請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/33350
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 戚樹誠 | |
dc.contributor.author | Pei-Ying Juang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 莊佩頴 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T04:35:57Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2006-07-26 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2006-07-26 | |
dc.date.issued | 2006 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2006-07-19 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
一、中文部份 1.行政院主計處行業標準分類(民95),台北:行政院主計處。 2.黃茂榮、謝銘洋、許士宦(民79),法律服務業發展之研究,行政院經濟建設委員會委託研究成果報告。 3.考試院考選部考選統計(民79),台北:考試院考選部。 4.俞慧君等人(民79),法律服務業,台北:行政院勞工委員會職業訓練局。 5.黃英忠(民83),現代人力資源管理,台北:華泰書局,頁183-199。 6.張火燦(民87),策略性人力資源管理,台北:張火燦出版,揚智文化總經銷,頁173-204。 7.黃英忠、曹國雄、黃同圳、張火燦、王秉鈞(民87),人力資源管理,台北:華泰書局,頁137-157。 8.羅新興(民),績效評核的程序正義之研究--探討受評者正義知覺之前因及影響,台灣大學商學研究所博士論文。 9.葉春生、張添來編著(民90),跨世紀的人力資源管理與開發,香港:三聯書局,頁137-153。 10.張緯良編譯(民85),人力資源管理,台北:華泰書局,頁351-383。 11.李正綱、黃金印著(民90),人力資源管理,台北縣三重市:前程企業管理公司,頁265-291。 12.劉秀娟、湯志安譯(民87),Lawrence S. Kleiman著,人力資源管理:取得競爭優勢之利器,台北:揚智文化,頁339-381。 13.王毓仁(民89),公部門績效指標的設計與運用,人力發展月刊,第82期,頁 14.李長貴(民89),績效管理與績效評估,台北:華泰書局,頁246-258。 15.陳慶安(民89),績效評估發展趨勢,人力發展月刊,第82期,頁21-24。 16.王俊雄(民93),農業推廣工作績效評估指標與機制建構之研究,行政院農委會九十三年度科技研究計畫研究報告,頁4-10。 17.司徒達賢(民88),非營利組織的經營管理,台北:天下文化出版,頁310-323。 18.翁崇雄(民87),我國律師業服務品質之研究,行政院國家科學委員會研究成果報告。 19.古嘉諄(民86),淺談影響律師業務發展的幾個因素,全國律師月刊,第10期,頁57-59。 20.魏千峰(民89),處在十字路口之台灣律師改革運動,律師雜誌,第246期,頁15-19。 21.幸大智(民89),我國律師事務所導入知識管理之研究,台北大學企業管理學系碩士在職專班論文。 22.詹文雄(民91),台灣法律事務所經營型態與國際化之研究,台灣大學國際企業學研究所碩士論文。 23.廖忠信(民92),受雇律師於法律事務所建立品牌忠誠度所任角色之分析與探討,台灣科技大學管理研究所碩士論文。 24.葉重新(民93),教育研究法,台北:心理出版社。 25.王文科張紹勳(民93),研究方法,台中:滄海出版社。 27.侯君溥、季延平、戴逸民(民93),供應鏈不確定因素衡量工具之發展,資訊管理展望,第6卷,第2期。 28.邱聯恭(民81),司法之現代化與程序法,台北:林雅英發行,三民總經銷。 29.莊元治(民84),組織公民行為與員工績效關係之實證研究:以壽險業為例,淡江大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。 30.翁英傑(民84),銷售力控制系統、組織公民行為與銷售人員績效之關連性研究,東吳大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。 31.徐淑貞(民92),組織公正認知對員工組織公民行為及工作績效的影響,中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士在職專班論文。 32.李忠雄(民86),法律事務所之經營(中),月旦法學雜誌,第30期,頁148。 33.陳威菖(民86),組織承諾與工作滿足對組織公民行為的組織-以工作疏離感為中介模式,中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。 34.吳冠儒(民88),員工工作價值、專業承諾、情感承諾與組織公民行為之關係─以高科技企業員工為例,中原大學企業管理學系碩士論文。 35.蘇永富(民90),轉換型領導、組織承諾與組織公民行為關係之研究 -以派外人員為例,中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。 二、英文部分 1.Bernardin & Smith (1981), A Clarifications of Some Issues Regarding the Development and Use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS), Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.66, No.4, pp458-463. 2.Byars, L. L. & Rue, L. W. (2000), Human Resource Management, Internationa; edition (6th ed.), The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,p279. 3.Campbell, D. R. & Fiske, D. W. (1959), Convergent and Discriminant Validation by Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56, pp. 81-105. 4.Carrol, Stephan J., Schneier, Craig E. (1982), Performance Appraisal and Review System, Vol. 13, No 3. 5.Cuttance, P. F.(1990), Performance Indicators and the Management of Quality in Education. Keynote Address Prepared foe the 3rd National Conference on Indicators in Education, Canberra. 6.Dessler, G. (1997), Human Resource Management, International Edition (7th ed.), Prentice- Hall, Inc. 7.Drucker, P. F. (1973), Management: Tasks, Responsibility and Practices, N, Y: Harper & Row. 8.Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004), Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, Vol.15, pp241-253. 9.Graham, J. W., (1986), Principled Organizational Dissent: A Theoretical Essay, In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.8, Greenwich, CT:JAI Press, pp1-52. 10. Hall, D. T. & Goodale, J. G (1986), Human Resource Management, Glenview, ILL:Scott. 