Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0724106-075518 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0724106-075518
論文名稱
Title
複雜調適系統觀點的組織變革---以台灣菸酒公司個案為例
Organizational Change from a Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective: A Case Study of Taiwan Tobacco and Liquor Corporation
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
133
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2006-06-30
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2006-07-24
關鍵字
Keywords
心智模式、紮根理論、創新行為、組織變革、複雜調適系統
mental model and innovative behavior, grounded theory, organizational change, complex adaptive systems
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5771 次,被下載 2951
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5771 times, has been downloaded 2951 times.
中文摘要
面臨今日迅速變化的環境,許多學者都主張管理組織變革的能力,是組織中一個很重要的核心能力。台灣菸酒公司是一個國營事業,也是一個在成熟產業中逐漸老化的企業組織,為了進行民營化的轉型變革,從2003年9月開始啟動一個提升品質的專案計畫,本研究針對這個專案計畫決策、執行、與變革的全部過程,進行兩階段的組織變革研究,目的在於探討如何應用複雜調適系統理論,來提供組織變革一個新的實踐途徑。
在第一階段的變革行動中,個案組織採取一個由上而下照著藍圖執行的變革策略,實施了加強線上員工的自主品管,修訂更廣泛與更嚴格的管制界線,以及推行品質稽核活動。然而,新品管系統試行半年以後,組織內部的品管績效與外部的顧客抱怨率,都沒有產生實質上的進步。經過組織成員的觀察與訪談,本研究發現組織內在詮釋過程上有著形式化的職位權威、防衛心理的行為、缺乏隱性知識投入與制式化的回應等特性。這些認知與行為模式說明了組織中存在著一種僵化的心智模式,使得組織與個人都缺乏學習與創新能力,因而造成了品質績效的停滯不前。
從第一階段變革行動的反思中學習,在第二階段嘗試突破組織中僵化的心智模式,來誘發組織成員的實質參與和行動力。於是選擇進入一個菸廠,參與第一線製程與管理系統的改善。第二階段的變革管理行動,應用複雜調適系統的理論與簡單原則,展開拼湊式的變革管理行動,強調大題小做、即時的資訊交流、依時進展的調控,以及激發動力與保持目標。結果整個組織從開始的一些微小的改善效果,逐漸在組織中模仿與擴散開來。本研究從觀察與訪談中發現這一階段組織中有著願意嘗試、產生新體驗、互動中形成信賴感、釋出隱性知識、以及跨部門的延伸與演化等認知與行為模式,在這種演化心智模式的影響下,組織中持續浮現了一些非預期的創新行為,進而實質地提升了組織的品質績效。
本研究應用複雜調適系統的理論觀點,重新回顧整個變革過程的本質與動力,然後提出本研究的理論性洞察力。本研究認為創新行為是一種浮現的過程,無法直接透過由上而下的管理意圖來完成,只能在促進自發性自組織與演化的心智模式的相互影響中,持續地浮現出來。此外,在實務性管理意涵上,經理人如果要在既有的管理模式中,能夠有效地變革管理與持續地誘發創新行為,應著重在組織成員互動關係的轉變,包括(1)從共享的關係轉變到誘發多元的關係,會有助於新觀念與創意的萌生;(2)從既有的關係轉變到開創即時的關係,有助於創新觀念的延伸與擴散(3)從控制的關係轉變到孕育信賴的關係,則有助於創新的行動力與實現。
Abstract
To deal with rapid and ever-changing environment, many scholars argue that the abilities of organizational change have been one of the essential core competencies for organizations. TTW, which has been a state- owned business for more than 60 years, initiated an upgrade program of product quality in September 2003, to improve its competitiveness whilst undergoing privatization. This paper aims to apply complex adaptive system theories to provide a new practical approach for organizational change. To accomplish this, it shall study various processes; including decision, implementation reflection and transform of the program.
