我國警察的任務，依警察法第二條規定為「依法維持公共秩序，保護社會安全，防止一切危害，促進人民福利。」致警察工作包羅萬象，使得警察人員成為政府推動許多行政事務的重要執行者，扮演政府與民眾之間的橋樑角色，是民眾接觸最頻繁的公務員；又因警察任務具有執法及管制的特性，影響民眾權益甚大，所以平時爭議頗多，其中尤以負責將警察任務轉化為實際行動的警察勤務基本單位的警勤區警員，更是警察組織對外的代表，其經常決定了警察政策的實際效果，所做所為不僅是民眾對警察組織評價的重要依據，更可能轉移至對政府的印象，故選擇其為本文的研究對象。 Lipsky(1980)的「第一線人員執行理論」(Theory of the work of street-level bureaucracies)，從第一線執行人員的工作本質，其身處的工作情境談到第一線執行人員的行為類型，本文即是以Lipsky之第一線執行理論為基礎架構，防禦行為（defensive behaviors）部分並參考Sorg(1983)的「基層官僚執行行為類型」及Ashforth和Lee(1990)的「防禦行為之初探模式」等研究，以實證調查方式，研究我國警勤區警員的防禦行為，目的在瞭解我國警勤區警員的工作環境及其適應環境的心態與方法；我國警勤區警員防禦行為的現況；他們為何會有這些行為表現？及不同防禦行為之重要決定因素。 為求能了解警勤區警員防禦行為之實際情形，恐態度認知和行為表現間存有差距，本研究嘗試結合質與量的研究方法，除對警勤區警員編製問卷施測外，亦由警察大學二年級至派出所實習的學生擔任觀察者，樣本之選取，係以立意抽樣法(purposive sampling)，配合觀察者之實習，選擇警察大學正科六十一期學生83年度實習派出(分駐)所內之所有警勤區員警為施測對象。研究編製「我國警勤區員警執勤模式問卷量表」，由員警填答，另設計「學生實習觀察問卷表」，由學生實習畢填寫，問卷調查資料，則進行次數(Frequency)、量表的效信度(Reliability & Validity)及因素分析(Factor Analysis)、描述性統計(Descriptive statistics)、卡方考驗(X2)、相關係數(Correlation Coefficient)、T考驗(T Test)、變異數分析(ANOVA)、迴歸分析(Regression Analysis)、逐步迴歸(Stepwise regression)、路徑分析(Path Analysis)、集群分析(Cluster Analysis)、區別分析(Discriminant analysis)等統計法分析。 研究發現摘錄如下： 一、我國警勤區警員防禦行為之現況：我國警勤區員警普遍存在「推諉責任」、「輕忽民眾」、「抑制變遷」等防禦行為，現況經分析員警和學生二組之調查結果，在「推諉責任」、「輕忽民眾」項，員警自認不會推諉責任及輕忽民眾需求（平均數低於中位數），但學生組的觀察，員警們有推諉責任及輕忽民眾需求的防禦行為（平均數則高於中位數），且二組間的差異經T檢定，達顯著水準；至於在「抑制變遷」因素項，二組的平均數皆高於中位數，員警的平均數高於學生組的平均數，表示警勤區警員對新政策、新措施在態度上是抗拒的，但學生們旁觀者的觀察，警勤區警員在行為表現上卻未如是強烈，研究者認為是「警察管理階層與執行階層鴻溝」與「警察服從天性」二者矛盾交織而成的現象：任何新的措施與作法皆會增加員警有形(工作量) 無形(心理層面)的負擔，員警在心態上是抗拒排斥改變的，但為因應組織監督考核的現況，故在行為上則是配合的。 經集群分析：「消極應付」組有618人為最高，「高度防禦」組607人，「積極認事」組則有448人，顯示有33.5%的勤區員警是以消極、應付的心態及行為模式在執行日常的勤務，有33%的警勤區警員會表現出積極的防禦行為，故有66.3%的警勤區員警有防禦行為。 二、警勤區員警處於民眾矛盾對待嚴重、各種內外環境交錯複雜之混沌環境中，同時法令不完備、工作單調矛盾具危險性常須處理突發狀況，資源不足、同儕間汲汲追求績效，對上無從表達意見、重服從的工作情境；整體而言，則認為警察工作目標、工作範圍尚稱明確。 三、本研究從警動機調查，有33.9%的員警是「想為社會治安貢獻一己心力」為最多，而有22.9%的員警是為「喜歡警察工作」，得知我國警勤區警察之從警動機仍多有利他的理想。大致而言，從警動機主動明確，愈具理想性則其愈能明瞭工作範圍與職掌，亦認為警察之理想目標是可實現的，在行為的表現上亦較不會有推諉責任的防禦行為。 四、年紀愈輕、從警年資愈低，愈認為警察工作目標過高遠、職掌不明確，執勤所需之資源不足感愈強，而工作壓力愈大，表現推諉責任之防禦行為情形愈嚴重。 五、未婚者之推諉責任、抑制變遷、輕忽民眾等防禦行為較已婚者嚴重；有宗教信仰的同仁較不會逃避工作、推卸責任(「推諉責任」平均數較低)，對於民眾的權益及需求會積極熱心處理(「積極應事」平均數較高)。 六、勤區員警之工作考量優先順序是，50.1%的員警(925人)是個人導向（保護自己優先），38.7%的員警則為程序導向（程序合於法規優先），而有10.9%的員警是屬任務導向（達成任務優先）。個人導向者在防禦行為中的「推諉責任」、「重質輕量」、「抑制變遷」、「輕忽民眾」等4項，平均數最高和其他五組中之一至二組組間差異達顯著水準，由此可知，個人導向工作考量之警勤區警員，較易有防禦行為。 七、路徑分析結果，驗證「工作壓力」、「工作自主」及「管理自主」居於中介變項之位置，「裁量權」（含「裁量權限」及「裁量功能」）非居於中介變項位置，研究架構需作修正。 八、依多變量的區別分析法分析，彙整成2線性區別函數，函數一，可將62.64%母群體加以分類，而其餘37.36%，則可由函數二加以分類，整體正確區別率為56.56%，超過50%，而56.56%之整體區別率達顯著水準。 九、迴歸、路徑分析及區別分析皆顯示「工作壓力」、「工作目標模糊衝突」、「管理自主」、「工作自主」、「政策目標接受度」5因素為預測防禦行為之重要變數，雖先後順序有所不同。 從本研究結果顯示，目前基層普遍存在消極、無力的任事態度，此種情形與違法犯紀的重大違規事件比起來，或許微不足道，但若大部份的政策執行者都採此態度應事，那麼即使有再立意甚佳、見解精闢、規劃完善的政策計畫亦屬空中樓閣，而無法落實執行，故於實務上對於警勤區警員的工作提出以下建議： 一、業務簡化降低壓力 二、尊重基層參與決策 三、定位預防犯罪專業 四、有效溝通價值傳承 五、回應民意民眾回饋 有關後續研究則提出：精進發展預測模式，對工作2年之警勤區員警施測後分群，針對問題給予正確引導；對於員警裁量之判斷與選擇過程等做行政學上之研究探討，與「裁量權限」、「裁量功能」二因素對防禦行為之影響地位進行瞭解；警勤區警員在面臨「服務更多民眾」與「維持高品質服務」時的實際選擇；及持續定期關注瞭解我國警勤區警員防禦行為的現況，等建議。 / According to the Article 2 of the Police Act: The police are obligated to maintain public order, protect social security, prevent all hazards, and promote public welfare according to applicable laws. The work of police is all-encompassing, and the police officers are the frontline workers or policy implementers in government agencies. They are more frequently and directly interacting with citizens, they play the role of bridge between the government and the public. Because the police officers are the law enforcement and regulatory role, they affect the rights and interests of the public very seriously, so there are usually a lot of controversy, especially the police beats that are the basic unit of police duties, a key contention of the police officers in the police beats is that the decisions and actions of them, actually ‘become’, or represent, the policies of the government agencies they work for. They are very important so chosen to be the objects of this study. "Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy" of Lipsky (1980), which is grounded in observations of the collective behavior of public service organizations and advances a theory of the work of street level bureaucracies as individual workers experience it. The behavior of street-level bureaucrats is shaped by the nature of their work and conditions in which they operate. In response to the challenges they face, street-level bureaucrats often develop routines and simplifications in an attempt to reduce complexity, gain greater control over their work and manage stress. This research was based on Lipsky's theory of street-level bureaucracy, and the “A Typology of Implementation Behaviors of Street Level Bureaucrats.” of Sorg (1983), and the “Defensive Behavior in Organizations: A Preliminary Model." of Ashforth and Lee (1990). The purpose of this study is to understand what’s the working environment and dilemmas of the police officers in the police beats? How they adapted the dilemmas? What’s the situation of the defensive behaviors of the police officers in the police beats? Why did they have these behaviors? And what are the important determinants of the defensive behaviors? This study attempts to combine the quantitative and qualitative research methods. There is a questionnaire for the police officers in the police beats, also an observant questionnaire for the sophomores of the Central Police University, while the sophomores worked as police cadets they also were observers. The questionnaire survey data was analyzed by Frequency, Reliability and Validity Analysis, Factor Analysis, Descriptive Statistics, X2, Correlation Coefficient, T Test, Variance Analysis (ANOVA), Regression Analysis, Stepwise regression, Path Analysis, Cluster Analysis, Discriminant Analysis and so on. This study’s finding are as follows: 1. There are some kinds of defensive behaviors of the police officers in the police beats such as "shirk responsibility", "neglect the people", "resist change". According to the cluster analysis, there are 618 samples (33.5%) in the "negative coping" group, 607(33%) in the "highly defensive" group and 448 in the "Positive Attendance" group, showing that 66.3% of police officers have defensive behaviors. 