學生團隊信任與團隊績效的關系研究外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文1</b></p><p>　　An Empirical Investigation of how Trust, Cohesion, and Performance Vary in Virtual and Face-to-Face Teams</p>&

2、lt;p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　As technology improves, more teams are meeting virtually. In this study, we analyze how individual levels of trust, cohesion, output, outcome satisfaction, and

3、process satisfaction differ in virtual and face-to-face teams completing different tasks. A controlled experiment in which business students were randomly assigned to either a virtual or face-to-face team, completing eit

4、her an intellective or a preference task, was completed. Comparisons of the four task/technology conditions showed that </p><p><b>　　......</b></p><p>　　2. Literature Review</p>

5、;<p>　　While teams are most often referred to as virtual or F-2-F, in reality most teams are some hybrid or mix of the two. Purely virtual teams would meet only through technology and purely F-2-F teams would meet

6、 only in person, having no contact via technology.</p><p>　　Purely virtual teams are more difficult to work in because of the lack of media richness or nonverbal cues.Communication takes longer and members m

7、ay be more reluctant to share information. This may lead to misunderstood communications, increased conflict, and lower cohesion. Studies have also shown that trust is an important requirement in virtual teams since indi

8、viduals cannot be monitored as closely in this setting .</p><p>　　2.1 Team Performance</p><p>　　Team performance has been defined by most researchers in terms of the output produced by the group

9、. In the literature various measures of output including items such as budget overruns and unmet schedules, product or service quality , and customer satisfaction. Other researchers have included measures of member satis

10、faction and ability of the group to work together in the future. Aladwani, who studied information systems (IS) project management teams, measured performance in terms of three varia</p><p>　　Research relate

11、d specifically to virtual teams has utilized similar measures of team performance. Quality of output, defined as the degree to which the output meets required specifications, quantity and timeliness standards, has been u

12、sed as a measure of the virtual team’s performance by many researchers as has team members’ perceptions of satisfaction .</p><p>　　Previous studies have identified the difficulties of working in virtual team

13、s. The lack of media richness in computer mediated communications leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and decreased trust . Lack of trust, in turn, increases transaction costs because members feel the need to double ch

14、eck the work performed by others . Increased transaction costs may increase the time needed to complete a project, leading to reduced project quality and satisfaction. The following hypotheses reflect the</p><

15、p><b>　　......</b></p><p><b>　　2.3 Trust</b></p><p>　　The level of trust in a virtual team is thought to be a necessary component of positive group interaction. Trust i

16、s the belief in another’s integrity, fairness, and reliability. Teams with higher levels of trust coalesce or come together more easily and manage themselves better. It has been suggested that trust is more difficult to

17、build in virtual teams because of the lack of face-to-face interaction . Meeting team members in person allows individuals to learn about the demeanor and affect of o</p><p>　　Jarvenpaa and Leidner performed

18、 a series of case studies on groups of graduate business students from 28 different universities worldwide. They found that trust can exist in teams that utilize only electronic communications. Global virtual teams may e

19、xperience a form of “swift trust” but this is often fragile and short-lived. Previous research thus suggests that the following hypothesis can be developed.</p><p>　　Hypothesis 2b: Individuals will report lo

20、wer</p><p>　　levels of trust when working in virtual teams.</p><p><b>　　......</b></p><p>　　Author:Pearson J. Michael </p><p>　　Nationality: USA</p>

21、<p>　　Originate from: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, v 1, p 26c, 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS'06&l

22、t;/p><p><b>　　譯文1：</b></p><p>　　對于信任、聚合力、和績效在虛擬團隊和面對面團隊中的</p><p><b>　　相異之處的實證調(diào)查</b></p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　隨著科技的進步，許多

23、團隊在虛擬網(wǎng)絡中會晤。在此文中，我們通過完成不同的測試來分析虛擬團隊和面對面團隊中個人層面上的信任、聚合力、輸出量，結(jié)果滿意度和過程滿意度。完成一個可控的實驗，把那些商科學生隨記分配在一個虛擬團隊或者一個真實團隊中并完成一份智能化測試或者績效測試。比較這四個測試結(jié)果，技術結(jié)果表明，虛擬團隊顯示出較低的信任、凝聚力、輸出量、結(jié)果滿意度和過程滿意度。但是，在個人工作上，輸出量這一結(jié)果與真實團隊本質(zhì)上相同。在完成智能化測試或者績效測試，兩團隊

24、并沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)極為相異的差別與不同。</p><p><b>　　文獻回顧</b></p><p>　　盡管團隊往往被視為虛擬團隊或者是真實團隊。但是事實上，大部分的團隊都是混血的，兩者性質(zhì)交叉在一起。純粹的虛擬團隊只是通過技術來接觸，純粹的真實團隊只是通過人來接觸，而不是通過技術來接觸。</p><p>　　純粹的虛擬團隊更為困難接觸是因為媒介豐

