BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 16, 1 - 25, 01.06.2009

Dr. Orkun KOZANOGLU Prof. Dr. Ahmet Fah Özok Orkun Kozanoglu Ahmet Fahri Özok

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

  • Acuña, T. S., Gómez, M. and Juristo, N., 2009. How do personality, team processes and task characteristics relate to job satisfaction and software quality?, Information and Software Technology, 51, 627-639.
  • Alderfer, C. P., 1977. Group and intergroup relations, in Improving the quality of work life, pp. 227–296, Eds. Hackman, J. R. and Suttle, J. L., Goodyear, Palisades, CA.
  • Amason, A. C., 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.
  • Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K., 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
  • Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, J. M. and Mount, M. K., 1998. Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.
  • Barry, B. and Stewart, G. L., 1997. Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62-78.
  • Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J., 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance, in Personnel Selection in Organizations, pp. 71–98, Eds. Schmitt, N. and Borman W.C., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • Brawley, L.R., Carron, A.V. and Widmeyer, W.N., 1987. Assessing the cohesion of teams: Validity of the group environment questionnaire, Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 275–294.
  • Breaugh J.A., 1985. The measurement of work autonomy, Human Relations, 38, 551–570.
  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. and Higgs, A. C., 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups, Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.
  • Cattell, R.B. and Stice, G.F., 1954. Four formulae for selecting leaders on the basis of personality, Human Relations, 7, 493–507.
  • Chi, Y-L. and Chen, C-Y., 2009, Project teaming: Knowledge-intensive design for composing team members, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36(5), 9479-9487.
  • Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. R., 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor (NEO-FFI) Inventory professional manual, Odessa, FL: PAR.
  • Digman, J. M., 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model, Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
  • Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R. and Salas, E., 1987. Personality and group performance, in Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 91-112, Ed. Hendrick, C., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
  • Festinger, L., 1950. Informal social communication, Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.
  • Fitzpatrick, E. L. and Askin, R. G., 2005. Forming effective worker teams with multi- functional skill requirements, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 48(3), 593—608.
  • Gibb, C.A., 1969. Leadership, in Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 4, Eds. Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E., Addison-Wesley, New York.
  • Goldberg, L. R., 1993. The structure of phenotypic personality traits, American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
  • Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C. and Finch, J. F., 1997. Competitiveness mediates the link between personality and group performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1394–1408.
  • Greene, C., 1989. Cohesion and productivity in work groups, Small Group Behavior, 20, 70– 86.
  • Guion, R.M. and Gottier, R.F., 1965. Validity of personality measures in personnel selection, Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.
  • Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J. and Whitney, D. J., 1995. A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of levels of analysis and task interdependence, Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.
  • Hackman, J. R., 1987. The design of work teams, in Handbook of organizational behavior, pp. 315–342, Ed. Lorsch, J., Prentice Hall, New York
  • Hackman, J. R. and Vidmar, N., 1970. Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions, Sociometry, 33, 37–54.
  • Haythorn, W., 1953. The influence of individual members on the characteristics of small groups, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 276–284.
  • Helslin, R., 1964. Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics, Psychological Bulletin, 91, 513–539.
  • Hoegl, M., Parboteeah, K.P. and Munson, C.L., 2003. Team-level antecedents of individuals'
  • knowledge networks, Decision Sciences, 34, pp 741-770
  • Hollenbeck, J. R., DeRue, D. S. and Guzzo, R., 2004. Bridging the gap between I/O research and HR practice: Improving team composition, team training, and team task design, Human Resource Management, 43, 353-366.
  • Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A. and Phillips, J., 1995. Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316.
  • Hurtz, G. M. and Donovan, J. J., 2000. Personality and job performance: The big five revisited, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.
  • Janis, I.L., 1972. Groupthink, Houghton Muffin, Boston.
  • Jehn, K. A., 1995. A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
  • Kichuk, S. L., 1999. The effect of general cognitive ability, teamwork KSA’s, and the ‘Big Five’ personality factors on the performance of engineering design teams: Implications for the selection of teams, Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(8A), 3077.
  • Kichuk, S. L. and Wiesner, W. H., 1998. Work teams: Selecting members for optimal performance, Canadian Psychology, 39, 23–32.
