臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在企業的生命週期中，隨時會面臨環境的變化，無論在任何時候，20%~30%的企業需要變革，企業必須改變以回應環境的趨勢，企業成長間斷均勻模型也說明了長期成功的企業也需要變革，策略轉折於是成為每個企業經營策略重要的課題。
本研究以台灣上市公司為實證研究對象，運用經濟新報資料庫之資料，探討組織特徵因子（市場地位、產業型態、組織年齡、組織規模和組織先前績效）、變革策略（效率策略及興業策略）和變革績效等變數之間的關係，經由文獻彙整與統計實證，嘗試建立一較完整的策略變革模式，並能進一步於企業制訂變革策略時有所助益。
本研究經由多變量統計分析來探討企業變革模式整體變項之關聯性，發現市場地位會影響企業變革策略的選擇；而不同市場地位對變革績效的影響會受到變革策略的干擾，市場地位愈高的廠商採用興業策略進行變革者績效會較佳。組織年齡愈小，則組織變革績效愈佳；先前績效愈佳，組織變革績效愈佳。而組織年齡該變數對變革績效的影響會受到變革策略的干擾，本研究實證之主要結果如下：
1.市場地位會影響組織變革策略的選擇，但產業型態的不同並不如文獻說明的會對變革策略的選擇有顯著的偏好。
2.組織年齡大小會影響組織變革績效，組織年齡愈小則組織變革績效愈佳。
3.組織先前績效與變革績效有顯著正相關。
4.不同市場地位對變革績效的影響會受到變革策略的干擾，市場地位愈高者採用興業導向變革愈易成功。
5.不同組織年齡影響組織變革績效會受到變革策略的干擾。
6.組織年齡為變革策略和變革績效的干擾變數。
本研究之研究結果對於台灣上市公司的建議為，公司面臨變革情境時，效率策略是可以被首先思考的方向，另外，組織年齡較小者，變革績效相對於年齡較大之公司會顯著較佳。
關鍵字：組織特徵、市場地位、產業型態、組織規模、組織年齡、先前績效、變革策略、變革績效

Firms have to change in order to cope with the change of the environment. In every moment of firms’ life cycle, 20%~30% of them need to change. Punctuated equilibrium model illustrates that even permanently successful enterprises need to make changes. The issue of turnaround thus becomes indispensable for all companies.
By consulting Taiwan Economic Journal Data Bank (TEJ), listed companies in Taiwan’s stock market are selected as the sample of this research. The study tries to figure out the relationship between organizational characteristics (market position, industry type, organizational age, organizational scale, and organizational prior performance), turnaround strategy (operational strategy and entrepreneurial strategy), and performance. Hopefully it could practically contribute to the business world and develop a more complete strategic turnaround model through this research
Multi-variable statistical analysis is used to explore the relationship between the variables. We found that market position will influence the choice of turnaround strategy and turnaround strategy is the moderator of market position to performance. Moreover, firms with higher market position should adopt entrepreneurial strategy to gain higher performance. The younger the organization and the better the prior performance, the better the performance. Turnaround strategy is the moderator of organizational age and performance. The main conclusions of this research are as follows:
1.Market position will influence the choice of turnaround strategy, but industry type will not.
2.Performance will be influenced by organizational age. The younger the organization, the better the performance.
3.Performance is positively related with prior performance.
4.Turnaround strategy is the moderator of market position to turnaround performance. Firms with higher market position and adopt entrepreneurial strategy can have higher turnaround performance.
5.Turnaround strategy is the moderator of organizational age and performance.
6.Organizational age is the moderator of turnaround strategy and performance.
This study suggests the firms that operational strategy should be considered at the first place while facing turnaround situation. Besides, firms should keep a flexible and young culture to avoid becoming rigid so that could achieve better performance when needed.