25、富度和非語言線索的缺失，溝通過于困難和長久，成員們就更為勉強去交流訊息。這會導致交流誤解增多，分歧的增加，和凝聚力的降低。研究表明，自從團隊中的個人在這樣的環(huán)境中不能被近距離的交流指導，信任就變成虛擬團隊中的一種重要需求。</p><p><b>　　......</b></p><p><b>　　2.1 團隊績效</b></p>

26、<p>　　團隊績效已被大多數(shù)的研究員定義為團隊的產(chǎn)出。在文學輸出各種措施，包括項目，如預算超支和未計劃，產(chǎn)品或服務質(zhì)量和客戶滿意度。其他研究人員還包括本集團成員的滿意度措施，在未來團隊工作的能力。Aladwani，研究信息系統(tǒng)（IS）項目管理團隊的人，以三個維度測量績效：有效性和效率的工作成果；心理的成果，如團隊成員的滿意度；有關是否完成IS產(chǎn)品附加值業(yè)務經(jīng)營組織的成果。</p><p>　　利用類

27、似的團隊績效測量方式對虛擬團隊進行了專門的研究。輸出質(zhì)量：定義為輸出符合要求的規(guī)格、數(shù)量和及時性標準。許多研究人員一直使用團隊成員的滿意度的看法，作為衡量虛擬團隊的績效。</p><p>　　以前的研究已經(jīng)確定了在虛擬團隊工作的困難。計算機缺乏媒體的豐富性，導致通信混亂，誤解，并降低了信任。反過來，因缺乏信任，從而覺得有必要仔細檢查由他人完成的工作，因而增加了交易成本。增加了交易成本可能會增加完成一個項目所需的時

28、間，導致降低工程質(zhì)量和滿意度。以下假設反映了這些想法：</p><p>　　假設1a：個人將在虛擬團隊中減少報告的結(jié)果和進程表示滿意。</p><p>　　假設2a：個人將降低在虛擬團隊中的輸出質(zhì)量。</p><p><b>　　......</b></p><p><b>　　2.3 信任</b>

29、</p><p>　　信任在真實團隊中被認為是建立一個積極團隊合作的必要組成部分。信任來自他人的正直，公平和可靠。高等級的信任使得聯(lián)合和集合變得更為簡單，自我管理更為良好。信任在虛擬團隊中更難以建立因為缺失面對面合作，這一點一直被提及。有人際接觸的團隊成員會學習其他人的禮儀或影響他人。例如，一個個人的虛擬交流會曲解來自團隊的尖刻幽默的成員的信息，而這個同樣信息會在面對面的真實環(huán)境中被理解并置于一邊。</p&

30、gt;<p>　　Jarvenpaa 和 Leidner做了一系列關于來自世界28所畢業(yè)的商科學生的案例研究，發(fā)現(xiàn)信任在使用電子交流中存在。全球虛擬團隊也許會經(jīng)歷一種“快速信任”的模式，但往往是脆弱的，短命的。先前的研究可以發(fā)展這個假設：</p><p>　　假設B2；當在虛擬團隊工作時，個人表現(xiàn)出較低的信任。</p><p><b>　　......</b&

31、gt;</p><p>　　作者：Pearson J. Michael</p><p><b>　　國籍：美國</b></p><p>　　出處：第39屆夏威夷國際系統(tǒng)科學會議</p><p><b>　　原文2</b></p><p>　　Trust over Time a

32、nd Distance in Global Partially Distributed Teams</p><p>　　1.Introduction</p><p>　　As organizations collaborate over distance in this global economy , partially distributed teams (PDTs) are form

33、ed with increasing frequency to accomplish the goals of the organization or organizations . A PDT shares characteristics of both traditionally collocated and fully distributed teams, and has characteristics unique to its

34、 structure. PDTs have at least one collocated subteam that meets face-to-face at least some of the time which is geographically distant from other subteam(s) in the team</p><p><b>　　......</b><

35、;/p><p>　　2. Literature review</p><p>　　2.1. Trust</p><p>　　We adopt Mayer et al.’s definition of trust: “The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party ba

36、sed on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.” In virtual teams, where members may not have any prior

37、 experience working together, trust may develop initially as a “swift trust”. Swift trust is not based on experience with the trustee, but rather on other c</p><p>　　Research has shown that team members expe

38、rience less trust and more conflict with their distant colleagues than with collocated members. Supporting the faultline model, teams with two subteams experienced less trust and more conflict than those with three subte

39、ams and teams with three subteams experienced more conflict and less trust thanfully distributed teams. The PDTs studied in this research each had two subteams, thus having the potential for reduced trust and increased c

40、onflict.</p><p>　　Trust in virtual teams has been shown to be multidimensiona.Mitchell and Zigurs categorized trust into dimensions related to socio-emotional processes and task processes. In a study of PDTs

41、, trust was found to have two dimensions aligned with those categories: Personal trust, which is related to socio-emotional processes, and Process trust, which is related to task processes. In that study, a swift trust r

42、elated to judgments of the trustee’s expertise was also found early in the project, thus in</p><p>　　Trust has also been shown, in virtual teams, to be dynamic, changing over time. At different points in tim

