Mô Hình Quy Trình Nghiên Cứu Quản Lý Hợp Tác: Nghiên Cứu Sáng Tạo Tập Thể Trong Ngành Công Nghiệp Sang Trọng

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 25 - Trang 281-300 - 2011
Stefano Cirella1, Marco Guerci1, A. B. (Rami) Shani1,2
1Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, School of Management, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
2Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, USA

Tóm tắt

Bài báo này khám phá nghiên cứu quản lý hợp tác (CMR). Là một trong những nhánh trong gia đình nghiên cứu hành động, CMR là một phương pháp được xác định là một công cụ mạnh mẽ để nâng cao tri thức khoa học và tạo ra sự thay đổi trong các tổ chức. Bài viết đề xuất một mô hình hybrid của quy trình nghiên cứu CMR trong các tổ chức. Sau một phần giới thiệu ngắn gọn về nghiên cứu quản lý hợp tác, chúng tôi phát triển một mô hình quy trình hybrid của CMR được rút ra từ các kết quả cảm ứng. Ba nhóm yếu tố then chốt để đạt được kết quả mong muốn của nghiên cứu quản lý hợp tác bao gồm: (1) các yếu tố ngữ cảnh, (2) chất lượng của quá trình hợp tác, và (3) sự phát triển của chính quy trình nghiên cứu hợp tác. Trong mỗi nhóm này, các khái niệm, biến số và quy trình đã được xác định và liên kết lại để hình thành một mô hình hybrid của quy trình CMR. Một minh họa về một dự án nghiên cứu quản lý hợp tác tập trung vào việc nghiên cứu sáng tạo tập thể với một công ty thời trang và thiết kế Ý được theo sau bởi một phân tích phản chiếu. Cuộc thảo luận cung cấp các hướng nghiên cứu trong tương lai và những tác động cho thực tiễn.

Từ khóa

#nghiên cứu quản lý hợp tác #mô hình quy trình #sáng tạo tập thể #ngành công nghiệp sang trọng

Tài liệu tham khảo

Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally, Chicago

Chaharbaghi K, Cripps S (2007) Collective creativity: wisdom or oxymoron? J Eur Ind Train 31:626–638

Chen M (2006) Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team creativity process. Creativ Innovat Manag J 15:105–116

Chirumbolo A, Livi S, Mannetti L, Pierro A, Kruglanski AW (2004) Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. Eur J Pers 18:265–278

Cirella S, Shani AB (2010) Towards a process model of team creativity: a design based perspective. Paper presented at the EURAM annual conference, Rome, May 2010

Coghlan D (1993) Learning from emotions through journaling. J Manag Educ 17:90–94

Coghlan D (2009) Toward a philosophy of clinical inquiry/research. J Appl Behav Sci 45:106–121

Coghlan D, Brannick T (2010) Doing action research in your own organization. Sage, Thosand Oak

Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What makes teams work? Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive site. J Manag 23:239–290

Dickens L, Watkins K (1999) Action research: rethinking Lewin. Manag Learn 30:127–140

Ekvall G (1999) Creative climate. In: Runco M, Pritzker S (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity. Academic, San Diego, pp 403–412

Emery FE (1981) System thinking. Harmonwords, Penguin

Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res Policy 29:109–123

Flood RL (2010) The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action research. Syst Pract Action Res 23:269–284

Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. Sage, London

Hatchuel A, David A (2008) Collaborating for management research. From action research to intervention research in management. In: Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) Handbook of collaborative management research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp 143–162

Hatchuel A, Glise H (2004) Rebuilding management: a historical perspective. In: Adler N, Shani AB, Styhre A (eds) Collaborative research in organizations. Sage, London, pp 5–22

Hennessey BA (2003) Is the social psychology of creativity really social? Moving beyond a focus on the individual. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA (eds) Group creativity Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York

Hirst G, Van Dick R, Van Knippenberg D (2009) A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. J Organ Behav 30:963–982

Kratzer J, Gemunden HG, Letll C (2008) Balancing creativity and time efficiency in multi-team R&D projects: the alignment of formal and informal network. R&D Manag 38:538–549

Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Lawler EE, Mohrman AM Jr, Mohrman SA, Ledford GE, Cummings TG (1985) Doing research that is useful for theory and practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, London

