權變概念代表著多變的環境下，企業為求生存所必須採行的策略，文獻將此觀念應用在員工績效評估的研究並不多。基於權變觀點，本研究除對績效評估文獻中具有權變觀點之研究作回顧，並從競爭優勢、績效效標、績效模糊性與評估方法等觀念之探討與歸納，再透過個案探討之研究發現，推導出一績效評估設計之權變架構。本權變架構建議，在不同的競爭優勢下，績效評估制度之設計應由上而下，從組織策略推導至人力資源策略，再落實至員工績效評估制度及績效評估方法。
組織在競爭優勢分別為弱勢、強勢與穩定狀態下，其組織策略應分別採行優勢建立、優勢累積與優勢維持策略。為配適不同之組織策略，其人力資源策略應分別採行探索、利用與獲利策略。而不同的人力資源策略在搭配不同的績效評估目的下，應適用不同的績效評估制度；亦即，績效效標應分別偏重個人才能、工作行為與工作成果，以達到為組織價值創造與價值延續的目的。
績效評估的方法最後將取決於績效評估的目的與績效模糊性高低二者所構成的組合。亦即，績效評估的目的若為價值創造，則應較重視員工才能；績效評估的目的若為價值延續，則應較重視員工的工作行為與工作成果。而當績效模糊性較低時,宜採用明確化績效評估方法；反之，當績效資料糢糊性較高時,宜採用數量化績效評估方法。 / Contingency view represents the indispensable strategy for businesses to survive in the changeable environment. However, not much such view is found in the literature of employee performance appraisal. This study not only reviews the literature of performance appraisal with contingency view but also developed a contingency framework of employee performance appraisal by summarizing related analysis, including competitive advantage, performance criteria, performance ambiguity and appraisal methods, as well as a case study. The framework suggests that the performance appraisal system should be designed in a top-down sequence from organizational strategy to human resource strategy, performance appraisal system and appraisal methods based on the strength of competitive advantage.
As the competitive advantage is weak, strong and stable, the organization should adopt the strategy of advantage building, advantage accumulation and advantage maintenance strategy respectively. The human resource strategy then should be exploration, exploitation and profit strategy. Under different human resource strategies, the performance appraisal system should vary to fit different purposes. That is, the performance criteria should focus on individual competence, working behavior and outcome to achieve the purposes of value creation and value continuation. The appraisal methods will finally depend on the combination between the purposes of performance appraisal and the degree of performance ambiguity. While competence should be focused when appraisal purpose is value creation, working behavior and outcome are focused when appraisal purpose is value continuation. The qualification-oriented method is appropriate as the degree of performance ambiguity is low. On the contrary, quantification-oriented method is appropriate as the degree of performance ambiguity is high. / 表目錄 三
圖目錄 四
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 3
1.3 研究方法與流程 6
1.4 研究範圍 7
1.5 論文架構 10
第二章 文獻探討 12
2.1 權變觀點在員工績效評估的研究 12
2.2 競爭優勢與策略配合 16
2.2.1 競爭優勢 16
2.2.2 策略配合 17
2.3 員工績效評估制度 21
2.3.1 績效效標 22
2.3.2 績效評估之目的 23
2.3.3 績效資料的特性 25
2.4 員工績效評估方法 27
第三章 個案探討 29
3.1 個案公司及產業概述 29
3.2 實地訪談說明 31
3.3 績效評估制度 31
3.4 績效評估實施概況 33
3.5 個案公司分析 37
3.5.1 A公司之組織策略與人力資源策略 37
3.5.2 A公司之績效評估制度與績效評估方法 39
第四章 員工績效評估設計之權變架構 42
4.1 組織策略配適之人力資源策略 42
4.2 人力資源策略配適之績效評估制度 45
4.3 績效評估制度配適之績效評估方法 47
4.4 績效評估設計之權變架構 52
第五章 結論與意涵 55
5.1 結論 55
5.1.1 理論基礎 55
5.1.2 個案討論 56
5.1.3 權變架構 57
5.2 管理意涵 58
5.3 研究限制 60
5.4 後續相關研究 61
5.4.1人力資源管理領域之其它主題 61
5.4.2績效評估策略之其它相關議題 62
參考文獻 64
中文部分 64
英文部分 65
附錄 72
附錄一：深度訪談大綱 72
附錄二：A公司績效考核表 75
發表論文期刊收錄證明 …77
表目錄
表2.1 權變觀點在績效評估的研究情形……………………………15
表2.2 不同績效效標的資料特性…………………………………………26
表3.1 A公司之組織策略、人力資源策略與績效評估制度…………...41
表4.1 不同競爭優勢下之人力資源策略…………..………………….…45
表4.2 績效評估設計之權變架構…………………………………………54
圖目錄
圖1.1 研究流程圖 8
圖1.2 論文架構 10
圖2.1 組織策略、人力資源策略與員工績效評估制度的關係……………….19
圖2.2 績效評估的制定過程……………………………………………………19
圖3.1 A公司績效評估的流程…………….…………………………………….34
圖4.1 績效評估制度配適之績效評估方法……………………………………49
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TW/093TKU05457038 |
| Date | January 1993 |
| Creators | 郭東昇, Tung-Sheng Kuo |
| Contributors | 陳海鳴, Hai-Ming Chen |
| Publisher | 淡江大學, 管理科學研究所博士班 |
| Source Sets | National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | 博士 |
