PDF(1910 KB)
PDF(1910 KB)
PDF(1910 KB)
企业社交媒体使用对团队及员工敏捷性的多层次影响:基于团队凝聚力理论*
The Multilevel Influences of Enterprise Social Media Usage on Team Agility and Employee Agility: Insights From the Theory of Team Cohesion
当前,企业管理者愈发重视对组织内团队及员工敏捷性的培养以应对动荡的环境。企业社交媒体的出现为提升团队及员工的敏捷性带来了可能,但学界对于企业社交媒体如何影响团队及员工的敏捷性还缺乏深入理解。基于团队凝聚力理论,从团队-个体的多层次视角剖析了团队凝聚力在企业社交媒体使用影响团队及员工敏捷性的中介机理以及团队互依性的调节效应。对84位团队领导及386位团队成员的多时间点、多来源数据进行检验,结果表明:企业社交媒体使用通过增强团队凝聚力,对团队及员工敏捷性均产生了积极影响;团队互依性正向调节了团队凝聚力对团队及员工敏捷性的积极影响。结果丰富了企业社交媒体和敏捷性领域的现有研究,并为企业运用企业社交媒体提升敏捷性的管理实践提供了指导。
At present, the international political and economic situation is complicated, and the global economic recovery is weakening, creating an increasingly volatile and uncertain external environment for business. To survive this crisis, organizational managers are paying increasing attention to training team agility and employee agility. Enterprise social media (ESM), an indispensable digital technology in today’s enterprises, is recognized as an effective enabler of communication, collaboration, and social relationships within organizations. It also offers enterprises a greater possibility of enhancing the capabilities of teams and employees. Despite this, there is still a lack of in-depth discussion on how ESM usage affects team agility and employee agility. In order to effectively promote agility, it is necessary to explore whether and how the use of ESM affects team agility and employee agility in the context of ESM. Based on the team cohesion theory, we propose a multilevel model to examine how team ESM usage affects team agility and employee agility by promoting team cohesion and how team interdependence moderates the impacts of team cohesion on team agility and employee agility.
To test the proposed theoretical model and research hypotheses, we conducted a multi-wave and multi-source questionnaire survey through a professional survey agency. At Time 1, team subordinates reported on team ESM usage and team interdependence and diversity, and provided demographic information. At Time 2, team subordinates rated team cohesion. At Time 3, team leaders rated their subordinates’ agility and team agility. All measurement items were adapted from prior related studies. We received 386 team leader-team subordinate valid paired samples in 84 work teams for hypothesis testing. We calculated Cronbach’s α, average variance extracted, and conducted confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, respectively. The multilevel structural equation modelling method was used to assess the structural model in Mplus 7.4 software.
The results of the data analysis support our research model and hypothesis. Results showed that: (1) Team ESM use had a significantly positive effect on team cohesion (r =.47, p <.001); (2) Team cohesion has a significantly positive effect on both team agility (r =.35, p<.05) and employee agility (r =.58, p <.001); (3) Team interdependence positively moderates the effects of team cohesion on team agility (r =.27, p<.01) and employee agility (r =.17, p <.01); (4) Team cohesion mediated the the influence of team ESM use on team agility (r =.18, 95%CI = [.02,.40]) and employee agility (r =.19, 95%CI = [.03,.35]).
Our study made contributions to the theory. First, this study explores in depth the impact of ESM use on team agility, thus effectively expanding the research on the antecedents of team agility. Second, this study integrates ESM research into agility at both the team and individual levels and adopts the team cohesion theory to reveal the mediating mechanism of ESM use affecting team agility and employee agility, so as to advance the existing research on the relationship between ESM and agility. Third, this study enriches the research on team interdependence to a certain extent by exploring the moderating effect of team cohesiveness on team agility and employee agility.
This study has several limitations. First, the data in this study is collected in China. Considering the essential differences in the cultural backgrounds of China and the West, the use of ESM and its impact may differ. Therefore, future studies should be conducted under different research backgrounds to compare the influence of ESM use on employee and team agility in different cultural backgrounds. This can improve the external validity of research conclusions. Second, although this study conducted a multi-wave and multi-source questionnaire survey to collect data, the questionnaire survey method is inevitably subjective. Third, since the time interval between waves in this study was only one week, future studies should extend it to better predict the causal relation between variables.
企业社交媒体 / 团队敏捷性 / 员工敏捷性 / 团队凝聚力 / 团队互依性
enterprise social media / team agility / employee agility / team cohesion / team interdependence
| [1] |
白新文, 刘武, 林琳. (2011). 共享心智模型影响团队绩效的权变模型. 心理学报, 43(5), 561-572.
|
| [2] |
陈璐, 杨百寅, 井润田. (2012). 家长式领导对高管团队有效性的影响机制研究: 以团队凝聚力为中介变量. 管理工程学报, 26(1), 13-19.
|
| [3] |
傅金娣, 孙元, 胡峰. (2025). 企业数字化社交技术使用如何赋能员工即兴能力?——基于交互记忆的视角. 管理世界, 41 (1), 168-186.
|
| [4] |
胡琼晶, 魏俊杰, 王露, 谢小云. (2021). 犯错者地位如何影响同事容错?——任务目标偏离度和团队互依性的作用. 管理世界, 37(6), 113-127+7.
|
| [5] |
李巧灵, 赵君哲, 乔诗绮, 郭腾飞, 王明辉, 赵国祥. (2021). 不同社交媒体使用目的对员工工作绩效的影响机制. 心理学报, 53(11), 1260-1270.
|
| [6] |
林丛丛, 李秀凤. (2019). 承诺型人力资源管理实践与团队创新: 一个跨层次研究模型. 科学学与科学技术管理, 40(5), 150-164.
|
| [7] |
刘敬孝, 杨晓莹, 连铃丽. (2006). 国外群体凝聚力研究评介. 外国经济与管理, 3, 45-51.
|
| [8] |
苗蕊, 吕成戍, 鲁颜. (2024). 企业社交媒体使用与员工行为及心理结果间关系的元分析. 南开管理评论, 27(1), 200-212.
|
| [9] |
孙元, 贺圣君, 尚荣安, 傅金娣. (2019). 企业社交工作平台影响员工即兴能力的机理研究——基于在线社会网络的视角. 管理世界, 3, 157-168.
|
| [10] |
温忠麟, 黄彬彬, 汤丹丹. (2018). 问卷数据建模前传. 心理科学, 41(1), 204-210.
|
| [11] |
谢江佩, 朱玥, 王永跃, 刘亚. (2023). 领导集权度如何影响团队绩效?任务互依性与团队绩效压力的调节作用. 心理科学, 46(1), 97-104.
|
| [12] |
许科, 韩雨卿, 于晓宇, 王炜. (2016). 快速信任与临时团队绩效: 共享心智模型与团队互依性的角色. 管理评论, 28(9), 238-249.
|
| [13] |
袁朋伟, 董晓庆, 翟怀远, 冯群. (2018). 共享领导对知识员工创新行为的影响研究——知识分享与团队凝聚力的作用. 软科学, 32(1), 87-91.
|
| [14] |
朱永跃, 余莉花. (2024). 数字化领导力对制造业员工敏捷性的影响:基于认知—情感双路径视角. 科技进步与对策, 41(24), 140-149.
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |