博碩士論文 etd-0817110-235239 詳細資訊


[回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]

姓名 江文琇(Wen-hsiu Chiang) 電子郵件信箱 E-mail 資料不公開
畢業系所 人力資源管理研究所(Institute of Human Resource Management)
畢業學位 碩士(Master) 畢業時期 98學年第2學期
論文名稱(中) 程序公平、分配公平對主管信任與工作投入之影響—績效考核價值觀的調節作用
論文名稱(英) Procedural justice, distributive justice on supervisory trust and job involvement of the effect - Moderating effects of performance appraisal values
檔案
  • etd-0817110-235239.pdf
  • 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

    電子論文:校內校外均不公開

    論文語文/頁數 中文/61
    統計 本論文已被瀏覽 5649 次,被下載 0 次
    摘要(中) 本研究從程序公平、分配公平及績效考核價值觀來探討,瞭解工作職場中組織公正(程序公平、分配公平)及員工績效考核價值觀重視之程度對主管信任和工作投入之影響,除此之外,個人在工作中所認同的績效考核的價值觀,對程序公平、分配公平、主管信任和工作投入的調節作用也納入討論範圍。
      本問卷的設計分為二部份,第一部分為主管對於員工的績效評核採取的執行程序,是否符合程序公平的原則,分別有高程序公平與低程序公平兩種情境。第二部份為主管評核結果能否讓員工感受到公平,主管是否有把該員工推薦在加薪的名單為結果的判斷,分別有高分配公平與低分配公平兩種情境。以此二種因素,交錯組合成4種不同情境,但問項一樣的問卷。
      此次共回收242份有效問卷,其研究結果如下:
    1.    高重視績效考核價值觀的人因在乎過程的公平性及分配獎酬的公平性,表現出來的行為和態度也比較正面,認為結果和付出是等比的,所以相對的付出及投入程度會比較多。
    2.    對於升遷制度是否完善或是加薪與否較不重視的人,就是對整個結果較不在乎的人,如果主管給予公平性的競爭機會,會對此部屬有激勵的作用,進而會提升其表現。
    3.    主管不管進行任一種操作行為,對於本來就高重視績效考核過程的人,均有較佳的工作態度和產出,並不會因主管的行為而有所改變,而對於高重視績效考核分配資源的人,反而無較明顯的影響。
    4.    在高分配公平裡重視程序公平價值觀對主管信任的影響程度微乎其微,而在低分配公平裡產生明顯差距的影響。
    摘要(英) In this study, procedural justice, distributive justice and performance appraisal values to explore and understand the workplace in organizational justice (procedural justice, distributive justice) and the degree of emphasis on the staff performance appraisal values to job involvement and supervisory trust’s influence, in addition, recognized individuals in their work performance evaluation of values, procedural justice, distributive justice, supervisory trust and job involvement are also included in the scope of regulation.
      The design of this questionnaire is divided into two parts, first part was in charge of the staff performance appraisal to the implementation of the program is consistent with principles of procedural fairness, the respective high and low procedural justice two kinds of situations. The second part of the assessment results for the charge of the staff can feel a fair, competent staff there to the list of recommended salary increases for the results of the judgments of the respective high and low equity allocation of a fair distribution of two kinds of situations. By these two factors, staggered to form four kinds of different situations, but the questionnaire asked the same item.
      The 242 valid questionnaires were collected, results are as follows:
    1. High attention to performance appraisal values of person who cares about  the fairness of the process and the fairness of reward distribution, shown more positive behavior and attitude that is a geometric results and paid, so the relative level of pay and the investment will more.
    2. Whether it is good for promotion or pay less attention to whether or not the person is on the results than those who do not care if the charge given to the fairness of the competition, will have the role of subordinates have incentives, in turn will increase its performance.
    3. Competent to conduct any type of operation regardless of behavior would have on our high importance for the performance assessment process, people will have a better work attitude and output, and will not be competent to act and change the emphasis on performance assessment for high allocation of resources of people, but no obvious effect.
    4. In the high attention to procedural justice, distributive justice values in the trust's impact on the charge of little, and in the low distributive justice in the gap produced significant effects.
    關鍵字(中)
  • 主管信任
  • 分配公平
  • 程序公平
  • 工作投入
  • 價值觀
  • 關鍵字(英)
  • distributive justice
  • supervisory trust
  • procedural justice
  • job involvement
  • values
  • 論文目次 第一章   緒論 ................................................ 1
     第一節  研就動機 ............................................ 1
    第二節        研究目的 ............................................ 2
    第二章   文獻探討 ............................................ 3
     第一節  組織公正(分配公平、程序公平)與績效評估 .............. 3
     第二節  主管信任 ............................................ 7
     第三節  工作投入 ............................................11
     第四節  價值觀 ..............................................14
    第三章            研究方法 ............................................17
     第一節  研究設計 ............................................17
     第二節  研究對象與資料收集 ..................................18
     第三節  研究工具量表之信度分析 ..............................18
    第四章            研究結果 ............................................23
    第一節        樣本基本資料 ........................................23
    第二節        變項間之相關 ........................................26
    第三節        績效考核公平性對主管信任和工作投入之影響 ............28
    第四節        績效考核價值觀調節作用 ..............................29
    第五節        本研究之假設結果驗證 ................................38
    第五章            結論與建議 ..........................................40
     第一節  研究結果討論 ........................................40
     第二節  管理實務建議 ........................................41
     第三節  研究限制與未來研究建議 ..............................42
    第六章            參考文獻 ............................................44
    一、            中文部份 ............................................44
    二、            英文部分 ............................................45
    附錄一   問卷 ................................................48
    參考文獻 一、 中文部分
    王妍蓁 (2007),「工作壓力源與壓力後果之關係:以華人工作價值觀為調節變項」,國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
    何金銘 (2006),統計分析方法,台南:台灣復文興業股份。
    余凱成、何威,1995,中國大陸企業職工分配工作感研究。
    邱薇拉 (2005),「技術策略、直屬主管信任與團隊績效關聯性之研究-以高科技產業研發團隊為例」,國立彰化師範大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
    周勇男 (2009),「程序/分配公平與薪資/福利滿意對工作滿意度之相關研究—以中鋼公司為例」,國立中山大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
    袁國森 (1997),「績效評估中程序公平及分配公平認知對員工對績效評估態度之影響—以中華電信某公司為例」,國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
    徐漢祥 (1998),「分配公平性、程序公平性對工作滿意度與組織承諾之影響」,國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
    陳芊妤 (2009),「分配公平、程序公平對主管信任與工作投入影響之研究-關係的調節效果」,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
