(3.236.100.86) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/06 14:59
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:游雅茹
研究生(外文):Ya-Ju Yu
論文名稱:組織常規形成與組織學習間關係之探討
論文名稱(外文):AN EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ROUTINES AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
指導教授:楊仁壽楊仁壽引用關係
指導教授(外文):Jenshou Yang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立雲林科技大學
系所名稱:企業管理系碩士班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005
畢業學年度:93
語文別:中文
論文頁數:123
中文關鍵詞:組織常規改良式學習探索式學習紮根理論組織學習
外文關鍵詞:routinesexplorationexploitationgrounded theoryorganizational learning
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:9
  • 點閱點閱:297
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:83
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
學習型組織與組織學習的議題在近十年掀起一陣風潮,但在組織學習的研究領域內,不管是學術界或實務界,歷年來均忽略了組織常規形成與組織學習之間的關連研究,因此形成本研究目的。由於此議題是關於組織學習的本質,因此本文以多重個案研究法深入探討。資料蒐集上除了針對十七家營利事業組織的主管進行半結構式深度訪談外,並蒐集內外部資料,以進行三角驗證。透過研究個案,並經由質性研究的紮根理論歸納出組織常規和組織學習之間的關係,其研究結果如下:
第一,組織常規產生的強烈動機,可以促使組織持續學習,並充分發揮組織常規的正面功能。第二,來自內部員工過去的工作經驗及外部的標竿學習而建立的組織常規,則可增進改良式學習(exploitation),且產生的改良式學習可以提升工作效率。第三,中高階主管因外部教育或網絡間學習,產生的企業家直覺,在建立的組織常規時,會偏向探索式學習的過程。第四,組織常規產生的來源來自於內部者,大部分是由中低階主管所建立的情況下,初始會產生單環學習,而後產生雙環學習。第五,由中低階主管所建立的組織常規,其組織常規的形式面多屬於共識,在此情況下,較容易產生雙環學習。第六,組織成員具備較多專家直覺時,其形式面屬於成員間的共識的情況下,會加速4I架構中的向前學習。第七,建立組織常規的過程中,若資訊散佈更流通,更能詮釋組織常規,促進組織學習的廣度,並產生新的組織常規。第八,形式面與執行面較為一致的情況下,會使成員的思考與行動趨於一致化,因此,較會阻礙組織學習。第九,執行面與形式面關係不一致相較於執行面與形式面關係一致的情況較容易促進組織常規的修正或改變(雙元性),且關係不一致的情況較容易視外界環境變化,適時地修正或改變組織常規,因此,較容易促進高層次學習。第十,執行面和形式面關係是不一致的情況下,當外在環境產生變化時,會刺激員工產生新想法或出現行動因應,若員工能嘗試其他方式應變而不依照組織常規形式面來執行,便產生組織學習的內容。
本研究希望能夠藉由個案研究中所發現的結論,提供組織在建立組織常規時的參考依據,讓整個組織常規建立過程能夠更加順利,達到預期中的組織學習成效。最後,說明其在理論和實務上的意涵。

關鍵字:組織常規、組織學習、紮根理論、探索式學習、改良式學習
In the recent ten years, issues of learning organization and organizational learning have grown dramatically. However, in the past, either the academic field of organizational learning or the empirical circle ignores the relation between routines and organizational learning. Therefore, to explore their relationship becomes the purpose of this article. Since this topic relates to the nature of organizational learning, this research adopts the method of a multi-case study. Procedures of data collection include semi-structured interviews with seventeen managers who are in the seventeen profit companies, and collecting internal and external archival data in the target companies. These steps help to do a triangulate examination of the sources and data. Conclusions of this article on the relation between routines and organizational learning are as the followings:
1. The routines produce powerful motives for organizations to continue learning. 2. The routines from past experience or from benchmark promotes exploitation learning and efficiency. 3. Top-end managers face exploration learning due to entrepreneurs’ intuition cultivated from external education or network learning. 4. Low-end managers start to produce single-loop learning and then produce double-loop learning under the circumstances of learning from internal routines. 5. When low-end managers establish routines and they originate from consensus within the firm, managers easily produce the double-loop learning. 6. When the organizational members have expert intuition and the routines are based on consensus, feed-forward learning will be accelerated. 7. If information disseminate widely, it will promote the scope of the organizational learning. 8. If the forms and rules are consistent with the operation, the consistency will impede organizational learning. 9. If the forms and rules are inconsistent with the operation, the inconsistency will promote high-level learning. 10. Under the circumstances when inconsistency between the forms and operation occurs and when there is a change in environments, organizational members will try other methods to solve problem and it will produce organization learning.