Key Words: Organizational Characteristics, Market Position, Industry Type, Organizational age, Organizational Scale, Prior Performance, Turnaround Strategy, Performance

目錄
中文摘要I
英文摘要III
目錄V
圖目錄VII
表目錄VIII
第壹章緒論1
第一節 研究背景1
第二節 研究目的與章節架構3
一、研究目的3
二、章節架構4
第貳章文獻探討5
第一節 變革的定義與分類5
一、變革的定義5
二、變革的分類7
第二節 變革研究之內容學派與程序學派12
一、內容學派12
二、變革的程序學派22
第三節 變革三模式26
一、變革的理性觀點26
二、變革的學習觀點31
三、變革的認知觀點32
第四節 導致變革的推力以及組織的抗力37
一、變革的推力38
二、變革的抗力42
第五節 企業轉折變革策略類型45
一、作業性策略與策略性策略45
二、興業導向策略與效率導向策略45
三、增加收益策略、產品市場重新對焦策略、成本刪減、資料刪減策略46
四、管理策略、縮減策略、成長策略、結構重組策略46
五、升級策略及轉型策略48
第參章研究設計54
第一節 架構之變項及其操作性定義54
一、研究架構54
二、研究變項及衡量方式說明55
第二節 研究假說及研究程序 60
一、研究假說60
二、研究程序65
第三節 樣本選擇方式及資料分析方法67
一、研究樣本之選擇67
二、資料分析方法與分析流程72
第四節 研究限制74
第肆章資料分析及結果解釋75
第一節 樣本公司特徵分析75
一、樣本公司基本資料分析75
二、研究變項之資料分析76
第二節 統計資料分析77
一、組織特徵因素和變革策略關係之分析77
二、組織特徵因素對績效的影響分析79
三、變革策略和變革績效關係之分析81
四、組織特徵因素對變革績效的影響受到變革策略干擾結果分析83
五、組織特徵因素影響變革策略再影響變革績效之結果分析89
六、變革策略影響變革績效受到組織特徵因素干擾結果分析90
第伍章研究結論與建議95
第一節 研究結論95
第二節 研究貢獻96
一、理論上的貢獻96
二、管理面之實務意涵98
第三節 後續研究建議99
參考文獻

一、中文文獻
1. Andrew S. Grove (民85)，十倍數時代，台北，大塊文化。
2. Harvey Hegarty（民83），「擁抱變革才能生存」，世界經理文摘，vol.97 , pp.102 — 111。
3. Karlot Bengt（民86），企業管理辭典，台北，三民書局。
4. 江金龍譯，龍澤正雄 ＆ 筒井信行（民76），「成功的企業轉型-中小企業如何脫胎換骨」，台北，華泰書局。
5. 余坤東（民88），組織變革活動系絡與變革成效之探討，輔仁管理評論，第6卷第2期，pp.1-22。
6. 吳政昌（民88），企業轉折變革過程之研究，中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
7. 周佳欣（民86），台灣中小企業策略性轉型之研究，東吳大學企管研究所碩士論文。
8. 林宛貞，(民88)，台灣本土企業成長策略之關鍵因素探討，國立東華大學國際企業管理研究所碩士論文。
9. 林榮春（民85），管理層級與作業層次對組織內部變革的影響，逢甲學報，vol. 12，pp.77 — 83。
10. 洪一權，(民82)，產業生命週期與合作策略關聯之研究，政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
11. 徐守德、王毓敏、潘永泰（民89），國內銀行業之策略群組與財務績效關聯性研究，Chiao Ta Management Review，Vol.19(2), pp.1-30。
12. 徐聯恩（民85），企業變革系列研究，台北市，華泰書局。
13. 徐聯恩（民87），企業變革架構，中華管理評論，Vol.1(1)，pp. 1-7。
14. 徐聯恩(民87)，複雜科學、組織變革與組織自我更新，人力發展，第59期，pp.50-57。
15. 康碩夫（民88），高階主管產業內異動對策略改變與績效之影響─以國內基金團隊為例，國立中山大學企管研究所碩士論文。
16. 張揖平（民87），具有轉折點之可確定比率軟體可靠度模型研究，東吳經濟商學學報，Vol. 21, pp. 109-121。
17. 許起裕（民85），策略演化與產業生態變遷之理論探討，台灣大學國際企業研究所碩士論文。
18. 郭榮茂（民87），企業轉型中的多角化策略選擇─以高雄地區建築投資業為例，國立中山大學企管研究所碩士論文。
19. 郭榮茂（民87），企業轉型中的多角化策略選擇-以高雄地區建築投資業為例，國立中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
20. 陳明璋，民84，『企業轉型的經營策略與作法』，變遷中台灣企業之管理實例發表會，中華民國管理科學學會。
21. 陳俊穎，(民85)，環境、組織生命週期與企業策略之關聯性研究-以台灣地區製造業為例，國立交通大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
22. 楊復輝，(民79)，「企業轉型與企業文化重塑」，中小企業發展，卷期：33，pp.25-28。
23. 劉秀芬（民87），企業文化、組織變革技術及組織變革效益之研究，中原大學企業管理碩士論文。
24. 潘永泰（民86），國內銀行業之策略群組與財務績效關聯性研究，國立中山大學企管研究所碩士論文。
25. 蔣芳育（民85），大型企業領導者更迭之研究－台灣上市公司十年經驗分析，中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
26. 鄭必孝（民86），我國中小企業因應產業環境變動與經營策略的人力資源發展之研究，亞太管理評論，Vol. 2, pp. 101-117
27. 簡幸瑜，(民82)，我國建築投資業策略群組與其績效關係之研究，中興大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
二、英文文獻
1. Altman, E. I. (1983), Corporate Financial Distress: A Complete Guide to Predicting, Avoiding & Dealing with Bankruptcy, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
