英语翻译Strategic consensusThe literature suggests two ways to o

英语翻译
Strategic consensus
The literature suggests two ways to operationalize
the construct of strategic consensus.The first
approach asks respondents to rate the importance
of specific measures of operative goals and the
means to achieve those goals,and uses dispersion
scores on these ratings as the measure of strategic
consensus (e.g.,Knight et al.,1999).While
this approach has the advantage of generating a
more ‘objective’ measure of strategic consensus,
the drawback is the large number of survey items
required (typically about 40).However,Miller
et al.(1998) suggest a perceptual key informant
methodology,which trades off the benefit of far
fewer survey items against the potential cost of
perceptual bias.
In this study,we follow Miller et al.’s (1998)
approach by measuring strategic consensus using
a three-item scale,and simultaneously minimize
the risk of potential perceptual bias by obtaining
responses from all team members.The scale
items were developed by adapting items previously
used in research and field interviews.We
assessed strategic consensus by asking respondents
to rate the extent of agreement within the team
on the following three items (α = 0.91) using a
five-point Likert scale anchored from ‘strong disagreement’
to ‘strong agreement’:(i) The long
term strategic goals of the company; (ii) the shortterm
business objectives that should be considered
the most important; and (iii) the best ways to
ensure the company’s survival.The three survey
items focused on the domain of venture viability,
because field interviews revealed that management
team members of new ventures were concerned
with issues of short-term and longer-term viability
while discussing strategic choices,and likely had
strongly held preferences and beliefs on the topic.
We averaged each team member’s response to the
three items to obtain a composite score for strategic
consensus.We then averaged this score within the
entrepreneurial team to compute strategic consensus
within the team.The average James,Demaree,
and Wolf’s (1984) interrater reliability coefficient
Rwg(3) statistic for this scale was 0.9,indicating
a high level of interrater agreement.The coefficient
of strategic consensus × network constraint
should be negative and significant if Hypothesis 2
is supported.
呵呵~让我看看哪种机器翻的更有参考价值吧~各位可以顺便说下自己用的什么软件翻译的吗？

战略共识
文献表明operationalize两种方式
构建战略共识.第一次
要求受访者的方法的重要性
具体的措施及操作目标
帮助实现这些目标,并采用分散
这些等级评分为衡量战略
一致(例如,骑士,1999).虽然
这个方法的优势是产生了
更多的客观的测量的战略共识,
缺点是大量的调查项目
(通常需要大约40).然而,米勒
高琼.(1998)建议一个感性的关键的线人
方法论的交易掉
较少的调查项目攻击的潜在成本
感性的偏见.
在本研究中,我们跟着米勒等的(1998).
方法通过测量战略共识
一个three-item规模,同时减少
潜在的风险获得感性偏见
从团队所有成员.这个规模
通过调整项目开发项目是以前
用于研究和现场采访.我们
通过询问被访者进行战略共识
对利率的范围内的球队.协议
在以下三个项目(α= 0.91)使用
从“同理心规模锚定的强烈的反对'
“强烈的协议的:(1)长
长远的战略目标公司的长期的;(二)
商业目的,应考虑
最重要的;(3)的最佳方法
确保公司的生存.这三个调查
项目集中在这个领域的企业生存,
因为现场采访透露管理
新企业的团队成员
短期和长期与问题的能力
在讨论战略选择,并可能有
强烈的喜好和信仰的话题.
我们平均每个队成员的回应
3项以获得一个总分为战略
达成共识.我们就在这个分数平均
创业团队计算战略共识
在团队中.一般的詹姆斯,Demaree,
与狼》(1984)interrater可靠度系数
Rwg(3)统计,这个比例为0.9%
高水平的interrater协议.系数.
战略共识×网络约束
应该是消极的、显著的如果假设2吗
为支持.