11.Jackson, Stephen (1998), All the HR Reaps Benefits from Performance-based Job Descriptions., Canadian HR Report: Toronto: Sep 7, Vol. 11, No. 15. 12.J.C. Flangan & R. K. Burns (1995), The Employee Performance Record: A New Appraisal and Development Tool, Harvard Business Review, 33, No.5, pp.95-102. 13.Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations (2th ed.), New York: Wiley. 14.Krilowicz, Thomas J. & Lowery , Christopher M.(1996), The Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Performance Appraisal Process: A Cross-Cultural Study, International Journal of Management, Vol.13, No.1, Mar, pp94-100. 15.Miller, L.E. (1996), Do’s and Don’ts of Performance Evaluation, Human Resources Professional, Vol: 6, pp263-288. 16.Milkovich, G. T. & Newman, J. M. (1990), Compensation, Boston: Homewood, IL. 17. Morman, Robert H. & Blakely, Gerald L. (1995), Individualism - Collectivism As An Individual Difference Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Journal of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Vol.16, No.2, Mar, pp127-142. 18.Morrison E. W., (1994), Role Definition and Organizational Citizenship: the Importance of Employee’s Perspective, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.37, No 6., pp1543-1547. 19.Nunally, J. C., (1978), Psychometric Theory (2th ed.), New York: MacGraw-Hill. 20.Oliver, J, E. (1985), Performance Appraisal that Fit, Personnel Journal, Vol.64, June, pp66-69. 21.Organ D. W., Ryan, K. (1995), A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Personnel Psychology, Vol.48, pp775-802. 22.Organ D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Lexington, MA; New Lexington, Press. 23.Organ D.W. (1988a), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, MA: Lexington, Books. 24.Organ D.W. (1988b), A Restatement of Satisfaction-Performance Hypothesis, Journal of Management, Vol.14, pp547-557. 25.Organ D.W. (1990a), The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.12, pp43-72. 26.Organ D.W. (1990b), The Subtle Significance of Job Satisfaction, Clinical Management Review, Vol.4, pp94-98. 27.Peter. P, (1981), Constructive Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18:133-145. 28.Posdakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B., (1994), Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Sales Unit Effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.31, August, pp351-363. 29.Rarick & Baxter (1986), Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS): An Effective Performance Appraisal Approach. SAM Advanced Management Journal, Winter, pp36-39. 30.Rowland, K. W., G. R. Ferris & J. L. Scherman(1983), Current Issue in Personnel Management, 2th ed., Boston: Allyn & Bacon Inc, 1983. 31.Schmitt, N. W. & R. J. Klimoski (1991), Research Methods in Human Resource Management, South-Western. 32. Sherman, A., Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (1996), Managing Human Resource, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing. 33.Wezley, K., & Klimoski, R. (1984),Performance Appraisal: An Update, In g. Ferris & K. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human research Management, Connecticut: Jai.pp.35-79. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/33350 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 「績效評核」(Performance Appraisal)此一企業耳熟能詳並行之有年的制度,在目前我國律師事務所的經營環境中卻仍是相當的陌生與罕見,對於聘有受雇律師的律師事務所而言,要在高度勞力密集的律師業中保持競爭力,建立完善的受雇律師「績效評核」制度應為其首要之務。
