何謂企業之人力資源最佳實務？以往學者皆提出不同觀點及論證，而截至目前為止沒有一個標準或既定的規範來說明企業必須遵循及推動哪些人力資源管理策略才能使企業在經營上較為成功。另外即使有過往學者的資料可以參考，但因不同的企業需考量的內外部因素皆不相同，因此有部分學者加入權變理論或觀點加以進行探討，從中想了解是否人力資源最佳實務會因權變觀點因素之影響下，讓不同的組織會推行相同以及差異化的人力資源實務做法，這是本研究想切入的主要觀點。
企業在面臨產業發展快速、環境瞬息萬變下，因此企業的經營風險就逐漸增高，倘若企業想成功在產業中生存及發展，則必須因應時代的腳步推動與時俱進的策略及作法，才可以讓企業維持競爭優勢。因此現今企業開始從企業最重要的資產”人”的面向進行探討，想了解究竟何謂是產業界內之人力資源”最佳”實務，藉此可以運用相關策略及執行方式讓公司運作更加順暢及創造該企業之競爭優勢。
本研究以製鞋相關產業為研究樣本，想藉由訪談中針對企業所執行的人力資源實務中去歸納與整理何謂製鞋相關產業的核心與情境式人力資源最佳實務，希望透過此研究可以提供該產業相關資訊參考，並使其將人力資源發展至策略性人力資源管理的層次，讓相關做法可以更加有系統性。
本研究發現核心人力資源實務不足以讓企業維持其競爭優勢，倘若企業想持續保有優勢並創造更大組織績效，對於情境式的人力資源管理就必須加以投入，並考量公司實際內外部環境因素(權變觀點)下，進而推動最符合企業的差異化人力資源策略，如此一來，企業才可以永續經營並創造更大的經營績效、人才才可以持續發展、利害關係人也能從中獲益，這才是企業存在的重要意義。

What are HR best practices within the enterprise? Former scholars put forward different views and arguments, due to nowadays it does not seem to be a standard specification description on companies which they must follow and promote those human resource management strategy will enable companies in the business more successful. Moreover, even if there is relevant information can refer to, but different internal and external factors that companies need to consider different situation, within today's rapidly changing environment, companies must follow the flow and trend to execute some SHRM, it can make enterprises to maintain competitive advantage, but what is HR "best" practices, is a continuing concern of many scholars research.
In this study, shoes making manufacture industries as the research sample, by interviewing the management on these business for HR practices on business performance, we hoped that through this research can providing the industry related reference information, and it will be the development of human resources to strategic human resource management level, so that relevant HR practices can be more systematic.
The study found that core HR practices insufficient to allow enterprises to maintain their competitive advantage, if companies want to continue to maintain the advantage and create greater organizational performance, for contingent HR practices must be invested, and consider the actual internal and external environmental factors in the company (under contingent factors), thus promoting best suitable HR strategy of differentiation, on this way, companies can operate longer and longer and create much more business performance and talent development can be sustained, but also sharing the benefit to shareholders, that is the importance of the existence of an enterprise.

