Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-04T18:29:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Sebastiao Elyseu Junior 2.pdf: 1309648 bytes, checksum: 780dfab0e8a1fc758aa3bbf94ec05941 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-05-12 / This work deals with the building and validation of a scale of ownership of self-report, based on clinical experience and in an ethological ownership theory, that postulates it as a instinctive tendency of the individual to achieve and/or mantain the dominion of one or more figures of ownership by means of instinctive patterns of ownership behaviour, regulating the provision for self usufruct and/or of the offspring. This first version was composed of 25 items, related to the ownership of the two general types of figures of ownership: people and things. These items allow the subject to indicate the degree of intensity of the answers, in a 4-point Likert scale type (1-weak, 2-medium, 3- strong, 4-excessive). The phase of building included the semantical and theoretical analysis of the items by university students and judges, respectively. The level of agreement among five independent judges in relation to its theoretical pertinence was 90% and Kappa = 0,88, being, thus, high. The sample of the test was constituted of university students (N= 296, 140 male and 156 female) from the areas of humanities, exacts and biologics, aged 18-28. The phase of validation involved the reliability valuation, the construct validity and the criteria validity. The reliability study, made by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (N= 84, 38 male and 46 female), indicated that the secure and anxious ownership patterns and envious pattern, for people figure, and the secure and anxious ownership patterns, for thing figure, presented acceptable temporal stability in the retest (p< 0,01), four months later. The study of construct validity, made by factorial analysis by the method of analysis of principal components and Oblimin rotation, resulted in three interpretable factors (21,88% of variance), that evaluate the following dimensions: F1 - Ownership security People, F2 - Ownership security Things, and F3 - Ownership detachment. The good internal consistency of the scale was revealed by an Alpha of 0,70. As measure of external criteria, for the study of criteria validity, semi-structured clinical interviews were carried out in a smaller sample (N= 30, 15 male and 15 female). A valuation of agreement among three independent judges, the author included, about the categorisation and quantification of the answers of four interviews, of 69,69% and, by the Kappa coefficient, of 0,51, 0,43 and 0,73 for each pair of judges, was considered acceptable, suggesting the reliability of the criteria. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients, between the scale and interviews, indicated good validity (p< 0,01) for the secure (rs = 0,65) and anxious (rs = 0,73) ownership patterns and envious pattern (rs = 0,65), when they refer to the figure of person or animal. When they refer to the figure of things, the coefficients were a little more modest, but significant (p< 0,01) for the secure (rs = 0,51) and jealous (rs = 0,54) ownership patterns. A descriptive analysis of the distribuition of the referred patterns, in the general sample and by sex, has also been carried out. / Trata-se da constru??o e valida??o de uma escala de posse de auto-relato, baseada na experi?ncia cl?nica e numa teoria etol?gica da posse, que a postula como uma tend?ncia instintiva de o indiv?duo obter e/ou manter o dom?nio de uma ou mais figuras de posse, por meio de padr?es instintivos de comportamento de posse, regulando a provis?o para usufruto pessoal e/ou da prole. Essa primeira vers?o ficou composta por 25 itens, referentes ? posse dos dois tipos gerais de figura de posse: pessoas e coisas. Esses itens permitem ao sujeito indicar o grau de intensidade das respostas, numa escala do tipo Likert de quatro pontos (1-fraca, 2-m?dia, 3-forte, 4-demasiada). A fase de constru??o incluiu a an?lise sem?ntica e te?rica dos itens por universit?rios e juizes, respectivamente. O ?ndice de acordo entre cinco juizes independentes sobre a sua pertin?ncia te?rica foi de 90% e Kappa = 0,88, sendo, portanto, alto. A amostra do teste foi constitu?da por universit?rios (N= 296, 140 homens e 156 mulheres) das ?reas de humanas, exatas e biol?gicas, entre 18 e 28 anos de idade. A fase de valida??o envolveu a estimativa de precis?o, a validade de constructo e a validade de crit?rio. O estudo de precis?o, feito pelo coeficiente de correla??o por postos de Spearman, com uma amostra (N= 84, 38 homens e 46 mulheres), indicou que os padr?es de posse segura e ansiosa e padr?o invejoso, para a figura de pessoa, e os padr?es de posse segura e ansiosa, para a figura de coisa, apresentaram estabilidade temporal aceit?vel no reteste (p< 0,01), quatro meses depois. O estudo de validade de constructo, feito por an?lise fatorial pelo m?todo de an?lise de componentes principais e rota??o Oblimin, resultou em tr?s fatores interpret?veis (21,88% de vari?ncia), que avaliam as seguintes dimens?es: F1 - Seguran?a da posse - Pessoas, F2 - Seguran?a de posse - Coisas, e F3 - Desprendimento da posse. A boa consist?ncia interna da escala foi revelada por um Alpha de 0,70. Como medida de crit?rio externo, para o estudo de validade de crit?rio, foram realizadas entrevistas cl?nicas semi-estruturadas numa amostra menor (N= 30, 15 homens e 15 mulheres). A estimativa de acordo entre tr?s juizes independentes, inclu?do o autor, sobre a categoriza??o e quantifica??o das respostas de quatro entrevistas, de 69,69%, e, pelo coeficiente Kappa, de 0,51, 0,43 e 0,73 para cada par de juizes, foi considerada aceit?vel, sugerindo a fidedignidade do crit?rio. Os coeficientes de correla??o por postos de Spearman, entre a escala e as entrevistas, indicaram boa validade (p< 0,01) para os padr?es de posse segura (rs = 0,65) e ansiosa (rs = 0,73) e padr?o invejoso (rs = 0,65), quando se referem ? figura de pessoa ou animal. Quando se referem ? figura de coisas, os coeficientes foram um pouco mais modestos, mas significantes (p< 0,01) para os padr?es de posse segura (rs = 0,51) e ciumenta (rs = 0,54). Uma an?lise descritiva da distribui??o dos referidos padr?es, na amostra geral e por sexo, tamb?m foi feita.

