Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/74259
題名: 中央研究院特殊優秀人才獎勵金制度之研究:組織公平知覺觀點
The Implementation of the Recruitment and Retention Bonus for Outstanding Research Fellows in Academia Sinica: An Organizational Justice Perspective
作者: 洪婉婷
Hong, WanTing
貢獻者: 施能傑
Shih, Jay N.
洪婉婷
Hong, WanTing
關鍵詞: 組織公平知覺
彈性薪資
人才延攬留任
perception of organizational justice
flexible salary
recruitment and retention talents
日期: 2014
上傳時間: 1-Apr-2015
摘要: 本研究係探究中央研究院執行科技部補助獎勵特殊優秀人才獎勵金之情形,研究主軸有三,分別是(一)瞭解個案研究機構執行該獎勵計劃之方式、(二)檢視研究人員對於任職單位執行該獎勵計劃的分配公平及程序公平知覺,(三)探究研究人員對於獎勵計劃實施成效之看法。透過問卷調查法及深度訪談法進行,回收問卷有效樣本201份,深度訪談9位人員。\n研究結果發現,多數單位透過行政人員主動將申請科技部獎勵計畫之資訊,超過七成以上受試者對任職單位採用審查方式有所瞭解。評核標準方面認同以學術研究研究成果為主要考量因素,多採取密件或口頭通知獲獎人員,且獲得獎勵金者在接收獎勵申請訊息較充足。在分配公平及程序公平認知方面,多數認同獲獎者按照個人研究的績效差異,獲得不同的獎勵分配,普遍不認同獎金採平均分配;高達九成以上受試者認同審核成員或委員會決定獎勵名單,避免對任何人有偏見,且多數認同應秉持「公正性」、「客觀性」做出「正確性」的獎勵名單。實施成效上認同應有充分穩定的經費來源,且獎勵金達到單位內留才功能大於外部攬才之功能。\n在現行待遇制度無法調整下,運用彈性薪資方式,額外給與特殊優秀的研究人才非法定的獎勵金,對人才延攬及留任方式有所助益,本研究建議行政院其他給與項目法制化作業的過程應採取積極開放的態度;組織內部管理面,建議邀集同仁參與討論,訂定符合公平及公正之獎勵執行規定,採取委員會方式審查獎勵名單並公布受獎名單,並可思考規劃訂定明確的實質分配法則,使各獲獎人員間之獎勵額度應有差異性,且研究績效良好程度與獎勵額度成正比關係,以有效地激勵員工。
This study focuses on the execution of fellowships provided by Ministry of Science and Technology for for outstanding talents. The purposes of this study are: 1. How the fellowships are distributed; 2. The perceptions of distributive and procedural justice of research fellows from different institutes; 3. Opinions of research fellows for the effectiveness of the fellowships. The study is conducted through questionnaires with 201 effective samples, and interviews with 9 fellows.\nThis study indicates that most of the institutes actively notify their fellows about the fellowships. More than 70 percents of experimental subjects know the way of distribution, while senior fellows know more well. The examinees recognize using research achievement as a major measure for distribution. Most of the fellows receiving fellowships are notified by classified or oral notices, and more informed about the fellowships. In perceptions of distributive and procedural justice, most examinees prefer distributing fellowships by research achievement of each individual rather than uniformly, and also agree with establishing a distribution committee to avoid prejudices. In addition, many of experimental subjects suggest that the fellowships should be stable and long-term, while thinking the money contributes more to staying instead of recruiting elites.\nUnder current statutory and fixed salary structure, additional and flexible bonus contributes to staying and recruiting talents. We suggest that Administrative Yuan should be more open and aggressive when regulating and adjusting salary structure. For Academia Sinica, the fellowships should be always distributed by corresponding committees in a fair and differentiated manner which are fully and publicly discussed. The amount of fellowship should also be proportional to individual`s research achievement to effectively drive employees.
