摘要
本研究主要針對陸軍官校新進學生自願退學問題做探討，利用言說理論分析軍校組織隊職幹部與學生間的思維框架，和校方政策間的衝突面，藉由本研究傳達國軍院校培育學生的核心要務，並讓管理者瞭解組織內因思維框架所產生的問題以制定未來有關軍校學生的相關政策。
藉由研究所所學習之質性研究方法，針對自己在職場上的問題做研究，第一、探討陸軍官校學生自願退學的原因何在?第二、是分析學生、隊職幹部、及校方三方面面對自願退學問題的態度，第三、檢視軍事院校在輔導學生退學機制上是否有局限在傳統思維印象的框限，和政策面上執行的衝突；因此本論文採用質性的個案研究法，以言說的方式透過工作場域的言說釐清問題的本質，藉由訪談的方式，來陳述學生、隊職幹部、校方三者對於自願退學的看法，從中分析出解決此問題的方法。
利用言說分析後將三者訪談後的資料做整理得到三點研究發現，第一、運用同理心看待成長脈絡不同的軍校生，第二、運用思維的框架看待學生與隊職幹部價值觀的差異，第三、軍中的官僚文化蒙蔽了管理者的眼睛。
最後針對本研究所發現的實務意涵是軍校學生成長的脈絡和過去學生有明顯的差異，隊職幹部在領導的過程當中常會以過去的印象來對待學生，當面對解決退學問題時幹部們並未能依據校方的政策來降低退學率，而學生對於校方所制定的政策限制無法認同，管理者與部屬之間卻缺乏了同理心的對待，相較於隊職幹部與軍校學生之間也是，藉由本研究了解現代學生的思維方式，以及管理者未來所要調整的地方。

關鍵詞：質性研究、言說分析、官僚文化、同理心

Summary
This study focuses on a military academy for new students to do voluntary drop-out problem of the use of discourse theory of military organizations, cadres and students between teams thinking framework, and the school policy on the conflict between the surface, this study convey the military institutions to students core tasks, and allow managers to understand the framework of the Organization Neiyinsiwei issues arising in order to formulate future policies related to military students.
The study by the Institute of qualitative research methods, their workplace issues for research, first, of military academy students to withdraw voluntarily, why? Second, the analysis of students, team cadres, and the school three problems faced by the attitude of voluntary withdrawal, the third view the military academies in the drop-out mechanism for guidance on whether there are limitations in the traditional image of the box thinking, limited implementation and policy conflicts surface; Therefore, this paper uses qualitative case research method, using words that work the way through the field of speech to clarify the nature of the problem, through interviews, to present students, team cadres, three schools for the voluntary withdrawal of view, to analyze the ways to solve this problem .
Speaking after the use of the information after the interview was done three finishing by 3:00 found, first, the empathy to see growth in the different context of military students, and the second, using the framework of thinking, look at the students and team cadres of different values of Thirdly, the military's bureaucratic culture blinds the eyes of managers.
Finally, the practical implications of this study found that the students of the growth context and past students have significant differences, team leadership cadres in the process of impression when the Central Standing Committee in the past to treat students drop out when faced with solving problems and cadres Failure to comply with school policies to reduce drop-out rate, and students for the school's policy limits can not agree between managers and subordinates lack the empathy to treat, compared with team cadres and the students of the room is also, by this research to understand the modern way of thinking of students, and administrators a place to adjust the future.
Keywords: Qualitative Research, a Framework for Thinking Ability; Hierarchical Organization; Management Innovation; Organizational Innovation

目 錄
頁次
目 錄 iv
圖目錄 v
表目錄 vi
第一章 緒論 1
　第一節 研究背景與動機 1
　第二節 研究目的 2
　第三節 研究架構 3
第二章 文獻探討 5
　第一節 思維的框架 5
　第二節 官僚式組織 6
　第三節 組織創新 8
　第四節 同理心的意涵 12
第三章 研究方法 15
　第一節 言說分析 15
　第二節 研究設計 19
第四章 研究個案 23
　第一節 背景介紹 23
　第二節 不適應生活的背後 26
　第三節 故事分析 44
第五章 研究討論與管理意涵 47
　第一節 研究結果 47
　第二節 研究討論 50
　第三節 實務意涵 54
第六章 結論 57
參考文獻 59

圖目錄
圖1-1 研究架構流程圖 4
圖2-1 組織創新的動態模型 12
圖4-1 陸軍官校組織架構圖 24
圖4-2 陸軍官校招生組示意圖 24
圖4-3 輔導個案流程圖 26
圖4-4 言說架構圖 46
表目錄
表2-1 創新行為的衡量 11
表4-1 官校內部組織介紹表 25
表4-2 登場人物表 25
表4-3 陸軍官校政78期至正82期學生退學原因分析統計表 42
表4-4 正78期退學單位分析統計表 43
表4-5 正79期退學單位分析統計表 43
表4-6 正80期退學單位分析統計表 43
表4-7 正81期退學單位分析統計表 43
表4-8 正82期退學單位分析統計表 43

