臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

績效薪仍是目前最受企業使用的制度，既可維持員工的生活基礎保障，也具有激勵的效果，一直以來的焦點都在於達成公司績效、降低成本、滿足客戶及給予員工適當獎勵，以鞏固公司的競爭力，進而創造企業價值與達成目標。然而，目前已有大多數研究證實績效薪制度可以增加員工工作效率及正向影響員工工作動機。
企業若擁有良好的績效薪制度，又加上組織擁有高度獲利，員工會因為能獲得較高的紅利及報酬，在其行為與態度上增進他們的績效表現。雖然績效薪制度受到各企業廣泛使用，但卻未必能完全發揮最佳的效果，甚至會因大環境不佳或是公司政策不佳導致企業獲利下降，反而影響員工收入，進而對員工表現及績效產生負面的效果。因此，本研究主要目的是探討個人心理狀況及在工作態度上對於績效薪制度及員工工作績效之調節效果，並以工作動機、工作自主及工作互賴三種情境因素，由心理觀點中找出績效薪制度對員工工作績效的影響。
本研究採用問卷調查法，調查時間共分成兩年，第一年(2012年)針對上市及上櫃公司進行調查，由人力資源部專業人員評估公司各項薪資制度中員工工作績效在整體薪資上的連結程度，分別有13種績效薪制度來進行調查，第一年調查績效薪制度整體連結度之資料共計發放1,474份問卷，回收260份有效問卷，問卷有效回收率為17.64%；第二年(2013年)則調查員工個人層級之任務績效、工作動機、工作自主、工作互賴之資料，並根據第一年回收的資料抽樣部分公司進行第二年員工問卷調查，第二年則調查員工個人層級並根據第一年回收的樣本中，篩選變動薪比例前25%及後25%，總共發放117家企業，每家企業10份員工問卷，共計1,170份問卷，回收之有效問卷共635份，問卷有效回收率為54.27%。問卷回收後樣本資料經初步統計運算後，以描述性統計、信度分析、相關分析及迴歸分析探討各變數間之關係來驗證假設，發現績效薪對員工工作績效有顯著正向影響；工作動機、工作自主、工作互賴雖有直接正向影響，但無顯著之調節影響。
績效薪制度的設計除了考量到公司政策及大環境迅變之外，更須重視到員工生理與心理上的壓力，並使員工得到舒緩及信服，增強工作動機來提升企業員工的士氣、信任感及同理心，由此可知，企業在制定好的績效薪制度時，可將制度做為高彈性化、自主性高及多元化溝通的遊戲規則，讓員工在角色裡外都能兼顧，除了清楚任務目標外，能立即調整在工作上的優缺點及進度規劃，以多元化管道來建立同仁間的信任及良好的溝通，以達到自我成長的附加價值及工作目標上最大效益。

The pay for performance system is the most commonly adopted compensation scheme among corporations. It can not only satisfy the basic needs of the employees but also provide incentives. The focuses of the companies have long been on reaching performance goals, reducing costs, meeting customer needs and providing incentives to employees in order to enhance the company’s competitiveness. This can then lead to higher corporate value and goal achievement. Presently, most empirical studies have shown that the pay for performance system can increase the efficiency of employees and provide positive motivations.
If a company has a good pay for performance system, in addition to having high profitability, the employees will be motivated (in terms of their work behavior and attitude) to attain higher bonuses and rewards. Although the pay for performance system is widely adopted by many companies, it does not necessarily lead to the best result. If the overall economy is bad or the company policy is poor, the company many face a decrease in profitability, causing a decline in employee income. This may lead to a negative effect on employee performance and firm performance. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the moderating effect of personal psychological state and work attitude on the pay for performance system and employee performance. We also use three situational factors, including work motivation, job autonomy, and task interdependence, to analyze the effect of pay for performance system on employee performance from the psychological point of view.
This study uses questionnaires. The investigation period includes two years. In the first year (2012), we focus on listed and OTC companies. The link between employee performance and the overall pay in 13 different compensation schemes is assessed by the Human Resources Professionals. In the first year, a total of 1,474 questionnaires are distributed, including 260 effective questionnaires. The effective response rate is 17.64%. In the second year (2013), I investigate the job achievement at each level, work motivation, job autonomy and task interdependence. Based on the questionnaires recovered in the first year, I resample companies to do the second-year questionnaire. In the second year, I examine companies that are in the top 25% or the bottom 25% in terms of the changes in pay. A total of 117 companies are surveyed. Specifically, 10 questionnaires are distributed to employees in each company, that is, a total of 1,170 questionnaires. There are 635 effective questionnaires; the effective response rate is 54.27%. Based on descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, correlation analysis and regression analysis, the results show that the pay for performance has a positive effect on employee performance. Work motivation, job autonomy and task interdependence have direct and positive effects. There is no significant moderating effect.
The pay for performance system should consider not only company policies and the rapidly changing environment but also the physical and psychological pressure given to employees. If the employees are convinced, the higher work motivation can enhance working spirit, trust and empathy. Therefore, when designing the pay for performance scheme, the company should aim for high flexibility, high autonomy and diversity in communication so that employees have clear objectives and can adjust their work progress accordingly and based on their strengths and weaknesses. In addition, building trust and promoting good communication between colleagues can enable self-development and help employees reach their goals.

