Title

情緒感受對虛擬團隊合作中溝通的影響

Translated Titles

Influence of emotional feeling on communication for virtual team collaboration

Authors

陳焓曉

Key Words

虛擬團隊 ; 情緒感受 ; 溝通 ; 感受-溝通策略影響模型 ; Virtual Team ; Emotional Feeling ; Communication ; Emotional Feeling- Communication Strategy Influenced Model

PublicationName

成功大學土木工程學系學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2018年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

蔡錦松

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本文就筆者在跨國虛擬團隊合作中,親身經歷的團隊成員間溝通常受到個人感受影響的現象進行研究。以個案為研究對象,採用觀察與記錄加上量表和開放式問卷進行個案研究法。 個案中筆者分別經歷了低虛擬化程度合作和高虛擬化程度的跨國合作。在低虛擬化程度合作中,筆者的感受受事件影響表現出兩種不同的變化,分別是1)起始感受變差,與對的人合作後感受回升和2)感受持續變差兩種。受這兩種感受的影響,溝通的數量和意願與感受的對應的分別出現1)先下降後上升和2)持續降低兩種變化趨勢。在高虛擬化程度團隊合作中,筆者的感受在事件發生後不斷被打擊,受感受影響溝通從開始的主動溝通,逐漸減少溝通數量和意願,直至最後的非必要不溝通。在個案結束後,使用量表量測了團隊成員對兩階段合作不同的感受,同時以感受對溝通影響為主題收集問卷資料,兩者所得到的數據和記錄均表現出與筆者的記錄相近的現象。 從個案、量表和問卷的分析中本文歸納出:1)無論團隊的虛擬化程度如何,虛擬團隊中個體的感受都會因應事件發生變化,進而對團隊溝通產生顯著的影響;2)在虛擬化程度低的團隊中,負面的感受可能因為幾次愉快的合作而反轉,進而使得溝通從不良狀態變得通暢起來;3)在高虛擬化程度的團隊中,感受一旦變差就很難反轉,溝通被抑制;4)將個體的感受簡單的劃分為正面和負面兩種時,在虛擬團隊中,正面的感受可以提升溝通意願,提高主動溝通數量,负面感受則降低溝通意願和主動溝通數量;5)正面感受還可以促進建立非正式溝通,提升溝通中的編碼與解碼,豐富溝通方式與工具,增強溝通效能和維持溝通效率,負面的感受則不然。 依個案中歸納出的現象,本文提出了虛擬團隊合作中感受-溝通策略影響模型,以情緒感受的高低作為變數,依據溝通渠道理論中溝通的四個面向:1)頻率(高、中、低)、2)方向(雙向、雙/單向、單向)、3)方式(非正式、非/正式、正式)和4)內容(間接、間/直接、直接)分別定義了三種溝通策略:合作式溝通、協調式溝通和流水線式溝通。模型指出在虛擬團隊合作中,感受由高到低的變化會導致溝通策略從合作式溝通到協調式溝通,最後變為流水線式溝通的走向。 本文所提出的感受-溝通策略模型使得可以通過觀察個體感受的變化,預測可能對合作溝通產生的影響。同時,為了得到這一模型,本文的研究限制了對情緒感受及溝通的定義,個案中所呈現的虛擬團隊合作是一種實驗室條件下的合作與真實合作有一定差距,且不能消除多種因素的共同影響,因此模型與結論、在適用性方面均存在一定的制約,在後續的研究當中可嘗試發展更具普適性的模型或更具專用性的結論。

English Abstract

This study uses questionnaires and interviews to explore the influence of emotional feeling on communication in an experimental study of virtual team collaboration. The low-level and high-level cases were studied. Observation during the experiment indicates that feeling in the low-level case varied along with the moment of collaboration in two ways: 1) continuously getting down and 2) not so good in the beginning but getting better once working with right people. In the meantime, willingness of communication was varying with feeling. In the high-level case, both the feeling and communication were not well ever. Bases on the obtained data, some results are drawn: 1) for both cases of virtual team collaboration, individual’s feeling does influence the communication between people. 2) in the low-level case, hard feeling can be eased once high quality collaboration takes place and generates effective communication. 3) in the high-level case, hard feeling can hardly be eased. 4) in a virtual team, friendly feeling can promote people’s willingness and the amount of communication between them, while hard feeling would lower both. 5) friendly feeling can promote the amount of informal communication, enrich coding and decoding of messages in any communication, and enhance people’s employment of various ways and tools for bettering communication. All of these can increase efficiency and effectiveness of virtual team collaboration. This study proposes an emotional feeling model for describing the variation of communication during team collaboration. The model shows individual feeling is a good indicator to describe the communication between people in virtual team collaboration.

