵詞: cross-functional, design courses, leader personality, team learning, team performance
相關次數: 點閱:350下載:48
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 越來越多的企業或知名設計公司 (例如,IDEO 和 ZIBA ) 利用跨領域的設計團隊來提升競爭力。事實上,設計課程也往往需要跨領域的學習與合作。一般而言,在團隊整合與協調問題上,領導者實扮演著極為關鍵的角色;然而,在課程中何種人格特質的領導者較能促成團隊學習和有較佳的團隊表現?先前研究對此問題則較少有完整答案。基此,本研究主旨在探討跨領域設計課程中「領導者人格特質」、「團隊學習」及「團隊表現」三者之間的關聯性。本研究針對 3 門不同採用跨領域團隊學習的設計課程 (研究所) 之上課學生進行問卷調查,最終有效回收問卷合計 46 份。本研究主要的發現有四:1) 經由 Pearson 相關係數檢定,本研究發現,「領導者人格特質」對「團隊學習」與「團隊表現」皆呈正向關聯性,且「團隊學習」對「團隊表現」亦呈正向關聯性;2) 相較於具洞察力之領導者,富想像力之領導者在「管理方式」的團隊表現上較佳;3) 相較非設計背景領導者,設計背景領導者較具有「富想像力」與「具洞察力」的人格特質;4) 相較於「創意設計」課程,「專案設計」課程學生有較高之「外部支援」團隊學習,此可能是因後者在課程設計上有「企業參訪」所致。儘管本研究有其限制,但仍冀望它能為未來研究在探索領域設計課程上提供基礎。


    More and more enterprises or world-class design companies (such as, IDEO and ZIBA) employ cross-functional design teams to enhance their design competitiveness. In fact, design courses often necessitates considering cross-functional team learning and cooperation. Basically, a leader plays a critical role in a team to deal with coordination and integration issues. However, few studies have exaimed the influence of the personality of a leader on team learning and team performance in design courses. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to explore the relationships between “leader personality,” “team learning,” and “team performance” in cross-functional design courses. The rearch design of this study involved a survey in three different cross-functional designs courses. A total of 46 students taking the three above design courses were selected to participate in this study for the quantitative survey. The findings of the study confirm that: 1) based on the Pearson’s correlation, there were positive correlations between “leader personality,” ”team learning,” and “team performance”; 2) compared with a leader with insight, a leader with imagination had better team performance on the "job management" aspect; 3) compared with a leader without design background, a leader with design background encompassed more the characteristics of insight and imagination; and 4) the students taking the "project design" course received a higher degree of external support of team learning than the "creative design" course; one possible reason for the finding may account for the "project design" course designed with companies visit activities. While this study has its limitations, it is hoped that it can serve a basis for further study in the investigations of the cross-functional design courses.

    摘 要 誌 謝 目 錄 表 目 錄 圖 目 錄 一、緒論 1.1 研究背景與動機 1.2 研究目的 1.3 研究範圍 1.4 名詞解釋 1.4.1領導者 1.4.2 人格特質 1.4.3 團隊學習 1.4.4 團隊表現 1.4.5跨領域課程 二、文獻探討 2.1 跨領域設計課程 2.2. 領導者人格特質 2.2.1領導者人格特質的定義 2.2.2領導者人格特質的構成要素 2.2.3 領導者人格特質的衡量方式 2.3 團隊學習 2.3.1團隊學習的定義 2.3.2團隊學習的模式 2.3.3 團隊學習的衡量方式 2.4團隊表現 2.4.1團隊表現的定義 2.4.2團隊表現的評估構面 2.4.3 團隊表現的評估方式 2.5 領導者人格特質─團隊學習─團隊表現 2.5.1 領導者人格特質與團隊學習 2.5.2 領導者人格特質與團隊表現 2.5.3 團隊學習與團隊表現 2.6 研究架構 三、研究設計 3.1 研究方法 3.2 研究對象 3.3 研究工具 3.4 統計分析工具 3.5 研究流程 四、研究發現 4.1基本資料分析 4.2信度與效度檢定 4.3 研究變項之敘述性統計 4.4 領導者人特質、團隊學習與團隊表現之因素分析 4.4.1 領導者人格特質之因素分析 4.4.2 團隊學習之因素分析 4.4.3 團隊表現之因素分析 4.5 跨領域設計課程之領導者人格特質、團隊學習與團隊表現關聯性 4.6 領導者人格特質、團隊學習與團隊表現相互間之影響 4.6.1 領導者人格特質對團隊學習之影響 4.6.2 領導者人格特質對團隊表現之影響 4.6.3 團隊學習對團隊表現之影響 4.7其他發現 4.7.1性別與背景對領導者人格特質之影響 4.7.2 課程類別對團隊學習之影響 4.7.3 課程類別對團隊表現之影響 五、研究討論 六、研究結論與建議 6.1 研究結論 6.2 研究建議 6.2.1 管理實務建議 6.2.2 後續研究建議 參考文獻 (附件一) (附件二)