摘要 i
Abstract iii
誌謝 vi
目錄 vii
表目錄 ix
圖目錄 x
第一章　緒論 1
1.1　研究之背景、目的與重要性 1
1.2　研究流程 4
第二章　文獻探討與回顧 5
2.1　績效薪 5
2.2　工作動機 8
2.3　工作自主 11
2.4　工作互賴 14
第三章　研究方法與架構 16
3.1　研究架構 16
3.2　研究假設 16
3.3　研究方法與對象 16
3.4　研究變項測量 17
3.5　資料分析方式 21
第四章　研究結果 23
4.1　調查樣本之基本特徵 23
4.2　各變數之敘述性統計 25
4.3　各變數之信度分析 30
4.4　各變數之相關分析 31
4.5　假設之驗證 33
第五章 結論與建議 43
5.1　研究假設直接與調節效果驗證 43
5.2　各構面的影響關係 44
5.3　管理實務建議 47
5.4　研究限制與後續研究之建議 49
參考文獻 50
附錄一【第一年問卷調查】 54
附錄二【第二年問卷調查】 56

1.范皑皑、丁小浩(2007)，教育、工作自主性與工作滿意度，清華大學教育研究，第28卷第6期2007年12月。
2.郭欣易(2000)。人格特質與激勵偏好、工作態度、工作表現之相關性研究(碩士論文)。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統。http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dnclcdr&s=id=%22088WCJC0571001%22.&searchmode=basic
3.陳寬裕、王正華(2010)。論文統計分析實務SPSS與AMOS的運用。臺北市：五南圖書出版公司。
4.Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
5.Barley, S. R. & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 363-399.
6.Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The Measurement of Work Autonomy. Human Relations, 38, 551-579.
7.Burgess, S., & Ratto M. (2003). The Role of Incentives in the Public Sector : Issue and Evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19, 285-300.
8.Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976).”Motivation theory in industrial and organization psychology” , In M. D. Dunnette (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organization Psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally.
9.Carless S. A. & De Paola, C. (2004). The Measure of Cohesion in Work Teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71-88.
10.Combos, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., and Ketchen, D. (2006).”How Much Do High- Performance Work Practices Matter? A Meta-analysis of Their Effects on Organizational Performance” , Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501-528.
11.Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of Self-determination Research. New York: The University of Rochester Press.
12.Deci, E., L, & Ryan, R. M. (2000), The What and Why of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and The Self-determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
13.Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.
14.Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A Meta-analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
15.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.
16.Delaney J. T. & Huselid M. A. (1996). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969.
17.Dewey, B. (1995). Aligning Work and Rewards. Management Review, 84(2), 19-23.
18.Evans, B. K. & Fisher, D. G. (1992). A Hierarchical Model of Participatory Decision-Making, Job Autonomy, and Perceived Control. Human Relations, 45(11), 1169-1179.
19.Francois, P. (2000). Public Service Motivation as An Argument for Government Provision, Journal of Public Economic, 78, 275-299.
20.Frey, B. S., & Oberholzer-Gee (1997). The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical analysis of Motivation Crowding-out. American Economic Review, 87(4), 746-755.
21.Frey, B. S. (1997). Not Just for The Money. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
22.Gerhart, B, & Milkovich G. T. (1992), Employee compensation: research and practice. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, MD Dunnette, LM Hough, 481-569. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. Press, 2nd Ed.
23.Gibson, V. M. (1995). The New Employee Reward System. Management Review, 84(2), 13-18.
24.Gneezy, U. & Rustichini, A. (2000). A Fine is a Price. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1), 1-17.
25.Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G. R. (1976).”Motivation through the design of work: Test of theory” , Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
26.Harder, J. W. (1992). Play For Pay: Effects of Inequity in A Pay-For-Performance Context. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 321-336
27.Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A. & Node, R. A. (1997). Knowledge Worker Team Effectiveness: The Role of Autonomy, Interdependent, Team Development, and Contextual Support Variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877-904.
28.Johnson, A. M., & N. D. Hobart. (1989). Why is it So Hard to Pay for Performance. Journal of Compensation and Benefits (4), 358-361.
29.Kahn, C. M; Silva, E. C. D; & Ziliak, J. P. (2001). Performance- based Wages in Tax Collection: the Brazilian Tax Collection Reform and Its Effects. The Economic Journal, 111(468), 188-205.
30.Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1973). On The Psychology of Prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
31.Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A., (1974). Judgment Under Uncertainly: Heuistics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
32.Kanfer, F. H. (1970). Self-regulation: Research, Issues, and Speculations. In Neuringer C. & Michael J. L. (Eds.), Behavior modification in clinical psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
33.Kanfer, F. H. (1971) The Maintenance of Behavior by Self-generated Stimuli and Reinforcement. In A. Jacobs & LB Sachs (Eds.). The psychology of private events. New York: Academic Press.