參考文獻: 馬康莊、陳信木(譯) (1995)。社會學理論。臺北:麥格羅.希爾。\n蔡文輝(2002)。社會學 (五版三刷)。臺北:三民。\n齊思賢(譯)(2005)。杜拉克思想精粹-社會的趨勢。台北市:商周出版。\n游鴻裕(2009)。人力資源管理:新世紀觀點。台北:雙葉書廊有限公司。\n行政院國家科學委員會(2010)。中華民國科學技術年鑑(99年版),68。\n余桂霖(2010)。當代正義理論。臺北:秀威資訊。\n張春興(2007)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北:東華。\n教育部(2010)。延攬及留住大專校院特殊優秀人才實施彈性薪資方案。\n立法院公報第101卷72期委員會紀錄。頁415-416。出版日期2012年11月29日。\n國立政治大學(2012)。2012年8月25日「公共政策論壇:大學彈性薪資與人才培育、延攬暨留任」研討會會議手冊資料。\n內政部入出國及移民署與中央研究院101年10月22日召開之「外籍人士在臺生活情形與居留狀況跨部會座談會」會議紀錄。\n林淑姬、樊景立、吳靜吉、司徒達賢 (1994)。薪酬公平、程序公正與組織承諾、組織公民行為關係之研究。管理評論,13(2),87-108。\n施能傑(2000)。政府的績效管理改革,收錄於孫本初與江岷欽主編公共管理論文精選1。台北:元照出版社。\n鄭仁偉、黎士群(2001)。組織公平、信任與人員知識分享行為之關係性研究。人力資源管理學報,1(2),69-93。\n溫金豐、錢書華(2002)。報酬結構、認知公平與研發人員績效關係之研究:以某高科技研究機構為例。人力資源管理學報,2(1),19-35。\n羅新興(2002)。人事獎懲決策歸因與程序正義知覺關係之研究-以國防管理學院成員爲樣本。人力資源管理學報,2(4),1-13。\n黃家齊(2002)。組織控制、交換關係與組織公民行為-組織公正的中介效果。輔仁管理評論,9(2),1-34。\n黃家齊(2003)。人力資源管理活動認知與員工態度、績效之關聯性差異分析-心理契約與社會交換觀點。管理評論,21(4),101-127\n廖國鋒、吳華春(2003)。從正義知覺與關係品質的觀點探討領導者權力對員工工作投入影響之實證研究。人力資源管理學報,3(2),1-25\n施能傑(2004)。建立組織績效管理引導績效評估的制度。考銓季刊,37,79-94。\n李振宏(2005)。「不患寡而患不均」的解說。香港中文大學二十一世紀評論雙月刊,2005年6月號總第89期,109-112。\n洪麗雯(2005)。總額預算、薪資公平與薪酬滿足對醫師工作態度之相關性影響與探討。人力資源管理學報,5(1),135-161。\n施文玲(2006)。社會交換理論之評析。網路社會學通訊期刊,52,取自 http://www.nhu.edu.tw/!society/e-j/52/52-15.htm。\n詹中原(2007)。全球化與公共行政改革:知識經濟觀點之檢視。財團法人國家政策研究基金會國政研究報告。\n孫志麟(2007)。績效控制或專業發展?大學教師評鑑的兩難。教育實踐與研究,20(2),95-128。\n楊豐華、吳能惠、洪湘雅、楊雅棠(2008)。「組織公平、組織政治知覺與組織公民行為關係之研究—台電公司員工之觀點」。商學學報,16,105-130。\n經建會人力規劃處(2010)。讓卓越人才開啟臺灣競爭力綜論《人才培育方案》(2010-2013)。臺灣經濟論衡,2010年9月,34-36。\n吳清山、林天祐(2011)。馬太效應。教育資料與研究雙月刊,103,173-174。\n葉芷妘(2010年11月6日)。教部留才、28教授年薪加50萬。中時電子報。\n洪春吉、李純慧(2010)。組織公平與組織公民行為關係—以金融業、營建業實證比較。臺灣銀行季刊,61(4),201-219。\n陳敦源、蘇孔志、簡鈺珒、陳序廷(2011)。論資排輩還是工作表現?年資因素對於我國公務人員績效考評影響之研究。文官制度季刊,3(1),53-91。\n曾瑪莉(2011)。澳門中小學教師組織公平感知研究。一國兩制研究,第8期,157-163。\n湯佳玲(2011年10月25日)。大學教授月薪 星是台3.6倍。自由時報。\n湯佳玲(2011年10月25日)。中研院「彈薪」留才 立委批變相加薪。自由時報。\n林欣靜(2012)。人才有價.彈薪留人。臺灣光華雜誌,2012年1月,20-25。\n李沃牆(2013年3月28日)。將人才培育與人才引進提升為國家經濟戰略。財團法人國家政策研究基金會。國政評論。\n黃曉波(2014)。找尋臺灣人才。高教技職簡訊封面故事103年第91期。\nAdams, J. S.(1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299. \nBies, R.J.& Moag, J.S. (1986). Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43-55.\nCohen-Charash, Y. and P. E. Spector (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.\nColquitt, J. A., D. E. Conlon, M. J. Wesson, C. O. Porter and K. Y. Ng (2001). Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86(3), 425-445.\nColquitt, J. A. (2001). On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.\nDeutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.\nFischer, R. (2008). Rewarding Seniority: Exploring Cultural and Organizational Predictors of Seniority Allocation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(2), 167-186.\nGilliland, S. W. (1993). The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694-734.\nGreenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.\nGreenberg, J. (1993). The Intellectual Adolescence of Organizational Justice: You`ve Come a Long Way, Maybe. Social Justice Research, 6, 135-148.\nGreenberg, J. and M. Liebman (1990). Incentives: The Missing Link in Strategic Performance. Journal of Business Strategy, 11(4), 8-11.\nHenson, R. K. (2001). Understanding Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates: A Conceptual Primer on Coefficient Alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.\nHomans, G. C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. The American Journal of Sociology,63, 597-606.\nHomans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.New York: Harcourt Brace and World.\nLeventhal, 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.\nMerton, Robert K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159, 56-63.\nNiehoff, Brian P., and Moorman, Robert H. (1993). Justice As A mediator of the Relationship Between Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, (3), 527-566.\nSheppard, B. H., & Lewicki, R. J. (1987). Toward general principles of managerial fairness. Social Justice Research, 1, 161-176.\nThibaut J. & Walker L.(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\nTyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J.(1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of pro-cedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational set-tings: 77-98. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
行政管理碩士學程
1009213221
103
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1009213221
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
322101.pdf749.76 kBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


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