    中文文獻
    吳適意,2003,圖書出版業總編輯人格特質與決策風格之關係研究,南華大學出版學研究所碩士論文。
    宋秋儀 譯,2006,組織領導學,五版,原著:Yukl, G. A., 2002,台北:華泰。
    李怡穎,楊仁壽,2003,團隊發展與學習歷程:衰退或躍進?,第九屆資訊管理暨實務研討會。
    李建華,方文寶,1995,企業績效評估理論與實務,超越企管出版,再版,台北市。
    李炳賢,2005,中階主管的人格特質、領導風格及情緒智力與工作績效關聯之研究─以汽車零件製造業為例,國立成功大學管理學院碩士論文。
    李誠,2006,人力資源管理的 12 堂課,第三版,台北:天下遠見。
    李苡萩,2008,知覺衝突與績效表現關係:考量團體價值一致性與工作投入為中介變項,國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文。
    官振萱,2004,彼得杜拉克:最大陷阱,就是無法「拋棄」,天下雜誌,第 309 期。
    林崇宏,2001,產品設流程管理模式研究,2001年科技與管理學術研討會論文集,頁 599-607。
    林榮泰,林伯賢,呂琪昌,2009,落實包浩斯設計實務教育之探討—以國立台灣藝術大學設計學院為例,工藝設計研討會論文集,頁30-41。
    林鴻均,2004,領導風格對團隊學習行為之影響,國立中央大學企業管理學研究所碩士論文。
    邱政皓,2001,量化研究與統計分析,台北:五南。
    范瑞薇 譯,2005,杜拉克談領導未來,原著:Drucker, P. F., 2004,台北:知識流。
    張明輝,2002,學習型學校的挑戰與因應,潘慧玲 主編,學校革新:理念與實踐,台北:學富。
    張春興,1992,現代心理學,台北:東華。
    張紹勳,2007,研究方法精華本,二版,台中:滄海。
    張耀宗,2006,領導行為與集體效能對知識創造團隊學習影響之研究 - 以知識分享與團隊認同為中介變項,國立雲林科技大學管理研究所博士論文。
    郭進隆 譯,1993,第五項修練:學習型組織的藝術與實務,原著:Senge, P. M., 1990,台北:天下文化。
    陳文誌,游萬來,2001,網際網路在設計課程上應用的探討,工業設計,第 29 卷,第2 期,頁 139-146。
    單承剛,何明泉,2003,設計經理人與跨領域設計團隊之傳達研究,設計學報,第8卷,第 1 期,頁 1-15。
    黃光雄,1996,課程與教學,台北:師大書苑。
    楊仁壽,方祥明,2003,動態系統知識的學習—團隊學習與個人學習之比較實驗,管理學報,第 20 卷,第 3 期,頁 429-456。
    楊朝祥,1984,技術職業教育辭典,台北:三民書局。
    葉宗泯,2004,業務團隊領導風格與業務人員人格特質對團隊學習影響之探討,國立雲林科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
    榮泰生,2006,SPSS 與研究方法,五南,初版,台灣。
    盧佩秋,2003,團隊領導對集體效能與團隊表現之影響,國立政治大學心理研究所碩士論文。
    蕭佳純,董旭英,2007,教師參與團隊學習行為之跨層次分析:層級線性模式之應用,師大學報,第 52 卷,第 3 期,頁 65-89。

