比较团队建设的两种方法:绩效测量评估

IF 1.6 Q3 MANAGEMENT Team Performance Management Pub Date : 2017-10-03 DOI:10.1108/TPM-01-2017-0002
M. Ciasullo, S. Cosimato, M. Gaeta, Rocco Palumbo
{"title":"比较团队建设的两种方法:绩效测量评估","authors":"M. Ciasullo, S. Cosimato, M. Gaeta, Rocco Palumbo","doi":"10.1108/TPM-01-2017-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nThis paper reports a study that compares two different team-building approaches. The first one is the traditional top-down management approach. The second one is a hybrid bottom-up approach based on the consensus model. The aim of this paper is to determine which of the two approaches is the most effective across a number of performance measurements. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nA case study is presented using data collected and analysed from a small family-owned vehicle maintenance firm. A mixed methods approach to data collection is utilized, including participant observation, focus groups, survey questionnaires and organizational performance reports. A convenience sample of eight routine maintenance jobs was selected for team performance comparison purposes. The measures used for comparing the two team approaches were lead time, customer satisfaction ratings and employees’ satisfaction ratings. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nThe teams assembled using the consensus approach performed better than those selected using the traditional top-down approach across all three performance measures, i.e. the jobs were completed faster and both customers and employees were more satisfied. \n \n \n \n \nResearch limitations/implications \n \n \n \n \nThis is an exploratory case study limited to one small family-owned business and, as such, findings may not be generalizable. \n \n \n \n \nPractical implications \n \n \n \n \nAs an alternative to manager selected work teams, managers should involve and empower employees to select their own teams. This has the potential to offer benefits for both customers and employees of faster delivery times and increase satisfaction, as well as increase productivity for the firm. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nThis is the first field study to compare the performance of a hybrid, bottom-up approach to team building with the performance of a more traditional management, top-down approach to team building. It paves the way for a wider study to be conducted in the future to test the findings’ generalizability.","PeriodicalId":46084,"journal":{"name":"Team Performance Management","volume":"23 1","pages":"333-351"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/TPM-01-2017-0002","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing two approaches to team building: a performance measurement evaluation\",\"authors\":\"M. Ciasullo, S. Cosimato, M. Gaeta, Rocco Palumbo\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/TPM-01-2017-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis paper reports a study that compares two different team-building approaches. The first one is the traditional top-down management approach. The second one is a hybrid bottom-up approach based on the consensus model. The aim of this paper is to determine which of the two approaches is the most effective across a number of performance measurements. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDesign/methodology/approach \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nA case study is presented using data collected and analysed from a small family-owned vehicle maintenance firm. A mixed methods approach to data collection is utilized, including participant observation, focus groups, survey questionnaires and organizational performance reports. A convenience sample of eight routine maintenance jobs was selected for team performance comparison purposes. The measures used for comparing the two team approaches were lead time, customer satisfaction ratings and employees’ satisfaction ratings. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nFindings \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThe teams assembled using the consensus approach performed better than those selected using the traditional top-down approach across all three performance measures, i.e. the jobs were completed faster and both customers and employees were more satisfied. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nResearch limitations/implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis is an exploratory case study limited to one small family-owned business and, as such, findings may not be generalizable. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nPractical implications \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nAs an alternative to manager selected work teams, managers should involve and empower employees to select their own teams. This has the potential to offer benefits for both customers and employees of faster delivery times and increase satisfaction, as well as increase productivity for the firm. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nOriginality/value \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis is the first field study to compare the performance of a hybrid, bottom-up approach to team building with the performance of a more traditional management, top-down approach to team building. It paves the way for a wider study to be conducted in the future to test the findings’ generalizability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Team Performance Management\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"333-351\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/TPM-01-2017-0002\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Team Performance Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-01-2017-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Team Performance Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-01-2017-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

本论文报告了一项比较两种不同团队建设方法的研究。第一种是传统的自上而下的管理方法。第二种是基于共识模型的混合自底向上方法。本文的目的是确定两种方法中哪一种在许多性能度量中是最有效的。设计/方法/方法一个案例研究使用数据收集和分析从一个小型的家庭拥有的汽车维修公司。采用混合方法收集数据,包括参与者观察、焦点小组、调查问卷和组织绩效报告。为了团队绩效比较的目的,选择了8个日常维护工作的方便样本。用于比较两种团队方法的措施是交货时间,客户满意度评级和员工满意度评级。使用共识方法组建的团队在所有三个绩效指标上都比使用传统自上而下方法的团队表现得更好,即工作完成得更快,客户和员工都更满意。这是一个探索性的案例研究,仅限于一个小型家族企业,因此,研究结果可能无法推广。作为管理者选择工作团队的替代方案,管理者应该让员工参与并授权他们选择自己的团队。这有可能为客户和员工提供更快的交货时间和提高满意度的好处,以及提高公司的生产力。原创性/价值这是第一次将自下而上的混合团队建设方法与更传统的自上而下的团队建设管理方法进行比较的实地研究。它为未来更广泛的研究铺平了道路,以测试研究结果的普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing two approaches to team building: a performance measurement evaluation
Purpose This paper reports a study that compares two different team-building approaches. The first one is the traditional top-down management approach. The second one is a hybrid bottom-up approach based on the consensus model. The aim of this paper is to determine which of the two approaches is the most effective across a number of performance measurements. Design/methodology/approach A case study is presented using data collected and analysed from a small family-owned vehicle maintenance firm. A mixed methods approach to data collection is utilized, including participant observation, focus groups, survey questionnaires and organizational performance reports. A convenience sample of eight routine maintenance jobs was selected for team performance comparison purposes. The measures used for comparing the two team approaches were lead time, customer satisfaction ratings and employees’ satisfaction ratings. Findings The teams assembled using the consensus approach performed better than those selected using the traditional top-down approach across all three performance measures, i.e. the jobs were completed faster and both customers and employees were more satisfied. Research limitations/implications This is an exploratory case study limited to one small family-owned business and, as such, findings may not be generalizable. Practical implications As an alternative to manager selected work teams, managers should involve and empower employees to select their own teams. This has the potential to offer benefits for both customers and employees of faster delivery times and increase satisfaction, as well as increase productivity for the firm. Originality/value This is the first field study to compare the performance of a hybrid, bottom-up approach to team building with the performance of a more traditional management, top-down approach to team building. It paves the way for a wider study to be conducted in the future to test the findings’ generalizability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
29.40%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: This international journal contributes to the successful implementation and development of work teams and team-based organizations by providing a forum for sharing experience and learning to stimulate thought and transfer of ideas. It seeks to bridge the gap between research and practice by publishing articles where the claims are evidence-based and the conclusions have practical value. Effective teams form the heart of every successful organization. But team management is one of the hardest challenges faced by managers.
期刊最新文献
“They don’t take notes!” Tensions perceived by first-line workers in an action research project Digital team coaching for workplace communication: longitudinal evaluation of recipients’ perceptions How leader humility influences team reflexivity: a team level analysis The double-edged sword effect of psychological safety climate: a theoretical framework A comparative multi criteria decision analysis of football teams: evidence on FIFA world cup
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1