2. Amburgey T. L., and Dacin T.,(1994), “As The Left Foot Follows The Right? The Dynamics of Strategic and Structural Change”, Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), pp.1427-1452.
3. Barker V. L., and Mone M. A. (1994), “Retrenchment: cause of turnaround or consequence of decline?”, Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.395-405.
4. Barker, V.L. and Duhaime, I. M. (1997), “Strategic change in the turnaround process: Theory and empirical evidence”, Strategic Management Journal, 18, pp.13-38.
5. Bibeault, D.(1982), Corporate Turnaround, McGraw-Hill, New York.
6. Boeker, and Warren,(1989), “Strategic Change: The Effects of Founding And History”, Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), pp.489-515.
7. Boeker, W. (1989), “Strategic change: The effects of founding and history”, Academy of Management Journal, 32, pp.489-551.
8. Boeker, W., Goodstein J.,(1991), “Organizational Performance and Adaptation: Effects of Environment and Performance on Changes in Board Composition”, Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), pp.805-826.
9. Boyd, Brian K; Dess, Gregory G; and Abdul M. A., (1993), “Divergence Between Archival and Perceptual Measures of the Environment”, The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), pp.204-221.
10. Boyle, Robert D, Desai, and Harsha B,(1991), ”Turnaround Strategies for Small Firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, 29(3), pp.33-42.
11. Corsi, Thomas M., Grimm, Curtis M., Smith, Ken G., and Raymond D.,(1992), “The Effects of LTI Motor Carrier Size on Strategy and Performance”, Logistics and Transportation Review, 28(2), pp.129-138.
12. Dewitt R. L.,(1998), “Firm, Industry, and Strategy Influences on Choice of Downsizing Approach”, Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp.59-79.
13. Fombrun, C. J. (1993), “Envisioning strategic change”, Advances in Strategic Management, 9. pp.157-188.
14. Ginsberg, A. (1988), “ Measuring and modeling changes in strategy: Theoretical foundations and empirical directions”, Strategic Management Journal, 9(6), pp. 559-579.
15. Goodstein, J., Boeker. W., (1994), “The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change”, Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp.241-250.
16. Gordon Shelly. S., Stewart W.H., Swet R., and Luker W. A.,(2000), “Convergence Versus Strategic Reorientation: The Antecedents of Fast-paced Organizational Change”, Journal of Management, Vol.26(5), 911-945
17. Grimm, C. & Smith (1993), “Determinants of strategic change in the LTL motor carrier industry: A discrete choice analysis”, Transportation Journal, 32(4), 56-65.
18. Hambrick & Schecter (1983), “Turnaround strategies for mature industrial-product business units”, Academy of Management Journal, 26, pp.231-248.
