Case Study写作范文：Organizational Culture Case Study: BrainGame

Case Study写作范文-组织文化案例研究。本文是一篇留学生 Case Study案例研究范文，学生可通过仔细阅读这篇案例范文来掌握Case Study怎么写。本篇 Case Study主要讲述个人和组织文化的重要性是企业成功的重要组成部分。BrianGame的组织文化是让全球志愿者作为开发游戏的工作人员。然而，BrainGame最高管理层之间的争论现在考虑将志愿者文化转变为全职员工，这引发了志愿者与BrainGames之间关系的问题。本文将研究BrainGame面临的挑战，并根据BrainGames面临的挑战提出建议。下面就一起来看一下这篇 Case Study写作范文的具体内容。

Introduction 引言

The importance of individual and organisational culture are vital components for business to succeed. BrianGame has the organisational culture of making global volunteers as their workers to develop games. However, the debate among BrainGame’s top management now considers changing the culture of volunteers to full-time employees, which raise issues on the relationship between volunteers and BrainGame. This essay will examine the challenges that BrainGame face and provide recommendations based on the challenges for BrainGame.

Trust and Group Conflict 信任与群体冲突

One challenge for BrainGame is trust. Some top management want to replace volunteers with full-time developers. This is because volunteers are not productive and hard to manage, “more than a thousand crappy ideas proposed”, according to Rutger Ekberg, the head of product development (Sutton et al, 2014).

BrainGame面临的一个挑战是信任。一些高层管理人员希望用全职开发人员取代志愿者。产品开发负责人Rutger Ekberg表示，这是因为志愿者的工作效率低下，难以管理，“提出了一千多个糟糕的想法”。

Figure 1: (Dietz and Hartog, 2006)

People like Rutger from BrainGame belongs to deterrence-based, they don’t trust volunteers and have no positive expectation over volunteers. They believe if no full-time experienced developers used, then what if game fails and the potential of losing investors. This is also a group problem. The company’s top management are task conflicts because of the disagreement among top management about the content and outcomes of volunteer’s performance (Wit et al, 2012). Task conflict may hurt more proximal group outcomes, such as trust from volunteers and volunteer’s satisfaction. This latter effect is especially likely when volunteers interpret the company’s diverging viewpoints as a negative assessment of their own abilities and competencies (Wit et al, 2012). If volunteers are not trusted, then the company will not run effectively, and influence company’s operation like productivity, communication, and raise problem of demotivating volunteers, reduce their commitment to the company. According to Mayer and Gavin (1999) employee’s performance will suffer if they believe their leader can’t be trusted. Some top management such as Lena, the CEO, are knowledge-based to volunteers. They believe volunteers saves money and provide free marketing for the company as well as free product development, but they need to convenience people who distrust volunteers so BrainGame can work toward the same target (Dietz and Hartog, 2006).

像BrainGame的Rutger这样的人属于威慑型，他们不信任志愿者，对志愿者没有积极的期望。他们认为，如果没有全职经验丰富的开发人员使用，那么如果游戏失败了，投资者可能会流失。这也是一个群体问题。公司的高层管理人员是任务冲突，因为高层管理人员对志愿者表现的内容和结果存在分歧。任务冲突可能会损害更接近的群体结果，如志愿者的信任和志愿者的满意度。当志愿者将公司的不同观点解释为对自己能力和能力的负面评估时，后一种影响尤其可能发生。如果志愿者不被信任，那么公司将无法有效运营，并影响公司的运营，如生产力、沟通，并引发志愿者士气低落的问题，减少他们对公司的承诺。根据Mayer和Gavin的说法，如果员工认为他们的领导不可信，他们的表现就会受到影响。一些高层管理人员，如首席执行官Lena，对志愿者来说是知识型的。他们认为志愿者可以省钱，为公司提供免费营销和免费产品开发，但他们需要为不信任志愿者的人提供便利，这样BrainGame才能朝着同样的目标努力。

Motivation 动机

Another challenge is motivation. BrainGame needs to motivate volunteers so they can be more efficient. Volunteers who work for BrainGame are unpaid, they work because they want to “create positive, nonviolent, commercially viable product that reward empathy and caring rather than aggression and revenge (Sutton et al, 2014)”.