Verification Letter from the Oral Examination Committee…i
Abstract in Chinese…ii
Abstract in English…iii
Chapter 1 Introduction…1
1.1 Background Information…1
1.2 Research Motivation …2
1.3 Research Purpose …3
1.4 Study Process and Conceptual Framework …6
Chapter 2 Literature Review…10
2.1 HR Best Practices…10
1.Definition of HR Best Practices …10
2.Discussion of HR Best Practices…17
2.2 Contingent Perspectives…17
1.Definition of Contingent Perspectives…17
2.Discussion of Contingent Perspectives…21
2.3 SHRM – The Connection and Fit between HR Best Practices and Contingent Perspective and Operational Performance…22
1. Connection between HR Best Practices and Contingent Perspective and
Operational Performance…22
2. Discussion Regarding the Connection and Fit between HR Best Practices and
Contingent Perspective & Operation PerformanceΕ…25
Chapter 3 Research Method …27
3.1 Information about Shoe Making Related Industry…27
3.2 Source of Research Objects…33
3.3 Research Method…36
3.4 Questionnaire and Interviews…38
Chapter 4 Analysis of Case Study …40
4.1 Information of Company A and Interview Analysis…40
1. Basic Information of Company A…40
2. The Analysis of Interview Conversation for Company A…45
4.2 Information of Company B and Interview Analysis…53
1. Basic Information of Company B…53
2. The Analysis of Interview Conversation for Company B…56
4.3 Information of Company C and Interview Analysis…61
1. Basic Information of Company C…61
2. The Analysis of Interview Conversation for Company C…63
4.4 Overview and Discussion …69
Chapter 5 Comparison of Research Objects …71
5.1 Conclusion and Management Implication…71
5.2 Proposition of Thesis…73
1. Core HR Best Practices…73
2. Contingent HR Best Practices…77
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Suggestions…87
6.1 Conclusion…87
6.2 Limitations of the Study and Suggestions on Future Research…89
6.3 Contribution…91
Reference List…92
AppendixΗ…101

范維恩、陳真毓、陳美齡、楊靜宜、黃冠智與賴聽柔(2012)。2020年人力資源管理角色之趨勢調查與未來挑戰，國立中央大學人資資源管理研究所專題研究報告
陳文榮(2004)。台灣中部地區製鞋業競爭策略分析-以四家個案公司為例，台中健
康暨管理學院經營管理研究所碩士論文
經濟部中小企業處。
http://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/populace/news/News.aspx?kind=1&menu_id=40&news_id=33446
趙珮伃(2006)。人力資源管理效能與組織績效之關聯性探討－以策略性人力資源角色為干擾變項，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文
劉敏熙與林正和(2011)。人力資源管理實務與組織創新績效的關係：員工知識創新管理行為的中介效果，2011 第 14 屆科際整合管理研討會，454-469

Appelbaum, E., & Batt, R. 1994. The new American workplace: Transforming work systems in the United States. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Arthur, J. B. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 670-687.Assumptions Hidden within the Language of Contingency "Theory". Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 1981), 349-377.
Arthur, J.B.1994. ‘Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing
Performance and Turnover’, Academy of Management Journal, 37: 670–87.
Baird, L., & Meshoulam, I. 1988. Managing two fits of strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 13: 116-128.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. 1992.Direct estimates of SDy and the implications for utility analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 227-233.
Burns,G. M. Stalker and Tom 1961.The Management of Innovation. London:
Tavistock.
Claudia, B. S. 1981. Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing
Comstock, Donald E., and W. Richard Scott 1977 "Technology and the structure of subunits: Distinguishing individual and workgroup effects." Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 177-202.
Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. 1991.The impact on economic performance of a transformation in industrial relations.Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44: 241-260.
Delaney, J. T. & Huselid, M. A. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 88-171.
Delaney, J.T. and Huselid, M.A. 1996. ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(4):949–69
Delery, J.E. & Doty, D.H. 1996. Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management：Tests of Universalistic, Contingency and Configurational Performance Predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 802-835.
Derry, S., and Nash, J. 1988. Organizational Change and the Role of Personnel and Industrial Relations Management, In G. Palmer (ed.). Australia PersonnelManagement: A Reader (pp. 164-178), Melboume: Macmillan.
Dewar, Robert, and Jerald, H. 1978."Size, technology, complexity and structural differentiation: Toward a conceptual synthesis." Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 111-136.
Freeman, John H. 1973. "Environment, technology and the administrative intensity of organizations." American Sociological Review, 38: 750-763.
Fry, Louis W. 1982. "Technology-structure research: Three critical issues." Academy of Management Journal, 25 (3): 532-552.
Fullan, M. 1970."Industrial technology and worker integration in the organization."American Sociological Review, 35: 1028-1 039.
Gerhart, B., & Milkovich, G. T. 1992. Employee compensation: Research and practice. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3: 481-569. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hage, Jerald, and Michael, A. 1969."Routine technology, social structure and organization goals." Administrative Science Quarterly, 14 (September):366-376.
Hall, Richard H.1962. "Intra-organizational structural variation: Application of the bureaucratic model." Administrative Science Quarterly, 7 (December): 295-308.
Hendry, C. and Pettigrew, A.1990. ‘Human Resource Management: an agenda for the 1990s’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1(1): 17–43.