參考文獻
一、中文部分
1.王木榮、林幸台（1985），威廉斯創造力測驗修訂研究，特殊教育研究學刊，第2期，第12篇，頁231-250。
2.林凱明（2008），探討企業使用電腦中介傳播之負面效果，國立台灣科技大學企業管理系未出版之碩士論文，台北。
3.陳東波（1998），當代軍事倫理的規範與困境，政治作戰學校政治研究所博士論文，台北。
4.錢淑芬（1993），國軍軍事學校「軍事社會化」之研究，復興崗學報，49卷，頁333-364。
5.蕭瑞麟（2007），不用數字的研究，台北：台灣培生教育出版股份有限公司，頁262-267。
6.賴士葆（1996），商學總論，台北：麥田出版股份有限公司，頁460。
7.蔡啟通（1997），組織因素、組織成員整體創造性與組織創新之關係，台灣大學商學研究所博士論文，台北。
8.賴姿蓉（1998），組織創新對人力資源管理角色影響之研究，政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文，頁175。
9.趙梅如、鍾思嘉（2004），觀點取替故事同理心量表的發展，中華輔導學報，第15期，頁39-60。
10.華敘麗（1982），同理心淺見與自我訓練法，輔導論文精選上級，台北：天馬，頁257-264。
11.陳金定（2001），諮商技術，台北：心理出版社。
12.林芳寧（2003），同理心成長團體之研究，國立成功大學碩士論文，頁177。


二、英文
1.Afuah, A. (1998). Innovation Management: Strategies, Implementation, and Profits, New York: Oxford University Press.
2.Amabile, T. (1982). Social psychological of creativity: A consensual assessment technique, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), pp. 997-1013.
3.Amabile, T. (1996). Keys: Assessing the Climate for Creativity, Instrument Published by the Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro NC.
4.Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, Memory, and Thought, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbrum Associates.
5.Becker, S. W. & Whisler, T. L. (1967). The innovative organization: A selective view of current theory and research. Journal of Business, 4, pp. 462-469.
6.Berger, D. M. (1987). Clinical empathy, Northvale: Jason Aronson Inc.
7.Betz, F. (1987). Managing Technology-Competing through New Ventures- Innovation, and Corporate Research, Prentice Hall.
8.Buchheimer, A. (1963). The development of ideas about empathy. Journal of counseling psychology, 10(1), pp. 61-70.
9.Cummings, A. & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Enhancing creativity: managing work contexts for the high potential employee, California Management Review, 40(1), pp. 22-38.
10.Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta analysis of effects of determinants and moderators, Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), pp. 555-590.
11.Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimentional approach, Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(1), pp. 113-126.
12.Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles, Heinemann, London.
13.Dymond, R. F. (1949). A scale for the measurement of empathic ability, Journal of consulting psychology, 14, pp. 127-133.
14.Egan, G. (1990). The Skilled Helper: A Systematic Approach to Effective Helping, 4th ed., California: Wadsworth, Lnc.
15.Frankle, E. G. (1990). Management of Technology Change, Kluwer Academic.
16.Gattiker, U. E. (1990). Technology Management in Organization, Sage, CA.
17.Gladstein, G. A. (1983). Understanding empathy: integrating counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspectives. Journal of counseling psychology, 30(4), pp. 467-482.
18.Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis, Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.
19.Goldsmith, R. (1986). Convergent validity of four innovativeness scales, Educational and Psychological measurement, 46, pp. 78-90.
20.Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 33(3), pp. 307-316.
21.Hurt, H., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. (1997). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness, Human Communication Research, 4, pp. 58-66.
22.Jackson, D. (1976). Jackson Personality Inventory Manual, Research Psychologists Press, Goshen, NY.
23.Kanter, R. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovations, Reasearch in organizational behavior, 10, pp. 169-211.
24.Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, pp. 622-629.
25.Lin, A. & Silva, L. (2005). The social and political construction of technological frames, European Journal of Information System, 14, pp. 49-59.
26.Livingston, J. (1969). Pymalion in management, Harvard Business Review, 47, pp. 81-89.
27.McGovern, T. & Hick, C. (2004). How political processes shaped the IT adoption by a small make-to-order company: A case study in the insulated wire and cable industry, Information and Management, pp. 243-257.
28.Mumford, M. & Gustafson, S. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, pp. 27-43.
29.Newell, S. & Swan, J. (1995). Professional associations as important mediators of the innovation process, Science Communication, 16(4), pp. 371-387.
30.Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, pp. 96-104.
31.Orlikowski, W. J. & Gash, D. C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organization, ACM Transaction on Information Systems, pp. 174-207.
32.Rogetrs, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therepaeutic personality change, Journal of consulting psychology, 21(2), pp. 95-103.
33.Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.
34.Scott, S. G. & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), pp. 580-607.
35.Sethia, N. (1991). The evocation of creativity through collaboration, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Miami.
36.Speroff, B. J. (1953). Empathy and role-reversal as factors in industrial harmony, Journal of social psychology, 37, pp. 117-120.
37.Spiro, H., Curnen, M. G. M., Peschel, E., & James, D. S. (1993). Empathy and the practice of medicine beyond pills and the scalpel, Hew Haven: Yale university press.
38.Sternberg, R. J., O'Hara, L. A., & Lubart, T. I. (1997). Creativity as investment, California Management Review, 40(1), pp. 8-21.
39.Swanson, E. B. (1994). Information systems innovation among organizations, Management Science, 40(9), pp. 1069-1092.
40.Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market, and Organizational Change, Chichester, West Sussex, England; New York: John Wiley.
41.Tushman, N. L. & Nadler, D. A. (1986), Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28, pp. 74-92.
42.Van de Ven, A. (1986). Central problem in the management of innovation, Management Science, 32, pp. 590-607.
43.West, M. (1987). A measure of role innovation at work, British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, pp. 83-105.
44.West, M. & Farr, J. (1989). Innovation at work: psychological perspectives, Social Behavior, 4, pp. 15-30.
45.Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions, Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), pp. 405-430.
46.Woodman, R., Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity, Academy of management Review, 18, pp. 293-321.
47.Yoshioka, T. J., Yates, & Orlikowski, W. (2002). Community-based interpretive scheme: Exploring the use of cyber meeting within a global organization, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
48.Zhou, J. & George, J. M. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), pp. 513-524.
49.Zhou, J. & Jennier, M. G. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice, Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), pp. 682-696.