• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Exploring the top management team diversity paradox: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of diversity and strategic decision-making in the public sector.
【24h】

Exploring the top management team diversity paradox: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of diversity and strategic decision-making in the public sector.

机译：探索高层管理团队的多样性悖论：对公共部门的多样性和战略决策进行定性和定量分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

What does the decision-making process look like in homogenous teams and heterogenous teams? What influences the nature of conflict and debate in the strategic decision-making process? What kind of diversity is necessary for debate and comprehensiveness to occur? Who influences the strategic decision-making process? What leads to "better" decisions---homogeneity or heterogeneity? These are the kinds of questions that are addressed in this thesis.; To date, very little research has examined the impact of character/personality, demographic diversity and power on the strategic decision-making process including conflict, debate, comprehensiveness and outcomes; there has been even less in the public sector setting. Furthermore, few researchers have explored the diversity paradox that results when the intended benefits of selecting top management team (TMT) members on the basis of their demographic heterogeneity do not accrue because of their homogeneity along other dimensions such as personality/character. As a result of such homogeneity, key elements in a strategic decision-making process such as debate and comprehensiveness may be incomplete, at best, and overlooked, at worst.; This thesis describes the results of an exploratory study in which the strategic decision-making process in two different TMTs was analysed using a combination of interviews with multiple informants, survey data of team participants and archival analysis. Although both decision processes lasted about 9 months, they were markedly different. Survey data revealed that the homogenous TMT reported lower levels of cognitive and affective conflict and, yet, higher levels of debate, comprehensiveness and decision process outcomes than the heterogenous TMT.; However, the interview evidence and analysis of documents told a much different story and indicated that the diversity paradox was present on the homogenous team. The evidence suggested that the leader of the homogenous TMT was inexperienced in the decision context and created a coalition with another team member that limited opportunities for discussion and debate. Key issues were not treated very comprehensively and the homogenous TMT had difficulty identifying issues, managing the process and never fully realized its potential. As a result, the reported levels of debate, comprehensiveness and decision outcomes may have been overstated in the survey.; On the other hand, the leader of the heterogenous TMT had a great deal of experience and knew how to manage a diverse team by identifying issues, assembling resources and managing the process. Despite some tension between those that had been on the team previously and the newcomers to the team, members contributed to the decision process. Qualitative data suggested that there was more debate and comprehensiveness than first reported and that the quality of the decision outcome may have been understated by the team members.; Both character/personality and demographic dimensions were seen to have an effect on the strategic decision-making process of both teams moderated by external pressures, contextual factors and team factors.; This research makes a contribution to the literature by going beyond traditional demographic and survey analysis and qualitatively exploring other dimensions that impact on the nebulous strategic decision-making process. Suggestions are made for future research.
机译：同类团队和异类团队的决策过程是什么样的？是什么影响战略决策过程中冲突和辩论的性质？辩论和全面性需要什么样的多样性？谁影响战略决策过程？是什么导致“更好”的决策-同质性还是异质性？这些是本文要解决的问题。迄今为止，很少有研究研究性格/个性，人口多样性和权力对战略决策过程的影响，包括冲突，辩论，全面性和结果。公共部门的情况甚至更少。此外，很少有研究者探索多样性悖论，当他们基于人口异质性选择高层管理团队（TMT）成员时，由于他们在其他方面（如人格/性格）的同质性而无法获得预期的利益时，就会导致多样性悖论。由于这种同质性，战略决策过程中的关键要素，例如辩论和全面性，可能充其量是不完整的，充其量是最坏的。本文描述了一项探索性研究的结果，该研究通过结合与多名线人的访谈，团队参与者的调查数据和档案分析来分析两个不同TMT中的战略决策过程。尽管这两个决策过程都持续了大约9个月，但它们明显不同。调查数据表明，同质的TMT报告的认知和情感冲突水平较低，而辩论，全面性和决策过程的结果却高于异质的TMT。但是，访谈证据和文件分析告诉了一个截然不同的故事，并表明在同质团队中存在多样性悖论。有证据表明，同质TMT的领导者在决策环境中经验不足，因此与另一名团队成员建立了联盟，从而限制了讨论和辩论的机会。关键问题没有得到非常全面的处理，同类的TMT难以识别问题，管理流程并且从未充分意识到其潜力。结果，调查中所报道的辩论，全面性和决定结果的水平可能被夸大了。另一方面，异构TMT的领导者拥有丰富的经验，并且知道如何通过发现问题，聚集资源和管理流程来管理一支多元化的团队。尽管先前团队成员与团队新成员之间存在一些紧张关系，但成员还是为决策流程做出了贡献。定性数据表明，辩论和全面性要比首次报道的要多，并且团队成员可能低估了决策结果的质量。在外部压力，情境因素和团队因素的共同作用下，性格/个性和人口维度都对两个团队的战略决策过程产生影响。这项研究超越了传统的人口统计和调查分析，并定性地探索了影响战略决策过程的其他方面，从而为文献做出了贡献。为将来的研究提出了建议。

著录项

  • 作者

    Kendrick, James.;

  • 作者单位

    Universite de Montreal (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 Universite de Montreal (Canada).;
  • 学科 Business Administration Management.; Political Science Public Administration.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2004
  • 页码 303 p.
  • 总页数 303
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 贸易经济;政治理论;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号