The thesis hopes to offer reference to firms in establishing routines successfully and in achieving effects of expectation. Finally, both academic and practical implications are suggested.

Keywords:routines, organizational learning, grounded theory, exploitation, exploration
目錄

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
致謝 iii
目錄 v
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 ix

一、緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 2
二、文獻探討 3
2.1 組織常規的探討 3
2.1.1 組織常規的定義 3
2.1.2 組織常規的的內涵與其動態演化歷程 3
2.2 組織學習的探討 5
2.2.1 何謂學習 5
2.2.2 組織學習的發展歷史 6
2.2.3 組織學習的定義 11
2.2.4 學習的類型 15
2.2.5 學習的脈絡因素 18
2.3 組織常規與組織學習 19
2.3.1 組織學習能力與組織常規的形成與演化 19
2.3.2 組織常規是組織學習的主要因素 22
2.3.3 組織常規正面與負面功能 23
三、 研究設計 25
3.1 研究流程 25
3.2 質性研究方法 26
3.2.1 個案研究法 28
3.3 研究對象的選擇與描述 29
3.3.1 研究對象的選擇 29
3.3.2 個案公司背景介紹 29
3.4 實施個案研究過程 31
3.4.1 研究工具 31
3.4.2 資料蒐集方法 32
3.4.3 訪談程序與訪談大綱設計 33
3.4.4 資料整理與分析 36
3.5可信性檢驗 41
3.5.1 效度 41
3.5.2 三角驗證 41
四、研究發現與討論 42
4.1組織常規產生的動機與來源(前) 44
4.1.1 組織常規產生的動機 44
4.1.2 組織常規產生的來源 48
4.2組織常規訂定的過程(中) 53
4.3組織常規實施的情況(後) 61
五、結論與建議 72
5.1 總結 72
5.2 管理涵意 75
5.2.1 理論上的意涵 75
5.2.2 實務上的意涵 75
5.3 研究限制與對未來研究方向 78
5.3.1 研究限制 78
5.3.2 未來研究方向 79
參考文獻 80
附錄一 個案公司簡介 86
附錄二 訪談題目 104
附錄三 訪談同意書 106
附錄四 開放性譯碼表 107
附錄五 個案公司訪談資料歸納 112


























表目錄

表 2-1 概念萌芽期彙整表 7
表 2-2 理論內涵充實期彙整表 8
表 2-3 理論整合應用期彙整表 10
表 2-4 組織學習定義彙整表 13
表 2-5 低層次與高層次學習 18
表 2-6 組織學習(三個層次透過4I流程) 21
表 2-7 組織常規的正面與負面功能 24
表 3-1 個案研究法的適用時機與程序 28
表 3-2 個案公司背景資料彙整表 30
表 3-3 訪談法的三種方式 33
表 3-4 正式訪談大綱 34
表 3-5 開放性譯碼表 38
表 4-1 組織常規動機與正面功能彙整表 45
表 4-2 組織常規可增進改良式學習的產生來源 49
表 4-3 B與I公司組織常規產生的來源 50
表 4-4 本研究發現與文獻相同之處 52
表 4-5 組織常規來源與由誰建立的交集表 54
表 4-6 個案D、F、H和L公司的組織常規與訪談者職稱 55
表 4-7 組織常規形式面與由誰建立的交集表 56
表 4-8 訂定組織常規的方式與來源 58
表 4-9 本節研究發現與文獻比較表 59
表 4-10 執行面/形式面關係和組織常規修改與否交集表 63
表 4-11 A與C公司組織常規改變表 64
表 4-12 A與C公司組織常規生命週期 66
表 4-13 研究發現3-4與過去文獻之比較 67
表 4-14 研究發現與研究目的對應表 69
圖目錄

圖 2-1 組織學習類型 17
圖 2-2 進行學習管理的過程模式 20
圖 2-3 組織學習程序與構成 22
圖 3-1 研究流程圖 26
圖 3-2 本研究資料分析流程圖 37
圖 4-1 第四章內容架構圖 43
圖 5-1 本研究發現彙整圖 74
參考文獻
一、中文文獻
1.吳芝儀,2000,中輟學生的危機與轉機,濤石,嘉義。
2.吳芝儀、廖梅花,2001,質性研究入門:紮根理論研究方法,濤石文化,嘉義。
3.李瑞敏、楊仁壽、陳婉瑜、李青燕,2005,”組織常規是促進或阻礙組織學習?”,2005台灣長榮企業管理暨經營決策研討會論文集。
4.張邵勳,2001,研究方法,滄海出版,台北。
5.張春興、楊國樞,1980,心理學,三民書局,台北。
6.陳品玲,1996,護理研究導論--事後回溯研究法,華杏,台北。
7.陳倩慧,1998,家庭托育服務的品質:家庭保母的角色、家庭系統,及與家長互動關係之探討,國立台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。
8.陳鴻義,1992,”少一點管理多一點領導”,管理雜誌,第220期,頁56-60。
9.楊仁壽、王思峰,2002,”三種組織學習的類型與其介入模式”,商管科技季刊,頁249-273。
10.盧偉斯,1996,組織學習的理論性探究,國立政治大學公共行政研究所未刊博士論文
11.Donald and William Emory, 1996,企業研究方法,古永嘉譯,華泰,台北巿。