  • Klimoski, R. and Jones, R. G., 1995. Staffing for effective decision making: Key issues in matching people and teams, in Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations, Eds. Guzzo R. A. and Salas, E., Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
  • Klimoski, R. and Mohammed, S., 1994. Team mental model: Construct or Metaphor?, Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Bell, B. S., 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations, in Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 333-375, Eds. Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R. and Klimoski, R. J., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. A., 1996. A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles, in Research in personnel and human resource management, Vol. 14, pp. 253– 305, Ed. Ferris, G. R., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R. and Smith, E. M., 1999. Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time, in The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development, pp. 240–292, Eds. Ilgen, D. R. and Pulakos, E. D., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • LePine, J. A., 2003. Team adaptation and post change performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 27–39.
  • Mazur, A., 1973. Cross-species comparison of status in established small groups, American Sociological Review, 38, 513–529.
  • Martz, W. B., Jr., Vogel, R. R. and Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., 1992. Electronic meeting systems: Results from the field, Decision Support Systems, 8, 141–158.
  • McGrath, J. E., 1964. Social psychology: A brief introduction, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • McCrae, R.R. and Costa Jr., P.T., 1989. The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggen’s circumflex and the five-factor model, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586– 590.
  • Mohammed, S. and Angell, L. C., 2003. Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance?, Small Group Research, 34, 651–677.
  • Mohammed, S., Mathieu, J. E. and Bartlett, L. B., 2002. Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: Considering the influence of team- and task-related composition variables, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 795–814.
  • Molleman, E., Nauta, A. and Jehn, K. A., 2004. Person-job fit applied to teamwork: A multilevel approach, Small Group Research, 35, 515–539.
  • Morgan, B. B., Jr. and Lassiter, D. L., 1992. Team similarity and staffing, in Teams: Their training and performance, 31-56, Eds. Swezey, R.W. and Salas, E., Ablex Norwood, NJ.
  • Mullen, B. and Copper, C., 1994. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration, Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227.
  • Nieva, V. F., Fleishman, E. A. and Reick, A., 1985. Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement, and their relationships, Research Note, 85-12, Washington, DC: U.S. Army, Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
  • Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H. and Christiansen, N. D., 1999. The relationship between work- team personality composition and the job performance of teams, Group & Organization Management, 24, 28-45.
  • Neuman, G. A. and Wright, J., 1999. Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376–389.
  • Paris, C.R., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A., 2000. Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis, Ergonomics, Vol. 43, No.8, pp.1052-75.
  • Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H.F., Rutte, C. G. and Reymen, I. M., 2006. Personality and Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis, European Journal of Personality, 20, 377–396.
  • Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C. and Van Dyne, L., 1993. Complex interdependence in task- performing groups, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72.
  • Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A. and Tannenbaum, S. I., 1992. Toward an understanding of team performance and training, in Teams: Their training and performance, pp. 3–29, Eds. Swezey, R. W. and Salas, E., Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
  • Salgado, J. F., 2003. Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 323–346.
  • Schultz, B., Ketrow, S. M. and Urban, D. M., 1995. Improving decision quality in small groups, Small Group Research, 26, 521–541.
  • Shea, G. P. and Guzzo, R. A., 1987. Groups as human resources, in Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 5, pp. 323-356, Eds. Rowland, K. M. and Ferris, G. R., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
  • Simons, T. L. and Peterson, R. S., 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111.
  • Taggar, S., 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.
  • Thoms, P., Moore, K. S. and Scott, K. S., 1996. The relationship between self-efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the Big Five personality dimensions, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 349-362.
  • Van Vianen, A. E. M. and De Dreu, C. K.W., 2001. Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 97-120.
  • Water, T. V., Water, H. V. and Buckman, C., 2007. A balanced team generating model, European Journal of Operational Research, 180, 885–906.
  • West, M.A., Borrill, C.S. and Unsworth, K.L., 1998. Team effectiveness in organizations, in International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 1–48, Eds. Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T., Wiley, Chichester, UK.
  • Zaccaro, S.J., 1991. Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality, Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387– 399.

TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ

Yıl 2009, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 16, 1 - 25, 01.06.2009

Dr. Orkun KOZANOGLU Prof. Dr. Ahmet Fah Özok Orkun Kozanoglu Ahmet Fahri Özok

Öz

İş takımlarının etkinliğini belirleyen en önemli faktör takım bağlılığıdır. Takım çalışmaları ile ilgili literatürde genel olarak iki tür takım bağlılığından bahsedilmektedir. Bunlar, görev bağlılığı ve sosyal bağlılıktır. Her iki bağlılık türünü etkileyen en temel faktör ise takım üyelerinin kişilikleridir. Bu çalışmanın amacı takım bağlılığının ve dolayısıyla takım etkinliğinin iyileştirilmesini sağlayan takım kompozisyonu oluşturacak takım üyelerinin seçilmesine ilişkin bir hedef programlama modeli ortaya koymaktır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Takım kompozisyonu hedef programlama

Kaynakça

  • Acuña, T. S., Gómez, M. and Juristo, N., 2009. How do personality, team processes and task characteristics relate to job satisfaction and software quality?, Information and Software Technology, 51, 627-639.
  • Alderfer, C. P., 1977. Group and intergroup relations, in Improving the quality of work life, pp. 227–296, Eds. Hackman, J. R. and Suttle, J. L., Goodyear, Palisades, CA.
  • Amason, A. C., 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.
  • Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K., 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
  • Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, J. M. and Mount, M. K., 1998. Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.
  • Barry, B. and Stewart, G. L., 1997. Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62-78.
  • Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J., 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance, in Personnel Selection in Organizations, pp. 71–98, Eds. Schmitt, N. and Borman W.C., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • Brawley, L.R., Carron, A.V. and Widmeyer, W.N., 1987. Assessing the cohesion of teams: Validity of the group environment questionnaire, Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 275–294.
  • Breaugh J.A., 1985. The measurement of work autonomy, Human Relations, 38, 551–570.
  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. and Higgs, A. C., 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups, Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.
  • Cattell, R.B. and Stice, G.F., 1954. Four formulae for selecting leaders on the basis of personality, Human Relations, 7, 493–507.
  • Chi, Y-L. and Chen, C-Y., 2009, Project teaming: Knowledge-intensive design for composing team members, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36(5), 9479-9487.
  • Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. R., 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor (NEO-FFI) Inventory professional manual, Odessa, FL: PAR.
  • Digman, J. M., 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model, Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
  • Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R. and Salas, E., 1987. Personality and group performance, in Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 91-112, Ed. Hendrick, C., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
  • Festinger, L., 1950. Informal social communication, Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.
  • Fitzpatrick, E. L. and Askin, R. G., 2005. Forming effective worker teams with multi- functional skill requirements, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 48(3), 593—608.
  • Gibb, C.A., 1969. Leadership, in Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 4, Eds. Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E., Addison-Wesley, New York.
  • Goldberg, L. R., 1993. The structure of phenotypic personality traits, American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
  • Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C. and Finch, J. F., 1997. Competitiveness mediates the link between personality and group performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1394–1408.
  • Greene, C., 1989. Cohesion and productivity in work groups, Small Group Behavior, 20, 70– 86.
  • Guion, R.M. and Gottier, R.F., 1965. Validity of personality measures in personnel selection, Personnel Psychology, 18, 135–164.
  • Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J. and Whitney, D. J., 1995. A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of levels of analysis and task interdependence, Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.
  • Hackman, J. R., 1987. The design of work teams, in Handbook of organizational behavior, pp. 315–342, Ed. Lorsch, J., Prentice Hall, New York
  • Hackman, J. R. and Vidmar, N., 1970. Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions, Sociometry, 33, 37–54.
  • Haythorn, W., 1953. The influence of individual members on the characteristics of small groups, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 276–284.
  • Helslin, R., 1964. Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics, Psychological Bulletin, 91, 513–539.
  • Hoegl, M., Parboteeah, K.P. and Munson, C.L., 2003. Team-level antecedents of individuals'
  • knowledge networks, Decision Sciences, 34, pp 741-770
  • Hollenbeck, J. R., DeRue, D. S. and Guzzo, R., 2004. Bridging the gap between I/O research and HR practice: Improving team composition, team training, and team task design, Human Resource Management, 43, 353-366.
  • Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A. and Phillips, J., 1995. Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316.
  • Hurtz, G. M. and Donovan, J. J., 2000. Personality and job performance: The big five revisited, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.
  • Janis, I.L., 1972. Groupthink, Houghton Muffin, Boston.
  • Jehn, K. A., 1995. A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
  • Kichuk, S. L., 1999. The effect of general cognitive ability, teamwork KSA’s, and the ‘Big Five’ personality factors on the performance of engineering design teams: Implications for the selection of teams, Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(8A), 3077.