In the first stage of initiated changes, TTW applied a top-down approach to implement the organizational change following an established blueprint. These exercises included three elements, which are (1) enhanced autonomous quality inspection of first-line operator, (2) More control check-items and higher standards, (3) Promotion and implementation of quality audit system. However, after half-year implementation of the new program, both performances of interior process quality and exterior product evaluation of consumer satisfaction have gained no substantial progress. By observations and interviews with the participants, it was found that there existed a commonly shared rigid mental model amongst organizational members. It encompasses deeply embedded positional authority, behavior of defensive psychology, lack of implicit knowledge and pre-formulated responses. It exhibited the learning and innovative abilities of organizational members, subsequently, which caused the stagnation of quality improvement.
The researched organization learned from the reflections derived from the first stage change process, tried to breakthrough the rigid mental model of organizational members, thereafter provoking substantial participation and execution. The targeted field was moved from business office to a factory. At the beginning of second stage change process, the organization applied simple generating rules derived from the complex adaptive system, to initiate a patching change process, which included (1) ice-breaking initiatives, (2) real- time information exchange, (3) time-pace conditioning, and (4) maintaining motivation and orientation. In the second stage change process, there appeared a few minor improving effects which were gradually being imitated and expanded across the whole organization. By the interpretations of the participants, it was found that there existed an evolutionary mental model of organizational members. It unfolded different features, such as: the willingness of experimentation, the generation of new experiences, the shaping of mutual trust by interaction, the delivering of implicit knowledge and expansion and evolution across functional units. By the effects of evolutionary mental model, some unanticipated innovative behaviors were emerging in the organization, which substantively, upgraded the quality performance of the entire organization.
Applying the perspective of complex adaptive system, this paper reviews the nature and the dynamics of the whole changing process and provides some theoretical implications. It is argued that innovative behaviors are the emerging process which can not be fulfilled by top-down managerial intention, but rather can be provoked by evolutionary mental model and autonomous self-organization. In addition, some practical implications were proposed that suggested the managers should focus on the changes of the relations of interaction in organizations. To effectively manage the changing process and continuously induce innovative behaviors, managers should (1) shift the commonly shared mental model to focus more on individual mental model and fostering diverse interaction, to help the emergence of new ideas and innovations, (2) shift the existing relations to focus more on real-time interaction, which can promote the expansion and evolution of innovative ideas, (3) shift the control relations to focus more on mutual trust relations, which can generate shared confidence levels and encourage the execution of innovations under uncertain conditions.
目次 Table of Contents
目錄 頁次
第一章 前言 …………………………………………………… 01
第二章 組織變革的理論回顧 ………………………………… 04
第一節 「均衡」主導的組織變革模式………………………… 04
第二節「均衡」主導的組織變革行動理論……………………. 07
第三節 「非均衡」主導的連續式變革模式………………… 13
第四節 「非均衡」的複雜性科學與組織變革……………… 14
一、複雜性科學的起源……………………………………… 15
二、組織為何是複雜調適系統?…………………………… 17
