初探世代差異下面試官不合宜行為對應徵者的影響

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：19

、訪客IP：18.97.14.91

姓名

宋素錦(Su-Chin Sung) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所在職專班

論文名稱

初探世代差異下面試官不合宜行為對應徵者的影響

相關論文

★ 探討企業產品及服務形象不一致對組織人才吸引力及求職意圖的影響	★ 疫情期間員工工作模式的改變對工作績效的影響
★ 負面甄選流程口碑與面試官行為如何影響應徵者之組織人才吸引力認知	★ 彈性工作制度對員工工作績效及離職傾向的影響

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]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2030-7-1以後開放)

摘要(中)

在現今台灣勞動市場人口結構劇烈變遷與求才競爭日益激烈的背景下，企業面試官於面試過程中的行為已不僅只是單向評估應徵者，更成為應徵者評估企業文化與職場環境的重要訊號來源。然而，針對面試官在面試過程中所展現之態度與表現的批評卻時有可聞，在面試過程中是否會遭遇面試官的不友善或是不禮貌的對待，似乎也成為近來應徵者評估公司的整體形象以及是否接受工作聘任的一項重要依據。因此，本研究旨在探索面試官於面談過程中所展現之「不合宜行為」(即不恰當但非違法之行為)對不同世代的應徵者，會對企業的觀感與錄取意願產生何種影響。
本研究採用關鍵事例訪談法，共蒐集34位受訪者的面試經驗，並輔以OpView Trend網路聲量分析，交叉檢視真實面試互動與社會大眾觀感之間的關聯。研究發現面試官不合宜行為可分為「面試官個人」與「面試流程」兩大構面。前者包括態度不尊重、質疑能力與專業不足，後者則涵蓋問題設計不當與流程安排不合理。進一步分析指出，Z世代對面試官的態度問題更為敏感，常因負面互動而決定拒絕錄取，網路輿情亦呼應此觀察，普遍針對面試官的傲慢態度與不專業提問表達負評。
本研究補足現有文獻中對面試官負面行為分類與實證資料的不足，並提出實務建議：企業應強化面試官選任與訓練、優化流程設計、建立應徵者回饋制度，並定期追蹤社群平台之公開評價，以提升面試品質與企業吸引優秀人才之能力。

摘要(英)

As Taiwan′s labor market faces rapid demographic shifts and growing competition for talent, the role of interviewers has become increasingly influential. Beyond assessing candidates, interviewers now serve as key indicators of organizational culture. Negative perceptions—such as rudeness or lack of professionalism—have emerged as major factors affecting candidates’ willingness to accept job offers, especially among Generation Z.
This study examines how tackles interviewer behaviors (inappropriate but not illegal behaviors) affect candidates’ perceptions and hiring decisions across different generations. Using the Critical Incident Technique (CIT), we analyzed 34 job applicant’s interview experiences and supplemented with online sentiment data from OpView Trend platform. The results categorize such behaviors into two dimensions: personal conduct (e.g., disrespectful attitude, questioning of competence, and lack of professionalism) and procedural flaws (e.g., poorly structured interview procedure or irrelevant questions).
Generation Z shows heightened sensitivity to disrespectful behavior and often declines offers after a single negative interaction. Online platform data also echo these concerns which frequently include criticizing arrogant or unprofessional conduct. These findings suggest that such behaviors can harm both recruitment effectiveness and employer image.
This study contributes a structured framework for understanding the insights of tackless interviewer behaviors and offers practical recommendations: enhance interviewer training, refine interview design, and build respectful, transparent candidate experiences to strengthen employer appeal.