    英文文獻
    Allport, G. W. and Odbert, H. S., 1936, Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47 (211), pp. 171.
    Allport, G. W., 1961, Pattern and Growth in Personality, New York: Holt.
    Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. C., 1992, Demography and design: Predictorsof new product team performance, Organization Science, 3 (3), pp. 321–41.
    Anderson, E., 1990, Two firm, one forntier: On assessing joint venture performance, Sloan Management Review, 31 (2), pp. 19-30.
    Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D. and Naquin, C., 2000, Group learning in organizations, In M. E. Turner (ed) Group at Work: Theory and Research, pp. 369-412. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Publishers.
    Aronson, Z. H., Reilly, R. R., and Lynn, G.S., 2006, The impact of leader personality on new product development teamwork and performance: The moderating role of uncertainty, Journal of Engineer and Technology Management, 23, pp. 221-247.
    Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., and Turns, J., 2000, Using multiple methods to evaluate a freshmen design course, 30th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1A-6, Kansas City, MO.
    Barrick, M. R. and Mount, M. K., 1993, Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), pp. 111-118.
    Brannick, M. T., Salas, E. and Prince, C., 1997, An Overview of Team Performance Measurement, ed. by Brannick, M. T., Salas, E. and Prince, C., Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications, N.J.: Mahwah, pp. 3-18.
    Burger, J. M., 1993, Personality, California: Brooks-Cole.
    Burnell, L. J., Priest, J. W., and Durrett, J. R., 2003, Assessment of a resource limited process for multidisciplinary projects, SIGCSE Bulletin, 35 (4), pp. 68-71.
    Busby, J. R., 2001, Error and distributed cognition in design, Design Studies, 22 (3), pp. 233-254.
    Busseri, M. A. and Palmer, J. M., 2000, Improving teamwork: the effect of self-assessment on construction design teams, Design Studies, 21 (3), pp. 223-238.
    Cattell, R. B., 1943, The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, pp. 476-506.
    Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T., 1990, The power of product integrity. Harvard Business Review 68 (6), pp. 107–118.
    Day, D. V. and Silverman, S. B., 1989, Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, pp. 25-36.
    Day, D. V., Gronn, P. and Salas, E., 2004, Leadership capacity in team, The Leadership Quarterly, 15, pp. 857-880.
    Dechant, K. and Marsick, V. J., 1993, Team learning survey and facilitator guide, King of Prussia, PA:Organization Design and Development.
    Dechant, K., Marsick, V. J. and Kasl, E., 1993, Toward a model of team learning, Studies in Continuing Education, 15 (1), pp. 1-14.
    Denton, H. G., 1997, Multidisciplinary team-based project work: Planning factors, Design Studies, 18 (2), pp. 155-170.
    Digman, J.M., 1990, Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-factor Model. In: Rosenzweig, M.R., Porter, L.W. (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 417–440.
    Edmondson, A. C., 2002, The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective, Organization Science, 13 (2), pp.128-146.
    Edmondson, A., 1999, Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 350–383.
    Ellis, A P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H., West, B. J., and Moon, H., 2003, Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 821–835.
    Feinberg, M. E., Kim, Ji-Yeon, and Greenberg, M. T., 2008, Personality and community prevention teams: Dimensions of team leader and member personality predicting team functioning, Evaluation and Program Planning, 31, pp. 403-409.
    Fruchter, R. and Emery, K., 1999, Teamwork: Assessing cross-disciplinary learning, Proceedings of the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning Conference, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, December, pp. 12-15.
    Hergenhahn, B. R., 1988, An introduction to theories of learning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Holland, S., Gaston, K. and Gomes, J., 2000, Critical success factors for cross-functional teamwork in new product development, International Journal of Management Reviews, 1 (3), pp. 231-259.
    ICSID, 1990, World Directory of Schools Offering Design Education. Paris: ICSID.
    Kasl, E., Marsick, V. J. and Dechant, K., 1997, Team as learner: A research-based model of team learning, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33 (2), pp. 227-246.
    Kerlinger, F. N., 1986, Foundation of Behavioral Research. 3rd Edition, UK: HRW Inc.
    Lei, K., 2007, Cross-disciplinary team learning (CDTL) model: Development and validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
    Lynn, G.S., Reilly, R.R. and Akgu¨n, A. E., 2000, Knowledge management in new product teams: practices and outcomes, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management (47), pp. 221–231.
    Lynn, G.S., 1998, New Product Team learning: Developing and profiting from your knowledge capital, Calif. Manage. Rev., 40, pp. 74–93.
    McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., 1992, Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory, Psychological Assessment, 4 (1), pp. 5-13.
    Meyer, C., 1994, How the right measures help teams excel, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 95-103.
    Norman, W. T., 1963, Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, pp. 574–583.
    Northouse, P. G., 1997, Leadership: Theory and practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Van Offenbeek, M., 2001, Processes and outcomes of team learning, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (3), pp. 303-317.
    Peeters, M. A. G., Rutte, C. G. and JM van Tuijl, H. F., 2008, Designing in teams: Does personality matter?, Small Group Research, 39 (4), pp. 438-467.
    Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V. and Owens, P. D., 2003, The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 795–808.
    Reilly, R.R. Lynn, G.S., and Aronson, Z.H., 2002, The role of personality in new product development team performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19, pp. 39–58.
    Sarin, S. and Mahajan, V., 2001, The effect of reward structures on the performance of cross-functional product development teams, Journal of Marketing, 65, pp. 35-53.
    Sarin, S. and McDernit, C., 2003, The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product development teams, Decision Science, 34 (4), pp. 707-739.
    Schaffer, S. P., Lei, K. and Paulino, L. R., 2008, A framework for cross-disciplinary team learning and performance, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21 (3), pp. 7-21.
    Senge, P. M., 1990, The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York: Currency.
    Skinner, B. F., 1950, Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57(4), pp. 193-216.
    Van Der Vegt, G. S. and Bunderson, J. S., 2005, Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification, Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3), pp.532-547.
    Woerkom, M. van and Croon, M., 2009, The relationships between team learning activities and team performance, Personnel Review, 38 (5), pp. 560-577.
    Yeh, Ying-Jung and Chou, Huey-Wey, 2005, Team composition and learning behaviors in cross-functional teams, Social Behavior and Personality, 33 (4), pp. 391-402.
    Yukl, G. A., 2002, Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., N.J.: Prentice Hall.
    Zigon, J., 1997, Team performance: a process for creating team performance standards, Compensation and Benefits Review, 24 (1), pp. 38-47.

    網路文獻
    教育經費分配審議委員會網站,2007,教育部補助大學校院辦理跨領域學位學程及學分要點,教育部,台北市。2010 年 6 月 1 日,取自:http://www.edu.tw/budget.aspx?budget_sn=281&site_content_sn=99。
    ICSID, 2005, Definition of Design, June. 1, 2010, from http://www.icsid.org/about/about/articles31.

    QR CODE