三、CAS觀點下的組織變革的本質…….…………………. 19
四、CAS觀點下的組織變革的動力………………………… 22
第五節 「均衡」與「非均衡」組織變革理論的比較…………. 25
一、心智模式………………………………………………… 26
二、創新行為………………………………………………… 27
第三章 研究方法……………………………………………… 29
第一節 研究方法的適切性…………………………………… 30
一、質性研究與社會科學研究…………………………… 30
二、本研究應用質性研究的適切性……………………… 32
第二節 紮根理論與質性研究……………………………… 32
一、文獻…………………………………………………… 33
二、資料收集與分析……………………………………….. 34
三、理論……………………………………………………… 36
第三節 研究進入與資料蒐集………………………………. 37
第四節 研究架構 …………………………………………… 38
第五節 內在詮釋模式的譯碼 ……………………………… 40
一、開放性譯碼……………………………………………… 41
二、主軸性譯碼……………………………………………… 44
三、選擇性譯碼……………………………………………… 44
第六節 研究評價與研究限制……………………………... 46
一、研究評價………………………………………………… 46
二、研究限制………………………………………………… 47
第四章 第一階段的變革管理 ………………………………… 49
第一節 第一階段變革行動的組織情境……………………… 49
第二節 按照藍圖的變革管理………………………………… 52
一、第一階段的事前理解與藍圖規劃……………………… 52
二、第一階段執行的變革管理行動………………………… 53
(一)加強線上員工的自主品管……………………… 53
(二)修訂更廣泛與更嚴格的管制界線……………… 54
(三)推行品質管理系統的稽核活動………………… 54
三、第一階段的變革行動結果……………………………… 54
(一)內部文書的大量增加…………………………… 55
(二)外部客戶抱怨率未降低………………………… 56
四、第一階段管理行動的反思……………………………… 57
(一)形式化的職位權威……………………………… 58
(二)防衛心理的行為 ………………………………… 59
(三)缺乏隱性知識投入……………………………… 62
(四)制式化的回應…………………………………… 64
第三節 第一階段反思後的學習……………………………… 66
第五章 第二階段的變革管理 ………………………………… 69
第一節 第二階段變革行動的組織情境……………………… 69
第二節 行動中浮現創新行為的變革管理…………………… 69
一、第二階段的事前理解與簡單規則……………………… 69
二、第二階段拼湊藍圖的變革行動………………………… 71
(一)大題小做………………………………………… 71
(二)即時的資訊交流………………………………… 74
(三)依時進展的調控………………………………… 76
(四)激發動力與保持目標…………………………… 79
三、第二階段變革行動的結果……………………………… 81
(一)量化品質績效的提升…………………………… 81
(二)創新行為的浮現………………………………… 82
1、自動磅料系統…………………………………… 83
2、線上品管資訊系統……………………………… 86
四、第二階段的變革詮釋模式……………………………… 88
(一)願意嘗試 ………………………………………… 88
(二)產生新體驗 ……………………………………… 90
(三)互動中形成信賴感 ……………………………… 92
(四)釋出隱性知識 …………………………………… 92
(五)跨部門的延伸與演化 …………………………… 94
第三節 第二階段變革管理的反思學習 …………………… 96
第六章 討論與管理意涵 ……………………………………… 98
第一節 CAS理論觀點下兩階段變革過程的比較 ………… 98
一、不同的事前理解,事實上都是連續浮現的變革模式… 100
二、負向回饋的自組織與正向回饋的自組織……………… 101
三、演化的心智模式與創新行為 ………………………… 102
第二節 本研究的管理意涵…………………………………… 104
第七章 結論…………………………………………………… 107
參考文獻 ………………………………………………………… 109
參考文獻 References
參考文獻
潘忠煜、江烘貴、彭聖允、曾威哲 & 林建宏(2004),“品質變革歷程―從防衛機制到創新行為”,第10屆全國品質管理研討會,國立高雄大學。
蔡敦浩 & 藍紫堂(2004),新興產業發展的複雜調適系統觀點-以台灣E-Learning產業為例,管理學報。
關永中(2004),「認知結構與運作---知識論的法則」,沈青松主編,哲學概論,五南出版社,頁67-140。
Anderson, P. (1999), “Complexity theory and organization science,” Organization Science, 10(3): pp216-232.
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978), Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Argyris, C.(1990), Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Arthur, W. B. (1996), “Increasing returns and the new world of business,” Harvard Business Review, 74(4): pp100-110.
Bechtold, B.L.(1997), “Chaos theory as a model for strategy development,” Empowerment in Organizations, .5(4), pp.193-201.
Beer, M. & Eisenstat, R. A. (2000), “The silent killer of strategy implementation and learning,” Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp29-30.
Beer, M. & Noria, N. (eds) (2000), Breaking the code of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brodbeck. P.W, (2002), “Implications for organization design: Teams as pockets of excellence,” Team Performance Management: an International Journal, 8(1), pp21-38.
Brown. S.L. & Eisenhardt. K.M. (1997), “The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations, Administrative Science Quarterl,. 42, March, pp1-34.
Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt K. M. (1998), Competing on the edge: strategy as structured chaos, Harvard Business School Press.
Brunsson, H. (1982), “The irrationality of action and action rationality: Decisions, ideologies, and organizational actions,” The Journal of Management Studies, Vol.19(1), pp29 - 43.
Burnes, B. (2004), Managing change, 4th edition. Harlow: FT/ Prentice Hall.
Burnes, B. (2005), “Complexity theories and organizational change,” International Journal of Management Review, 7(2), pp73-90.
