一个团队中的多个I-Deals是否有助于或阻碍团队成果?资源稀缺视角

IF 4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Group & Organization Management Pub Date : 2022-05-22 DOI:10.1177/10596011221098824
L. Vossaert, F. Anseel, Violet T. Ho
{"title":"一个团队中的多个I-Deals是否有助于或阻碍团队成果?资源稀缺视角","authors":"L. Vossaert, F. Anseel, Violet T. Ho","doi":"10.1177/10596011221098824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are individualized employment arrangements negotiated and agreed upon by individual employees and their organization. This study addresses an emerging conundrum in i-deals research—whether the prevalence of i-deals in teams helps or hinders team outcomes. Because teams in which i-deals are prevalent receive more resources and status, they may be more cohesive and engage in more supportive behaviors. On the other hand, because i-deals differentiate among team members, teams in which i-deals are prevalent may be less cohesive and less inclined to engage in OCB. To solve this puzzle, we draw from a resource scarcity perspective to posit that understanding intra-team i-deal dynamics requires taking into account both organizational-level (i.e., organizational i-deal scarcity) and team-level (i.e., team power structure) factors. Using data from 40 organizations, 166 teams, and 1016 employees, we disentangle the complex interplay among the prevalence of i-deals in a team, organizational i-deal scarcity, and intra-team power structure in predicting both team cohesion and intra-team OCB.","PeriodicalId":48143,"journal":{"name":"Group & Organization Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"156 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Multiple I-Deals in a Team Help or Hinder Team Outcomes? A Resource Scarcity Perspective\",\"authors\":\"L. Vossaert, F. Anseel, Violet T. Ho\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10596011221098824\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are individualized employment arrangements negotiated and agreed upon by individual employees and their organization. This study addresses an emerging conundrum in i-deals research—whether the prevalence of i-deals in teams helps or hinders team outcomes. Because teams in which i-deals are prevalent receive more resources and status, they may be more cohesive and engage in more supportive behaviors. On the other hand, because i-deals differentiate among team members, teams in which i-deals are prevalent may be less cohesive and less inclined to engage in OCB. To solve this puzzle, we draw from a resource scarcity perspective to posit that understanding intra-team i-deal dynamics requires taking into account both organizational-level (i.e., organizational i-deal scarcity) and team-level (i.e., team power structure) factors. Using data from 40 organizations, 166 teams, and 1016 employees, we disentangle the complex interplay among the prevalence of i-deals in a team, organizational i-deal scarcity, and intra-team power structure in predicting both team cohesion and intra-team OCB.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Group & Organization Management\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"156 - 191\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Group & Organization Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221098824\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group & Organization Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221098824","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

个性化交易(i-deals)是由个别员工及其组织协商达成的个性化就业安排。这项研究解决了i-deals研究中一个新出现的难题——团队中i-deals的普遍存在是有助于还是阻碍了团队的成果。由于i-deals盛行的团队获得了更多的资源和地位,他们可能更具凝聚力,并参与更多的支持行为。另一方面,由于i-deals在团队成员之间存在差异,因此i-deals盛行的团队可能缺乏凝聚力,也不太倾向于参与OCB。为了解决这个难题,我们从资源稀缺的角度出发,假设理解团队内部的i交易动态需要同时考虑组织层面(即组织i交易稀缺性)和团队层面(即团队权力结构)的因素。使用来自40个组织、166个团队和1016名员工的数据,我们在预测团队凝聚力和团队内部OCB时,理清了团队中i交易的普遍性、组织i交易稀缺性和团队内部权力结构之间的复杂相互作用。
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
Do Multiple I-Deals in a Team Help or Hinder Team Outcomes? A Resource Scarcity Perspective
Idiosyncratic deals (i-deals) are individualized employment arrangements negotiated and agreed upon by individual employees and their organization. This study addresses an emerging conundrum in i-deals research—whether the prevalence of i-deals in teams helps or hinders team outcomes. Because teams in which i-deals are prevalent receive more resources and status, they may be more cohesive and engage in more supportive behaviors. On the other hand, because i-deals differentiate among team members, teams in which i-deals are prevalent may be less cohesive and less inclined to engage in OCB. To solve this puzzle, we draw from a resource scarcity perspective to posit that understanding intra-team i-deal dynamics requires taking into account both organizational-level (i.e., organizational i-deal scarcity) and team-level (i.e., team power structure) factors. Using data from 40 organizations, 166 teams, and 1016 employees, we disentangle the complex interplay among the prevalence of i-deals in a team, organizational i-deal scarcity, and intra-team power structure in predicting both team cohesion and intra-team OCB.
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
8.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: Group & Organization Management (GOM) publishes the work of scholars and professionals who extend management and organization theory and address the implications of this for practitioners. Innovation, conceptual sophistication, methodological rigor, and cutting-edge scholarship are the driving principles. Topics include teams, group processes, leadership, organizational behavior, organizational theory, strategic management, organizational communication, gender and diversity, cross-cultural analysis, and organizational development and change, but all articles dealing with individual, group, organizational and/or environmental dimensions are appropriate.
期刊最新文献
Drivers for Nominating First Women Executives: Empirical Evidence From Japanese Firms The Value of Small Samples to Groups and Teams Research: Accumulating Knowledge across Philosophies of Science It’s About Time! Understanding the Dynamic Team Process-Performance Relationship Using Micro- and Macroscale Time Lenses Women’s Double Penalty During Telework: A Mixed Method Investigation of the Gender Effect of Interruptions Between Work and Childcare When Does Entrepreneurs’ Impression Management Enhance Their Networking Performance? The Cross-Level Moderating Role of Collective Altruism
×
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