另一个挑战是动力。BrainGame需要激励志愿者，这样他们才能更有效率。为BrainGame工作的志愿者是无偿的，他们工作是因为他们想“创造积极、非暴力、商业上可行的产品，奖励同理心和关怀，而不是攻击和报复”。

Figure 2: (Herzberg F, 1987)

Self-determination theory explain the motivation for people’s growth and human development (Deci and Ryan, 2004). The theory explains the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors are self-determined by one’s own will (Deci et al, 1991). From figure 2, it shows achievement, recognition and work itself and responsibility are the top four motivation factors, which are all intrinsic motivation. These motivation factors are correlated with BrainGame’s volunteers because they want be respected by others, recognize for their work and actually make a difference. The problem between BrainGame and volunteers is some people in BrainGame don’t recognize their work, they distrust them. Which could lead to more ineffective production and creativity because volunteers are discovered they are not recognized for what they do and what they contribute, therefore will not fully commit to the job or even leave. If BrainGame wants to keep volunteers, then they need to help volunteers achieve what they want so they can commit to the job.

自决理论解释了人的成长和人的发展的动机。该理论解释了内在和外在动机因素是由自己的意志决定的。从图2可以看出，成就、认可和工作本身以及责任是四大动机因素，它们都是内在动机。这些动机因素与BrainGame的志愿者有关，因为他们希望得到他人的尊重，认可自己的工作，并真正有所作为。BrainGame和志愿者之间的问题是，BrainGames中的一些人不认可他们的工作，他们不信任他们。这可能会导致更无效的生产和创造力，因为志愿者被发现他们所做的和所做的贡献不被认可，因此不会完全投入工作，甚至不会离开。如果BrainGame想留住志愿者，那么他们需要帮助志愿者实现他们想要的目标，这样他们才能投入到工作中。

Organizational Culture 组织文化

Organizational culture is another challenge for BrainGame. The company have the culture of volunteers instead of full time developers. Klaus called this culture a movement (Sutton et al, 2014). However, the culture has been in question of volunteers should be replaced by full-time developers.

组织文化是BrainGame面临的另一个挑战。该公司的文化是志愿者，而不是全职开发人员。克劳斯称这种文化为一种运动。然而，志愿者应该被全职开发人员取代的文化一直受到质疑。

BrainGame’s culture is most likely to be the adhocracy culture type, because this type of culture is externally oriented with flexible organizational structure (Hartnell et al, 2011). BrainGame has a very flexible organizational structure with over thousands of volunteers as developers around the world (Sutton et al, 2014). The fundamental assumption in adhocracy cultures is that change fosters the creation or garnering of new resources (Hartnell et al, 2011). This organizational type encourages people to be innovative. However, BrainGame’s current culture doesn’t work efficiently. Volunteers produced many ideas but most ideas are not viable to use and time consuming. Moreover, BrainGame initial ideas of using volunteers are because of cost saving. Since BrainGame are making profit now, the company needs to rethink its organizational culture, to continue with volunteers or move on to full time developers. The company needs to also consider the risk of losing volunteers and the possibility of turn thousands of brand evangelists to brand haters since volunteers provides free marketing and advertising (Sutton et al 2014).

BrainGame的文化最有可能是adhocracy文化类型，因为这种类型的文化是以外部为导向的，具有灵活的组织结构。BrainGame有一个非常灵活的组织结构，在世界各地有数千名志愿者作为开发人员。专制文化的基本假设是，变革促进了新资源的创造或获取。这种组织类型鼓励人们创新。然而，BrainGame目前的文化并不有效。志愿者提出了许多想法，但大多数想法都不可行，而且耗时。此外，BrainGame最初使用志愿者的想法是因为节省了成本。由于BrainGame现在正在盈利，该公司需要重新思考其组织文化，继续招募志愿者或转向全职开发人员。该公司还需要考虑失去志愿者的风险，以及由于志愿者提供免费营销和广告，将数千名品牌传道者转变为品牌仇恨者的可能性。

Leadership 领导力

BrainGame’s top management have the characteristics of transactional leadership with laissez-faire and management by action (passive) style. They hesitate when make decisions and only make interventions if standards are not met (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). According to research, laissez-faire and management by action (passive) are negatively correlated with leadership criteria (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Based on the case, BrainGame’s top management have constant debate on should they keep volunteers or replace them with full time developers. However, no one could come up with a defiant solution. BrainGame’s top management especially Lena needs to change their leadership styles, to be more inspired to other people, have vision and active.

BrainGame的高层管理人员具有交易型领导的特点，具有自由放任和行动管理（被动）风格。他们在做出决定时犹豫不决，只有在不符合标准的情况下才进行干预。根据研究，自由放任和行动管理（被动）与领导标准呈负相关。基于这个案例，BrainGame的高层管理层一直在争论他们是应该保留志愿者，还是用全职开发人员取代他们。然而，没有人能想出一个挑衅的解决方案。BrainGame的高层管理层，尤其是Lena，需要改变他们的领导风格，更多地激励他人，有远见和积极性。

Goal-Setting Theory 目标设定理论

As challenges addressed above, it is important to make appropriate recommendations to help BrainGame solve its problems. One recommendation is using the goal setting theory to solve motivation problem.

鉴于上述挑战，重要的是提出适当的建议，帮助BrainGame解决其问题。一个建议是使用目标设定理论来解决动机问题。

Figure 4: (Lunenburg, 2011)

Figure 4 shows the process of goal-setting theory. The two cognitive determinants of behavior are values and intentions (goals) (Lunenburg F.C, 2011). As for BrainGame, the goal for volunteers is try to achieve self-actualization, to create positive, commercially viable product and have the desire to do things consistent with them. Goals leads to attention and action which gain motivation and lead to higher effort with persistence. Goals help people to find the right strategies for themselves so that they can perform at the level they can to achieve that goal. Finally, goal achievement can lead to sense of accomplishment and further motivation, or frustration and lower motivation if failed to accomplish the goal. (Lunenburg F.C, 2011).

图4展示了目标设定理论的过程。行为的两个认知决定因素是价值观和意图（目标）。至于BrainGame，志愿者的目标是努力实现自我，创造积极的、商业上可行的产品，并渴望做与之一致的事情。目标带来关注和行动，从而获得动力，并带来更高的努力和坚持。目标帮助人们找到适合自己的策略，以便他们能够达到实现目标的水平。最后，目标实现可以导致成就感和进一步的动机，或者如果未能实现目标，则会导致挫折感和更低的动机。。

The goal setting theory under the right conditions will help BrainGame set goals for volunteers to achieve efficiency and productivity. The first step for goal setting theory is people needs to accept goal first, so that they can be motivated to achieve their goal target (Locke and Latham, 2002). Then they need to commit to their goals, two factors help people to commit their goals are self-efficacy and importance (Locke and Latham, 2002). Importance are factors that makes people stick to their goal, including what they expected for their result (Locke and Latham, 2002). According to Erez et al (1985) shows by having involvement in setting its own goals will make them accept their goals at a higher rate because they feel under control of their goal setting. By involved in goal setting, they will have a better understanding of the task and what will they expect as a result. Self-efficacy is how much people believe they can achieve their goal (Locke and Latham, 2002). Self-efficacy can be improved by provide training for volunteers such as online training, this will help increase their skills which leads to better productivity and efficiency. Through effective and regular communication between the company and volunteers to encourage volunteers, this will help gain their confidences (Locke and Latham, 2002). Through training and regular communication, individuals will have a better understanding of their own goal importance and more self-confidence towards their goal, therefore improve goal commitment (Locke and Latham, 2006).

在适当条件下的目标设定理论将帮助BrainGame为志愿者设定目标，以实现效率和生产力。目标设定理论的第一步是人们首先需要接受目标，这样他们才能有动力实现自己的目标。然后他们需要致力于自己的目标，帮助人们实现目标的两个因素是自我效能感和重要性。重要性是使人们坚持自己目标的因素，包括他们对结果的期望。根据Erez等人的研究，参与制定自己的目标会使他们以更高的速度接受自己的目标，因为他们觉得自己的目标设定受到了控制。通过参与目标设定，他们将更好地了解任务以及他们对结果的期望。自我效能感是指人们相信自己能达到目标的程度。可以通过为志愿者提供在线培训等培训来提高自我效能，这将有助于提高他们的技能，从而提高生产力和效率。通过公司和志愿者之间有效和定期的沟通来鼓励志愿者，这将有助于获得他们的信任。通过训练和定期沟通，个人将更好地理解自己的目标重要性，并对自己的目标更有信心，从而提高目标承诺。

A goal needs to be specific and measurable, goals which are unclear are confusing and normally have little effect on motivation. Making goal clear allows people to focus on at the right directions and act related to goal (Lock and Latham, 2002). Volunteers with specific goal target will have better understanding of the task, results in efficiency.

目标需要具体和可衡量，不明确的目标会令人困惑，通常对动机影响不大。明确目标可以让人们专注于正确的方向，并采取与目标相关的行动。有具体目标的志愿者会更好地理解任务，提高效率。

Goal is proven to be a motivational factor for people to follow if difficulty is considered, it gives the incentive for people to challenge. If goal target is too difficult, it will demotivate people and reduce their commitment. Goal difficulty not just affect individual’s behavior, it will also affect at organizational level. In the late 1960s, Ford’s goal to gain market share against international competitors, goal was set at tight deadlines and many levels of management signed off on unperformed safety check to the newly development car- the Ford Pinto, results in 53 consumer deaths, the challenging goal was met but company’s unethical behavior has damaged its reputation (Ordóñez et al, 2009). Setting goals that are too high or difficult not only reduce motivation and commitment but also can create dishonesty, cutting corners and corruption (Bennett, 2009). BrainGame needs to be clear of their goal settings, specific and measurable, not setting high goals that demotivating volunteers, since they are not contract bound by the company, demotivating them will only damage the company.

目标被证明是人们追随的动机因素。如果考虑到困难，它会激励人们挑战。如果目标太难，就会降低人们的积极性，减少他们的投入。目标难度不仅会影响个人的行为，还会影响组织层面。在20世纪60年代末，福特的目标是在与国际竞争对手的竞争中获得市场份额，这一目标是在紧迫的最后期限内制定的，许多管理层签署了对新开发的福特平托汽车未经执行的安全检查，导致53名消费者死亡，这一具有挑战性的目标得以实现，但该公司的不道德行为损害了其声誉。设定过高或过高的目标不仅会降低动机和承诺，还会造成不诚实、偷工减料和腐败。BrainGame需要清楚他们的目标设定，具体且可衡量，而不是设定让志愿者失去动力的高目标，因为他们不受公司的合同约束，失去动力只会损害公司。

Feedback is essential for volunteers to retain their goal commitment and effectiveness. It is important to give volunteers with constant feedbacks on their work so they can aware of all the progress and mistakes they made during their work, or it will become difficult to monitor the level of effort that needs in order to achieve the goal target more sufficiently (Sorrentino, 2006). Additionally, feedback gives the advantage that allows individual to spot their personal disadvantages towards their goals, and allows promptly adjustment to be done (Smith and Hitt, 2005). By having feedbacks, volunteers will know their work has been checked and evaluated and people are recognizing their work. Provide positive feedbacks to volunteers means BrainGame recognize their work. Whereas negative feedbacks will also motivate them and increase their effort to work if they have high self-efficacy. In contrast, volunteers with low self-efficacy will respond with less effort and demotivated to negative feedbacks (Bandura and Cervone, 1986).