Topic Category 工學院 > 土木工程學系
工程學 > 土木與建築工程
Reference
  1. Ahuja, M. K., & Galvin, J. E. (2003). Socialization in virtual groups. Journal of Management, 29(2), 161-185.
  2. Alge, B. J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H. J. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 91(1), 26-37.
  3. Baron, R. A. (1987). Interviewer's moods and reactions to job applicants: The influence of affective states on applied social judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(10), 911-926.
  4. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27(1), 14-49.
  5. Bhappu, A. D., Griffith, T. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1997). Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3), 199-205.
  6. Bikson, T. K., & Eveland, J. D. (1990). The interplay of work group structures and computer support. Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work, 245-290.
  7. Bless, H. (2000). The interplay of affect and cognition: The mediating role of general knowledge structures.
  8. Bordia, P., DiFonzo, N., & Chang, A. (1999). Rumor as group problem solving: Development patterns in informal computer-mediated groups. Small Group Research, 30(1), 8-28.
  9. Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American psychologist, 36(2), 129.
  10. Burns, R. B. (1997). Introduction to research methods. Addison Wesley Longman.
  11. Cabanac, M. (2002). What is emotion?. Behavioural processes, 60(2), 69-83.
  12. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of management journal, 42(2), 153-170.
  13. Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 81-90.
  14. Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS quarterly, 143-165.
  15. Clarke, M. S., & Isen, A. M. (1982). Towards understanding the relationship between feeling states and social behavior. Cognitive Social Psychology, ed. A. Hastorf and A. Isen, New York, 73-108.
  16. Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. Handbook of social cognition, 1, 323-417.
  17. Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization science, 12(3), 346-371.
  18. Cramton, C. D. (2002). Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration. Organizational dynamics, 30(4), 356-367.
  19. Cramton, C. D., & Orvis, K. L. (2003). Overcoming barriers to information sharing in virtual teams. Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness, 214-230.
  20. Cummings, E. E. (1973). Complete Poems (Vol. I). Bristol England: McGibbon & Kee.
  21. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1983). Information richness. A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design (No. TR-ONR-DG-02). Texas A and M Univ College Station Coll of Business Administration.
  22. de Lisser, E. (1999). Update on small business: Firms with virtual environments appeal to workers. Wall Street Journal B, 2, 151-152.
  23. Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-computer interaction, 6(2), 119-146.
  24. Eich, E., & Macaulay, D. (2000). Fundamental factors in mood-dependent memory. Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition, 109-130.
  25. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
  26. Ekman, P. E., & Davidson, R. J. (1994). The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions. Oxford University Press.
  27. Ernst, D. (1993). Collaborating to compete: Using strategic alliances and acquisitions in the global marketplace. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  28. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual review of psychology, 54(1), 297-327.
  29. Feldman, M. S. (1987). Electronic mail and weak ties in organizations. Office Technology and People, 3(2), 83-101.
  30. Fiedler, K. (1991). On the task, the measures and the mood in research on affect and social cognition. Emotion and social judgments, 83-104.
  31. Fiedler, K. (2000). Toward an integrative account of affect and cognition phenomena using the BIAS computer algorithm. Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition, 223-252.
  32. Fiedler, K. (2001). Affective influences on social information processing.
  33. Fiedler, K., & Bless, H. (2000). The formation of beliefs at the interface of affective and cognitive processes. Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts, 144-170.
  34. Fiedler, K., & Forgas, J. P. (1988). Affect, cognition, and social behavior: New evidence and integrative attempts. Hogrefe & Huber Pub.
  35. Forgas, J. P. (1990). Affective influences on individual and group judgments. European journal of social psychology, 20(5), 441-453.
  36. Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological bulletin, 117(1), 39.
  37. Forgas, J. P. (1999a). Feeling and speaking: Mood effects on verbal communication strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 850-863.
  38. Forgas, J. P. (1999b). On feeling good and being rude: Affective influences on language use and request formulations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 928.
  39. Forgas, J. P. (Ed.). (2001). Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition. Cambridge University Press.
  40. Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior. Psychological inquiry, 13(1), 1-28.
  41. Forgas, J. P. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of affect and social cognition. Psychology Press.
  42. Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(1), 53.
  43. Grinnell Jr, R. M., & Unrau, Y. (2005). Social work research and evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Cengage Learning.
  44. Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 103(1), 1-20.
  45. Heider, F. (2013). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press.
  46. Higgins, E. T. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences: Relating emotions to nonemotional motivational states.
  47. Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human communication research, 13(2), 225-252.
  48. Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1995). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. Organization science, 6(4), 373-393.
