Abstract Enhancing national and corporate competitiveness in the trend of globalization has been the commonly sought strategic vision for both the public and private sectors of the 21st century. Management of human resource is one of the many important factors that may result in a successful realization of the strategic vision. Providing a more complex social function, which includes dealing with public affairs and providing public property, public sector plays a whole different role than the economic exchange of market performed by the private sectors (Baldwin,1987; Rainey,1983). The multiple roles taken on by various government institutions necessitate them to be simultaneously concerned with the practices of social fairness, responsibilities, and justice while performing their routine functions of promoting employment rate, economic development, social welfare and security policies etc. This results in a working context different from that of private employees with its characteristic diversified or even mutual-conflicting job goals which give rise to occasional confronting situations. Characterized with its diversified differences of demography, job nature and specialized expertise, government sectors have long been challenged in the area of personnel management by the social capital impact suffered from the conflicts and negative emotions exhibited by their team members. Organization which based its development on the heroic single-handled or self-content way of management will soon find itself struggling to survive in a fast-changing and intensive competitive environment which emphasizes on teamwork and strategic alliance. ¡§Social capital¡¨ is commonly known as a relative new concept proposed in the wake of conventional manpower capital, organizational capital and customer capital. It is regarded as an extremely important new alternative as an intellectual capital to the organization in the net-economics. Simple defined as ¡§the potential power of social connections,¡¨ the basic premise of ¡§social capital¡¨ is founded on the consequential supposition that an individual or a team with better interpersonal relationship network will better its chance to attain organizational goal by mobilizing resources available in the organization. If, when mobilizing its team members, governmental sectors adopt the concept of social capital, they can dissolve obstacles of integrating cross-departmental human resources originated from sectionalism. In short, governmental sector with good and established personal network will succeed more easily in forming its team-based organization. The long-held negative pubic impressions of perfunctory observance of routine job, corruption and dysfunction, arrogance and carelessness presented by the administrative system have recently worsened by a series of major events of public engineering, such as the incident-ridden THSR. This indicates a bureaucracy that seriously lacks of crisis consciousness and maneuverability as well as a deficiency of courage to actively take on responsibility and flexible adoptability. Asides from those practices stipulated specifically in law, there are some vague areas existing in the legal margins. Confronted with this ambiguity, public servants are subjected to the stress of having to make unnecessary personal choices (Zhan Jing-fen, 2001) that keep mounting on in an unceasing sequence. To make things worse, their existing stress is added by the pressure from the tedious work of governmental reengineering program. As such, emotion management aiming at releasing stress and pressure is currently gaining increasing attention from the public. Intending to explain the correlation between the diversification of and conflicts in the team-based organization of government institutions and the social capital, this study will further explore how and what organization network, norms, trust, recognition, and promise that team-based governmental organization can construct in their application of personnel management strategy when faced with goal discrepancy, negative emotions and trans-departmental conflicts. Hopefully, we may provide a useful reference for various public sectors that set their minds on creating an organization based on the culture of mutual trust, cooperation, co-existence and shared-prosperity. Finally, a new culture of job recognition and value-directed attitude of public servant will then transform into the core value of active public service.