Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/27982
標題: 國營事業員工考績評估影響因素之分析
A Study on Impact Factors of Staff Performance Appraisal in State-Owned Enterprise
作者: 楊舒凱
Yang, Shu-Kai
關鍵字: state-owned enterprises
國營企業
performance appraisal
evaluation indexes
績效評估
考績指標
出版社: 應用經濟學系所
引用: 中文部分 王國明、顧志遠,1994,績效獎勵制度建立之理論與實務:以元智工學院教師績效獎勵制度為例,研考雙月刊,18卷5期,頁32-41。 何永福,楊國安,1995,人力資源策略管理,再版,台北:三民。 余民寧,2004,心理與教育統計學,台北:三民書局。 余坤東,1998,影響績效評估品質之因素探討-認知的觀點,東吳經濟商學學報,頁101-122。 余致力,2003,公務人員考績制度改進之研究,考試院研究發展委員會專案報告。 吳彥輝,2000,運用模糊層級分析法與管理才能評鑑模式之研究,中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。 吳政穎,2000,我國上市公司股權集中度、薪酬設計與公司經營績效關係之研究,國立政治大學企業管理學系博士論文。 吳泰成,2005,建構績效導向的考績制度,考詮季刊第43期,頁1-10。 吳豐盛,2003,論國營事業之績效評估:以經濟部所屬國營事業為例,研考雙月刊27卷5期,頁80-91。 呂育誠,2005,公共人事管理採行績效評量的關注焦點與落實途徑,考詮季刊第43期,頁76-95。 宋餘俠,2005,行政法人績效管理的探討,研考雙月刊29卷2期,頁39-49。 巫炫毅,2001,員工負責選才之誘因契約設計,台灣大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。 周文賢,2004,多變量統計分析,智勝出版。 林文燦,2003,落實績效獎金及績效管理制度的參考作法,研考雙月刊27卷5期,頁92-101。 林忠正,2006,懲罰怠惰、流失人才,升等續聘標準的經濟分析,中央研究院經濟所學術研討論文。 施能傑,1994,行政機關生產力評估的觀念,研考雙月刊18卷5期,頁8-14。 施能傑,2004,建立組織績效管理引導員工績效評估的制度,考詮季刊第37期,頁79-94。 胡政源,郭祝武,2004,新制度經濟理論初探研究, 2004年兩岸財經學術研討會,頁128-150 。 孫伯良,2002,市場契約論,上海三聯書店。 張火燦,1996,策略性人力資源管理,台北:揚智。 莊奕琦,李鈞元,2003,如何衡量人力資本:理論與台灣實證,第五屆經濟發展學術研討會,頁51-85。 許航瑞,2001,我國全民健保醫療支出問題的政經分析-一個新制度主義的觀點,成功大學政治經濟研究所碩士論文。 郭雋,2004,論當前我國政府組織改造「四化」政策─新制度經濟學的觀點,行政試訊第10期,頁1-14。 郭榮興,2002,以平衡計分卡探討我國女性軍官績效評估之研究,國防大學國防管理學院資源管理研究所碩士論文。 陳永琦,2001a,從制度經濟學分析我國農會信用部之經營問題與改進方向,台灣金融財務季刊,2(3):187-200。 陳昀孜,2006,公務人員考績制度改革之分析,人事月刊42卷1期,頁29-37。 陳敦源、林靜美,2005,有限理性下的不完全契約:公部門績效管理制度的反思,考詮季刊第43期,頁96-121。 陳順宇,2000,多變量分析,台北:華泰書局。 陸雲,2004,農村經濟組織的制度創新--海峽兩岸的比較研究,台灣農業與資源經濟學會第三屆學術研討會。 彭紹華,1992,代理理論與所有權結構關係之研究,文化大學企業管理研究所,碩士論文。 湯宗泰,1999,影響評估企業資訊部門營運績效之組織因素,管理與系統6卷3期,頁365-386。 黃英忠,1997,人力資源管理,台北:三民。 楊安城,2005,我國公務人員考績項目改進之探討,考詮季刊第43期,頁162-177。 楊淑華,1992,從代理理論觀點探究上市公司股權集中度與經營績效及市場評價的關係,淡江大學金融研究所博士論文。 溫育芳,2005,農會恢復股金制下信用部負責人的薪酬設計-代理模式之觀點,農業經濟半年刊77期,頁109-132。 詹珍維,1986,資訊不對稱時主管認股模式之建立-極優法,管理科學學報,3:11-22。 劉瑞華譯,1994,制度、制度變遷與經濟成就,時報文化。 蔡良文,2005,論績效考核與淘汰機制之建立與變革,考詮季刊第43期,頁11-38。 蔡政良,2002,企業內部最適誘因契約訂定之模型化,中山大學經濟學研究所碩士論文。 鄭興弟,1994,行政機關績效評估,研考雙月刊18卷5期,頁8-14。 盧建川,2002,員工績效考核辦法之研究─以R 公司為例,交通大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。 盧建樹,2005,從代理人理論分析公路監理機關車輛代檢政策,國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。 英文部分 Arrow,K.J.,1965,Aspects of Theory of Risk Bearing,Helsinki. Attaway,M.C.,2000,”A Study of the Relationship between Company Performance and CEO Compensation,” American Business Review, 18(1):77-87. Banner, D. K. & R. A. Cooke. 1984. “Ethical dilemmas in performance appraisal.”Journal of Business Ethics. V. 3, N. 4, 327-333. Bengt Holmstrom ,”Moral Hazard and Observability”,The Bell Journal of Economics,Vol.10,No.1.(Spring,1979) Bernardin, H. J. 1978. “Effects of rater training on leniency and halo errors in student ratings of instructors.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 63:301-308. Bilimoria, D., 1997,”Perspectives on Corporate Control:Implications for CEO Compensation,” Human Relations, 50(7),829-858. Boyd, B.K.,1994,”Board control and CEO Compensation,”Strategic Management Journal,15(5):335. Dale Farris, 2001, ”The Guide to Performance Appraisals: Doing It Right!” 