2. The internal and external environment of the police officers in the police beats is complex and chaotic. There are a series of dilemmas of the police officers in the police beats. 3. There are 56.8% of the police officers in the police beats serve as public employment with a commitment to serving the community. The police officers in the police beats working with more idealization are more less "shirk responsibility" behavior. 4. The younger police officers who were working less than 2 years from the police service, they think that the goal of police is too ambitious, lacking of resources, felling more working pressure, and have more serious "shirk responsibility" behavior. 5. The unmarried police officers in the police beats have more "shirk responsibility", "neglect the people" and "resist change" behaviors than the married. The police officers with religion have less "shirk responsibility" behavior. 6. The priority of the police officers in the police beats were follow: there are 50.1% of the police officers (925) are personal oriented (to protect themselves), 38.7% of the police officers are procedural oriented (the legal procedure) and 10.9% of the staff are task-oriented (to achieve the task). The personal oriented police officers have more serious defensive behaviors. 7. According to the path analysis, that the "working pressure", "work autonomy" and "manage autonomy" are the intermediary variables of the defensive behaviors. The "Discretion" is not, so the structure of research needs to be revised. 8. According to the discriminant analysis, there are 2 function, the 62.64% of the population could classify correctly by function 1, and the remaining 37.36% of the population could classify correctly by function 2. The distinction rate was 56.56 %, more than 50%, and reached a significant level. 9. According to the regression, path and discriminant analyses, that the "working pressure", "the working objectives are fuzzy and conflict", "manage autonomy", "working autonomy" and "acceptance of policy goal" 5 factors are important variables of defensive behaviors. Based on the findings above-mentioned, here are the recommendations of this study: 1. Simplify the working contents of the police officers in the police beats, and to reduce the working pressure. 2. Establish the mechanisms that the police officers in the police beats participate in decision-making. 3. Clarify the police officers in the police beats be the professional crime prevention roles. 4. Enhance internal communicant channels to preserve the heritage. 5. Respond to public opinion and build up the feedback of citizens to be the encouragement of the police officers in the police beats.