43、e, in different situations, the effects of trust may vary. Task type (conflictive or cooperative) may affect the level and rate of trust development in virtual teams over the team life cycle. However, the dynamic nature

44、of trust in PDTs may not be the same as either that in virtual or traditional teams because of the effects of in-group/out-group bias on trust development. Thus, in PDTs, the</p><p><b>　　......</b&g

45、t;</p><p>　　Author: Linda Plotnick，Starr Roxanne Hiltz，Rosalie J. Ocker</p><p>　　Nationality: United States</p><p>　　Originate from: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International C

46、onference </p><p>　　on System Sciences, 2011, Proceedings of the 44th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS-44 2010</p><p><b>　　譯文2：</b></p><p&g

47、t;　　在全球部分分散型團隊中</p><p><b>　　信任跨越時間和距離</b></p><p><b>　　1.引言</b></p><p>　　在全球經(jīng)濟化的背景下，遠距離組織合作形成團隊的頻率越來越高，這些高頻率形成的部分分布式團隊紛紛有效的完成了組織或團體的目標。一個傳統(tǒng)且完全分布式的團隊的PDT股份有其獨特

48、的結(jié)構特點。PDTs至少有一個并列的工作小組，以幫助那些在地理上遙遠的其他工作小組之間進行合作。在這種結(jié)構下，從事此類工作的成員至少在面對面交流中有豐富的時間，但與他們分布式團隊成員溝通的方法僅僅只是通過電子媒體，這種很可能會阻礙信任的發(fā)展，導致創(chuàng)建組或輸出組“斷層”現(xiàn)象情況的產(chǎn)生。因此，當問題產(chǎn)生是子團隊之間的信任時刻都在受著挑戰(zhàn)，遠處的成員比同一情景下的成員更容易作出明確的或個人的歸因。同一團隊中的措施，例如引入更高的目標（亞群體中

49、相同的目標是必要的）被證明了可以減少組內(nèi)的沖突。目前尚不清楚，在內(nèi)/外的偏見下，這些成果將轉(zhuǎn)移到PDTs。</p><p>　　當一個PDT亞群地理分布，文化和分組之間的時空距離，可能會造成“不連續(xù)性”?？赡芨蓴_或以其他方式造成不利影響團隊。不連續(xù)性可能對信任的發(fā)展和維持造成破壞。</p><p>　　信托已被證明是多方面的，了解PDTs中信任的性質(zhì)及與信任相關的，就能告知相關人員如何培育

50、發(fā)展的信任，因此這是很重要的調(diào)查。先前的研究表明，在PDTs的早期和后來的信任是不同的。這項研究旨在確定信任的尺寸，在PDTs中信任是怎樣隨時間的變化而變化的以及以及文化和時空距離在PDT對信任的影響。</p><p><b>　　文獻回顧</b></p><p><b>　　2.1 信任</b></p><p>　　我們

51、采用Mayer等人的信任的定義：“一方當事人的意愿將受到另一方的行動基礎上的期望，將執(zhí)行一個特定的重要行動，以委托人的監(jiān)控能力，不論或控制該另一方?！痹谔摂M團隊中，成員以前可能沒有任何共同努力的經(jīng)驗，信任可能發(fā)展成為一個初步“SWIFT信任”。SWIFT信任的并不以受托人的經(jīng)驗為基礎，而是以其他為基礎，例如如受托人的地位，聲譽或類別。</p><p>　　有研究表明，斷層模型假設，有兩個子團隊的團隊將比有三個子團

52、隊的團隊有更多的沖突和更少的信任，三個子團隊的團隊將比完全分布團隊有更多的沖突和更少的信任。在這項研究中所研究的每個PDT有兩個子團隊，從而研究的團隊有減少信任并增加沖突的潛力。</p><p>　　虛擬團隊的信任已被證明是多方面的，Mitchell and Zigurs將信任分為社會情感過程和工作過程兩個維度。在PDT的研究中，信任被發(fā)現(xiàn)有兩個方面與這些類別對齊，個人的信任，這是關系到社會情感過程；進程的信任，

53、這是關系到任務流程。在這項研究中，在項目的早期還發(fā)現(xiàn)，SWIFT信任還關系到受托人的經(jīng)歷，從而表明的信任結(jié)構，隨著時間的推移可能會有所不同。</p><p>　　信任也被證明，在虛擬團隊中，信任是動態(tài)的，隨著時間的推移而改變。在不同的時間點，在不同的情況下，信任的影響可能會有所不同。任務類型（競爭或合作）可能會影響虛擬團隊的水平并且虛擬團隊信任的發(fā)展速度超過團隊的生命周期。然而，在PDTs中團隊的動態(tài)性與虛擬團隊

54、和傳統(tǒng)的團隊都不一樣。因為組內(nèi)外的偏見影響信任發(fā)展，因此，在PDTs中，隨著時間的推移而變化的信任性質(zhì)仍不清楚。</p><p><b>　　......</b></p><p>　　作者：Linda Plotnick，Starr Roxanne Hiltz，Rosalie J. Ocker</p><p><b>　　國籍：美國&l