「成功、成熟且領導中的既有企業為何失敗？」從Christensen 1997年發表書中定義創新者的兩難(The Innovator’s Dilemma) :「管理階層為企業成功所做出的理性而智慧的決策，正是促使企業失去領導地位的主因」，說明既有企業高階經理人將資源分配給主流高階市場，忽略新進企業從非主流市場進入的破壞性創新(disruptive innovation)的取代性，導致既有企業的產品逐漸被取代而失去領導地位。後續補充破壞式創新的文獻，認為除了資源依賴與分配外，動態能耐、組織文化是重要的補充研究構面，但仍缺乏相關企業產權議題構面的探討。 本研究以Milgrom(1992)及李仁芳(1993, 1999a,b)的企業產權理論，補充創新者兩難理論中對企業產權解釋的不足，在企業的管理權與所有權的過度分離下，會讓經理人自利的理性決策偏向企業短期收益，而損害長期股東權益，這樣讓破壞式創新對企業產生無法妥協的組織兩難衝突，才是導致企業無法存活在破壞式創新的浪潮中的原因之一。 為驗證本研究的理論推理，藉由軟片產業及電腦顯示器產業作跨產業多個案的實證研究。比較柯達軟片、富士軟片在軟片產業中受到數位顯影技術的取代衝擊，以及我國CRT電腦顯示器廠商誠洲、中強、碧悠、源興、美格、華映、瑞軒及皇旗受到LCD技術的取代衝擊，在相同破壞式創新下區分成功轉型及失敗消失的兩組對照，比較策略因應與對應產權結構的差異。 研究發現企業所有權與管理權集中者容易為破壞式創新的適應者；相對的所有權與管理權分離者，容易成為破壞式創新的淘汰者。企業的產權結構差異影響了決策過程，造成不同策略選擇，是影響企業面對破壞式創新轉型成功的關鍵因素之一。在實務上，意涵企業平時的產權結構就應未來的技術發展做因應規劃，而在面對破壞式創新威脅時刻，更應積極透過股權結構再造的方式讓所有權與管裡權有某種程度的重疊，這是因應破壞式創新浪潮轉型的重要力量來源。 / Why successful, mature and leading incumbent companies fail? From the definition of “The Innovator’s Dilemma” in Christensen’s book (1997), what management makes rational and intelligent decision is the cause firms lose their leading position, which may explain that management level of established firms allocate resource on high margin market by following main customers and ignore low margin from “disruptive innovation” market by new entrant firms. In addition to resource dependence and allocation, the extant literature pertaining to disruptive innovation has been categorized into organizational structure, organizational culture and dynamic capability. However, the impact of enterprise ownership structure on disruptive innovation rarely has been studied. This study tried to complement innovation dilemma theory with ownership theory. The over separation of ownership and management of corporation would contribute to self-interest management decision tending to short-term revenue rather than long term development of firms, which cause unbalanced organizational dilemma under disruptive innovation condition. It would be one of main reason that leading firms fail to transform in the wave of disruptive innovation. In order to test the organizational dilemma theory, this study comprised multiple cases research method of 2 multinational film companies and 8 computer monitor manufacturers in Taiwan. Comparing two film makers, Kodak with Fujifilm, under digital camera technology replacement and 8 Taiwan CRT computer monitor manufacturers under LCD technology replacement their coping strategy and corresponding ownership structure. One of major findings of this study is that integration of ownership and management would easily adapt to disruptive innovation wave. On the contrary, the separation of ownership and management would be eliminated from disruptive innovation wave. The ownership structure of enterprise influences decision making process and choice of coping strategy, which play major role in transforming firms successfully into disruptive innovation. In practice, the implication of this research is that ownership structure of firms is corresponding to future technology development. While facing the disruptive innovation emerging, the necessary of integration between ownership and management is critical by financial restructure, which would be main power to transform firms into new disruptive innovation.