34, 9; ProQuest Science Journals. Douglass C. North,1991,”Institutions”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, V5,Number1, 97-112. Douglass C. North,1993,” What do we mean by rationality? ”Public Choice,77:159-162. Edwards,M.R.& Sproull,J.R.1983,”Rating the Raters Improves Performanc Appraisal”,Personnel Adminisrator, 128(8):77. Eisenhardt,K.M.,1989,”Agency Theory:An Assessment and Review,”Academy of Management Review,14(1):57-74. Glueck, W.F.1979,“Foundation of Personnel”:212-213,Texas: Business Pub. Jensen,M.C.,1983,”Organization Theory and Methodology “ Accounting Review,58:319-339. Jensen,M.C.and W.H. Meckling,1976,”Theory of the Firm:Managerial Behavior,Agency Costs and Ownership Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics,3:305-360. Joyce, W. B.,2001,”Return and Reward: Bank Performance and CEO Compensation,” American Business Review,19(2):93-98. Kevin McManus, 2001,”How good are you?” IIE Solutions, ProQuest Science Journals,33, 6 pg. 18. Klinger, D & J. Nalbandian. 1995. Public personnel Management. 4th ed. New Jersey:Prentice Hall. Martilla, J.A., and James, J.C.,1997,”Importance-performance analysis.”Journal of Marketing,41(1),P77-99. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts, 1992,”Economics Organization & Management.”Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall. Murphy, K. R., & J. N. Cleveland. 1995. Understanding performance appraisal:Social, Organizational, and goal –oriented perspectives. Newbury Park, CA:Sage. Richard, C.2002, Assessing Performance-Oriented HRM Activities in Selected OECD Countries: A Review of Ten Years of Modernisation, The HRM Perspective, OECD, PUMA/HRM(2002)9. Robbins, S. P.,1998,Organization Behavior.,(Eight Edition),NJ.:Englewood Cliffs. Simon, H.A.,1983,”Reason in Hunam Affairs.”Stanford,CA:Stanford University Press. Ted Gautschi, 2000,” Evaluate your performance”, Design News; 55, 24; ProQuest Science Journals pg. 150. Willian, B., & Mckinnon, S.,1992 “Performance evaluation and manager’s descriptions of tasks and activities”, Performance measurement, evaluation, and incentives, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
摘要: 本研究由新制度經濟與組織經濟理論觀點,探討個案國營事業員工考績評估之問題與影響因素。參考Richard(2002)設計研究架構及調查問卷,於2007年3月間針對研究個案之服務員工,進行問卷調查以蒐集資料,並以多變量統計分析法,探討個案員工之主要考評指標與影響其考績評估結果之因素,期能透過相關考績評估指標之分析與建議,分析影響個案考績評估之重要因素,進而對國營事業員工考績評估制度提供具體可行之建議。 茲將重要實證分析之結果列述如下: 一、 就個案現行考評項目而言,其作為考績評估依據之重要性與可行性大致呈正向關係,亦即考評項目愈具備考核之重要性,則其具體可行的程度也愈高;而現行17項考評項目內有11項位於「領先保持區」,顯示其重要性與可行性均高於平均值,其餘6個考評項目則落於「次要改善區」,表重要性與可行性均低於平均值,研究結果顯示「個案現行考績評估指標仍有調整空間」。 二、 本研究針對個案組織特性所建構之17項考評指標,其中共有10項位於「即刻改善區」顯示其重要性與可行性均高於平均值,又以「年度營業收入目標的達成」具備指標量化的雛型,同時亦符合個案業務特性,個案應將其納入現行評估指標,以達組織目標作為連結員工考績評估項目之目的。 三、 影響個案員工考績評估之因素為「適切資訊與回饋」、「經濟誘因」、「獎懲多樣化」以及「誘因強度原則」。受訪人員的「教育程度」對「適切資訊與回饋」有顯著差異;「主管」及「婚姻」2個特性,則認為「經濟誘因」較具激勵效果;「職務體系」變項在「獎懲方式多樣化」有顯著差異;「高員級職務」、「教育程度」、「年齡」等特性對「誘因強度原則」有顯著差異。 四、 根據分析,個案員工對考績激勵誘因的偏好順序依次為「獎金提高」、「升遷培訓」、「旅遊補助」、「休假增加」以及「在職進修」;而不同體系(行政,工程,港務)人員,則對考績激勵誘因的偏好程度亦不相同,顯示各體系內員工的誘因偏好會因不同升遷制度而產生顯著影響。