  • Kichuk, S. L. and Wiesner, W. H., 1998. Work teams: Selecting members for optimal performance, Canadian Psychology, 39, 23–32.
  • Klimoski, R. and Jones, R. G., 1995. Staffing for effective decision making: Key issues in matching people and teams, in Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations, Eds. Guzzo R. A. and Salas, E., Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
  • Klimoski, R. and Mohammed, S., 1994. Team mental model: Construct or Metaphor?, Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J. and Bell, B. S., 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations, in Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 333-375, Eds. Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R. and Klimoski, R. J., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. A., 1996. A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles, in Research in personnel and human resource management, Vol. 14, pp. 253– 305, Ed. Ferris, G. R., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R. and Smith, E. M., 1999. Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time, in The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development, pp. 240–292, Eds. Ilgen, D. R. and Pulakos, E. D., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  • LePine, J. A., 2003. Team adaptation and post change performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 27–39.
  • Mazur, A., 1973. Cross-species comparison of status in established small groups, American Sociological Review, 38, 513–529.
  • Martz, W. B., Jr., Vogel, R. R. and Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., 1992. Electronic meeting systems: Results from the field, Decision Support Systems, 8, 141–158.
  • McGrath, J. E., 1964. Social psychology: A brief introduction, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • McCrae, R.R. and Costa Jr., P.T., 1989. The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggen’s circumflex and the five-factor model, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586– 590.
  • Mohammed, S. and Angell, L. C., 2003. Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance?, Small Group Research, 34, 651–677.
  • Mohammed, S., Mathieu, J. E. and Bartlett, L. B., 2002. Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: Considering the influence of team- and task-related composition variables, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 795–814.
  • Molleman, E., Nauta, A. and Jehn, K. A., 2004. Person-job fit applied to teamwork: A multilevel approach, Small Group Research, 35, 515–539.
  • Morgan, B. B., Jr. and Lassiter, D. L., 1992. Team similarity and staffing, in Teams: Their training and performance, 31-56, Eds. Swezey, R.W. and Salas, E., Ablex Norwood, NJ.
  • Mullen, B. and Copper, C., 1994. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration, Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227.
  • Nieva, V. F., Fleishman, E. A. and Reick, A., 1985. Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement, and their relationships, Research Note, 85-12, Washington, DC: U.S. Army, Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
  • Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H. and Christiansen, N. D., 1999. The relationship between work- team personality composition and the job performance of teams, Group & Organization Management, 24, 28-45.
  • Neuman, G. A. and Wright, J., 1999. Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376–389.
  • Paris, C.R., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A., 2000. Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis, Ergonomics, Vol. 43, No.8, pp.1052-75.
  • Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H.F., Rutte, C. G. and Reymen, I. M., 2006. Personality and Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis, European Journal of Personality, 20, 377–396.
  • Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C. and Van Dyne, L., 1993. Complex interdependence in task- performing groups, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72.
  • Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A. and Tannenbaum, S. I., 1992. Toward an understanding of team performance and training, in Teams: Their training and performance, pp. 3–29, Eds. Swezey, R. W. and Salas, E., Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
  • Salgado, J. F., 2003. Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 323–346.
  • Schultz, B., Ketrow, S. M. and Urban, D. M., 1995. Improving decision quality in small groups, Small Group Research, 26, 521–541.
  • Shea, G. P. and Guzzo, R. A., 1987. Groups as human resources, in Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 5, pp. 323-356, Eds. Rowland, K. M. and Ferris, G. R., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
  • Simons, T. L. and Peterson, R. S., 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111.
  • Taggar, S., 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.
  • Thoms, P., Moore, K. S. and Scott, K. S., 1996. The relationship between self-efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the Big Five personality dimensions, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 349-362.
  • Van Vianen, A. E. M. and De Dreu, C. K.W., 2001. Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 97-120.
  • Water, T. V., Water, H. V. and Buckman, C., 2007. A balanced team generating model, European Journal of Operational Research, 180, 885–906.
  • West, M.A., Borrill, C.S. and Unsworth, K.L., 1998. Team effectiveness in organizations, in International review of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 1–48, Eds. Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T., Wiley, Chichester, UK.
  • Zaccaro, S.J., 1991. Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality, Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387– 399.
Toplam 68 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Dr. Orkun KOZANOGLU Prof. Dr. Ahmet Fah Özok Bu kişi benim

