MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2105178044 · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00756.x

Positive and Negative Effects of Team Stressors on Job Satisfaction and New Product Performance<sup>*</sup>

2010· article· en· W2105178044 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Product Innovation Management · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Établissements canadiensYork University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésStressorAmbiguityRole conflictProduct (mathematics)PsychologyScheduleQuality (philosophy)Job satisfactionNew product developmentEmpirical evidenceEmpirical researchSurvey data collectionSocial psychologyBusinessMarketingApplied psychologyComputer scienceEconomicsClinical psychologyManagementMathematics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The subject of stress and its impact on performance has received limited empirical attention in the new product development field. The present study examines the impact of three work stressors (i.e., role ambiguity, role conflict, and pressure for performance) on team job satisfaction and three dimensions of new product performance: adherence to budget and schedule, product quality, and market success. Data were collected using a cross sectional, Web‐based survey among Spanish innovative firms. A total of 197 questionnaires was received. Findings from this research suggest that role conflict and role ambiguity are negatively related to team job satisfaction. Results, however, show a lack of association between pressure for performance and job satisfaction. Regarding the effect of work stressors on new product performance, findings indicate that different stressors have different relationships with performance. Concerning role ambiguity, findings provide empirical evidence of a U‐shaped relationship between role ambiguity and adherence to budget and schedule and between role ambiguity and product quality. Thus, intermediate levels of role ambiguity are hurtful, but low and high levels of role ambiguity are helpful. Nonetheless, given that the levels of ambiguity measured in this study are not high enough, the findings regarding the impact of moderate to high levels of ambiguity on new product performance should be viewed as tentative. Role conflict has a negative linear relationship with adherence to budget schedule and an inverted U‐shaped relationship with product quality. For pressure for performance, findings indicate a triphasic effect on product quality. Specifically, the initial phase is characterized by increasingly lower levels of product quality owing to increasing levels of pressure for performance. As pressure for performance keeps further increasing, a positive effect on product quality begins to manifest. Beyond some threshold, however, a new phase starts in which product quality decreases with increasing amounts of performance pressure. Finally, results show a lack of association between pressure for performance and adherence to budget and schedule. All three stressors were found to have an indirect, rather than a direct, effect on market success via job satisfaction, adherence to budget and schedule, or product quality. Several managerial implications follow from these results. First, product managers should make every effort to reduce role ambiguity to minimal levels, ensuring that team members fully understand their role requirements and have adequate information about their job. Second, rather than reducing the level of role conflict to zero, managers must take into account the positive effect that moderate levels of role conflict have in product quality. Finally, management should put some pressure on the team members and make sure they understand that there is a sense of urgency.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,398
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,554

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,231
Écart entre enseignants0,221 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle