臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

組織成員的紀律管理方式，經常是胡蘿蔔與棍子的搭配運用。管理者透過適時的獎勵與懲罰運作，使組織成員在組織中學習到哪些行為可以做，而哪些行為則是不被允許的，進而型塑組織成員的行為模式。然而，相同的管理方式，因文化的差異而產生不同效果，在集體主義文化較高的東方華人社會中，個人的地位時常是被社會網絡中，他人對自身的期許來定義「自我」；相對地，在個人主義較高的西方文化社會中，個人權利則往往置於優先考量。因此，東方文化社會的個人常被預期特定的改變以適應社會；而西方文化社會則傾向改變社會結構來配合個體。
管理者為了加強組織的團隊精神與紀律維持，除了對不當行為當事人施以處罰外，其他關係人亦給予各種不同程度之處罰責任，而達相互監督的管理效果。而連坐處罰的基本假設是：對組織行使不當行為的當事人，其具有社會裙帶關係的親友甚至鄰居等均屬於「有相同認知的社會結構成員」，這些人的態度與意圖因與行為當事人相似，因此管理者為避免不當行為的再次發生，而將這些關係人視為具有共同責任者，而予以一併處罰。以確保彼此間能盡到行為監督的責任義務，若有違反組織規範的不當行為發生，管理者便會採取連坐處罰方式，以對其他旁觀者有「殺一儆百」的威嚇作用。
本研究對垂直連坐與水平連坐提出概念性定義，探討國軍部隊中不同層級的組織成員，對連坐事件的正義知覺及決策者信任度之關係，並探討連坐事件角色與集體責任，分別對連坐事件類型與事件正義知覺與決策者信任度的關連性之干擾效果。並透過增強理論、組織正義知覺理論及集體責任文化特性等概念，建構一個連坐事件關係模型。

The member''s discipline management style is often that carrot and stick are used alternatively. Administrators through proper reward and punishment operations make members get to know which behaviors are not allowed, and vice versa. Then, type moulds of the member''s behavior. However, the same management style produces different results because of different cultures. In collectivism culture among the higher eastern Chinese society, personal status in the social network is often defined as “ ego” because of other people’s anticipation. Comparatively, individualism among the higher western society often puts on having prior consideration. Hence, individual in the eastern cultural society is often expected to the specific change in order to adapt to the society; the western cultural society inclines to change the social structure to cooperate with individuals.
The administrator punishes interested parties for their improper act to strengthen the team spirit and disciplinary maintenance of an organization, also gives other relevant parties various kinds of punishment responsibility in various degree to reach mutual supervising management result. The basic assumption about collateral punishment is: the party of the improper act to the organization, their relatives and friends even neighbors with social networking through petticoat influence ,etc. belongs to '' have the same and cognitive social structural members '' because these people''s attitude and intention are similar to litigant. The administrator regards these privies as having common responsibility in order to avoid the recurring of improper act, and gives punishment in the lump to ensure that they can supervise behaviors among them. The administrator also will take collateral punishment as the intimidation function which other onlookers have '' execute one as a warning to hundred '' if the improper act which violates the organization norm happens.
This research advances different conceptual definitions of vertical and horizontal collateral punishment, and probes into different levels of members whose relation between justice consciousnesses of the collateral punishment and policymaker''s trust in army. Also, explores the role of collateral punishment and collective responsibility to the connection of interference results between the type and incident of collateral punishment, justice consciousness and policymaker''s trust separately. Constructing a relevant module of collateral punishment through reinforcement theory, organizational justice consciousness theory and cultural characteristics of collective responsibility.