關鍵字(中)

★ 面試官行為
★ Z世代
★ 關鍵接觸理論
★ 不合宜行為

關鍵字(英)

★ Interviewer behavior
★ Generation Z
★ Critical contact theory
★ Tactless behavior

論文目次

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 iv
表目錄 vi
圖目錄 vii
一、緒論 1
1-1 研究動機與目的 1
1-2 研究問題 4
二、文獻探討 6
2-1 當前環境的變遷與企業選才挑戰 6
2-2 面試官行為對應徵者之影響 7
2-3 職場新世代-Z世代應徵者的特性 10
三、研究方法 13
3-1 研究架構與研究方法 13
3-2 關鍵事例訪談對象及蒐集 14
3-3 關鍵事例訪談流程 15
3-4 網路聲量 17
四、研究結果 20
4-1 關鍵事例方法結果 20
4-2 世代差異 25
4-3 網路聲量補充分析 27
4-4 結果統整 31
五、討論 33
5-1 結果討論 33
5-2 理論意涵 34
5-3 實務意涵 36
5-4 研究限制與未來研究建議 40
參考文獻 43

參考文獻

一、中文
1. 劉仲矩(2014)。應徵者知覺面試官類型之研究。就業與勞動關係，4(1)，57–70。
2. 蔡維奇、楊文芬、林正偉(2009)。面試官行為、企業雇用形象對應徵者工作選擇意圖的影響：以國防役男甄試為例。國防管理學刊，*9*(1)，49–70。
3. 趙興華(2019)。初探壓力式面試情境下面試官行為對求職者組織工作認知之影響〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所。

二、英文
1.
CareerPlug. (2025). 2025 candidate experience statistics: Strategies for recruiting. Retrieved from https://www.careerplug.com/blog/candidate-experience-statistics/
2.
Calluso, C., & Devetag, M. G. (2024). Discrimination in the hiring process: State of the art and implications for policymakers. Journal of Behavioral Economics and Policy, 8(1), 1–12.
3.
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 655–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00709.x
4.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928
5.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80.
6.
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4
7.
Dangmei, J. (2016). Understanding the Generation Z: The future workforce. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 5(9), 1–7.
44
8.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
9.
Gallois, C., Ogay, T., & Giles, H. (2005). Communication accommodation theory: A look back and a look ahead. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 121–148). Sage.
10.
Harold, C. M., Holtz, B. C., Griepentrog, B. K., Brewer, L. M., & Marsh, S. M. (2016). Investigating the effects of applicant justice perceptions on job offer acceptance. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12101
11.
Harris, M. M., & Fink, L. S. (1987). A field study of applicant reactions to employment opportunities: Does the recruiter make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.411
12.
Kelly, J. (2022, October 28). Interviewing is like dating—Here are warning signs that it’s not going to be a match. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2022/10/28/interviewing-is-like-dating-warning-signs/
13.
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052
14.
Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., & Smith, D. E. (1994). The effects of applicants’ reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01573.x
15.
Pivetta, G. (2025). Beyond human resources: Myths, rituals and dilemmas in a journey between past and future. goWare & Guerini Next.
16.
Rynes, S. L., & Miller, H. E. (1983). Recruiter and job influences on candidates for employment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.1.147
17.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44(3), 487–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb02402.x
18.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 625–682.
45
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00296.x
19.
Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey-Bass.
20.
Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00867.x

三、網路資料
1.
LINE TODAY(2024年11月14日)。〈陸女面試官問「誰是萬獸之王」？答獅子被淘汰，他妙回5字錄取〉。LINE TODAY。https://today.line.me/tw/v2/article/vXjY35l
2.
104職涯診所(2025年4月14日)。講出期望薪資卻被笑！面試官的反應是什麼意思？ https://blog.104.com.tw/discuss-salary-expectations-during-interviews/
3.
WiCareer(2021年5月10日)。千萬別犯！面試官10大NG行為。https://medium.com/wicareer/%E5%8D%83%E8%90%AC%E5%88%A5%E7%8A%AF-%E9%9D%A2%E8%A9%A6%E5%AE%9810%E5%A4%A7ng%E8%A1%8C%E7%82%BA-part-1-4eca86443fd1
4.
國家發展委員會（2024年10月17日）。中華民國人口推估（2024年至2070年）。國家發展委員會。https://www.ndc.gov.tw/nc_27_38548#

指導教授

楊文芬王群孝(Wen-Fen Yang Chun-Hsiao Wang)

審核日期

2025-6-17

推文