本研究首先利用文獻探討為律師事務所建立「績效評核指標」作為其未來推行績效評核制度的基礎,共計得到七個構面十二個指標,包括:構面一「專業表現」下有指標一「法令的熟悉、解釋與適用」、指標二「事實的整理」、指標三「證據的搜集」與指標四「實務運作」;構面二「書狀撰寫」下有指標五「書狀的用字」與指標六「書狀的內容」;構面三與指標七為「法庭表現」;構面四與指標八為「曠職行為」;構面五「人際互動」下有指標九「同事相處」與指標十「客戶服務」;構面六與指標十一為「學習成長」;構面七與指標十二為「公共服務」。接著參考行為尺度基準法(Behaviorally- Anchored Rating Scales)的發展程序,將構面四與指標八獨立為客觀指標後,依次經過六個階段:(1)工作行為的蒐集(2)工作構面與指標的決定(3)工作行為的優劣排序(4)審核工作行為語意與尺度同意度的檢測(5)資深律師審核量表(6)量表語句的最後修改,為其餘六個構面與十一個指標建立一套五點評核量表。 量表檢測結果顯示,信度部分的Cronbach’s α值為.9335,因素分析結果僅萃取出一個因子;效度部份經過上述六個程序後應認本量表具有內容效度;為檢測理論效度的五個預期,經由複迴歸模型檢測發現:「受雇律師組織公民行為與其工作績效具有正向關係」、「受雇律師曠職行為與其工作績效具有負向關係」與「受雇律師工作績效與其談話費率具有正向關係」得到支持,「案件抽成權利與受雇律師的工作績效具有正向關係」與「受雇律師工作績效與其處理費率具有正向關係」並未獲得支持。而承接組織公民行為、曠職行為與工作績效各有正向與負向關係的預期,利用類似「多特質多方法」(Multitrait Multimethod)進行Pearson’s r相關矩陣分析,十一個績效評核指標與組織公民行為之間的相關係數皆較與曠職行為之間的相關係數高,表示本量表具有收斂與區辯效度。綜合上述信度與效度的檢測結果,本研究所發展的績效評核指標應可做為各律師事務所建立其專屬受雇律師績效評核指標的參考之一。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The performance appraisal system is not prevalent in Taiwan’s law firms as it in enterprises. For the law firms hiring attorneys, establishing a well performance appraisal system should be the top priority to keep their competency in high labor-intensive law service industry.
The research uses literature review to build up a set of performance appraisal indicators, which includes 9 dimensions and 14 indicators. The dimension 1 “Professional Performance” has indicator 1 “The Familiarity, Explanation and Application of Law”, indicator 2 “Facts Arrangement, indicator 3 “Evidence Research” and indicator 4 “Practice Proficiency”. The dimension 2 “Papers and Plaints Drafting” has indicator 5 “Wording” and indicator 6 “Content”. The dimension 3 and indicator 7 is “On-Court Performance”. The dimension 4 and indicator 8 is “Check on Work Attendance”. The dimension 5 “Interpersonal Relationship” has indicator 9 “Getting Along With Co-Workers” and indicator 10 “Client Service”. The dimension 6 and indicator 11 is “Work Efficiency”. The dimension 7 and indicator 12 is “Voluntary Learning”. The dimension 8 and indicator 13 is “Professional Ethic”. The dimension 9 and indicator 14 is “Public Service” After excluding the dimension 4 (indicator 8), dimension 6 (indicator 11) and dimension 8 (indicator 13), the research follows the steps of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales Method to complete a five-point scale. These steps include :(1)Collection of work behavior, (2)Determination of dimensions and indicators, (3)Order of work behaviors, (4) Check the wording and scale agreements, (5) Review of experienced lawyer, and (6)Final revises. The result of reliability analysis indicates that the above scale has consistency and stability of measurement because the Cronbach’s α is .9335 and the number of extracted factors is 1. In validity analysis, the scale should be considered to have good content validity after finishing the six steps. Furthermore, in order to test the nomological validity, the research has five predictions and uses multi liner regression to verify them. The prediction “The organizational citizenship behavior of the hired attorney has positive relationship with his/her performance.”, the prediction “The absent behavior of the hired attorney has negative relationship with his/her performance.” and the prediction “The consulting fee rate of the hired attorney has positive relationship with his/her performance.” are supported. The prediction “The own of commission possession has positive relationship with the performance of the hired attorney.” and the prediction “The working fee rate of the hired attorney has positive relationship with his/her performance.” are not supported. Following the predictions of organizational citizenship behavior and absent behavior both have relationship with performance, the research uses the similar method of Multitrait- Multimethod to test discriminant and convergent validity. The result that Pearson’s r of 11 indicators with the organizational citizenship behavior is higher than they with the absent behavior is presented as predicted. To sum up, the performance appraisal indicators developed by the research should be beneficial to law firms in establishing the performance appraisal system of hired attorneys. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T04:35:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-95-R93741013-1.pdf: 3995279 bytes, checksum: 40d320cce41afa80a5edf2d7cccac1d2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