12.Gareth R. Jones, 2002,組織理論與管理:理論與個案,楊仁壽、俞慧芸、許碧芬等合譯,雙葉書廊,台北市。
13.Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.,1997,質性研究概論,徐宗國譯,巨流圖書,台北。
14.Senge,P.M.,1994,第五項修練-學習型組織的藝術與實務,郭進隆譯,天下,台北。
15.Stephenn P Robbins著,1992,組織行為學,李青芬、李雅婷、趙慕芬合譯,華泰書局,台北。
16.Michael Quinn Patton,1995,質的評鑑與研究,吳芝儀、李奉儒譯,桂冠,台北。






二、英文文獻
1.Adler, P. A., and Adler, P. , 1993, “Human resources, personnel, and organizational behavior -- Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation by Gideon Kunda,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 425-444.
2.Adler, P. S., B. Goldoftas, and D. I. Levine, 1999, “Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system ,” Organization Science, Vol. 10, pp. 43-48.
3.Argote, L. , 1999, Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
4.Argyris, C.,1995, “Action science and organizational learning”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol.10, No.6, pp.20-27.
5.Argyris, C. , D. A. Schon, 1978, Organizational Learning: A theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, MA.
6.Argyris, C., D. A Schon, 1996, Organizational learning II – Theory, method and practice, Addison-Wesley, MA.
7.Ashforth, B. E.,and Fried, Y, 1988, “The Mindlessness Of Organizational Behaviors,” Human Relations, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 305-330.
8.Bartunek, J. M., 1984, “Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring:The example of a religious order”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 29, pp.355-372.
9.Beck, N., & Kieser, A.,2003,”The Complexity of Rule Systems, Experience and Organizational Learning”. Organization Studies, Vol. 24, No5., pp.793-815.
10.Bell, E., Taylor, S.& Thorpe, R., 2002, ”A Step in the Right Direction? Investors in People and the Learning Organization.” British Journal of Management, Vol. 13, No2. , pp.161-172.
11.Boje, d., Luhman, J. T., and Baack, D. E. , 2000, “Hegemonic stories and encounters between storytelling organizations,” Jounal of management Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 340-60.
12.Cohen, M. D., and P. Bacdayan, 1994, “Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory:Evidence from a laboratory study.”, Organization Science, Vol.5, pp.554–568.
13.Cohen, M. D., R. Burkhart, G. Dosi, M. Egidi, L. Marengo, M. Warglien, and S. , 1996, “Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: Contemporary research issues.”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.5, pp.653–698.
