360度評量影響受評者工作目標設定行為因素之探討─結果正確性知覺的干擾或中介效果檢驗

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：110

、訪客IP：18.221.112.248

姓名

王欣婉(Shin-Wan Wang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所

論文名稱

360度評量影響受評者工作目標設定行為因素之探討─結果正確性知覺的干擾或中介效果檢驗
(The Relationship Study between Factors of 360 Degree Feedback Evaluation with Behaviors of Goal-setting - The Test of Ratees’ Perception of Validity by Moderating or Mediating Effect)

相關論文

★ 組織精簡與員工態度探討 - 以A公司人力重整計劃為例。	★ 訓練成效評估及影響訓練移轉之因素探討----一項時間管理訓練之研究
★ 主管領導風格、業務員工作習慣及專業證照對組織承諾與工作績效之相關研究	★ 研發專業人員職能需求之研究-以某研究機構為例
★ 人力資本、創新資本與組織財務績效關聯性之研究	★ 企業人力資源跨部門服務HR人員之角色、工作任務及所需職能之研究
★ 新進保全人員訓練成效之評估	★ 人力資源專業人員職能之研究－一項追蹤性的研究
★ 影響企業實施接班人計劃的成功因素	★ 主管管理能力、工作動機與工作績效之關聯性探討─以A公司為例
★ 影響安全氣候因子之探討-以汽車製造業為例	★ 台電公司不同世代員工工作價值觀差異及對激勵措施偏好之研究
★ 不同的激勵措施對員工工作滿足及工作投入之影響性分析	★ 工作價值觀、工作滿足對組織承諾之影響(以A通訊公司研發人員為例)
★ 薪資公平知覺與組織承諾關係之探討－以內外控人格特質為干擾變項	★ 改善活動訓練成效評量之研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

目前許多台灣企業採取「人才管理」的思維而導入360度評量，其最主要用意在於幫助員工進行自我才能發展。雖說如此，在實施過程中，常有不如預期的情形發生，比如當評量結果不被受評者認為是正確的，則該次評量就會被認為是一次失敗的評量；過去研究發現評量回饋制度能夠提供有關工作表現的正確性、精確性以及適當性，其對於個人工作績效的特定與挑戰性目標上具有幫助。因此，本研究欲歸納360度評量正確性成功因素，如整體保密、評量溝通、回饋面談及評量來源能力認知等，以探討各因素與工作目標設定行為間，評量結果正確性知覺是否具有調節效果或中介效果的存在，以作為企業導入360度評量時的參考。
本研究以360度評量制度中擔任受評者角色的四家個案公司的314位主管為樣本，進行問卷調查。研究結果發現360度評量正確性成功因素中的「整體保密認知」、「評量溝通認知」、「回饋面談認知」與「評量來源能力認知」，對於「評量結果正確性知覺」有顯著影響；其對於「工作設定目標行為」影響過程中，「評量結果正確性知覺」則須經由中介效果，而非以干擾效果產生影響。最後，根據本研究結果，給予企業實施360度評量的相關建議。

摘要(英)

Presently, enterprises in Taiwan have taken the “talent management” thought so that implemented the 360 degree feedback evaluation. Its main purpose is to help employees have intention to develop their talents. However, in the process of implementing, something unexpected happened at times. For example, if the results of evaluation are not considered validly by ratees, the 360 degree feedback evaluation will be deemed as a failure. Besides, researchers found that feedback evaluation can provide ratees with validity, accuracy and fitness for their job performance. It is also beneficial to ratees for
setting specific and challenged goals. Focusing on generalizing the key successful factors of validity for 360 degree feedback, this study develops a model and associated propositions to examine the effect of 360 degree feedback on behaviors of goal-setting by moderating or mediating.
The study used a total of 314 managers who had played the role of a ratee in 4 companies respectively as a questionnaire sample. In results of the study found that “perceptions of confidentiality, understanding, interview feedback, and abilities of raters in 360 degree feedback” are key factors to ratees’ perception of validity. In addition, ratees’ perception of validity for 360 degree feedback evaluation possesses mediating effect between these key successful factors of validity with behaviors of goal-setting rather than moderating effect. After identifying how key successful factors of validity for 360 degree feedback affect behaviors of goal-setting, we recommend how to enhance the probability of implementing 360 degree feedback evaluation successfully and sustaining the process over time.