Cheng, Y.T. & Van de Ven, A. H. (1996) “Learning the innovation journey - Order out of chaos,” Organization Science, 7(6): pp 593-614.
Coghlan, D. (2001) “Insider action research projects: Implications for practicing managers”, Management Learning, 32(1), pp 49-60.
Constantinos, M. (1997) “Strategic innovation”, Sloan Management Review , 38(3), pp.9-23.
Cooper, C.L. & Jackson, S.E.(eds) (1997), Creating tomorrpw’s organizations today: A handbook for future research in organizational behavior, Chichester: Wiley.
Cooperrider, D. L.(1990), “Positive imagery, positive action: The affirmative bias of organizing,” in S.S. Srivastva and D.L. Cooperrider, appreciative management and leadership, pp91-125, SF Jossey-Bass.
Cummings,T.G. & Worley, C. G..(2001), Organization development and change, 7th edition. Mason, OH:South-Western College Publishing.
Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G..(1963), A behavioral theory of the firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
David, S.& Meyer, C. (1998), Blur: The speed of change in the connected economy, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Dawson,P. (1994), Organizational change: a processual approach, London: Paul Chapman.
Dawson, P. (2003), Reshaping change: A processual perspective, London: Routledge.
Dent, E. B. (1999), “Complexity science: A worldview shift,” Emergence: A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and Management, 1 (4), pp5-19.
Dooley, K. J, Johnson, T. L. & Bush, D. H. (1995) “TQM, chaos and complexity,” Human Systems Management, Amsterdam: 14(4), pp 287-302.
Drazin, R. D. & Sandelands, L. E. (1992), “Autogenesis: A perspective on the process of organizing,” Organization Science, 3, pp230-249.
Drucker, P. F. (1985), “The discipline of innovation,” Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp67-72.
Dunphy. D. & Stace, D.A.(1993), “The strategic management of corporate change,” Human Relations, 46(8), pp905-918.
Fonseca, J. (2002), Complexity and innovation in organizations, London : Routledge.
Frank, K.A. & Fahrbach, K. (1999) “Organization culture as a complex system: balance and information in models of influence and selection,” Organization Science, 10 (3), pp253-77.
Gell-Mann, M. (1994), The Ouark and the Jaguar, New York: Freeman.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1991), “Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm,” Academy of Management Review, 16(1), pp10-36.
Giddens, A. (1979), Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis, Macmillan, London.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research, Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. (1978), Theoretical sensitivity, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. (1992), Emergence versus forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Gleick, J. (1987), Chaos: Making a new science. London: Heinemann.
Grobman, G. M. (2005), “Complexity theory: A new way to look at organizational change,” Public Adminstration Quarterly, 29(3), pp350-382
Goldstein, J.(1994), The unshackled organization, Portland: Productivity Press, Inc.
Goldstein, J. (1999)“Emergence as a construct: History and issues,” Emergence, 1(1): pp49-72.
Goodwin, B. (1994), How the leopard changed its spots, London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Gould, S. J. (1989), “Punctuated equilibrium in fact and theory,” Journal of Social Biological Structure, 12, pp117-136.
Greenwald, J (1996), “Reinventing Sears,” Time, 23 December, pp53-55.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative methods in management research, Sage Publication, Inc. London, UK.
Haigh, C. (2002), “Using chaos theory: The implications for nursing,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(.5), pp462-469.
Hall, R. I. (1979) “A system pathology of an organization: the rise and fall of the Saturday Evening Post,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: pp185-211.
Hatch, M. j. (1997), Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayes, J .(2002), The theory and practice of change management, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Hedberg. B., Nystrom, P. & Starbuck. W. (1976), “Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, pp371-381.
Hiett P. J, (2001), “The contradictions at the heart of complexity science,” Emergence, 3(3), pp108-120.
Hurst, D. (1995), Crisis and Renewal: meeting the challenge of organizational change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Jantsch, E. (1980), The self-organizing universe, New York, George Braziller.
Johnson-Liard, P. (1983), Mental models, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA.
Johnson-Liard, P. (1989), “Mental models,” In Posner, M. I. Ed., Foundations of cognitive science, Cambrige, MA:MIT Press, pp.469-499.
Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change masters, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R. M. (1988), When a thousand flowers bloom Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations, In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 10, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp169-211.
Kanter, R.M. (1989), When giants learn to dance: Mastering the challenges of trategy, management, and careers in the 1990s, London: Unwin.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. & Jick, T.D. (1992), The challenge of organizational change, New York: Free Press.
Kanter, R.M., Kao, J. & Wiersema, F. (1997), Innovation: Breakthrough thinking at 3M,. DuPont, GE. Pfizer, and Rubbermaid, New York: HarperBusuness.
Kaplan, J. L. & Yorke, J. A. (1977) “The onset of chaos in a fluid flow model of Lorenz, Bifurcation theory and applications in scientific disciplines,” Annals of N.Y. Academy of Science, 316: pp400-407.
Kauffman, S. A. (1993), The origins of order: Self organization and selection in evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, S. A. (1995), At home in the universe, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Kernick, D.(2002), “Complexity and healthcare organization ,” In complexity and healthcare: An introduction, Sweeney, K. & Griffiths, F. ed., Radeliffe Medical Press, Abington, Oxon, pp93-121.
Kleysen, R. F. & Street, C. T. (2001) “Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior,” Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), pp284-296.
Kotter, J.P.(1996), Leading change, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuzel , A. J. (1981), “Sampling in qualitative inquiry,” in Crabtree & Miller (eds.), Doing Qualitative Research, 2: 31-45, Sage Publications。
Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data,” Academy of Management Review, 24 (4), pp691-710.
Layder, D. (1983), “Grounded theory and field research: New strategies in social research, Cambridge Polity Press, 3, pp58-50.
Levin, S.(1998), “Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems,” Ecosystems, 1(5), pp431-436.
Levinthal, D.A. & Warglien, M. (1999), “Landscape design: Designing for local action in complex worlds,” Organization Science, 10(3): pp 342-57.
Levy, D. (1994) “Chaos theory and strategy: Theory, application, and managerial implications,” Strategic Management Journal, 15: pp167-178.
Lewin, K. (1946), “Action Research and Minority Problems,” Journal of Social Issues , 2(4): pp. 34-46.
Lewin, K. (1951), “Field theory in social science,” Cartwright, D. Ed., Selected theoretical papers , New York: Harper & Row.
Lewis, R.(1994), “From chaos to complexity: Implications for organizations,” Executive Development,7(4), pp16-17.
Lissack, M. (1999), “Complexity: The science, its vocabulary, and its relation to organizations,” Emergence, Vol. 1(4), pp110-126.
Lorenz, E. (1979), Predictability: Does the flap of a butterfly’s wing in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas? Address at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington.
Lorenz, E. (1993), The essence of chaos, London: UCL press.
Macintosh, R. & MaClean, D. (1999), “Conditioned emergence: A dissipative structures approach to transformation”, Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp297-316.
Macintosh, R. & MaClean, D. (2001) “Conditioned emergence: Researching change and changing research”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(10), pp1343-1357.
Marshak, R. J. (2002) “Changing the language of change: How new contexts and concepts are challenging the ways we think and talk about organizational change,” Strategic Change, 11(5): pp279-286.
Morel, B. & Ramanujam, R. (1999), “Through the looking-glass of complexity - The Dynamics of organizations as adaptive and evolving systems,” Organization Science, 103: pp278-293.
Morgan, G. & Smirich, L. (1980), "The case for qualitative research", Academy of Management Review, 5(4), pp 491-500.
O’Connor, J. & Mcdermott, I. (1997), The Art of systems thinking: Essential skill for creativity and problem solving, San Francisco, CA; Thorsons Publish Co..
Pascale, R., Milleman, M. & Gioja, I. (2000), Surfacing the edge of chaos: The laws of nature and the new laws of business, Three Rivers Press, NY.
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative evaluation and research methods, Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
Pentland, B. T. (1995), “Information systems and organizational learning: The social epistemology of organizational knowledge systems,” Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 5(1), pp1-21.
Peters, T. (1997), The circle of innovation: You can’t shrink your way to greatness, New York: Alfred A Knopf.
Peters, T. & Waterman. R.H.(1982), In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies, London: Harper & Row.