    陳富祥 (2002),「個人屬性、工作滿足與工作投入關係之探討:金融業為例」,國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
    黃寶嬋 (2008),「國小行政教師與其主管的關係品質對主管信任與承諾之影響-心理衝突與角色衝突的中介效果」,國立台南大學教育經營與管理研究所碩士論文。
    潘碧娟 (2003),「組織政治知覺對工作壓力及工作投入之影響-以人格特質為干擾變數」,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士在職班論文。
    鐘金玉 (2001),「公務人員績效評核公平與工作態度之研究-以高雄市政府所屬警察、醫療、稅務人員為對象」,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
    二、 英文部分
    Adams, J.S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299.
    Anderson, J.C., & Narus, J.A. 1990. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnership. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58.
    Allport, G.W. 1947. The psychology of participation. Psychological Review, 52, 117-132.
    Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
    social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
    Barr, S.H., Brief, A.P., & Fulk, J.L. 1981. Correlates of perceives fairness and accuracy of performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, pp.156-160.
    Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York:Wiley.
    Crosby, C., Stevenson, R., & Copeland, J. 1984. The evaluation of intensive domiciliary care for the elderly mentally ill. Gerontology: Social and Behavioral Perspectives.
    Folger, R. 1987. Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Social Justice Research, 1(2), 143-159
    Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. 1985. Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 3, 141-183.
    Greenberg, J. 1986. Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 340-342.
    Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. 1984. Equity theory and behavior in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 3, 95-124.
    Hofstede, G. (1994) , Values Survey Module 1994 manual. University of Limburg, Mastricht, The Netherlands.
    Hollander, E.P. (1971), Principles and methods of social psychology. New York:Oxford University Press.
    Homans, G.C. (1961), Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Harcourt, Brace & World.
    Landy, F.J., Barnes, J.L., & Murphy, K.R. (1978), Correlates of perceived Fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation.Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.63, No.6, pp.751-754.
    Hosmer, L.T. (1985), Trust:the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Acadwmy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.
    Jennifer, M.G.nnd Gareth, R.J.(1997).Experiencing work:value, Attitude, and Moods, Human Relations, Vol.50, pp.393-416.
    Jones, G.R., & George, J.M. (1999), The experience and evolution of trust:Iimplications for cooperation and teamwork.Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 31-546.
    Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction.
      American Sociological Review, 42, 124-143.
    Leventhal, G.S. (1980),What should be done with equity theory?In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg & R.H.Willis (Eds.), Social exchange : Advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum press, pp.27-55
    Leventhal, G.S. Karuza, J., & Fry, W.R. (1980), Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences.In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp.167-218.
    Lind, E.A. & Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York:Plenum.
    Martin, J. (1981), Relative deprivation:A theory of distributive in justice for an era of shrinking resource. In Research in organizational behavior, edited by L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw, 3:53-107. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.
    Martin, L., R. L. Price, R.J. Bies, M.E. Power. (1987) Now that I can have it, I’m not sure I want it:The effects of opportunity on aspirations and discontent. In Women’s Career Development, edited by B.A. Gutek and L. Larwood, 42-65. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
    Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993), Factors affecting trust in market research relationships.Journal of Marketing, 57, 81-101.
    Pine & Innis (1987), Cultural and Individual Work Values.The Career Development Quarterly, 14(2):279-287
    Porter, T.W., & Lilly, B.S. (1996), The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on project team performance.The International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(4), 361-376.
    Pryor, R. G. L. (1979). In search of a concept: Work values.Vocational Guidance
      Quarterly, 27, 250-256.
    Pryor, R. G. L. (1981). Tracing the development of the work aspect preference scale.
      Australian Psychologist, 16, 241-257.
    Robbins, S.P.,(1992)Essentials of Organizational Behavior, prentice Hall103 International.
    Roe, R. A., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and work: Empirical findings and theoretical
      perspective. Applied psychology: An international review, 48(1), 1-21.
    Rokeach, M. (1973), The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
    Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
      advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
      experimental social psychology (pp.1–65). New York: Academic Press.
    Super, D. E. (1980), A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal
      of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129–148.
    Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975), Procedure Justice:A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
    Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1978), Theory of procedure, A. California Law Review, 66, 541.
    Vanus, D. & McAllister, I. (1991). Gender and work orientation. Work and Occupations, 18(1), 72-93.
    Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A., & Werner, J.M. (1998), Managers as initiators of trust:An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530.
    Williams, M. (2001), In whom we trust:group membership as an affective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 337-396.
    口試委員
  • 黃振聰 - 召集委員
  • 陳以亨 - 委員
  • 任金剛 - 指導教授
  • 口試日期 2010-07-29 繳交日期 2010-08-17

    [回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]


    如有任何問題請與論文審查小組聯繫