關鍵字(中)

★ 受評者結果正確性知覺
★ 工作目標設定行為
★ 360度評量

關鍵字(英)

★ Ratees’ perception of validity
★ 360 degree feedback evaluation
★ Behaviors of goal-setting

論文目次

目錄
摘要 i
目錄 iii
表目錄 iv
圖目錄 iv
第一章序論 1
第一節研究背景與動機 1
第二節研究目的 4
第二章文獻探討 5
第一節 360度評量的意義 5
第二節 360度評量的功能 7
第三節 360度評量的正確性成功因素探討 9
第四節受評者評量結果正確性知覺與目標設定行為相關研究 17
第三章研究方法 21
第一節研究架構 21
第二節研究對象 25
第三節研究流程 27
第四節研究工具 28
第五節統計分析方法 31
第四章研究結果 32
第一節因素分析 32
第二節信度分析 37
第三節敘述性統計分析 38
第四節相關分析 40
第五節評量投入面與受評者態度之迴歸分析 41
第六節結果正確性知覺干擾效果分析與探討 43
第七節受評者態度之中介效果分析 46
第五章研究結論與討論 52
第一節研究結論 52
第二節管理實務意涵與應用 59
第三節研究限制 62
第四節研究建議 63
參考文獻 65
附錄本研究問卷 71
表目錄
表 1︰360度評量四種可能的結果 6
表 2︰360度評量正確性因素與設計事項關聯性探討 9
表 3︰360度評量正確性因素與設計事項關聯性探討（續） 10
表 4：個案公司特性與問卷回收情形一覽表 26
表 5：因素分析後所有自變項因素負荷量與共同性摘要表 33
表 6：因素分析後所有依變項因素負荷量與共同性摘要表 34
表 7：因素分析後各構面之題項 35
表 8：因素分析後刪除之題項及其原因 36
表 9：各因素量表及總量表之內部一致性係數 37
表 10：回收樣本之人口統計變項表 38
表 11：各變數平均數與標準差摘要表 39
表 12：各變項相關分析表 40
表 13：自變項對結果正確性知覺之階層迴歸分析 42
表 14：多元迴歸線性檢定 43
表 15：各自變項與評量結果正確性知覺交互作用對工作目標設定行為之干擾效果 45
表 16：整體保密認知中介效果分析表 47
表 17：評量溝通認知中介效果分析表 48
表 18：回饋面談認知中介效果分析表 49
表 19：直屬主管評量能力認知中介效果分析表 50
表 20：同事部屬評量能力認知中介效果分析表 51
表 21：研究假設檢驗結果彙整表 57
表 22：研究假設檢驗結果彙整表（續） 58
圖目錄
圖 1：360度評量示意圖 5
圖 2︰本研究架構圖 21
圖 3︰本研究流程圖 27