第一章 緒論---------------------------------------------------------1 第一節 研究背景-------------------------------------------------1 第二節 研究動機-------------------------------------------------3 第三節 研究目的-------------------------------------------------4 第二章 文獻探討-----------------------------------------------------5 第一節 績效評核-------------------------------------------------5 第二節 影響績效評核的因素---------------------------------------8 第三節 績效評核指標---------------------------------------------9 第四節 績效評核方法--------------------------------------------12 第五節 受雇律師績效評核指標------------------------------------17 第三章 研究方法----------------------------------------------------25 第一節 受雇律師績效評核量表之發展------------------------------25 第二節 量表之信度、效度驗證方法--------------------------------33 第三節 理論效度驗證方法----------------------------------------36 第四節 問卷的設計----------------------------------------------42 第五節 問卷的發放----------------------------------------------44 第六節 資料分析方法--------------------------------------------44 第四章 研究結果----------------------------------------------------46 第一節 描述性統計----------------------------------------------46 第二節 信度及效度分析------------------------------------------49 第五章 討論與建議--------------------------------------------------54 第一節 結論----------------------------------------------------54 第二節 討論----------------------------------------------------55 第三節 建議----------------------------------------------------57 第四節 研究限制------------------------------------------------59 參考文獻 附錄一 工作行為蒐集表格 附錄二 工作行為篩選結果 附錄三 問卷 附錄四 台北律師公會公文 表目錄 表2-1受雇律師績效評核之構面與指標---------------------------------24 表3-1法律工作人士之基本資料---------------------------------------26表3-2績效評核量表之構面與指標的增刪說明---------------------------28表3-3 OCB量表之構面與題數說明-------------------------------------44 表4-1受雇律師基本資料---------------------------------------------47 表4-2主持律師基本資料---------------------------------------------48表4-3律師事務所基本資料-------------------------------------------48 表4-4績效評核量表之各題項內部一致性相關矩陣-----------------------49 表4-5績效評核量表之因素分析結果-----------------------------------50 表4-6組織公民行為與工作績效的複迴歸分析結果-----------------------51 表4-7曠職行為與工作績效的複迴歸分析結果---------------------------52 表4-8抽成權利與工作績效的複迴歸分析結果---------------------------52 表4-9談話費率與工作績效的複迴歸分析結果---------------------------52 表4-10處理費率與工作績效的複迴歸分析結果--------------------------53 表4-11績效評核各指標與組織公民行為、曠職行為的相關矩陣------------53 圖目錄 圖2-1 BARS設計範例------------------------------------------------16 圖3-1受雇律師績效評核量表發展流程---------------------------------25 圖3-2受雇律師職務之公共性-----------------------------------------37 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 律師事務所受雇律師績效評核指標之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Research of Performance Appraisal Indicators for Hired Attorneys | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 94-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 諸承明,羅新興 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 受雇律師,律師事務所,績效評核指標,行為尺度基準法, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | hired attorney,law firms,performance appraisal indicator,Behaviorally- Anchored Rating Scale (BARS), | en |
dc.relation.page | 60 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2006-07-20 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 商學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 商學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-95-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.9 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。