Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/132078
題名: 公務人員考績丙等制度之研究:績效管理與權利保障
A Study on the Performance-C Rating System for Civil Servants in Taiwan:Performance Management and Right Protection
作者: 蘇青灔
Su, Ching-Yen
貢獻者: 江明修
Chiang, Min-Hsiu
蘇青灔
Su, Ching-Yen
關鍵詞: 歷史制度論
績效管理
特別權力關係
考績丙等
保障制度
Historical Institutionalism
Performance Management
Special Power Relationship
Performance C Rating
Right Protection
日期: 2020
上傳時間: 5-Oct-2020
摘要: 公務人員考績係作為公務人員任用、陞遷、訓練、晉敘等人事法令之準據,考績重要性可謂為文官制度之樞紐,考績分為甲乙丙丁四個等次,行政機關為達績效管理目標,欲以考績丙等作為公務人員汰劣退場機制,惟考績丙等攸關公務人員權益甚鉅,最高行政法院揭示丙等受考評人循行政訴訟以維當事人之權利,由公務人員考績法、考績法草案、公務人員保障法、最高行政法院庭長法官聯席會議決議等觀之,考績丙等本身涵蓋績效管理與權利保障之矛盾與衝突。本研究以歷史制度論為研究途徑,從時間序列探究公務人員考績丙等之政策內涵、修法規劃、評定性質、救濟方式之演變。本研究發現,考績丙等政策係高度政治性,未來修法方向尚待政策視窗之開啟;考績制度根深蒂固難以撼動,考績法草案規劃考績丙等汰劣退場引起公務人員反彈抗拒;考績丙等評定性質由管理措施轉為行政處分,救濟程序由申訴、再申訴轉為復審、行政訴訟,將可提高當事人之救濟權利。本研究建議,未來應強化主管管理責任,提高主管領導統御;欲落實績效管理需明定考績丙等條件,以符法律保留原則;針對考績丙等受考評人,賦予其陳述申辯機會,以完備事前保障機制。至於未來可以本研究作為基礎,延伸探討考績甲等比例合法性、救濟程序雙軌必要性、開放籌組工會可行性等攸關公務人員權益之相關研究。
The performance evaluation system of civil servants is used as the basis for the appointment, promotion, training, raise and other personnel laws of public servants. The importance of performance evaluation can be described as the hub of the civil service system. The performance evaluation is divided into four grades: A, B, C, D. In order to achieve performance management goals, administrative agencies use performance C rating as a mechanism to eliminate the inferior, the performance C rating is very important to the rights and interests of public servants. The Supreme Administrative Court has revealed that those got C are subject to administrative litigation to safeguard the rights of the parties. According to the Civil Service Performance Evaluation Act draft, the Civil Service Protection Act, and the resolutions of the joint meeting of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court, the performance C rating itself covers the conflict between performance management and right protection. This research uses historical system theory as a research approach to explore the policy connotation, revision plan, nature of assessment, and the evolution of relief methods of civil servants` performance C rating from time series. This study found that the performance C rating policy is highly political, and the modification direction still unknown until the policy window open; the performance evaluation system is deeply ingrained and difficult to shake. The Civil Service Performance Evaluation Act draft has caused public servants to rebound and resist; the nature of performance C rating has transformed from administrative management to administrative sanctions, and the relief procedures are changed from appeals and re-appeals to deliberation and administrative litigation, which will improve the public servants’ right. This research suggests that in the future, the responsibilities of supervisors should be strengthened, and the leadership of supervisors should be improved; if performance management is to be implemented, the conditions for performance C rating must be clearly defined to comply with the principle of legal retention; for the performance appraisal, they should be given the opportunity to make a statement and defense in order to complete the advancement protection mechanism. In the future, this study can be used as a basis to extend the discussion on the legitimacy of the performance A rating, the necessity of dual-track relief procedures, and the feasibility of organizing a union for civil servants.