參考文獻

（一）中文部分
李察．柯克（Richard Koch），2006，「80/20法則」，台北：大塊文化。
沈富鈞，2007，實施多源評量成功因素、受評者接受度知覺與受評者自我才能
發展意圖關聯性之研究，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
陳文堂，2005，業務人員職能評鑑360 度回饋對受評者態度之影響—以某外商藥廠為例，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
蔡慶堂，2002，主管管理才能評鑑360度回饋對受評者態度之影響因素探討–以在臺某外商化工廠為例，國立中央大學管理學院高階主管企管碩士班碩士論文。
張裕隆，劉岡憬，2001，「360度回饋與傳統上司評鑑對領導效能預測力之比較」，應用心理研究，10期：167-197。
吳文雄，2002，「電腦技能學習者過去的績效、目標認同、電腦自我效能及電腦績效因果關係之驗證─社會認知理論與目標設定理論的整合」，師大學報，47期：39-54。
邱皓政，2000，「量化研究與統計分析」，台北：五南圖書出版。
（二）英文部分
Antonioni, D. 1993. “Upward appraisals for managers,” Industrial Management, Vol. 35(6), 20-23.
Antonioni, D. 1994. “The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings,” Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47(2), 349-357.
Antonioni, D. 1996. “Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process,” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25(3), 24-29.
Ashford, S.J. 1986. “Feedback-seeking as an individual adaptation: a resource perspective,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, 465-487.
Atwater, L. E., & Brett, J. F. 2005. “Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental 360 feedback,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 66, 532-548.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. 1986. “Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 38, 92-113.
Banks, C.G, Roberson, L. 1985. “Performance appraisers as test developers,” The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10(1), 128-143.
Barnes-Farrell, J.L., & Lynch, A.M. 2003. Performance appraisal and feedback programs, In J.E. Edwards, J. C. Scott, & N. S. Raju (Eds.), The human resources program-evaluation handbook, 155–176. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Becker, L. J. 1978. “Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63, 428-433.
Bernardin, H.J. 1979. “Rater training: A critique and reconceptualization,” Academy of Management Proceedings, 216-220.
Bernardin, H.J, Dahmus, S.A, Redmon, G. 1993. “Attitudes of first-linesupervisors toward subordinate appraisals,” Human Resource Management, Vol: 32(2-3), 315-324.
Bobko, P. 1986. “A solution to some dilemmas when testing hypotheses about ordinal interactions,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, 323-326.
Bohl, D.L. 1996. “Minisurvey: 360-degree appraisal yield superior results, survey shows,” Compensation and Benefit Review, Vol. 28(5), 16-20.
Craig, S.B, Hannum, K. 2006. “Research update: 360-degree performance assessment,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 58(2), 117-126.
Curtis, B.A, Harvey, D.R, Ravden, D. 2005. “Sources of political distortions in performance appraisal: appraisal purpose and rater accountability,” Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30(1), 42-61.
Dalton, M.A. 1998. Best practices: Five rationales for using 360-degree feedback in organizations. In W. Tornow & M. London (Eds.), Maximizing the value of 360-degree feedback: A process for successful individual and organizational development, 59–77, SF: Jossey-Bass.
Dalton, M.A. 1997. When the purpose of using multi-rater feedback is behavior change. In D. Bracken et al.(Ed.), Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes?, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
David W. Bracken, Carol. W .Timmereck, John W. Fleenor, & Lynn Summers. 2001. “360 Feedback from another angle,” Human Resource Management, Vol. 40(1), 3-20.
Earley, P. C, Northcraft, G. B., Lee. C., & Terri. R. 1990. “Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance,” Academic of Management Journal, Vol. 33(1), 87-105.
Earley, P. C. 1988. “Computer-generated performance feedback in the mail-order industry,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 41, 50-64.
Earley, P. C, Wojnaroski, P., & Prest, W. 1987. “Task planning and energy expended: Exploration of how goals influence performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, 107-114.
Erez, M., & Zidon, I. 1984. “Effect of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal difficulty to performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, 69-78.
Erez, M. 1977. “Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal setting-performance relationship,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol: 62, 624-627.
Erez, M. 1977 “Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal setting-performance relationship,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, 624-627.
Frederick P., Morgeson Troy V. Mumford, & Michael A. Campion. 2005. “Coming Full Circle: Using Research and Practice to Address 27 Questions About 360-Degree Feedback programs,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 57(3), 196-209.
Garavan, N.T, Morley, M, Flynn, M. 1997. “360 degree feedback：its role in employee development,” Journal of Management Development, Vol.16(2), 134-147.
