跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.94.177) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/16 23:51
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:鄭孟育
研究生(外文):Meng-yu Cheng
論文名稱:組織學習對組織績效之影響:以關係資本為調節效果
論文名稱(外文):Organizational Learning and Organizational Performance: The Moderating Effect of Relational Capital
指導教授:賴賢哲賴賢哲引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺南大學
系所名稱:科技管理碩士班
學門:傳播學門
學類:其他傳播及資訊學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:45
中文關鍵詞:探索式學習盡用式學習組織學習關係資本組織績效
外文關鍵詞:ExploitationOrganizational learningRelational CapitalExplorationPerformance
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:289
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:27
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
學習型態對於績效的產出過程扮演著非常重要的一個部分,本研究由組織學習裡「探索」與「盡用」兩角度去作分析,以探討績效之產出,並加入了關係資本(relational capital)作為調節,以探討學習方式與關係資本之交互作用對於組織績效的影響。本研究發展出四個假設。假設一:探索式學習對組織績效呈現正向影響。假設二:盡用式學習對組織績效呈現正向影響。假設三:關係資本正向調節探索式學習與組織績效之關係。假設四:關係資本正向調節盡用式學習與組織績效之關係。研究發現,除了假設三未獲得支持外,其餘三個假設皆成立。
In the perspective of exploration-exploitation, this study aims to discuss the effect of organizational learning on firm performance. Furthermore, this study proposes the relational capital as the moderator. Based on the empirical results, I suggest three arguments. First, exploration has a positive effect on firm performance. Second, exploitation has a positive effect on firm performance. Third, relational capital moderates the positive relationship between exploitation and firm performance. However, relational capital is not found to moderate the positive relationship between exploitation and firm performance.
摘 要 vi
Abstract vii
誌 謝 viii
目錄 ix
一、緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究問題 2
1.3 研究目的 2
1.4 研究流程 3
二、 理論背景與假設發展 4
2.1 組織學習理論 4
2.1.1組織學習之起源 4
2.1.2 組織學習之定義與發現 4
2.1.3組織學習的構面與分類 7
2.2關係資本 11
2.2.1關係資本的概念與定義 11
2.2.2關係資本與組織績效 14
2.2.3關係資本變數的衡量 15
2.3 假設發展 16
三、 研究方法與設計 19
3.1 研究架構 19
3.2 研究對象與資料蒐集 20
3.2.1 問卷設計 20
3.3.1自變數:學習型態(探索、盡用) 21
3.3.2依變數:組織績效 21
3.3.3 調節變數:關係資本 22
3.3.4 控制變數 22
3.4 分析方法 23
3.4.1 變異數膨脹係數檢定(Variance inflation factor) 23
3.4.2敘述統計分析(Descriptive statistics) 23
3.4.3 信度、效度之檢定 23
3.4.4 Pearson相關分析(Pearson correlation analysis) 24
3.4.5 迴歸分析(Regression analysis) 24
四、 研究結果與討論 25
4.1 實證結果分析 25
4.1.1變異數膨脹係數分析 25
4.1.2敘述統計分析與Pearson相關分析 25
4.1.3迴歸分析 28
4.2 研究討論與管理意涵 31
五、 結論與建議 33
5.1 研究結論與貢獻 33
5.2 研究建議 34
5.3 研究限制 34
參考文獻 35
Anderson, E. W. Fomell C. & Lehmann D. R., (1994). Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing, 58( 1),53-66.
Argyris C. & Schön D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective.Addison-Wesley, Reading: Massachusetts.
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652-1661.
Aulakh, P. S., Cavusgil, S. T., Echambadi, R., & Sarkar, M.R.(2001). The influence of complementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29(4), 358-374.
Badaracco, J. (1991). The knowledge link: How firms compete through strategic alliances (Vol. 5): Harvard Business Press. Boston, MA.
Banker, R.D., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. (2000). An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes nonfinancial performance measures. Accounting Review, 65-92.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676-707.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
Bleeke, J., & Ernst, D. (1991). The way to win in cross-border alliances. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 127-135.
Brownell, P., & Dunk, A. S. (1991). Task uncertainty and its interaction with budgetary participation and budget emphasis: some methodological issues and empirical investigation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(8), 693-703.
Cangelosi, V. E., & Dill, W. R. (1965). Organizational learning: Observations toward a theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 175-203.
Cascio, W. F. (1987). Applied Psychology in Personnel Management: Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cesaroni, F., Minin, A. D., & Piccaluga, A. (2005). Exploration and exploitation strategies in industrial R&D. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 222-232.
Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W. & Walker, O. C. (1985), “The determinants of salesforce performance: A meta-analysis, Journal of Marketing Research,22(2),103-118.
