東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

No escaping authority: Boundary man...

Monroe, Theresa M.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

No escaping authority: Boundary management in work groups in a collaborative organization.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	No escaping authority: Boundary management in work groups in a collaborative organization./
Author:	Monroe, Theresa M.
Description:	232 p.
Notes:	Chair: Jerome T. Murphy.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International63-01A.
Subject:	Education, Administration. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3041075
ISBN:	0493543767

No escaping authority: Boundary management in work groups in a collaborative organization.
Monroe, Theresa M.

No escaping authority: Boundary management in work groups in a collaborative organization. - 232 p.

Chair: Jerome T. Murphy.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Harvard University, 2002.

This case study examines how authority operates in three small work groups in a Catholic order of nuns. It presents data about practices that promote effectiveness in work groups embedded within collaborative organizations. Authority is defined as a bargain or exchange by which power is conferred in return for a service (e.g., Hollander & Julian, 1969; Smith & Berg, 1987, Heifetz, 1994).

ISBN: 0493543767Subjects--Topical Terms:

626645
Education, Administration.

No escaping authority: Boundary management in work groups in a collaborative organization.
LDR:03808nam 2200349 a 45 001 933302
005 20110505
008 110505s2002 eng d
020 $a 0493543767
035 $a (UnM)AAI3041075
035 $a AAI3041075
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Monroe, Theresa M. $3 1257036
245 1 0 $a No escaping authority: Boundary management in work groups in a collaborative organization.
300 $a 232 p.
500 $a Chair: Jerome T. Murphy.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 63-01, Section: A, page: 0042.
502 $a Thesis (Ed.D.)--Harvard University, 2002.
520 $a This case study examines how authority operates in three small work groups in a Catholic order of nuns. It presents data about practices that promote effectiveness in work groups embedded within collaborative organizations. Authority is defined as a bargain or exchange by which power is conferred in return for a service (e.g., Hollander & Julian, 1969; Smith & Berg, 1987, Heifetz, 1994).
520 $a Group relations theory maintains that the practice of authority primarily involves the management of boundaries (Miller & Rice, 1967; Alderfer, 1976, 1980; Gilmore, 1982; McCollom, 1990). This study examines the openness or permeability of five key boundaries—those that define task, role, membership, time and space/territory. It also examines the relationship between boundary management and perceptions of group efficacy as measured by criteria developed by Richard Hackman (1987).
520 $a Three research questions guided the study: (a) How does authority, in the form of boundary management, operate in small work groups that function within an organization that has adopted a decentralized model of governance? (b) How do group members and others with a stake in the group's work perceive the efficacy of the group's process and the quality of its decisions? (c) In what way, if any, is the exercise of authority through boundary management related to perceptions of the group's efficacy?
520 $a The study demonstrates that some form of authority is necessary in groups. On the one hand, attempts to eliminate all formal authority, by loosely managing boundaries if at all, create chaotic conditions that undermine coordination and leaves groups vulnerable to control by strong-willed individuals exercising informal authority. On the other hand, attempts to revert to traditional “authoritarian” practices of authority by tightly managing boundaries, no longer serve new organizational realities. Crucial perspectives, information and stakeholders can easily be overlooked in the name of efficiency.
520 $a The most effective group in the study was neither “loosely-bounded” nor “tightly-bounded.” Boundaries in this group were sometimes managed “tightly,” sometimes “loosely,” and sometimes in an “in-between” manner. The primary variable appears to be the nature of the problem or situation being faced. When a problem is routine or technical, a “tightly bounded” approach is more effective. When the problem is more complex, however, it calls for more cooperation and effectiveness requires that boundaries be managed more “loosely.” Thus, the effective practice of authority involves both a deep appreciation of the situation being addressed and a matching of the appropriate level of boundary management.
590 $a School code: 0084.
650 4 $a Education, Administration. $3 626645
650 4 $a Psychology, Industrial. $3 520063
650 4 $a Religion, General. $3 1017453
650 4 $a Sociology, Industrial and Labor Relations. $3 1017858
690 $a 0318
690 $a 0514
690 $a 0624
690 $a 0629
710 2 0 $a Harvard University. $3 528741
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 63-01A.
790 $a 0084
790 1 0 $a Murphy, Jerome T., $e advisor
791 $a Ed.D.
792 $a 2002
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3041075