反馈对于志愿者保持目标承诺和有效性至关重要。重要的是，要让志愿者不断反馈他们的工作，这样他们才能意识到自己在工作中取得的所有进展和犯下的错误，否则就很难监控为更充分地实现目标所需的努力程度。此外，反馈提供了优势，使个人能够发现自己在实现目标方面的个人劣势，并能够及时进行调整。通过反馈，志愿者将知道他们的工作已经过检查和评估，人们正在认可他们的工作。向志愿者提供积极的反馈意味着BrainGame认可他们的工作。而如果他们有很高的自我效能感，负面反馈也会激励他们，增加他们的工作努力。相比之下，自我效能感低的志愿者对负面反馈的反应会更少，也会失去动力。

However, goal setting theory have limitation. Concentrating only to goal can cause people to miss other factors in your environment (Simons and Chabris, 1999). When attention is focused on goal, people become inattention to other factors, which could sometimes cause people to miss the bigger picture.

然而，目标设定理论有其局限性。只专注于目标可能会导致人们错过环境中的其他因素。当注意力集中在目标上时，人们会忽视其他因素，这有时会导致人们错过大局。

Transformational Leadership 变革型领导

BrainGame needs to transform from transactional leadership to transformational leadership style in order to run the company more efficiently. Transformational leaders are more effective because they are more creative, and they encourage and help the people who followed them to be creative (Shin and Zhou, 2003). Companies with transformational leaders are more decentralized, managers are more likely to take risks, compensation plans are aim for long-term results (Ling et al, 2008). According to a study of information technology workers in China found giving more power to people will create positive personal control among workers, thus increased their creativity at work (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Companies with transformational leaders also have better agreement with managers about goals and strategies, this leads to better and efficient group and organizational operations and performance (Colbert et al 2008). Research from 203 team members and 60 leaders in a business unit found high performance is related to individual transformational leadership, and high group performance is also related to team focused transformational leadership (Hetland 2007; Lowe 1996). To have transformational leaders is important for BrainGame because there has been debates on volunteers, with people having different opinions but no one have profound and extraordinary effect to influence other people, the level of distrust to volunteers has raised in top management. As a leader, it is important to trust and guide your people with right directions. Transformational leaders obtain higher levels of trust, which in result reduce their follower’s anxiety and fear (liu et al, 2010). Followers who trust their leader are confident they will be protected for their interest and rights (Hosmer, 1995). BrainGame’s leaders needs act as transformational leaders and to trust their volunteers because volunteers are there main developer of game. The business is attracting investment and best ideas were generated from volunteers. Volunteers want to achieve recognition and trust is the best way to recognize their work. Transformational leaders encourage creativity and support people’s idea, by encouraging their ideas and guide them towards right direction (Schaubroeck et al, 2011). This will help volunteers improve their skills, and improve their productivity and commitment.

为了更有效地运营公司，BrainGame需要从交易型领导转变为转型型领导风格。变革型领导者更有效，因为他们更有创造力，他们鼓励和帮助跟随他们的人发挥创造力。拥有转型领导者的公司更加分散，管理者更有可能承担风险，薪酬计划旨在取得长期成果。一项针对中国信息技术工作者的研究发现，赋予人们更多的权力会在工作者中创造积极的个人控制，从而提高他们在工作中的创造力。拥有转型领导者的公司也能更好地与管理者就目标和战略达成一致，这会带来更好、高效的团队和组织运营和绩效。对203名团队成员和60名业务部门领导者的研究发现，高绩效与个人变革型领导有关，高团队绩效也与以团队为中心的变革型领导力有关。拥有变革型领导者对BrainGame来说很重要，因为人们一直在讨论志愿者，人们有不同的意见，但没有人能产生深远而非凡的影响，高层管理层对志愿者的不信任程度也有所上升。作为一名领导者，重要的是要信任并引导员工朝着正确的方向前进。转型型领导者获得了更高水平的信任，从而减少了追随者的焦虑和恐惧。信任领袖的追随者相信他们的利益和权利会得到保护。BrainGame的领导者需要扮演变革领导者的角色，并信任他们的志愿者，因为志愿者是游戏的主要开发者。该公司正在吸引投资，志愿者们提出了最好的想法。志愿者想要获得认可和信任是认可他们工作的最佳方式。变革型领导者通过鼓励人们的想法并引导他们朝着正确的方向前进，来鼓励创造力并支持他们的想法。这将帮助志愿者提高他们的技能，提高他们的生产力和承诺。