參考文獻: 江明修(1997)。公共行政學:理論與社會實踐。臺北:五南。\n江明修(2007)。新公共行政學。臺北:元照。\n江明修(2020)。解讀政策評估:領導者的決策心法。臺北:五南。\n江明修、王維德(2020)。重新詮釋我國政府之KPI-以社會建構論之觀點。主計月刊,774,44-48。\n朱金池、王俊元、郭銘峰(2014)。從利害關係人途徑析探公部門績效管理:我國地方政府之經驗。文官制度季刊,6(4),1-26。\n考試院(2012)。啟動變革 向上提昇—關中院長對於考績制度改革之理念與說明。臺北:考試院。\n呂炳寬、張毓真(2015)。我國特別權力關係之演變:歷史制度主義的觀點。文官制度季刊,7(3),1-28。\n呂育誠 (2018)。公務人員考績制度未來變革途徑的另類想像:績效管理的觀點。文官制度季刊,10(4),1-23。\n李沃牆(2018)。臺灣全球競爭力下滑的解讀。會計研究月刊,392,17-21。\n李惠宗(2011)。校園將永無寧日?—釋字第六八四號解釋評析。月旦法學雜誌,191,111-128。\n李天申(2013)。我國推動公務人員考績丙等比例的政策衝突分析。文官制度季刊5(1):21-47。\n吳瓊恩、張世杰、許世雨、董克用、蔡秀涓、蘇偉業(2006)。公共人力資源管理。臺北:智勝。\n吳庚、盛子龍(2017)。行政法之理論與實用。臺北:三民。\n吳志光(2017)。釋字第736號解釋對行政法院實務之影響。月旦裁判時報,56,5-12。\n林全發(2010)。我國公務人員保障法申訴制度之研究。文官制度季刊,2(1),73-97。\n林文政(2010)。公務人員考績法修訂,捨本逐末?經理人月刊,66,36-37。\n林思騏、陳盛賢(2018)。從歷史制度論觀點剖析教師專業發展評鑑的政策變遷與延續。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,11(3),61-81。\n林明鏘(2019)。行政法講義。臺北:新學林。\n邱華君(2011)。全球化下我國公務人員之人權保障初探—以「公務人員保障法」規定為例。文官制度季刊,3(3),1-36。\n邱顯丞(2020)。我國特別權力關係究竟是雲淡風輕抑或餘溫仍存?。法觀人月刊,247,19-29。\n施能傑(2006)。文官體系能力與政府競爭力:策略性人力資源管理觀點。東吳政治學報,22,1-46。\n施能傑(2012)。政府人事管理法令的管制品質分析。行政暨政策學報,55,1-30。\n胡婉玲(2001)。論歷史制度主義的制度變遷理論。新世紀智庫論壇,16,86-95。\n莊國榮(2011)。大學學生行政訴訟權的重要突破-評釋字第684號解釋。台灣法學,171,62-73。\n張瓊玲(1999)。改進公務人員考績制度的議題探討:公平原則觀點。文官制度季刊,1(2):171-197。\n張瓊玲(2014)。公務人員考績法中淘汰機制演進之探討。中國行政評論,20(1),27-54。\n張瓊玲(2011)。研析公務人員考績法修正案對於公部門人事制度之影響。公務人員月刊,182,6-13。\n張四明(2019)。當代公共政策研究途徑:理論、爭議和觀點。文官制度季刊,11(3),139-146。\n曹立倫、洪佳瑞(2018)。公務人員考績法修正草案簡介。人事行政,205,45-53。\n許菁芸、黃稚然(2007)。臺灣文官體系轉變之因素探討--以歷史制度主義觀點。立德學報,4(2),6-28。\n許育典(2010)。消逝的大學生權利救濟請求權評最高行政法院九十八年度裁字第二二五八號裁定。月旦裁判時報,1,5-10。\n許育典(2011)。釋字第六八四號下大學與學生的法律關係。月旦法學雜誌,199,96-118。\n許育典(2016)。教師因學校措施受侵害的權利救濟爭議—兼評釋字第736號解釋。月旦裁判時報,53,5-13。\n許南雄 (2018)。各國人事制度:比較人事制度。臺北:商鼎。\n陳明通(1995)。派系政治與臺灣政治變遷。臺北:月旦。\n陳嫈郁(2014)。新制度論的困境與挑戰。政治學報,58,1-36。\n陳敦源(2010)。我國考績制度之檢視:從循證理論、正義觀點及參與管理角度檢視。考試院委託研究報告。\n陳敦源、簡鈺珒、蘇孔志(2017)。考績等第決定的非正式制度:甲等比例限縮政策影響之分析。空大行政學報,31,1-35。\n陳敦源(2019)。民主治理:公共行政與民主政治的制度性調和。臺北:五南。\n陳淑芳(2016)。公務人員對於考績評定不服之救濟。月旦法學教室,166,12-14。\n陳敏(2019)。行政法總論。臺北:新學林。\n湯德宗(2011)。論訂定考績丙等比例並命資退之合憲性—公務人員考績法修正草案改進芻議。法令月刊,62(3),4-24。\n黃榮護、林建宏(2009)。考績丙等制度設計評估:以適法性與妥適性為分析焦點。文官制度季刊,1(2),145-170。\n黃宗昊(2010)。歷史制度論的方法立場與理論建構。問題研究,49(3):145-176。\n楊戊龍(2008)。美國聯邦公務員懲戒(不利處分)與救濟制度概述。公務員懲戒制度相關論文彙編第3輯。臺北:司法院。\n溫金豐(2009)。淺談公務機構的績效管理。T&D 飛訊,88,1-18。\n董保城(2017)。中小學生受教育權權利救濟保障之再省思—臺北高等行政法院105年度訴字第386號裁定評釋。月旦裁判時報,57,23-30。\n趙達瑜(2007)。地方政府公務員不服考績決定提起再申訴原因之研析。人事月刊,44(5),16-36。\n劉昊洲(2001)。公務員義務與權利概述。三民主義學報,22,133-149。\n劉昊洲(2017)。公務人員權義論。臺北:五南。\n劉淑範(2013)。論公務員職務調動之概念及法律性質:揮別我國特別權力關係思維之遺緒。臺大法學論叢,42(1),1-44。\n劉慧娥 (2015)。由美國聯邦政府被禁止人事行為申訴及救濟制度反思我國公務人員保障制度。文官制度季刊,7(3),67-121。\n蔡秀涓(2005)。績效不佳員工之處理:政府管理者觀點。臺北:雙葉。\n蔡秀涓(2007)。政府主管如何看待績效不佳員工:台灣與美國之比較分析。政治科學論叢,32,109-144。\n蔡相廷(2010)。歷史制度主義的興起與研究取向-政治學研究途徑的探討。臺北市立教育大學學報,41(2):39-76。\n蔡良文(2009)。文官體制變革之論證。文官制度季刊,考試院八十周年慶特刊,1-24。\n蔡良文(2010)。個人考績與團體績效評比扣合相關學理與作法之研析。變革中的文官治理國際研討會。\n蔡良文(2018)。人事行政學-論現行考銓制度。臺北:五南。\n賴恆盈(2011)。告別特別權力關係(上)—兼評大法官釋字第六八四號解釋。月旦法學雜誌,197,114-133。\n賴恆盈(2011)。告別特別權力關係(下)—兼評大法官釋字第六八四號解釋。月旦法學雜誌,198,174-191。\n謝俊義(1998)。新制度論與公共行政;整合性觀點。中國行政評論,7(4):155-188。\n謝碧珠(2013)。行政法院對考績事件救濟爭議問題探討。法令月刊,64(12):99-116。\n謝碩駿(2013)。行政處分,行政處分,多少「原告之訴駁回」假汝之名以行!/最高行101裁2153裁定、102判514判決。台灣法學,235,179-185。\n蘇偉業(2009)。公共部門事前定向績效管理:反思與回應。公共行政學報,30,105-130。\n蘇子喬(2010)。台灣憲政體制的變遷軌跡(1991-2010):歷史制度論的分析。