| Format | 82 |
| Relation | 中文部分 [1] 丁志達(民92)，績效管理。台北：揚智文化。 [2] 方至民(民92)，企業競爭優勢。台北：前程企管。 [3] 丘宏昌(民86)，員工績效評估理論及其實務作法之探討，企銀季刊，21(2)，110-115。 [4] 呂以榮譯，Oppenheim, A. N. 原著，(民91)，問卷設計、訪談及態度量測。台北：六和。 [5] 林春梅(民91)，筆記型電腦業，產業調查與技術，142，85-95。 [6] 李長貴(民88)，人力資源管理：組織的生產力與競爭力。台北：華泰文化。 [7] 李漢雄(民89)，人力資源策略管理。台北：揚智文化。 [8] 許士軍(民89)導讀，走向創新的組織績效評估，績效評估，杜拉克等著(高翠霜譯)。台北：天下文化。 [9] 陳向明(民91)，社會科學質的研究。台北：五南圖書。 [10] 陳海鳴(民92)，管理概論：理論與台灣實證。台北：華泰文化。 [11] 張火燦(民83)，績效評估的模式與相關理論，人事管理，9，4-7。 [12] 張火燦(民87)，策略性人力資源管理。台北：揚智文化。 [13] 張紹勳(民90)，研究方法。台中：滄海書局。 [14] 張緯良(民88)，人力資源管理。台北：華泰文化。 [15] 蕭元忠(民93)，筆記型電腦產業，產業調查與技術，148，88-104。 [16] 酈怡德(民92)，筆記型電腦產業發展近況，台灣工業銀行。 英文部分 [1] Austin, J. T., Humphreys, L. G. & Hulin, C. L. (1989). Another view of dynamic criteria: A critical reanalysis of Barrett, Caldwell and Alexander. Personnel Psychology, 42, 583-596. [2] Bailey, C. T. (1983). The Measurement of Job Performance. Vermont, USA: Gower Publishing. [3] Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. [4] Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49-61. [5] Barney, J. B. & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 31-46. [6] Bergen, C. W. V. & Barlow, S. (1996). Focusing on results: not always the best strategy. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 61(4), 4-7. [7] Bernardin, H. J., Hagan, C. M., Kane, J. S. & Villanova, P. (1998). “Effective performance management: a focus on precision, customers, and situational constraints”. In Smither, J. W. (Eds.), Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., Chap. 1. [8] Bird, A. & Beechler, S. (1995). Links between business strategy and human resource strategy in U.S.-based Japanese subsidies: an empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(1), 23-46. [9] Black, J. S. & Porter, L. W. (2000). Management: Meeting new challenges. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. [10] Blum, M. L. & Naylor, J. C. (1968). Industrial Psychology: Its Theoretical and Social Foundations. New York: Harper & Row. [11] Bohlander, G. & Snell, C. (2004). Managing Human Resources. Ohio: South-Western. [12] Boxall, P. (1998). Achieving competitive advantage through human resource strategy: Toward a theory of industry dynamics. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 265-288. [13] Bradley, F. and O’Reágáin, S. (2001). Deriving international competitive advantage in SMEs through product-market and business system resource allocation. Irish Journal of Management, 22, 19-44. [14] Brignall, T. J., Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R. & Silvestro, R. (1991). Performance measurement in service business. Financial Management, 69(10), 34-36. [15] Cardy, R. L. & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance Appraisal: Alternative perspectives. Ohio: South-Western. [16] Chakraborty, K. (1997). Sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based framework. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 5(1), 32-63. [17] Crane, J. S & Crane, N. K. (2000). A multi-level performance appraisal tool: transition from the traditional to a CQI approach. Health Care Management Review, 25(2), 64-73. [18] Deadrick, D. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1990). Dynamic criteria revised: A longitudinal study of performance stability and predictive validity. Personnel Psychology, 43, 717-744. [19] Delery, J.E. & Doty, D.H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configural performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802–835. [20] Dobbins, C. (1994). Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives. Ohio: South-Western. [21] Drazin, R. & Kazajiab, K. K. (1990). Research notes and communications: A reanalysis of Miller and Friesen’s life cycle data. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 319-325. [22] Fleishman, E. A & Hempel, E. (1954). Changes in factor structure of a complex psychomotor test as a function of practice. Psychometrika, 19(3), 239-251. [23] Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 73-487. [24] Ghiselli, E. E. (1956). Dimensional problems of criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40(1), 1-4. [25] Govindarajan, V. (1984). Appropriateness of accounting data in performance evaluation: An empirical examination of environmental uncertainty as an intervening variable. Accounting, Organizations and Societ, 9(2), 125-135. [26] Grote, D. (1996). The Complete Guide to Performance Appraisal. New York: AMACOM Books. [27] Gupta, A. K. & Singhal, A. (1993). Managing human resources for innovation and creativity. Research Technology Management, 36(3), 41-48. [28] Harper, S. C. (1983). A developmental approach to performance appraisal, Business Horizons, Sep, 68-74. [29] Hill, C. W. L. & Jones, G. R. (1995). Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach (3rd ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. [30] Hill, C. & Jones, G. R. (2004). Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach (6th ed), Boston: Houghton Mifflin. [31] Hoffmann, T. (1999). The meanings of competency. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(6), 275-285. [32] Hofrichter, D. A. & Spencer, L. M. Jr. (1996). Competencies: the right foundation for effective human resources management. Compensation and Benefits Review, 28(6), 21-24. [33] Jackson, S. E. & Schuler, R. S. (2000). Managing Human Resources: A Partnership Perspective. Cincinnati. Ohio: South-Western. [34] James, L. (1973). Criterion models and construct validity for criteria. Psychological Bulletine, 80(1), 75-83. [35] Juncai, T. (2002). Do performance appraisals work? Quality Progress, November, 45-49. [36] Keeley, M. (1978). A contingency framework for performance evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 428. [37] Kleiman, L. S. (1997). Human Resource Management: A Tool for Competitive Advantage. Ohio: South-Western. [38] Kowtha, N. Rao. (1997). Skills, incentives, and control: An integration of agency and transaction cost approaches. Group & Organization Management, 22(1), 53-86. [39] Kueng, P. (2000). Process performance measurement system: a tool to support process-based organizations. Total Quality Management, 11(1), 67-85. [40] Lan, C. H. (2004). Optimal assigning machines and operators with finite resource capacity. Transactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering, 27(3). 175-183. [41] Lan, C. H., & Lan, K. T., Chen, H. M & Kuo, T. S. (2004). Optimizing a manufacturing project by maximizing return on sales. Transactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering, 28(1), 59-71. [42] Latham, G. P. & Wexley, K. N. (1994). Increasing Productivity through Performance Appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. [43] Lee, C. (1985). Increasing performance appraisal effectiveness: Matching task types, appraisal process, and rater training. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 322-331. [44] Lysaght, R. M. & Altschuld, J. W. (2000). Beyond initial certification: the assessment and maintenance of competency in professions. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 95-104. [45] Miller, D. & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate cycle. Management Science, 30(1), 1161-1183. [46] Milliman, M. A., Von Glinow & Nathan, N. (1991). Organizational life cycles and strategic international human resource management in multinational companies: Implications for congruence theory. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 318-339. [47] Molleman, E. & Timmerman, H. (2003).Performance management when innovation and learning become critical performance indicators. Personnel Review, 32(1), 93-113. [48] Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social, Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication. [49] Murphy, K. R., Martin, C. & Garcia, M. (1982). Do behavioral observation scales measure observation? Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 562-567. [50] Narasimha, S. (2000). Organizational knowledge, human resource management, and sustained competitive advantage: toward a framework. Competitiveness Review, 10(1), 123-35. [51] Oliver, J. E., Nussbaumer, C., & Grimmett, D. R. (1985). Adapting performance appraisal systems to changed technologies. Human Systems Management, 5(4), 323-331. [52] Orpen, C. (1997). Performance appraisal techniques, task types and effectiveness: A contingency approach. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6(2), 139-146. [53] Ouchi, W. G. (1980). A framework for understanding organizational failure. In J. R. Kimberly & R. Miles(Eds.), Organizational Life Cycle (395-429). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [54] Plachy, R. J. & Plachy, S. J. (1993). Focus on results, not behavior. Personnel Journal, 72(3), 28-33. [55] Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: Free Press. [56] Quinn, J.B. and Hilmer, F.G. (1994). Strategic outsourcing. Sloan Management Review, 35, 43-55. [57] Reed, R. & DeFillippi, R. J. (1990). Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88-102. [58] Reif, W. & Bassford, G. (1973). What MBO really is: results require a complete program. Business Horizons, 16(3), 23-30. [59] Rindova, V. P. &. Fombrun, C. J. (1999). Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 691-710. [60] Sanzotta, D. (1982). Assessing your appraisal style. Supervisory Management, 27(12), 2-7. [61] Schmidt, F. L. & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite vs. multiple criteria: A review and resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24, 419-434. [62] Schuler, R. S. (1987). Personnel and human resource management choices and organizational strategy. Human Resource Planning, 10(1), 1-17. [63] Schuler, R. S. & Jackson, S. E. J. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. The Academy of Management Executive, 1(3), 207-219. [64] Smith, E. C. (1982). Strategic Business Planning and human resources: part 1. Personnel Journal, 61, 606-610. [65] Spencer, L. M. & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at Work. New York: Wiley & Sons. [66] Tatikonda, L. U. & Tatikonda, R. J. (1998). We need dynamic performance measures. Strategic Finance, 80(3), 49-52. [67] Taylor, D.T. and Thompson, R. G. (1995). The efficient utility: Labor, capital, and profit. Public Utilities Fortnightly, 133, 25-28. [68] Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. and Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 703-42. [69] Trochim, W. M. K (2001). The research methods knowledge base. New York: Cornell University Press. [70] Verweire, K. & Berghe, L. V. (2003). Integrated performance management: Adding a new dimension. Management Decisions, 41(8), 782-790. [71] Vroman, H. W. (1975). Differentiating MBO appraisal systems: A contingency view. Journal of Business Research, 3(1), 53-60. [72] Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555. [73] Willis, A. K. (2001). Aligning performance measurements with organizational strategies. Hospital Material Management Quarterly, 22(3), 54-63. [74] Wilson, J. P. & Western, S. (2000). Performance appraisal: an obstacle to training and development? Career Development International, 6(2), 93-99. |
Page generated in 0.0047 seconds