14.Cohen, W. D., R. Burkhart, G. Dosi, M. Egidi, L. Marengo, M. Warglien, and S. Winter, 1996, “Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: Contemporary research issues,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 5, pp.653-698.
15.Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D.A., 1990, “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective On Learning And Innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.35, pp.128-152.
16.Cole, R. E. , 1998, “Learning From The Quality Movement: What Did And Didn''t Happen And Why?,” California Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 43-74.
17.Cook, Scott D.N.; Yanow, Dvora., 1993, “Culture and Organizational Learning” , Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 2 Issue 4, p373, Dec.
18.Crossan, M. M, Lane H. W., and White, 1999, R., “ An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution,” The Academy of Management Review , Vol. 24 , No. 3, pp. 522-538.
19.Cyert, R. M., and March, James G. , 1963, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, N.Y..
20.Dery, D.,1998, “Papareality And Learning In Bureaucratic Organizations”, Administration & Society, Vol. 29, No6., pp.677-690.
21.Dodgson, M., 1993,“Organizational Learning: A review of some Literatueres”, Organization Studies, Vol.4, No.3,pp.375-394.
22.Drucker, P. F. , 1992, “The new society of organizations,” Harvard Business Review , Vol. 70, No.5, pp. 95-104.
23.Duncan, R. B., 1974, ”Modifications in decision structure in adapting to the environment design,” Research in organizational behavior,pp.75-123.
24.Duncan, R. and Weiss, A., 1979,“Organizational Learning: Implications for Organizational Design”, In Staw,B., and Cummings, L.(ed), Research In Organization Behavior. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press,pp.75-123.
25.Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D., 2000, “Organizational learning: Debates past, present and future” , The Journal of Management Studies, Vol.37, No.6, pp.783-.796.
26.Edmondson, A. C., R. M. Bohmer, and G. P. Pisano, 2001,“ Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hosipitals,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, pp. 685-716.
27.Eisenhardt, K. M. , 1989, “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 532-551.
28.Feldman, M. S., and Pentland, B. T. , 2003, “Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 94-118.
29.Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. , 1985, “Organizational learning” , Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 803-813.
30.Gersick, C.J.G., & Hackman, J.R. , 1990, “Habitual routines in task- performing groups,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , Vol. 47, pp. 65-97.
31.Greve, Michael, 2003, “Sell Globally, Tax Locally” ,American Enterprise, Vol. 14, p47.
32.Hackman, J. R., and Wageman, R. , 1995, “Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual, and Practical Issues,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No2., pp. 309-344.
33.Hammer, M., and Stanton, S. , 1999, “How Process Enterprises Really Work,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 6, pp. 108-118.
34.Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. R. , 1983, “Structural Inertia And Organizational Change,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, pp. 149–164.
35.Harvey ,C. , 1999, ”To come of age: The antecedents of organizational learning,” The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 897-918.
36.Hedberg, B.,1981, “How organizations learn and unlearn?”, In P.C. Nystrorn and W.H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, London: Oxford University Press, pp.8-27.
37.Hel, Zi-Lin, , 2004, ”Exploration vs. Exploitation: An empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis” , Organization Science , Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 481-495.
38.Hendry, C., 1996, “Understanding and Creating Whole Organizational change Through Learning theory,” Human Relations, Vol.49, No.5, pp. 621-641.
39.Holmqvist, M. , 2004,“Experiential learning Process of Exploitation and Exploration Within and Between Organizations: An Empirical Study of Product Development,” Organization Science, Vol.15, No.1, pp. 70-82.
40.Huber, G. P. , 1991,“ Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes And The Literatures,” Organization Science , Vol.2, No.1, pp. 88-115.
41.Ilgen, D. R., and Hollenbeck J. R. , 1991, “The Structure Of Work: Job Design And Roles,” in M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp.165–207.
42.Johanson, U., Mârtensson, M., & Skoog, M.,2001, “Mobilizing Change Through The Management Control of Intangibles Accounting.” Organizations & Society, Vol.26, No. 7/8,pp.715-734.
43.Kim, D. H., 1993, “The Link Between Individual And Organizational Learning.” Sloan Management Review, Vol.35, No.1, pp.37-50.