Cockburn, I. M., & Griliches, Z. (1988), “Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market''s Valuation of R&D And Patents,” American Economic Review, 78(2), 419-423.
Cyert,R. M. & March,J.G.(1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. 
Cyert, R. M. & March. J. G.( 1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Dixon, N. M. (1999). The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively: Gower Publishing Company.
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394.
Dyer, J. (1996). Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(4), 271-291.
Dyer, J. H. & Singh, H. (1998). The Relational View: Cooperative Strategyand Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage. Academyof Management Review. 23(4), 660-679.
Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company''s True Value by Finding Its Hidden Brainpower: HarperBusiness New York.
Fuller, C.W., & Vassie, L.H. (2002). Assessing the maturity and alignment of organisational cultures in partnership arrangements. Employee Relations, 24(5), 540-555.
Fulmer, R.M. (1994). A model for changing the way organizations learn. Strategy & Leadership, 22(3), 20-24.
Galbrath,J.(1969),The Affluent Society, London:Hamish Hamilton.
Garvin D A. Building a learning organization [J]. Harvard Business Review, 1993, 71 (July/August):78-91
Nooteboom, B., Gilsing, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & Van den Oord, A. (2006). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: technological distance, betweenness centrality and density.
Grant, R.M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387.
Guest, D.E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 263-276.
Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 85-112.
Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S., & Mentzer, J.T. (1995). The structure of commitment in exchange. The Journal of Marketing, 78-92.
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., & Shalley, C.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. The Academy of Management Journal ARCHIVE, 49(4), 693-706.
Hansen, M.T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.
Hayes, D.C. (1977). The contingency theory of managerial accounting. Accounting Review, 52(1),22-39.
He, Z.L., & Wong, P.K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
Heide, J.B., & John, G. (1992). Do norms matter in marketing relationships? The Journal of Marketing,56, 32-44.
Helleloid, D. & Simonin, B. (1994).Organizational learning and a firm’s core knowledge. In Hamel, G. and Heene, A. (Eds), Knowledge-based Competition, John Wiley, Chichester, 213-39.
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science,15(1), 70-81.
Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization science, 2(1),88-115.
Hudson W. J.(1993), “Intellectual Capital: How to Build it, Enhance it, Use it”, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hult, G. T. M., Ferrell, O., & Hurley, R. F. (2002). Global organizational learning effects on cycle time performance. Journal of Business Research, 55(5), 377-387.
Im, S. & Workman J. P. (2004), “Market Orientation, Creativity, and New Product Performance in High-Technology Firms,” Journal of Marketing, 68(2),114-132.
Inkpen, A. (1994). The characteristics and performance of Japanese–North American joint ventures in North America. In S. B. Prasad and R. B. Peterson (eds.), Advances in International Comparative Management, Vol. 9. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,. 83–108.
Jaffe, A. B. (1986), Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms'' Patents,Profits, And Market Value, American Economic Review, 76(5), 984-1001.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. The Journal of Marketing, 57(3),53-70.
Johnson, W. H. A.(1999). An Integrative Taxonomy of Intellectual Capital: Measuring the Stock and Flow of Intellectual Capital Components in the Firm, International Journal of technology Management, 18(5-8), 562-575.
Jongseok, L., Jeho, L., & Habin, L. (2003). Exploration and exploitation in the presence of network externalities. Management Science, 49(4), 553-570.
Kale P., Singh H., & Perlmutter H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital.Strategic Manangement Journal, 21, 217-237.
Lawrence, P. & Lorsch, J. (1967), “Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration,” Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research, Boston, MA.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, HBS Press, Boston, MA.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management Journal, 14(S2), 95-112.
Madhok, A. (1995). Opportunism and trust in joint venture relationships: an exploratory study and a model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(1), 57-74.
Maloni K. Agrawal and Benton H. Pak (1997). “Getting Smart Supply Chain Management”, the McKinsey Quarterly, 13(1),35-48
March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.Organization Science, 2(1),71–87.
Masoulas, V. (1998). Organisational requirements definition for intellectual capital management. International Journal of Technology Management, 16(1), 126-143.
Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. T. (2000). The effects of strategy type on the market orientation-performance relationship. The Journal of Marketing,64(4), 1-16.
McNamara, P., & Baden‐Fuller, C. (1999). Lessons from the Celltech case: balancing knowledge exploration and exploitation in organizational renewal. British Journal of Management, 10(4), 291-307.
Merchant, K. A. (1981). The design of the corporate budgeting system: influences on managerial behavior and performance. Accounting Review, 56(4), 813-829.
Meyers, P.W. (1990). Non-linear learning in large technological firms: Period four implies chaos. Research Policy, 19(2), 97-115.
Miller, M. (1999) Building the Ultimate Resource, Management Review,.88 , 42-45.