This research aims to investigate the performance appraisal system of SOE (state-owned enterprises) employees through the perspectives of new institutional economics and organization economics theory. The study was based upon the design and questionnaire framework of Richard's work in 2002, and the survey data was collected from the questionnaires of the focused SOE employees in March 2007. Multivariate statistical analysis method was applied to examine the assessment and evaluation indexes and performance appraisal factors of staff. After analyzing the related indexes and factors, several suggestions and recommendations were raised to improve the performance appraisal system for SOE system. Those are: First, this study proves that once the current evaluation items are concerned, a positive relation exists between the importance and feasibility of system. In other words, the more important the evaluation items are, the higher their feasibilities will be. 11 items of the current 17 indexes are located in the “Leading Zone”, which suggests that their importance and feasibility are higher than the average. The rest 6 items are in the “Follow Zone”, which suggests that their importance and feasibility are lower than the average. Therefore, there is room to adjust and improve the current performance appraisal indexes. Secondly, there are 17 evaluation indexes specifically constructed to the “organization” characteristics. Ten of them are located in “Immediately Improved Zone”, which suggests that their importance and feasibility are above average. In particular, the “annual revenues aim-achieving” item has been equipped as the prototype on index quantification and is consistent with business characteristic as well. Thus it should be incorporated into the current evaluation indexes to achieve the organizational goal on evaluating the employees' performance. Next, the factors which influence employees' performance appraisal are “adequate information and feedback”, “economic incentives”, “diversity of rewards and punishments” and “incentive intensity.” There is a significant difference among interviewees' responses on “education” and “information and feedback.” “Executives rank” and “marriage” has a significant effects on “economic incentives.” “Job classes and systems” is statistically significant on “diversity of rewards and punishments.” “High job classes”, “education”, and “age” are significantly different from zero in “incentive intensity principle.” Last, the rank of the SOE employees' preferences for the performance appraisal motivation incentives are listed as follows: “bonus raising”, “training and promotion”, “travel subsidy”, “extra holiday”, and “on-duty training.” However, the results from this study also proves that different systems have different preferences for the performance appraisal motivation incentives, which suggest different promotion systems in the three separated sectors, says, administration, engineering and sale, within the systems has effect on employees' incentives.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/27982
其他識別: U0005-2607200715381200
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-2607200715381200
Appears in Collections:應用經濟學系

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館

Show full item record
 
TAIR Related Article
 
Citations:


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.