Translated Titles

Exploring the relationship between team conflict and entrepreneurship using multiple qualitative research methods: a case study of an innovative medical device team



Key Words

創業團隊 ; 團隊衝突 ; 決策品質 ; 創業家精神 ; 系統動力學 ; Entrepreneurial team ; Team conflict ; Decision quality ; Entrepreneurship ; System Dynamics



Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication


Academic Degree Category




Content Language


Chinese Abstract

在全球受到金融海嘯、經濟不景氣的狀況下,企業家們為了抵抗大環境的衝擊,同時面對日新月異的新興產品生態,企業致力創造獨一無二的核心能力以在市場中持續獲利並達永續生存;創業者們組成創業團隊,透過團隊合作,組織不同的價值能力,來回應快速變化的市場需求以及問題。在群體合作作業時,會因為不同的因素產生人與人之間的衝突,這些衝突不僅影響團隊執行任務的成效、影響任務決策的品質以及成員的創業家精神,最終也可能成為影響此創業團隊成功與否的關鍵。   過去研究中,創業家精神著重於個人之人格特質及其對創業績效之影響,鮮少討論其在團隊活動中的情境以及創業期間其他可能影響結果之因素,為探討創業團隊中之團隊衝突對於決策品質及創業家精神之影響,本研究從過去文獻中找出衝突發生的前因因素,建立初步的研究模型,再利用訪談以及參與式觀察兩方法來蒐集資料,得到個案創業團隊的營運狀況,同時,為了使命題更加符合團隊在實務中的運作,本研究透過系統動力學之研究方法,發展出創業團隊在團隊衝突對於決策品質,最終影響至創業家精神的動態關係,以提出研究命題,並找出交互影響的作用關係,以提出未來建議供創業團隊作為實務操作的參考依據。   本研究之研究結論發現,團隊衝突對團隊本身會對其造成影響,然而,特定程度的團隊衝突,對團隊並非完全無益,反之,在衝突的過程中,可幫助團隊釐清問題以及增加溝通討論進而突破作業困境;而在創業團隊裡,成員特有的創業家精神增長可以幫助團隊在活動時,保持於正向且良性之循環,並藉由命題的發展以及系統動力學的回饋圖,提出創業團隊在早期運作時之實務建議,盼幫助未來團隊持續成長,且有更好的績效。

English Abstract

In order to respond to the impact of the global financial crisis and economic depression, government agencies in many countries have started to encourage entrepreneurial startups. Additionally, because of dynamic and competitive markets, companies need to have a unique core competency in order to profit from sustainable development. Entrepreneurs could thus work as a team to achieve this, as combining the unique perspectives and abilities from each team member could lead to more effective solutions. However, conflicts inevitably occur when we put together a group of different people. These conflicts not only impact team performance and decision quality, but also affect the entrepreneurship of each member. However, such conflict can also lead to successful outcomes for startups. We reviewed the literature to find the plausible factors that lead to team conflict in order to investigate how this can impact the decision quality of the team and the entrepreneurship of each member. We built our preliminary research model based on theories in the existing literature. We used qualitative research methods to get detailed information and extensive data from an actual entrepreneurial team. In addition, this research used a system dynamics method to analyze the survey data and propose a set of propositions. This method helps us to know not only the relationship between team conflict and entrepreneurship, but also the related feedback mechanism. The results of this study show that team conflict has a significant impact on the team examined this work. However, moderate levels of conflict could help the team to clarify matters and break through the bottlenecks it faces, as well as enhancing members’ entrepreneurship, which would enable the team working to work more positively, and so achieve better performance.

