臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研發團隊在現今科技進展快速的時代中，在高科技公司內部扮演了重要的角色，推動公司的創新能量與競爭實力，研發團隊就是高科技公司中的核心力量。而探討科技公司中研發團隊的組織績效與其組織特性之相關性，更是可以透過相關量化的研究進行深入的討論。
公司的組織績效，受到各項因素影響，除了外部市場的變化與競爭環境的變動。更有一大部分原因是來自於組織的內部，組織的特性、領導人的決策特性、公司內部專業的教育機制，種種因素都影響著整個公司整體的績效表現。
本研究針對國際在台的高科技公司與台灣高科技公司進行抽樣，選取了著名的外商科技公司如：Apple、Google等科技公司，在國內公司如：廣達電腦、仁寶電腦、鴻海科技等。並針對上述國內外公司工程師，進行問卷調查，有效樣本共88份。本研究討論組織特性、學習機制與領導人決策特性，在團隊中的重要性，以及對於組織績表現進行量化分析模型，就量化分析的結果進一步的分析個因素的重要性，並且比較外國公司與本國公司的差異性。
根據量化分析的結果，本提出研究發現就整體而言，組織特性、學習機制與領導者的決策特性，會對組織績效產生正反面的影響。並且對於台灣的高科技產業提出建議，讓台灣企業能夠學習國際在台企業的優點，並且避免其缺點。再者，也針對本研究的題目，提出對於未來研究方向的建議。

The R&D team is a core role in the organization evaluate the level of competitiveness of the company, especially in the change quickly enviormant. We can study the relationship between team performance and characteristic by data analysis method.
There are many conditions will impact organization performance. Not only outside marketing condition, but from inside of organization. Include organization characteristic, profession training system, leader ship characteristic.
In today business competition environment, organization can adapt the changes and new business models which can have adventage in competition. Organization need to make quick and correct dscision to face the chanllenge. The leadership style can decide the development of the company.
This research focus on foreign high-tech company and domestic high-tech company in Taiwan. We choose the foreign high-tech company （e.g. Apple.Inc, Google, DELL）. The high-tech company in Taiwan we choose Quanta computer, Foxconn, Compal Electronics.Inc, ASUS. The companies are famous high-tech company in the world. We have the questionnaire to above companies’ employees.
Our case research the relationship between organization characteristic, learning system, leadership characteristic and organization performance. Use data analysis method to make the model for analysis. To find out the difference between foreign high-tech company and domestic high-tech company in Taiwan.
Finally, base on the data analysis result, we provide the study find out and some suggestion for Taiwan high-tech company. Taiwan high-tech company can refer the advantages from cross-country high-tech company and avoid the disadventages.

摘 要 I
Abstract II
誌 謝 III
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 VII
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.2 研究動機 2
1.3 研究問題 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
2.1 團隊組織 5
2.2 團隊特色與績效表現 6
2.2.1 團隊正式化 6
2.2.2 團隊目標導向 8
2.2.3 團隊自主性 11
2.2.4 團隊多元性 12
2.3 團隊學習機制 13
2.3.1 專業知識與技能 13
2.3.2 人際關係與溝通技巧 14
2.4 領導決策特性 16
2.5 組織績效 19
第三章 研究方法與研究設計 20
3.1概念性模型 20
3.2 研究假設 21
3.3變數的衡量 24
3.4 研究對象及抽樣方法 29
3.5 問卷設計 29
3.6資料分析方法 30
第四章 實證資料分析結果 31
4.1 樣本特徵 31
4.2 研究模型變數縮減 33
4.2.1 團隊目標導向構面 33
4.2.2團隊結構特性構面 35
4.2.3 學習訓練構面 37
4.2.4 主管決策特性構面 39
4.2.5 組織績效構面 39
4.3 各構面因素與組織績效之相關分析 41
4.4 台灣企業與外商科技公司之比較分析 44
第五章 結論與建議 51
5.1團隊特色的重要性 51
5.2學習與優勢的累積 52
5.3 領導特性的角色 53
5.4 台灣企業與外商企業之差異 54
5.5 研究發現與管理意涵 54
5.6 研究限制 55
5.7未來研究方向 56
參考文獻 57
一、英文文獻 57
二、中文文獻 60
附錄 61

1. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
2. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative science quarterly, 634-665.
3. Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in organizations. Groups at work: Theory and research, 614, 369-411.
4. Bailyn, L. (1985). Autonomy in the industrial R&D lab. Human Resource Management, 24(2), 129-146.
5. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic management journal, 10(S1), 107-124.
6. Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications: Simon and Schuster.
7. Beach, D. S. (1985). Personnel: The management of people at work: Macmillan Pub Co.
8. Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure (Vol. 7): Free Press New York.
9. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 72-81.
10. Cohen, S. G., Ledford Jr, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643-676.
11. Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., & Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), 240-258.
12. Cordery, J. L., Morrison, D., Wright, B. M., & Wall, T. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2‐3), 240-258.
13. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Abdalla, I. A., . . . Akande, A. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? 1. The leadership quarterly, 10(2), 219-256.
14. Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The leadership quarterly, 8(3), 233-274.
15. Drucker, P. (1954). The principles of management. New York.
16. Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15(2), 17-31.
17. Evans, F. B. (1963). Selling as a dyadic relationship–a new approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 6(9), 76-79.
18. Ford, B., & Kleiner, B. (1987). Managing engineers effectively. Business, 37(1), 49-52.
19. Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations.
20. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159.
21. Heskett, J. L., & Kotter, J. P. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. Business Review. Vol, 2(5), 83-93.
22. Hirst, G. (1999). The relationship between team communication and R&D project performance: A five factor model of team communication.
23. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Lee, H.-u. (2000). Technological learning, knowledge management, firm growth and performance: an introductory essay. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17(3-4), 231-246.
24. Jennings, N. R., Sycara, K., & Wooldridge, M. (1998). A roadmap of agent research and development. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 1(1), 7-38.
25. Kandula, S. R. (2006). Performance management: Strategies, interventions, drivers: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
26. Kline, T. J., & McGrath, J.-L. (1998). Development and validation of five criteria for evaluating team performance. Organization Development Journal, 16(3), 19.
27. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston. Google Scholar.
28. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
29. Mackin, D. (2007). The team building tool kit: tips and tactics for effective workplace teams: Amacom Books.
30. Magretta, J. (2012). What management is: Simon and Schuster.
31. McArdle, G. E. (2007). Training design and delivery: American Society for Training and Development.
32. McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The leadership quarterly, 13(5), 545-559.
33. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402-433.
34. Mintzberg, H. (1989). The structuring of organizations. In Readings in Strategic Management (pp. 322-352): Springer.
35. Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative science quarterly, 165-186.
36. Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California management review, 32(2), 77-97.
37. Nadler, L. (1984). The handbook of human resource development: John Wiley & Sons.
38. Noe, R. A., & Peacock, M. (2002). Employee training and development.
39. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative science quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
40. Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Zaragoza-Sáez, P., & Claver-Cortés, E. (2010). Can formalization, complexity, and centralization influence knowledge performance? Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 310-320.
41. Portugal, E., & Yukl, G. (1994). Perspectives on environmental leadership. The leadership quarterly, 5(3-4), 271-276.
42. Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90-118.
43. Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for entrepreneurial leadership historical research reference in entrepreneurship.
44. Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth.
45. Senge, P. M. (1991). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization. Performance+ Instruction, 30(5), 37-37.
46. Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 179.
47. Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The leadership quarterly, 15(1), 33-53.
48. Shonk, J. H. (1982). Working in teams: A practical manual for improving work groups: Amacom.
49. Shonk, J. H. (1992). Team-based organizations: Developing a successful team environment: Irwin Professional Publishing.
50. Valacich, J. S., Jessup, L. M., Dennis, A. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1992). A conceptual framework of anonymity in group support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 1(3), 219-241.
51. Williams, G. A., & Miller, R. B. (2002). Change the way you persuade. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 64-73.
52. Wolf, M., & Terrell, D. (2016). The high-tech industry, what is it and why it matters to our economic future.

53. 朱延智. (2007). 高科技產業分析, 五南出版社.
54. 林詩穎, 張秀華, & 周惠文. (2007). 團隊多元性及團隊衝突對團隊績效的影響. 電子商務學報, 9(2), 353-376.
55. 張仁家. (2013). 企業訓練與發展: 全華圖書.
56. 張添洲. (1999). 人力資源: 组織, 管理, 發展: 五南圖書出版公司.
57. 郭芳煜. (1989). 怎樣做好員工培訓. 聯經出版公司, 台北.
58. 陳彰儀. (1999). 組織心理學: 心理出版社.
59. 彭于萍, & 翁振益. (2009). 服務業員工之工作自主性與組織公民行為之關係探討-以工作滿意度為中介變項. In: 崇右學報.
60. 黃仕斌, & 楊志龍. (2018). 研發投入, 研發績效對公司經營績效之影響: 以台灣高科技產業為例. 科技管理學刊, 23(1), 33-63.
61. 黎文明. (2002). 水平結構組織與企業組織學習傾向, 創新能力及經營績效之關聯性研究. 成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班 (EMBA) 學位論文, 1-146.
62. 蘇英芳, & 黃賀. (2006). 魅力領導, 家長式領導, 德性領導與領導效應之研究. 中山管理評論, 14(4), 939-968.