東吳政治學報,28(4):147-223。\n顧慕晴(2012)。臺灣廉政機關變遷之研究:歷史制度論的分析。中國地方自治65(5):24-42。\nCapoccia, Giovanni (2016). When Do Institutions “Bite”? Historical and the Politics of Institutional Change. Comparative Political Studies, 49(8), 1095-1127.\nCivil Service HR (2019). Managing Poor Performance Policy Procedures for the Senior Civil Service. Retrieved from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/796292/UpdatedManagingPoorPerformance-PolicyProceduresForSCS.pdf\nDooren, W. V., G. Bouckaert, & J. Halligan, (2015). Performance Management in the public Sector, New York: Routledge.\nGerard W. (2016) “Studying Public Policy”: Historical Institutionalism and the Comparative Method. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 743-761.\nHyde, Albert C.(1982). Performance Appraisal in the Post Reform Era. Public Personnel Management, 11(4), 294-305.\nHall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, XLIV, 936-957.\nHall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C. R. (1998). The Potential of Historical Institutionalism: A Response to Hay and Wincott. Political Studies, XLVI, 958-962.\nKrasner, Stephen D. (1984). Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics. Comparative Politics, 16(2):223–246.\nMarch, James G. and Olsen, Johan P. (1983). The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. The American Political Science Review,78(3),734-749.\nMarch, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1984). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.\nMarch, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. New York: The Free Press.\nPeters, B. Guy and Zittoun, Philippe (2016). Contemporary Approaches to Public Policy: Theories, Controversies and Perspectives. London: Palgrave MacMillan.\nRobinson, Sandra L. and Bennett ,Rebecca J. (1995) A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.\nThelen, Kathleen and Steinmo, Sven (1992). Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis,1-32.\nTalbot, C. (2005). Performance Management. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn Jr., & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, 491-517. Oxford:Oxford University Press.\nU.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (2017). The Merit System Principles Keys to Managing the Federal Workforce. Retrieved from: https://www.mspb.gov/mspbsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=1371890&version=1377261&application=ACROBAT\nU.S. Office of Personnel Management (2017a). A Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance. Retrieved from: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/performance-management/measuring/employee_performance_handbook.pdf\nU.S. Office of Personnel Management (2017b). Addressing and Resolving Poor Performance: A Guide for Supervisors. Retrieved from: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations/employee-rights-appeals/performance-based-actions/toolkit.pdf
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
103256014
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103256014
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
601401.pdf1.91 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


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