Pettigrew, A.M. & Whipp, R.(1993), “Undweatanding the environment,” In Mabey, C. and Mayon-White, B.(eds), Managing Change, 2nd edition. London: Open University/ Paul Chapman.
Pettigrew, A.M.(2000), Linking change processes and outcomes: A commentary on Ghosal, Bartlett and Weick, In Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (eds), Breaking the code of change, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J.(1981), Power in organizations, Cambridge, MA: Pitman.
Pfeffer, J.(1996), Competitive advantage Through people: unleashing the power of the work forc. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press,
Popper, K. R. (1979), Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Prigogine, I. & Stengers. I. (1984), Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature, New York: Bantam Books.
Prigogine, I.(1997), The end of certainty: Time. chaos, and the new laws of nature, New York: Free Press.
Quinn, J.B.(1980), Strategies for change:Logical incrementalism, Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Quinn, J.B. (1982), “Managing strategies incrementally,” Omega,10(6), pp613-627.
Romanelli, E. & Tushman, M.L.(1994), “Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test, Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), pp1141-1166.
Rowe A. and Hogarth, A. (2005), “Use of complex adaptive systems metaphor to achieve professional and organizational change,” Nursing And Healthcare Management And Policy, 51(4), pp396-405.
Scott, S. G, & Bruce, Reginald A. (1994) “Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, 37( 3), pp 580-607.
Senge, P. M. (1990), The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization, Sydney: Random House.
Senge, P. M. (1994), The fifth discipline field book-strategies and tools for building a learning organization, New York: John Wiely & Sons Inc.
Shaw, P. (1997), “Intervening in the shadow systems of organizations,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(3), pp235-250.
Stacey, R. D. (1995) “The Science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change process,” Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), pp 477-495.
Stacey, R. D. (1996), Complexity and creativity in organizations, London: Berret-Koehler.
Stacey, R. D. (1999), Strategic management and organizational dynamics: The challenge of complexity, Trans-Atlantic Publications, Inc.
Stacey, R., D. (2000), “The emergence of knowledge in organization,” Emergence, 2(4): pp23-39.
Stacey, R.D., Griffin, D. & Shaw, P.(2002), Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking, London: Routledge.
Stacey, R.D.(2003), Strategic management and organizational dynamics: The challenge of complexity, Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall.
Strauss, A. (1987), “Introduction qualitative analysis for social scientists,” part 1:1-10,Cambridge University Press.
Strauss A. & Corbin J. (1990), Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
Styhre. A. (2002), “Non-linear change in organizations: Organization change management informed by complexity theory,” Leadership and Organization Development Journal., 23(6). pp343-351.
Tetenbaum. T. (1998). “Shifting paradigms: From Newton to chaos,” Organizational Dynamies, 26(4), pp21-32.
Thietart, R A & Forgues, B. (1995) “Chaos theory and organization,” Organization Science, 6(1): pp19-31.
Thompson, J. D. (1967), Organization in action, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Tsai, S. D., Pan, C. Y., & Chiang, H. Q. (2004), “Shifting the mental model and emerging innovative behavior: Action Research of a quality management system”, Emergence:Complexity and Organization, 6(4), pp.28-39.
Tsoukas, H. (1998) “Introduction: chaos, complexity and organization theory,” Organizations, 5 (3): pp291-312.
Tsoukas, H. & Hatch, M. J.(2001),”Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity”, Human Relation, 54(8), pp979-1013.
Tsoukas, H (2000) “Knowledge as action, organization as theory: Reflections on organizational knowledge”, Emergence, 2(4), pp104-112
Waldrop, M. M. (1992), Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. London: Penguin Books.
Wheatley, M. J. (1992), Leadership and the new science, San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler Publishers.
Weick, K.E.(2000), Emergent change as a universal in organizations, In Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (eds),Breaking the Code of Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Wilson. D.C. (1992). A strategy of change, London: Routledge.
Zairi. M., Letza, S. & Oakland, J.(1994), “Does TQM impact on bottom line results?”, TQM Magazine, 6(1), pp38-43.
Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C. & Plesk, P. (1998), Edgeware insights from complexity science for healthcare leaders, VHA Inc, TX.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內立即公開,校外一年後公開 off campus withheld
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code