書名頁 i
論文口試委員審定書 ii
授權書 iii
中文摘要 iv
英文摘要 v
誌謝 vii
目錄 viii
表目錄 x
圖目錄 xi
第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究動機 1
第二節　研究目的 4
第二章　文獻探討與研究假說 5
第一節　連坐處罰的意義與功能 5
第二節　組織正義理論 7
第三節　犯錯者與被連坐者對連坐事件的正義知覺及決策者信任度 9
第四節　集體責任文化對連坐事件正義知覺的影響 13
第五節　研究架構 15
第三章　研究方法 17
第一節　實驗設計 17
第二節　變項操弄與衡量 17
第三節　研究對象與資料蒐集過程 20
第四節　資料分析方法 21
第四章　資料分析結果 23
第一節　衡量效度、信度與敍述統計 23
第二節　連坐事件正義知覺的影響因素 25
第三節　連坐事件決策者信任度的影響因素 28
第四節　質化資料分析結果 31
第五章　討論與建議 34
第一節　假說驗證結果 34
第二節　綜合討論 35
第三節　研究限制與後續研究建議 38
參考文獻 39
附錄一：甲問卷(犯錯者) 45
附錄二：乙問卷(被連坐者) 48
附錄三：連坐處罰的優點分類編碼 51
附錄四：連坐處罰的缺點分類編碼 61
表目錄
表 1：組織正義知覺理論分類表 8
表 2：有效樣本基本資料統計結果 21
表 3：集體責任、連坐事件正義知覺與決策者信任度之因素分析結果 24
表 4：平均數、標準差、相關係數與量表內部一致性 25
表 5：連坐事件正義知覺之變異數分析結果 25
表 6：集體責任與連坐類型對正義知覺的影響列聯表 27
表 7：連坐事件決策者信任度之變異數分析結果 28
表 8：集體責任與連坐事件對決策者信任度的影響列聯表 30
表 9：連坐處罰的優點統計表 32
表 10：連坐處罰的缺點統計表 32
圖目錄
圖 1：研究架構圖 16
圖 2：連坐類型與集體責任對事件正義知覺的交互作用圖 27
圖 3：連坐類型與集體責任對決策者信任度的交互作用圖 30

司馬遷，史記，商君列傳第八，第七冊，卷68，2227，台北：中華書局。
林孟彥譯(2003)，管理學，（Robbins, S .P & Coulter, M. 原著），台北：華泰書局。
柏 楊（2006），中國人史綱上冊，台北：遠流出版，263-267。
陳 山譯(1994)，西點軍校領導魂，(Larry R. Donnithorne 原著)，智庫出版，50。
國防部（1970），國軍作戰連坐令，台北：國防部文書檔案處。
國防部（2000），國軍軍紀維護實施規定，祥祺字第01868號令頒。
戚樹誠（1999），組織內團體認同與正義知覺的關聯性研究─探討圈內與圈外團體之差異，行政院國科會專題研究計畫成果報告(NSC88-2416-H-002-025)。
戚樹誠、蔡明宏、王溫雅（2002），華人組織中的連坐—探討管理者在處罰事件中的決策考量，第四屆華人心理學家學術研討會論文集。
戚樹誠、羅新興、黃敏萍（1998），組織成員的人際信任與言論禁忌之關聯性─以國軍軍官為研究樣本，台大管理論叢，9卷，1期，頁177-200。
羅新興(2000)，績效評核的程序正義─探討受評者正義知覺之前因及影響，台灣大學商學研究所博士論文。
羅新興(2002)，人事獎懲決策歸因與程序正義知覺關係之研究，人力資源管理學報，第2卷，第4期，頁1-13。
總統令頒（1967），陸海空軍懲罰法，第五、六、七條。
譚聖光（2004），連坐規定對領導的影響之研究─以軍中管理階層為例，元智大學管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園。
Adams, J. S. ( 1965) . Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, 2: 267-297.
Adams, J. S., & Freedman, S. ( 1976) . Equity theory revisited: Comments and annotated bibliography. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, New York: Academic Press, l (9): 43-90.
Arvey, R. D., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1980). Punishment in organizations: A review, propositions, and research suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5: 123-132.
Arvey, R. D., Davis, G. A., & Nelson, S. M. (1984). Use of discipline in an organization. A Field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3): 448-460.
Arvey, R. D., & Jones, A. P. (1985). The use of discipline in organizational settings: A framework for future research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings(Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,7: 367-408.
Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Carey, J. A., & Cartier, P. (2001). Recipient and observer reactions to discipline: Are managers experiencing wishful thinking? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 249-270.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy. Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84: 191-215.
Ball, G. A., & Sims, H. P. (1991). A conceptual analysis of cognition and affect in organizational punishment. Human Resource Management Review, 1: 227-243.
Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1992). Understanding subordinate reactions to punishment incidents: perspectives from justice and social affect. Leadership Quarterly, 3: 307-333.
Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influence on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 299-322.
Bennett, R. J., & Cummiings, L. L. (1991). The effects of schedule and intensity of aversive outcomes on performance: A multitheoretical perspective. Human Performance, 4(2): 155-169.
Brumback, G. B. (2003). Theoretical and Cultural Perspective on Organizational Justice, Personnel Psychology, 56(1): 257-280.
Chiu, C. & Hong, Y. (1992). The effects of intentionality and validation on individual and collective responsibility attribution among Hong Kong Chinese. The Journal of Psychology, 126(3): 291-300.
Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Tong, J. Y., & Fu, J. H. (1997). Implicit theories and concepts of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 923-940.
Chiu, C. & Hong, Y. (1999). Social identification in political transition: The role of impcit beliefs. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23: 297-318.
Chi, Shu-Cheng & Lo, Hsin-Hsin(2003), Taiwanese Employees’ Justice Perception on Co-Workers’s Punitive Events, The Journal of Social Psychology , 143（1）：27-42.
Chi, S. C. S. , Lo, H. H., Tsai, M.H. & Niehoff, B. P.(2007), Bystanders’ Reactions toward Co-punishment Events in the Military of Taiwan: Exploring the Moderating Effect of Perceived Collective Responsibility, Asia Journal of Social Psychology, (under review).
Dailey, R., & Kirk, D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job satisfaction and intend to turnover. Human Relations, 45: 305-317.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability in organization and human resource management. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. (1984). On the apocryphal nature of inequity distress. In IL Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice. New York: Plenum,167-186.
Greenberg, J. 1987. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Reviews, 12(1): 9-22.
Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt.
Hong, Y., Ip, G., Chiu, C., Morris, M. W., & Menon, T. (2001). Cultural identity and dynamic construction of the self: collective duties and individual rights in Chinese and American cultures. Social Cognition, 19(3) : 251-268.
Jones, A., Tait, M., & Butler, M. (1983). Perceived punishment and reward values of supervisor actions. Motivation and Emotion, 7: 313-329.
Kazdin, A.E.(1975).Behavior modification in applied settings. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 698-707.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology. Mornstown, NJ: General Learning Press,211-239.
Leventhal, 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 Pres,27-55.
Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6: 105-113.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 626-637.
Miller, D. T., & Vidmar, N. (1981). The social psychology of punishment reactions. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior, New York: Plenum, 145-172.
Robbins & Coulter（2003），Management eighth, Pearson International Edition, prentice hall.
Sampson, E. E. (1986). Justice ideology and social legitimation. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. C. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations , New York,Plenum,87-102.
Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion, New York: Cambridge University Press, 158-199.
Shweder, R. A., & Miller, J. G. (1985). The social construction of the person: How is it possible? In K. J. Kenneth & K. E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction of the person , New York: Springer-Verlag, 41-69.
Sims, H. P. (1979). Tips and troubles with employee reprimand. The Personnel Administrator, 4: 97-107.
Sims, H. P., Jr., & Gioia, D. A. (1986). The thinking organization. San Francisco: Joseey-Bass.
Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Willams, R. M. Jr. 1949. The American Soldier,1, Adjustment during Army life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Su, S. K., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., Leung, K., Peng, K., & Morris, M. W. (1999). Self-organization and social organization: U.S. and Chinese constructions. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of social self. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 193-222.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, J. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trevino, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1992). The social implications of punishing unethical behavior: Observers’ cognitive and affective reactions. Journal of Management, 18: 751-768.
Trandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Bourlder. Co: Westview Press.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.