34.Kanfer, F. H. (1980). Self-management Methods. In Kanfer F. H. & Goldstein A. P. (Eds.), Helping people change: A textbook of methods (2nd ed) New York: Pergamon Press.
35.Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task Interdependence and Job Design: Test of a Theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145-172.
36.Kiggundu, M. N. (1981). Task Interdependence and the Theory of Job Design. The Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 499-508.
37.Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 563-585.
38.Langfred, C. W. (2000). Work group design and autonomy: A field study of the interaction between task interdependence and group autonomy. Small Group Research, 31(1): 54-70.
39.Langfred, C. W. (2007). The Downside of Self-management: A Longitusinal Study of Effects of Conflict of Trust, Autonomy, and Task Interdependence in Self-managing Teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885-900.
40.Lavy, V. (2007). Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. Future of Children, 17(1), 87-109.
41.Lawler III, E. E., (1983). Pay and Organization Development. California: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
42.Lehman, P. K., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Behavior Analysis and Environmental Protection: Accomplishments and Potential for More. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 13-32.
43.Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic Motivation in A New Light, Kyklos, 54(2), 317-342.
44.Luthans, F., & Stajkovic, A. D. (1999). Reinforce For Performance: The Need To Go Beyond Pay and Even Rewards. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 49-57.
45.Milkovich, G. T., & Newman, J. M. (2005). Compensation (8th ed). New York: MacGraw-Hill.
46.Milkovich, G. T., & Newman, J. M. (2008). Compensation (9th ed). New York: MacGraw-Hill.
47.Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K, and Hemingway, M. A. (2005).”The Importance of Job Autonomy, Cognitive Ability, and Job-related Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and Job Performance” , Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 2,399-406.
48.OECD (2005). Performance-Related Pay Policies for Government Employees, OECD, Paris. ISBN: 92-64-00573-9.
49.Oliver, R. L., & Anderson, E. (1995). Behavior-and out-come-based sales control systems: Evidence and consequences of pure-form and hybrid governance. Journal of Personal Selling and sales Management, 4(3), 1-15.
50.O''Reilly, C. (1989). Corporations, Culture, and Commitment: Motivation and Social Control in Organizations. California Management Review, 31(4), 9-25.
51.Ouchi, W.G. (1980). Market, Bureaucracies, and Clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129-141.
52.Parker, S. K. Axtell, C. M., and Turner, N. (2001). ”Designing a Safer Workplace: Importance of Job Autonomy, Communication Quality, and Supervisors” , Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 3, 211-228.
53.Patricia, K. Z. & Jay, R. S. (1995). Moving One Notch North: Executing the Transition to New Pay. Compensation & Benefits Review, 27, 33-39.
54.Pearce, J. L. & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task Interdependence and Extra Role Behavior: A Test of the Mediating Effects of Felt Responsibility. Journal of apply Psychology, 76,834-844.
55.Perry, J. L., Mesch, D., & Paarlberg, L. (2006). Motivating Employees in A New Governance Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 504-514.
56.Rappaport, A. (1978). Executive Incentives vs. Corporate Growth. Harvard Business Review, 56(4), 81-88.
57.Robbins, S.P. (1992). Organizational Behavior. 6th, Prentice Hall Company.
58.Rousseau, D. M. (1997), Organizational Behavior in the New Organizational Era. Annual Review Psychology, 48, 515-546.
59.Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel Psychology: Performance Evaluation and Pay For Performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571-600.
60.Salancik,G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An Examination of Need-Satisfaction Models of Job Attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427-456.
61.Schaurhofer, M. &Peschl, M. F. (2005). Autonomy: Starting Point and Goal of Personal and Social Change: A Constructivist Perspective on Knowledge Management in Empowerment Processes, Kybernetes, 4(1/2), 261-277.
62.Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
63.Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
64.Stenberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1995). Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Culture of Conformity. New York: Free Press.
65.Stigler, G. J. & Becker, G. S. (1977). De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. American Economic Review 67, 76-90.
66.Stonich, P. J. (1981). Using Rewards in Implementing Strategy. Strategic Management Journal. 2(4), 345-352.
67.Swiss, J. E. (2005). A Framework For Assessing Incentives In Results-Based Management. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 592-602.
68.Thorndike, E. L. (1911), Animal Intelligence, Experimental Studies. New York. The Macmillan Company.
69.Turner, A. N, & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Individual Jobs and the Worker. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
70.Van de Vegt, G. & Van de Vliert, E. (2002). Intra-group Interdependence and Effectiveness: Review and Proposed Directions for Theory and Practice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 50-67.
71.Van Mierlo, H., Rutte, C.G., Kompier, M.A.J. & Seinen, B. (2001). Autonomous Teamwork and Psychological Well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 291-301.
72.Van Mierlo, H., Rutte, C.G., Vermunt, J.K., Kompier, M.A.J. & Doorewaard, J.A.C.M. (2007). A Multi-level Mediation Model of the Relationships between Team Autonomy, Individual Task Design and Psychological Well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 644-647.
73.Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
74.Weibel, A., Rost, K. & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for Performance in the Public Sector-Benefits and (Hidden) Costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 387-412.
75.Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.