  49. Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organization science, 14(6), 615-632.
  50. Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23(2), 193-219.
  51. Isen, A. M. (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition.
  52. Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 203-253). Academic Press.
  53. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization science, 10(6), 791-815.
  54. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Rao, V. S., & Huber, G. P. (1988). Computer support for meetings of groups working on unstructured problems: A field experiment. MIS Quarterly, 645-666.
  55. Jessup, L. M., & Tansik, D. A. (1991). Decision making in an automated environment: The effects of anonymity and proximity with a group decision support system. Decision sciences, 22(2), 266-279.
  56. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 187-213.
  57. Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2000). The global virtual manager: A prescription for success. European Management Journal, 18(2), 183-194.
  58. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American psychologist, 39(10), 1123.
  59. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175-192.
  60. Lebie, L., Rhoades, J. A., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Interaction process in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 4(2-3), 127-152.
  61. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1999). Virtual teams: The new way to work. Strategy & Leadership, 27(1), 14-19.
  62. Lurey, J. S., & Raisinghani, M. S. (2001). An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams. Information & Management, 38(8), 523-544.
  63. Martin, L. L. (2000). Moods do not convey information: Moods in context do.
  64. Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here?. Journal of management, 30(6), 805-835.
  65. May, A., & Carter, C. (2001). A case study of virtual team working in the European automotive industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(3), 171-186.
  66. Mayer, J. D. (2001). Emotion, intelligence, and emotional intelligence.
  67. Maznevski, M. L., & Chudoba, K. M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization science, 11(5), 473-492.
  68. Mohr, J., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Communication strategies in marketing channels: A theoretical perspective. The Journal of Marketing, 36-51.
  69. Nemiro, J. E. (2002). The creative process in virtual teams. Communication Research Journal, 14(1), 69-83.
  70. Panksepp, J. (2005). Affective consciousness: Core emotional feelings in animals and humans. Consciousness and cognition, 14(1), 30-80.
  71. Pauleen, D. J., & Yoong, P. (2001). Facilitating virtual team relationships via Internet and conventional communication channels. Internet Research, 11(3), 190-202.
  72. Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. (1993). Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment. Journal of management information systems, 10(2), 75-105.
  73. Ranjit, K. (1999). Research methodology.
  74. Rusting, C. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: three conceptual frameworks. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 165.
  75. Saphiere, D. M. H. (1996). Productive behaviors of global business teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(2), 227-259.
  76. Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. Guilford Press.
  77. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1991). How Do I Feel About It? The Informative Function of Affective States in K. Fiedler and JP Forgas, eds, Affect, Cognition, and Social Behavior 44.Sedikides, C. (1992). Changes in the valence of the self as a function of mood. Review of personality and social psychology, 14(27), l-3.
  78. Sedikides, C. (1995). Central and peripheral self-conceptions are differentially influenced by mood: Tests of the differential sensitivity hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 69(4), 759.
  79. Shepherd, M. M., Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Yen, J., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (1995). Invoking social comparison to improve electronic brainstorming: Beyond anonymity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), 155-170.
  80. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 37(2), 157-187.
  81. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management science, 32(11), 1492-1512.
  82. Sproull, L., Kiesler, S., & Kiesler, S. B. (1992). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. MIT press.
  83. Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small group research, 27(1), 115-142.
  84. States in K. Fiedler and JP Forgas, eds, Affect, Cognition, and Social Behavior 44.
  85. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 313-335.
  86. Suchan, J., & Hayzak, G. (2001). The communication characteristics of virtual teams: A case study. IEEE transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 174-186.
  87. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17-29.
  88. Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (1989). Unintended thought. Guilford Press.
  89. Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer‐mediated interaction. Human communication research, 20(4), 473-501.
  90. Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization science, 6(2), 186-203.
  91. Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 53(3), 352-380.
  92. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). London and Singapore: Sage.
  93. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American psychologist, 35(2), 151.
  94. Zigurs, I. (2003). Leadership in Virtual Teams:: Oxymoron or Opportunity?. Organizational dynamics, 31(4), 339-351.
  95. Zigurs, I., Poole, M. S., & DeSanctis, G. L. (1988). A study of influence in computer-mediated group decision making. MIS Quarterly, 625-644.