Orkun Kozanoglu Bu kişi benim

Ahmet Fahri Özok Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Haziran 2009
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2009 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 16

Kaynak Göster

APA Özok, D. O. K. . P. D. A. F., Kozanoglu, O., & Özok, A. F. (2009). TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 4(16), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyu.82015
AMA Özok DOKPDAF, Kozanoglu O, Özok AF. TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi. Haziran 2009;4(16):1-25. doi:10.19168/jyu.82015
Chicago Özok, Dr. Orkun KOZANOGLU Prof. Dr. Ahmet Fah, Orkun Kozanoglu, ve Ahmet Fahri Özok. “TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ”. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 4, sy. 16 (Haziran 2009): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyu.82015.
EndNote Özok DOKPDAF, Kozanoglu O, Özok AF (01 Haziran 2009) TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 4 16 1–25.
IEEE D. O. K. . P. D. A. F. Özok, O. Kozanoglu, ve A. F. Özok, “TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ”, Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, c. 4, sy. 16, ss. 1–25, 2009, doi: 10.19168/jyu.82015.
ISNAD Özok, Dr. Orkun KOZANOGLU Prof. Dr. Ahmet Fah vd. “TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ”. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi 4/16 (Haziran 2009), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyu.82015.
JAMA Özok DOKPDAF, Kozanoglu O, Özok AF. TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi. 2009;4:1–25.
MLA Özok, Dr. Orkun KOZANOGLU Prof. Dr. Ahmet Fah vd. “TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ”. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, c. 4, sy. 16, 2009, ss. 1-25, doi:10.19168/jyu.82015.
Vancouver Özok DOKPDAF, Kozanoglu O, Özok AF. TAKIM KOMPOZİSYONU OPTİMİZASYONU İÇİN BİR HEDEF PROGRAMLAMA MODELİ. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi. 2009;4(16):1-25.
 Kapak Resmi İndir