Training is an effective way to become a better transformational leader. Training include teach skills on trust building and mentoring, learn how to analysis and evaluate a situation and apply those skills into their own styles, and evaluate in a given situation, which leader behaviors is appropriate to use (Brady, 2010). For BrainGame’s top management, train them gives them more skills to evaluate the current situation, and provide long-term strategy, and better skills to build trust and communication. with volunteers.

培训是成为更好的转型领导者的有效途径。培训包括教授建立信任和指导的技能，学习如何分析和评估一种情况，并将这些技能应用到他们自己的风格中，以及在特定情况下评估哪些领导者行为适合使用。对于BrainGame的高层管理人员来说，培训他们可以让他们掌握更多评估当前形势的技能，提供长期战略，以及更好的建立信任和沟通的技能。与志愿者一起。

To conclude, BrainGame currently in debate over should volunteers be replaced by full-time developers. To do so, it could lose trust from volunteers and demotivate them. Organizational culture will have to change, and leadership style needs to change in order to run the company more effectively. Goal-setting theory is a good method to solve some challenges faced by BrainGame. By goal-setting, volunteers will have better understanding of their task and motivate them, which will increase their productivity and efficiency and this is one of the most important factors why BrainGame want to replace volunteers. However, goal difficulty needs to be careful set or it could cause negative impact. By transit from transitional to transformational leadership, leaders of BrainGame will motivate, communicate better with employees. Transformational leadership skills can be improved with training. Nevertheless, BrainGame should retain volunteers, and build a better strategy around them to run more efficiently.

总之，BrainGame目前正在争论志愿者是否应该被全职开发人员取代。这样做可能会失去志愿者的信任，并使他们失去动力。为了更有效地管理公司，组织文化必须改变，领导风格也需要改变。目标设定理论是解决BrainGame面临的一些挑战的好方法。通过设定目标，志愿者将更好地理解自己的任务并激励他们，这将提高他们的生产力和效率，这也是BrainGame想要取代志愿者的最重要因素之一。然而，目标难度需要仔细设定，否则可能会造成负面影响。通过从过渡领导过渡到转型领导，BrainGame的领导者将激励员工，更好地与员工沟通。转变型领导技能可以通过培训得到提高。尽管如此，BrainGame应该留住志愿者，并围绕他们制定更好的策略，以提高运营效率。

It was a group project I worked with other group members. Group leader set goals for each one of us, but goal was not specific enough. After the deadline, one group member completely misunderstood the task, which the whole team project was stagnated. That group member was demotivated, but we decided to stop our tasks and help him to finish his first. One of the problem for us while we are doing the project is lack of communication as a group, we all focused on our part but each part is correlated, lack of communication with unspecific goal leads to this problem. After this, we all decided to communicate and help each other more, we all motivated and the project in the end finished faster than the deadlines. I think I will apply motivation to my career, because through self-determination theory, I will know which factors will influence me most to motivate me and my teammates.

这是我和其他小组成员合作的一个小组项目。组长为我们每个人设定了目标，但目标不够具体。截止日期后，一名小组成员完全误解了任务，整个团队项目停滞不前。那个小组成员没有动力，但我们决定停止我们的任务，帮助他完成他的第一个任务。我们在做这个项目时遇到的问题之一是缺乏团队沟通，我们都专注于自己的部分，但每个部分都是相关的，缺乏与不具体目标的沟通导致了这个问题。在这之后，我们都决定更多地相互沟通和帮助，我们都很有动力，项目最终比截止日期完成得更快。我想我会把激励应用到我的职业生涯中，因为通过自决理论，我会知道哪些因素对我的影响最大，从而激励我和我的队友。

References: 参考文献

Bandura, A., and Cervone, D. (1986) Differential Engagement in Self-Reactive Influences in Cognitively-Based Motivation, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38pp.92-113.