Topic Category 管理學院 > 資訊管理研究所
社會科學 > 管理學
  1. Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison, A. W. (1995).
  2. Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35.
  3. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity
  4. innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097-1108.
  5. Brown, T. E., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). An operationalization of Stevenson's conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity‐based firm behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10), 953-968.
  6. Chen, C. P., & Chien, C. F. (2009). What constitutes ‘a quality decision’. Journal of
  7. Chien, C. F. (2005). Decision Analysis: a Unison Framework for Total Decision
  8. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons,
  9. Cox, K. B. (2001). The effects of unit morale and interpersonal relations on conflict in
  10. De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
  11. Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: a question
  12. dynamics models. System Dynamics, TIMS Studies in Management Sciences, 14, 209-228.
  13. Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research. Nursing Research, 17(4), 364-373.
  14. Guetzkow, Harold, and J. Gyr. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making
  15. groups. Human Relations, 7, 367-381.
  16. Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict
  17. in distributed teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615-632.
  18. entrepreneurship and strategic management actions to create firm wealth. The Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49-63.
  19. Ireland, R. D., Reutzel, C. R., & Webb, J. W. (2005). Entrepreneurship research in
  20. AMJ: what has been published, and what might the future hold?. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 556-564.
  21. shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25(2), 117-141.
  22. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
  23. Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in
  24. Conflict and Cooperation in Interorganizational Systems. MIS Quarterly , 20(3), 279-300.
  25. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 93-104.
  26. dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making. Group and Organization Management, 16(2), 206-225.
  27. Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An
  28. validation of the team climate inventory: A measure of team climate for innovation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(4), 325-336.
  29. Richardson, G.H., and Pugh, A. (1981), Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling
  30. Robey, D. (1994). Research Report - Modeling Interpersonal Processes During
  31. System Development: Further Thoughts and Suggestions. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 439-445.
  32. Ruhnka, J. C., & Young, J. E. (1987). A venture capital model of the development
  33. Sawyer, S. (2001). Effects of intra‐group conflict on packaged software development
  34. team performance. Information Systems Journal, 11(2), 155-178.
  35. ownership in international entrepreneurship: Exploring nonlinear effects. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 15-31.
  36. Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1080-1093.
  37. Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
  38. Smith, G. F. (1988). Towards a heuristic theory of problem structuring. Management
  39. ambiguity and trust in conflict perception: unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict linkage, International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(4), 364-384.
  40. multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532-547.
  41. Wach, K. (2015). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Internationalization
  42. Process: The Theoretical Foundations of International Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 3(2), 9-24.
  43. Wanous, J. P., & Youtz, M. A. (1986). Solution diversity and the quality of groups
  44. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business
  45. influence of the Team Conflict to Team Performance of high-tech enterprises. In Management Science & Engineering , 2014 International Conference on , IEEE, 2014, 1041-1046.
  46. Almost, J., Doran, D. M., Hall, L. M., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2010). Antecedents and
  47. consequences of intra‐group conflict among nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 981-992.
  48. Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional
  49. conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148.
  50. Arazy, O., Yeo, L., & Nov, O. (2013). Stay on the Wikipedia task: When task‐related
  51. disagreements slip into personal and procedural conflicts. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(8), 1634-1648.
  52. identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing,18(1), 105-123.
  53. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial
  54. Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. (2008). The lag structure of the impact of business
  55. ownership on economic performance in OECD countries. Small Business Economics, 30(1), 101-110.
  56. Quality, 16(2), 87-94.
  57. Quality Enhancement, Taipei ,Yeh Yeh Book Gallery.
  58. Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods.,5th ed.
  59. and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
  60. the nursing unit. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(1), 17-25.
  61. performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.
  62. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a
  63. curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams, Journal of Management, 32(1), 83-97.
  64. Edwards, W., Miles Jr, R. F., & Von Winterfeldt, D. (Eds.). (2007). Advances in Decision Analysis: from Foundations to Applications. Cambridge University Press.
  65. of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173-1180.
  66. Forrester, J. W., & Senge, P. M. (1996). Tests for building confidence in system
  67. Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The Discovery of Grounded
  68. Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team
  69. outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987-1015.
  70. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2001). Integrating
  71. Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict
  72. intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.
  73. organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.
  74. Jessup, H. R. (1990). New Roles in Team Leadership. Training and Development
  75. Journal, 44(11), 79-83.
  76. Johnston, S. K. (1989). JIT: max imizing its success potential. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 30(1), 82-86.
  77. Kumar, K. and Han G. van Dissel (1996). Sustainable Collaboration: Managing
  78. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.,3th ed , pp.18-21
  79. Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B.
  80. Priem, R. L., & Price, K. H. (1991). Process and outcome expectations for the
  81. intervening process theory, Organization Science, 7(6), 615-632.
  82. Ragazzoni, P., Baiardi, P., Zotti, A. M., Anderson, N. & West, M. (2002). Italian
  83. with DYNAMO, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  84. Rispens, S. (2009). Do fights prohibit helping? The influence of task interdependence
  85. and conflict norms on helping behavior during task conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20(2), 158-172.
  86. process for new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2), 167-184.
  87. Sciascia, S., Mazzola, P., Astrachan, J. H., & Pieper, T. M. (2012). The role of family
  88. Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006).
  89. Simon, H. A., (1997), Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making
  90. Processes in Administrative Organizations, 4th edition, The Free Press, New York.
  91. management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111.
  92. Science, 34(12), 1489-1506.
  93. Tidd, S. T., McIntyre, H. H., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). The importance of role
  94. Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in
  95. Waddell, B. D., Roberto, M. A., & Yoon, S. (2013). Uncovering hidden profiles:
  96. advocacy in team decision making. Management Decision, 51(2), 321-340.
  97. decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 149-159.
  98. Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team demography and
  99. corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 91-121.
  100. performance: a configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71-91.
  101. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research : Design and Methods, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5, Sage, pp. 17-23.
  102. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Sage publications.3th ed , pp. 93-96
  103. Yu-hong, G., Ping, L., Shao-bin, Z., & Jing-qi, C. (2014). Research on the
  104. Zhan, L., Wang, N., & Sun, Y. (2015). Knowledge Quality of Collaborative Editing in Wikipedia: an Integrative Perspective of Social Capital and Team Conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(3), 159-171.