Milliman, J., Taylor, S. & Czaplewski, A. J. (2002), Cross-Cultural Performance Feedback in Multinational Enterprises: Opportunity for Organizational Learning, Human Resource Planning, 25(3), 29-43.
Mohr, J. & Spekman, R. (1994). Characterisitics of partnership success:Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135-152.
Morgan, R. E. & Turnell, C. R. (2003), “Market-Based Organizational Learning and Market Performance Gains,” British Journal of Management, 14(3), 255-274.
Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C.,(1996), Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research, Journal of Business Research. ,36(1), pp.15~23.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,23(2), 242-266.
Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review, 36(2),73-85.
Bontis, N. (1996). There''s a price on your head: managing intellectual capital strategically. Business Quarterly, 60(SummerMES), 41-47.
Nick Bontis,(1996), ”There is Price on Your Head:Managing Intellectual Capital Strategically” , Business Quarterly, 40-47, summer.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science,5(1), 14-37.
Özsomer, Ayşegül, Gençtürk, Esra., (2003). A Resource-Based Model of Market Learning in the Subsidiary: The Capabilities of Exploration and Exploitation, Journal of International Marketing, 11(3), 1-29.
Pakes, A. (1985), On Patents, R&D and the Stock Market Rate of Return, Journal of Political Economy, 93(2),390-409.
Perretti, F. & Negro, G. (2006). Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus Exploitation in team design. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 759-777.
Persaud, A., Kumar, U., & V. Kumar (2001), Harnessing Scientific and Technological Knowledge for the Rapid Deployment of Global Innovations, Engineering Management Journal, 13(1), 12-18.
Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: measurement, reporting and management. Journal of intellectual capital, 1(2), 155-176.
Roos, J., Roos, R., Edvinsson L., & Dragonetti , N. (1998) Intellectual capital: navigating in the new business landscape. NY: New York University Press
Shrader, R. C. (2001), “Collaboration and Performance in Foreign Markets: The Case of Young High-Technology Manufacturing Firms,” Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 45-60.
Simon, H. A. (1953). Causal ordering and identifiability. In Studies in Econometric Method., number 14 in Cowles Commission for Research in Economics., monograph III. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational learning. The Journal of Marketing, 35-45.
Sohi, R. S. (1996), “The effects of environmental dynamism and heterogeneity on sales people''s role perceptions, performance and job satisfaction,” European Journal of Marketing ,30(7), 49-67.
Stewart,T.(1997),Intellectual Capital ,N.Y.: Currency.
Stewart,T.(2001), The Wealth of Knowledge : Intellectual Capital and the Twenty-first Century Organization, N.Y. : Currency.
Taylor, A. & Greve, HR. (2006). Super man or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723-740.
Tippins, M. J. & Sohi, R. S. (2003), “IT Competency and Firm Performance: Is Organizational Learning a Missing Link,” Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 745-761.
Tiwana, A. The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Practical Techniques for Building Knowledge Management Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2001.
Venkatraman, N. & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review,11(4), 801-814.
Zollo M, Winter S G. (2002).Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities [J] . Organization Science, 13(3),339-351.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 市場導向、組織學習、組織創新與組織績效間關係之研究--以科學園區資訊電子產業為例
2. 高階經營團隊與企業策略決策模式,組織學習傾向,創新能力及經營績效之關係研究
3. 組織學習'組織創新與組織績效關聯性之研究-以台灣土地銀行為例
4. 農業產銷班組織學習、組織創新與組織績效關係之研究
5. 非營利組織的組織承諾、組織學習與組織績效之相關研究—以台灣地區扶輪社為例
6. 運用結構方程模式探討領導型態、組織文化、組織學習、工作滿足、組織承諾以及組織績效之關係--以台灣地區人壽保險業為例
7. 運用線性關係模式探討領導型態、組織文化、組織學習、全面品質管理以及組織績效之關係--以高科技產業為例
8. 創新與組織學習的協同作用對組織績效之影響:以臺灣電子產業為例
9. 企業社會責任調查暨實證性研究–以台灣資訊產業為例
10. 運用結構方程模式探討領導型態、組織文化、組織學習、工作滿足及組織績效之關係研究--以高科技產業為例
11. 運用結構方程模式探討領導型態、組織文化、組織承諾、組織學習、知識管理以及組織績效之關係--以保險金融產業為例
12. 組織學習、個人學習與績效間關係之跨層次研究
13. 探討組織學習對競爭優勢之影響-以動態能力觀點
14. 連鎖事業體系之統治機制、組織學習與績效之關係研究
15. 運用結構方程模式探討領導型態、組織學習、內部服務品質、知識管理、創新能力與組織績效之關係-以行動通訊產業為例
 
無相關期刊