Bennett, D. (2009) Ready, aim… fail. Why setting goals can backfire. The Boston Globe, C1.

Brady, D. (2010) The Rising Star of CEO Consulting, TMG,

Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. E ., Bradley, B.H . and Barrick, M.R. (2008)”CEO Transformational Leadership: The Role of Goal Importance Congruence in Top Management Teams,”Academy of Management Journal , 51, (1) pp.81-96.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pellitier, L. G. and Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychology, 26(3), pp.325 – 346.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2004) Handbook of Self-Determination Research Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.

Dietz, G. and Hartog, D. (2006) Measuring Trust Inside Organizations, Personnel review, 35(3) pp.557-588

Erez, M., Earley, P. C. and Hulin, C. L. (1985) The impact of participation on goal acceptance and performance: A two-step model. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), pp.50-66.

Hartnell C. A., Ou A.Y. and Kinicki A. (2011) Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework’s Theoretical Suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 96 (4), pp.677-694.

Herzberg, F (1987) One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, Reprint 87507, pp.1-16

Hosmer, L.T. (1995) Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics, Academy of Management Review, 20, 393.

Hetland, H., Sandal, G. M. and Johnsen, T. B. (2007) Burnout in the Information Technology Sector: Does Leadership Matter? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology ,16, (1) pp.58-75

Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004) Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5) pp.755-768

Liu, J., Siu, O. and Shi, K. (2010) Transformational Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Trust in the Leader and Self-Efficacy, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(3) pp.454-479.

Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M.H. and Veiga, J.F. (2008)” Transformational Leadership’s Role in Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT Interface,” Academy of Management Journal 51(3) pp.557-576.

Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), pp.705-717.

Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. (2006) New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), pp.265-268.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), pp.385- 425.

Lunenburg F.C. (2011) Goal-Setting Theory of Motivation. International Journal of Management, Business and Administration, 15(1)

Mayer, R.C. and Gavin, M. (1999) Trust for management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? 1999 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.

Ordóñez, L., Schweitzer, M., Galinsky, A. and Bazerman, M. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of over-prescribing goal setting. HBS Working Paper, 09-083.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S.S.K. and Peng, A.C (2011) Cognition- Based and Affect-Based Trust as Mediators of Leader Behavior Influences on Team Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4) pp.836-871

Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), pp.1059-1074.

Shin, S. J., and Zhou, J., (2003) Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity: Evidence from Korea, Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), pp.703-714

Smith, K.G. and Hitt, M.A. (2005) Great minds in management: the process of theory development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sorrentino, D.M. (2006) The seek mentoring program: An application of the goal-setting theory. Journal of College Student Retention, 8(2), pp.241-250.

Sutton, R. I. and Rao, H. (2014) Can a volunteer-staffed company scale? Harvard Business Review, 92(5), pp.125-129.

Wit, F.R.C., Greer, L.L and Jehn, K.A (2012) The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2) pp.360-390

Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010) “Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement,” Academy of Management Journal, 53(1) pp.107-128.

这篇Case Study是我和其他小组成员合作的一个小组项目。组长为我们每个人设定了目标，但目标不够具体。截止日期后，一名小组成员完全误解了任务，整个团队项目停滞不前。那个小组成员没有动力，但我们决定停止我们的任务，帮助他完成他的第一个任务。我们在做这个项目时遇到的问题之一是缺乏团队沟通，我们都专注于自己的部分，但每个部分都是相关的，缺乏与不具体目标的沟通导致了这个问题。在这之后，我们都决定更多地相互沟通和帮助，我们都很有动力，项目最终比截止日期完成得更快。我想我会把激励应用到我的职业生涯中，因为通过自决理论，我会知道哪些因素对我的影响最大，从而激励我和我的队友。本站提供各国各专业 Case Study范文， Case Study写作辅导等相关服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。