19. Hannan, M. T. and J. Freeman (1984), “Structural inertia and organizational change”, American Sociological Review, 49, pp.149-164.
20. Havement, H. A. (1992), “Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation”, Administative Science Quarterly 37, pp. 48-75.
21. Havement, H. A. (1992), “Between a rock and a hard place: Organizational change and performance under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, pp. 48-75.
22. Hofer, C. H. (1980), “Turnaround strategies”, Journal of Business Strategy, I(1), pp. 19-31.
23. Hoffman J. J., Williams R. J., Lamont R. T., and Geiger S. W., (2000), ”Managerial Tenure and Recovery Following M-Form Reorganization in Diversified Firms”, Journal of Business Research, 50, pp. 287-296.
24. Hoffman J.J., Williams J.R & Lamont T.B. (2000), “Managerial Tenure and Recovery Following M-Form Reorganization in Diversified Firms”, Journal of Business Research, 50. pp. 287-296.
25. Huff, James O, and Anne S,(1995), “Stress, Inertia, Opportunity and Competitive Position: A SIOP Model of Strategic Change in the Pharmaceuticals Industry”, Academy of Management Journal, Best Papers Proceedings, pp.22-29.
26. Hugues, Jon (1995), “Facilitating strategic change — the key role for purchasing leadership”, Purchasing & Supply Management, November, pp.44-52.
27. Kelly & Amburgey (1991), “Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change”, Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp.591-612.
28. Kelly D., and Amburgey T. L.,(1991), “Organizational Inertia and Momentum: A Dynamic Model of Strategic Change”, Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), pp.591-612.
29. Lant et al. (1992), “The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration”, Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp.485-508.
30. McCutchen, William W., and Jr.,(1993), “Strategy Changes as A Response to Alterations in Tax Policy”, Journal of Management, 19(3), pp.575-593.
31. McDougall P. P., and Oviatt B. M.,(1996), “New Venture Internationalization, Strategic change, and Performance: A Follow-up Study”, Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), pp.23-40.
32. Miller D., and Chen M. J., (1994), “Sources and Consequences of Competitive Inertia: A Study of The U.S. Airline Industry”, Administrative Science quarterly, 39, pp.1-23.
33. Oster, S. (1982), “Intraindustry structure and the ease of strategic change”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 64, pp.376-383.
34. Pearce & Robbinson (2000), Formulation, implementation, and control of competitive strategy, McGraw-Hill.
35. Pettigrew, A. (1987), “Context and action in the transformation of the firm”, Journal of Management Studies, 24, pp.649-670.
36. Quinn, J. B. (1980), Strategies for change: Logical Incrementalism, McMillan, New York.
37. Rajagopalan et al. (1997), “Toward a theory of strategic change; A multi-lens perspective and integrative framework”, The Academy of Management Review, 22(1), pp.48-79.
38. Reger R. K., Duhaime I. M., and Stimpert J. L.,(1992), ”Deregulation, Strategic Choice, Risk, and Financial Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 13,pp.189-204.
39. Robbins D. Keith and Pearce John A. (1992), “Turnaround: retrenchment and recovery”, Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp.287-309.
40. Schendel, D. E., Patton R. (1976), “Corporate turnaround strategies: A study of profit decline and recovery”, Journal of General Management, Spring 3, 3-11
41. Singh, Jitendra V., House, Robert J., Tucker, and David J.,(1986), “Orgnaizational Change and Organizational Mortality”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 587-611.
42. Tichy, Noel M.(1993), “Revolutionize your company”, Fortune, 128, pp.114-122.
43. Tushman, M. L., Virany. B. & Romanelli, E. (1985), “Executive succession, strategic reorientations, and organizational evolution: The minicomputer industry as case in point”, Technology in Society, 7, pp.297-313.
44. Van de Ven, & Poole (1995), “Explaining development and change in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, 20, pp.510-540.
45. Zajac, Edward J., Kraatz, and Matthew S,(1993), “A Diametric Forces Model of Strategic Change: Assess the Antecedents and Consequences of Restructuring in The Higher Education Industry”, Strategic Management Journal, 14, pp.83-102.