1、 中文 3730 字 本科毕业设计（论文） 外文翻译 外文出处 Journal of Management；1997,No.3,Vol.23:P239-290/ Team Performance Management；1998,No.8,Vol.4:P3199-330 外文作者 Cohen,Susan G；Bailey,Diane E/Samuel M. Natale and Anthony F. Libertella 原文 ： What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the exec
2、utive suite The management and academic press increasingly emphasizes the importance of teams for organizational success in the modem economy. Books and articles have been written about how to design empowered or self-directed work teams (Wellins, Byham & Wilson, 1991； Orsburn, Moran, Musselwhite, &
3、 Zenger, 1990), parallel learning teams (Bushe & Shani, 1991), cross-functional project teams (Parker, 1994), executive teams (Nadler & Ancona, 1992), and team-based organizations (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). The use of teams has expanded dramatically in response to competitive challenges. For
4、 example, 82% of companies with 100 or more employees reported that they use teams (Gordon, 1992). Sixty-eight percent of Fortune 1000 companies reported that they used self-managing work teams and 91% reported that they used employee participation groups in 1993 compared to 28% and 70% respectively
5、 in 1987 (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995). In examining data on 56,000 U.S. production workers, Capelli and Rogovsky (1994) found that one of the most common skills required by new work practices is the ability to work as a team. Academics have increasingly selected teams and team effectiveness as
6、 important areas for research in response to the increased use of teams in organizations. Hundreds of studies have been published about teams in the six years since Kenneth Bettenhausen last reviewed this literature for the Journal of Management. Team What is a team in an organizational setting? The
7、re are multiple definitions but the one we use comes from the work of Hackman (1987) building on the work of Alderfer (1977). Guzzo and Dickson (1996) draw from the same intellectual tradition in their recent review； Sundstrom, DeMeuse and Futrell (1990) used a similar definition. A team is a collec
8、tion of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems (for example, business unit or the corporation), and who manage their relationships
9、 across organizational boundaries. For example, in a production work team, one member may pass on the product of her work to another member to work on, with all members sharing responsibility for the quality and quantity of the final output that is produced. In a project team, research and developme
10、nt engineers may work iteratively with manufacturing process engineers to make sure that the designs that are being developed can be manufactured； the teams tentative designs may be reviewed by the research and development and manufacturing functional managers. By this definition, a department of el
11、ectrical engineers who works on separate projects is not a team. The engineers work independently of each other, do not share responsibility for outcomes, and are not interdependent. We use the words team and group interchangeably in this paper, although we more frequently use the term team. The pop
12、ular management literature has tended to use the term team, for example, empowered teams, quality improvement teams, and team effectiveness. The academic literature has tended to use the word group, for example, group cohesion, group dynamics, and group effectiveness. Groups vary in their degree of
13、groupness, with some groups being more interdependent and integrated than others. Some authors have used the label team for groups that develop a high degree of groupness (see for example, Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). This convention is not yet widely shared and, thus, we do not differentiate in our
14、 use of these terms. Types of Teams Four types of teams can be identified in organizations today: (1) work teams, (2) parallel teams, (3) project teams, and (4) management teams. Each of these types fits our general definition of a team. Other sources offer slightly different typologies (Katzenbach
15、& Smith, 1993； Mohrman et al., 1995； Sundstrom et al., 1990), but their categories overlap with ours. For example, Sundstrom et al. (1990) differentiate between advice and involvement teams, production and service teams, project and development teams, and action and negotiation teams. Of the categor
16、ies in our typology, work teams correspond to their production and service teams, parallel teams to their advice and involvement teams, and project teams correspond to their project and development teams. We include a category for management teams and they include a category for action and negotiati
17、on teams. Parallel Teams pull together people from different work units or jobs to perform functions that the regular organization is not equipped to perform well (Ledford, Lawler & Mohrman, 1988； Stein & Kanter, 1980). They literally exist in parallel with the formal organizational structure. They
18、generally have limited authority and can only make recommendations to individuals higher up in the organizational hierarchy. Parallel teams are used for problem-solving and improvement-oriented activities. Examples include quality improvement teams, employee involvement groups, quality circles, and
19、task forces. One study we review examines quality circles in a U.S. federal mint (Steel, Jennings, & Lindsey, 1990). Parallel teams have been used for quite some time, but the continuing interest in quality and employee involvement has resulted in the widespread diffusion of this team type. Project
20、Teams are time-limited. They produce one-time outputs, such as a new product or service to be marketed by the company, a new information system, or a new plant (Mankin, Cohen & Bikson, 1996). For the most part, project team tasks are non-repetitive in nature and involve considerable application of knowledge, judgment, and expertise. The work that a project team performs may represent either an incremental improvement over an existing concept or a radically different new idea.
