فایل ورد کامل پتانسیل انگیزشی تیم ها: بررسی و توسعه مدل توازی انگیزشی در تیم ها توسط چن و کانفر (۲۰۰۶)

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

این مقاله، ترجمه شده یک مقاله مرجع و معتبر انگلیسی می باشد که به صورت بسیار عالی توسط متخصصین این رشته ترجمه شده است و به صورت فایل ورد (microsoft word) ارائه می گردد

متن داخلی مقاله بسیار عالی، پر محتوا و قابل درک می باشد و شما از استفاده ی آن بسیار لذت خواهید برد. ما عالی بودن این مقاله را تضمین می کنیم

فایل ورد این مقاله بسیار خوب تایپ شده و قابل کپی و ویرایش می باشد و تنظیمات آن نیز به صورت عالی انجام شده است؛ به همراه فایل ورد این مقاله یک فایل پاور پوینت نیز به شما ارئه خواهد شد که دارای یک قالب بسیار زیبا و تنظیمات نمایشی متعدد می باشد

توجه : در صورت مشاهده بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل می باشد و در فایل اصلی فایل ورد کامل پتانسیل انگیزشی تیم ها: بررسی و توسعه مدل توازی انگیزشی در تیم ها توسط چن و کانفر (۲۰۰۶)،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

تعداد صفحات این فایل: ۳۳ صفحه

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسیعنوان انگلیسی:The motivating potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen and Kanfer’s (2006) cross-level model of motivation in teams~~en~~

Abstract

Although individual- and team-level studies of motivational processes abound, very few have sought to link such phenomena across levels. Filling this gap, we build upon Chen and Kanfer’s (2006) multilevel theoretical model of motivation in teams, to advance and test a cross-level model of relationships between individual and team motivation and performance. Data from two samples of undergraduates performing simulated team tasks supported the direct and mediated cross-level relationships between team-level prior performance, efficacy, and action processes with individual-level self-efficacy, goal striving, and performance. The findings provide support for a multilevel, system-based formulation of motivation and performance in teams. Findings also contribute to the on-going debate on whether motivational processes account for performance once controlling for prior performance.

۱ Introduction

Stimulated by the growing use of interdependent teams in work organizations, interest in work motivation as it operates at and within team contexts has burgeoned over the past two decades (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Extending theories of work motivation and teams, Chen and Kanfer (2006) developed an integrated theoretical model which postulates team motivation as multilevel, system-like phenomena involving parallel and inter-related individual-level, team-level, and cross-level processes. However, only limited empirical research has explicitly considered individual or team motivation from a multilevel perspective (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008). The limited research on motivation in teams to date has focused on establishing functionally parallel, or homologous (Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), individual-level and team-level motivation constructs and processes. Initial evidence from this research suggests that motivational constructs at the individual and team levels are functionally similar, in that they relate to each other and to performance similarly at the individual and team levels (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Chen, Thomas, & Wallace, 2005; Chen, Webber, et al., 2002; DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Weichmann, 2004; Gibson, 2001). In contrast, much less is known regarding cross-level relationships between individual and team motivation (exceptions include Chen and Bliese (2002) and Watson, Chemers, and Preiser (2001)). Accordingly, the primary purpose of this study was to empirically test cross-level hypotheses within an integrative, multilevel model of individual and team motivation and performance. Building on Chen and Kanfer’s (2006) theorizing and prior research on motivational homology, we examine the model shown in Fig. 1, which specifies direct and mediated cross-level relationships between team-level and individual-level prior performance, efficacy beliefs, goal striving and action processes, and subsequent performance. Consistent with Chen and Kanfer, our emphasis in this research is on top-down (contextual) influences of team-level variables on individual-level outcomes, as opposed to bottom-up (emergent) influences of individual-level variables on team-level outcomes. Indeed, focusing on top-down influences is a logical next step in enhancing our understanding of multilevel motivation phenomena in teams beyond homology, as top-down effects are more prevalent, immediate, and powerful relative to bottom-up effects (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Mathieu & Taylor, 2007). Thus, a primary contribution of our research is the more complete empirical test of the cross-level relationships postulated by Chen and Kanfer, and the consideration of key mediating processes that link individual and team motivation across levels. Ultimately, we argue, this cross-level approach allows us to explain more variance in individual-level motivation and performance than would be explained by single-level or homologous formulations of these phenomena alone. However, we also extend Chen and Kanfer’s (2006) model by considering dynamic relationships in which, over time and across the individual and team levels, motivation contributes to performance, which in turn feeds back into subsequent motivation. Adopting this dynamic view of motivation in teams can help inform the recent debate regarding the efficacy–performance relationship (e.g., Bandura & Locke, 2003; Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002; Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001). Specifically, work by Vancouver and his colleagues (2001, 2002) have suggested that self-efficacy relates to subsequent effort and performance more weakly and negatively when examined at the within-person level over repeated performance episodes. Extending these studies, we examine the dynamic within-person efficacy–performance relationship within a team context, where individual-level efficacy, effort and performance are likely influenced by team-level (i.e., contextual) phenomena. Likewise, our study also helps inform the broader question of whether self-efficacy predicts subsequent performance above and beyond past performance, which has yet to be studied in a team context (cf. Heggestad & Kanfer, 2005; Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott, & Rich, 2007). Finally, we also test our model in two samples consisting of 2-member and 3-member teams performing different tasks, and using different measures of individual goal striving, team action processes, and individual performance. Thus, the two samples allowed us to constructively replicate (Lykken, 1968) our findings across important operational boundaries of teams and motivation.

$$en!!