44.Laughlin, R., 1995, “ Empirical research in accounting: alternative approaches and a case for ‘middle-range’ thinking,” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol.8, No.1, pp. 6387-6398.
45.Lawrence, P. R., and Dyer, D. , 1983, Renewing American industry Free Press,, New York.
46.Leidner, R. , 1993, Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of Everyday Life, Berkeley, University of California Press, CA.
47.Levinthal, D. A. , 1997,” Adaptation on rugged landscapes,” Management Science, Vol.43, No.7, pp.934-951.
48.Levinthal, D. A., and March, J. G. , 1993,“ The Myopia Of Learning,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol.14, No.8, pp. 95-113.
49.Levitt, B. and March, J. G. , 1988,“Organizational Learning,” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14, pp. 319-340.
50.Luthans, F.,1989,” Executive Summaries.” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.3-4.
51.Maier, G.W., Prange, C., and von Rosenstiel, L., 2001, Psychological perspectives of organizational learning, in M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, and I. Nonaka (eds). Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press.
52.March, J. G. , 1991, “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,” Organization Science, Vol.2, No.1, pp. 71-88.
53.March, J. G. & J. P. Olsen., 1976,”The Uncertainty of the Past:Organizational Learning under Ambiguity”, European Journal of Political Research. Vol.3,pp.147-171.
54.March, J. G., and Simon ,H. A. , 1958, Organizations, Wiley , NY.
55.Miller, D., 1996, “A Preliminary Typology of Organizational Learning: Synthesizing the Literature”, Journal of Management, Vol.22,No.3, pp.485-505.
56.Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., and Lampel, J. , 1988, Strategy safari: A guide tour through the wilds of strategic management, Free Press, New York.
57.Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G.,1982, ”The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited, American Economic Review, Vol. 72 Issue 1, p114-133
58.Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. , 1995, The knowledge creating company, Oxford, Oxford University Press, England.
59.Olivera, Fernando. ,2000, “Memory Systems In Organizations: An Empirical Investigation Of Mechanisms For Knowledge Collection”, Storage And Access.; Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 Issue 6, p811, 22p, 1 chart
60.Powell, W. W.,1998, ” Learning From Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical.” California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.228-241.
61.Senge, P., 1990,The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York.
62.Shrivastava, P., 1981,, Strategic Decision Making Process: The Influence of Organizational Learning and Experience. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, pp.15.
63.Simon, H., 1945, Administrative Behavior, Free Press, New York.
64.Simon, Herbert A., 1953, Administrative Behavior: A study of Decision-Making Process in Administrative Organization, Macmillian, New York.
65.Stata, R., 1989, “Organization Learning-The key to management innovation.” Sloan Management Review,pp. 63-74, Spring.
66.Stene, E. , 1940, “An approach to the science of administration,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 34, pp. 1124–1137.
67.Stinchcombe, A. L.,1990, Information and Organizations, University of California Press, Berkeley.
68.Sutton, R. I., and Staw, B. M. , 1995, “What Theory Is Not,” Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 40, pp. 371–384.
69.Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. ,1992, Becoming a Learning Organization: Beyond the Learning Curve, Addison-Wesley , M.A..
70.Thompson, J. D. , 1967, Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, NY.
71.Vanhaverbeke, W., Beerkens, B., and Duysters, G. , 2004, “Explorative and Exploitative Learning Strategies in Technology-based Alliance Networks,”Academy of Management Proceedings, J1-J6.
72.Weber,1946, “ From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology,” In H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (eds), New York: Oxford university Press.
73.Weick, K. E.,1991, “The nontraditional quality of organizational learning.” Organizational Science, Vol.2, pp.116-124.
74.Yin, B. K. , 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Pub..
75.Zietsma, C., Winn, M., Branzei, O., & Vertinsky, I., 2002,“The War of the Woods: Facilitators and Impediments of Organizational Learning Processes.” British Journal of Management, Vol.13, No.3, S61-S74.
76.Zimmerman, M. B. ,1982, “Learning Effects and the Commercialization of New Energy Technologies: The Case of Nuclear Power,” Bell Journal of Ecnomics, Vol.13, pp.297-310.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