Gorsuch, R.L. 1983. Factor analysis, Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, C. R. 1976. “Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, 250-279.
Hazucha, J.F., Hezlett, S.A., & Schneider, R.J. 1993. “The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development,” Human Resource Management, Vol.32, 325-351.
Hedge, J.W, Kavanagh, M.J. 1988. “Improving the accuracy of performance evaluations: comparison of three methods of performance appraiser training,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73(1), 68-74.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. 1979. “Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64, 349–371.
Kim, J. S. 1984 “Effect of behavior plus outcome goal setting and feedback on employee satisfaction and performance,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, 139-149.
Kopelman, R. E. 1986. Managing productivity in organizations: A practical, people-oriented perspective, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Landy, F.J, Barnes, J, Murphy, K.R. 1978. “Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance appraisal,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63(6), 751-754.
Latham, G. 2002. “The reciprocal effects of science on practice: insights from the practice and science of goal setting,” Canadian Psychology, Vol. 42, 1–11.
Leanne A, David W, Cheri O, Chet R, & Karin M. J. 2005. “Self-Other Agreement: Comparing its Relationship with Performance in the U.S. and Europe,” International Journal Of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 13(1), 25-40.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 2002. “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation,” American Psychologist, Vol. 57(9), 705–717.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. A theory of goal setting & task performance, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. 1984. “Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69(2), 241-251.
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Koeppel, J. 1968. “Motivational effects of knowledge of results: A goal-setting phenomenon?” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 70, 474-485.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. 1981. “Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 90, 125-152.
London, M. & Smither, J.W. 1995. “Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes?- Theory-based applications and directions for research,” Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48(4), 803-839.
London M., & Wohlers, A.J. 1991. “Agreement between subordinate and self-ratings in upward feedback,” Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, 375–390.
London. M., Mone. E. M., & Scott. J. C. 2004. “Performance management and assessment: Methods for improved rater accuracy and employee goal setting”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43(4), 319-336.
Manfred F.R., Vrignaud P., Korotov K., Engellau E., & Florent-Treacy E. 2006. “The development of the personality audit: a psychodynamic multiple feedback assessment instrument,” Human Resource Management, Vol.17(5), 898-917.
Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. 1987. “A meta-analytic study of tbe effects of goal setting on task performance,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 39, 52-83.
PM Muchinsky. 1997. Psychology applied to work, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.
Robert B. Kaiser, & S. Bartholomew Craig. 2005. “Building a Better Mouse trap: Item Characteristics Associated with Rating Discrepancies in 360-Degree Feedback,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 57(4), 235-245.
Ryan, A.M, Brutus, S, Greguras, G.J, Hakel, M.D. 2000. “Receptivity to assessment-based feedback for management development,” The journal of Management Development, Vol. 19(3/4), 252-276.
S. Bartholomew Craig, & Kelly Hannum. 2006. “Research Update: 360-Degree Performance Assessment,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 58(2), 117-122.
Tornow, W.W. 1993. “Perception or reality：Is multi-perceptive measurement a mean or an end?” Human Resource Management, Vol. 32(2&3), 223-229.
Waldman, D. A., Atwater. L. E., Antonioni. D. 1998. “Has 360 degree feedback gone amok?” Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12(2), pp86-94.
Yammarino, F. & Atwater, L.E. 1993. “Understanding self-perception accuracy: implications for human resources management,” Human Resource Management, Vol. 32, 231-249.
Yammarino, F. & Atwater, L.E. 1997. “Do managers see themselves as others see them? Implications of self-other rating a agreement for human resource management,” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25(4), 35-44.
Yukl, G, Lepsinger, R. 1995. “How to get the most out of 360-degree feedback,” Training, Vol. 32(12), 45-50.

指導教授

林文政(Wen-Jeng Lin)

審核日期

2008-6-22

推文