Hitt, M. A., Ireland,R. D. and HoskissonR. E. 2001. Resource Complementarity in Business Combinations: Extending the Logic to Organizational Alliances. Journal of Management, 27: 679-690.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 635-672.
Huselid, M.A., Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. 1995. ‘The Signi. cance of Human Resource Management Implementation Effectiveness for Corporate Financial Performance’, paper presented to the Academy of Management Conference, Vancouver, 6–9 August. In press, Academy of Management Journal.
Ichniowski, C. 1986. The effects of grievance activity on productivity.Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 40: 75-89.
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., & Prennushi, G. 1994. The effects of human resource management practices on productivity.Working paper, Columbia University, New York.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. 1995.Understanding human resource management in the context of organizations and their environments.In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, vol. 46: 237-264. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
John T. Delaney& Mark A. Huselid.1996.The Impactof Human Resource
Management Practiceson Perceptionsof Organizational Performance.Academy of Management Journal 1996, Vol. 39, No. 4, 949-969.
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. 1994. Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantage: A competency-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19: 699-727.
Levine, D., &Tyson, L. D. 1990. Participation, productivity, and the firm's environment. In A. S. Blinder (Ed.), Paying for productivity: 183-244. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48: 197-221.
Mark A. Y., Scott A.S., James W. D., Jr., David P. L.1996.
Human Resource Management, Manufacturing Strategy and Firm Performance. Academy of Management Journal 1996, Vol.39, No.4, 836-866.
Marsh, Robert M., and Hiroshi M. 1981."Technology and size as determinants of the organizational structure of Japanese factories." Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 33-57.
Meyer, Marshall W., and Associates 1978.Environments and Organiza-tions. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass
Mick M.and Irena G. 2000.”Best practice” human resource management: perfect opportunity or dangerous illusion? Int. J. of Human Resource Management 11:6 December 2000 1104–1124
Miles, R. and Snow, C. 1984.‘Designing Strategic Human Resource Systems’, Organizationa l Dynamics, Summer: 36–52.
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. 1995. Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics,19: 179-208.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 246-275.
Mohr, Lawrence B. 1971."Organizational structure and organizational technology." Administrative Science Quarterly,16 : 444-459.
Mondy R. W. 1987. Personnel the management of human resources. Boston: Allyn and bacon Inc.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. 1982. Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, New York: Academic Press.
Nightingale, Donald V., and Jean- Marie Toulouse. 1977. "Toward a multi-level congruence theory of organization." Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 22: 264-280.
Pfeffer, J. 1998. The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pennings, Johannes 1975 "The relevance of the structural-contingency model for organizational effective-ness." Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 393-410.
Perrow, C. 1967."A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations." American Sociological Review, 32: 194-208.
Pierce, Jon L., Randall B. Dunham, and Richard S. Blackburn 1979 "Social systems structure, job design and growth needs strength: A test of a congruency model." Academy of Management Journal, 22: 223-240.
Robert D.and Andrew H. Van de Ven .1985.Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4(Dec.1985), 514-539
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., McKenzie, R. C., & Muldrow, T. W. 1979.Impact of valid selection procedures on work-force productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 609-626.
Schuler, R. S.1992. Strategic Human Resource Management: Linking the People with the Strategic Needs of the Business. Organizational Dynamic, 21, pp.18-32.
Sivasubramaniam, N. and Kroeck, K.G. 1995. ‘The Concept of ‘‘Fit’’ in Strategic Human Resource Management ’, paper presented to the Academy of Management Conference, Vancouver, 6–9 August.
Tushman, Michael L. 1977."Special boundary roles in the innovation process." Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 587-605.
Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. 2003. Why the bottom line isn’t! How to build value through people and organization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Van de Ven, Andrew H., and Andre L. D. 1974."A task contingent model of work-unit structure." Administrative Science Quarterly, 192:183-197.
Venkatraman, N. 1989. ‘The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence’, Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 423–44.
Wagner, J. A. 1994. Participation's effect on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19: 312-330.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. 1992.Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource management. Journal of Management, 18: 295-320.
Youndt, M., Snell, S.A., Dean, J.W. and Lepak, D.P. 1996. ‘Human Resource
Management, Manufacturing Strategy, and Firm Performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 39(4),836–66.