McLean D, McIntosh R, Grant S (2002) Mode 2 management research. Br J Manag 13:189–207

Midgley G (2010) Theoretical pluralism in systemic action research. Syst Pract Action Res 14:1–15

Mohrman SA, Gibson CB, Mohrman AM (2001) Doing research that is useful to practice: a model and empirical exploration. Acad Manag J 44:357–375

Molineux J, Haslet T (2007) The use of soft systems methodology to enhance group creativity. Syst Pract Action Res 20:477–496

Nijstad BA, Paulus PB (2003) Group creativity. Common themes and future directions. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA (eds) Group creativity innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York

Nowotny H, Scott A, Gibbons M (2001) Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge

Pagni L (2011) Como un declino morbido come la seta. Il lunedì de La Repubblica, Affari & finanza, February 28th, 2011, p 13

Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Shani AB, Mohrman SA, Adler N (2008a) The promise of collaborative management research. In: Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) Handbook of collaborative management research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

Pasmore WA, Woodman RW, Simmons AL (2008b) Toward a more rigorous, reflective, and relevant science of collaborative management research. In: Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) Handbook of collaborative management research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

Paulus PB, Brown VR (2003) Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: lessons from research on brainstorming. In: Paulus PB, Nijstad BA (eds) Group creativity. Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York

Pearce CL, Ensley MD (2004) A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: the central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). J Organ Behav 25:259–278

Pettigrew AM (2004) Foreword II: some challenges of collaborative research. In: Adler N, Shani AB, Styhre A (eds) Collaborative research in organizations. Sage, London, pp xv–xviii

Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS (2001) Studying organizational change and development: challenges for future research. Acad Manag J 44:607–713

Pfeffer J (2009) Renaissance and renewal in management studies: relevance regained. Eur Manag Rev 6:141–148

Pirola-Merlo A, Mann L (2004) The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: aggregating across people and time. J Organ Behav 25:235–257

Ragsdell G (1998) Participatory action research and the development of critical creativity: a “natural” combination? Syst Pract Action Res 11:503–515

Reason P (1988) Human inquiry in action: developments in new paradigm research. Sage, London

Roethlisberger FJ, Dickson WJ (1939) Management and the worker. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Shalley CE, Perry-Smith JE (2008) The emergence of group creative cognition: the role of diverse outside ties, socio-cognitive network centrality, and group evolution. Strat Manag J 2:23–41

Shani AB, Pasmore WA (1985) Organizational inquiry: towards a new model of the action research process. In: Warrick DD (ed) Contemporary organization development: current thinking and applications. Scott, Foresman and Co, Glenview

Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) (2008) Handbook of collaborative management research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks

Starkey K, Hatchuel A, Tempest S (2009) Management research and the new logics of discovery and engagement. J Manag Stud 46:547–558

Stephens J, Barton J, Haslett T (2009) Action research: its history and relationship to scientific methodology. Syst Pract Action Res 22:463–474

Styhre A, Sundgren M (2005) Managing creativity in organizations: critique and practices. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Swift TA, West MA (1998) Reflexivity and group processes: Research and practice. University of Sheffield, Sheffield

Taylor FW (1911) Shop management. Harper, New York

Tenkasi RV, Hay GW (2008) Following the second legacy of Aristotle: the scholar–practitioner as an epistemic technician. In: Shani AB, Mohrman S, Pasmore WA, Stymne B, Adler N (eds) Handbook of collaborative management research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Torbert WR (1999) The distinctive questions developmental action inquiry asks. Manag Learn 30:189–206

Torlak GN (2001) Rationalization of metaphorical exploration: improving the creativity phase of total systems intervention (TSI) on the basis of theory and practice. Syst Pract Action Res 14:451–482

Trist EL, Bamforth KW (1951) Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Hum Relat 4:3–38

Valqui Vidal RV (2004) The vision conference: facilitating creative processes. Syst Pract Action Res 17:385–405

Woodman RW (1989) Evaluation research on organizational change: arguments for a “combined paradigm” approach. In: Woodman RW, Pasmore WA (eds) Research in organizational change and development. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 161–180

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Tập 25

281-300

Thông tin tác giả