請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73273完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 戚樹誠 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Han-Cheng Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳瀚丞 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T07:25:49Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-07-10 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-07-10 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-06-27 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). Academic Press.
2. Aldrich, Howard E. (1979), Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3. Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-76. 4. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). International justice: Communication fairness of communication. Research in negotiations in organizations, 43-55. 5. Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 15(2), 14-21. 6. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 7. Bruns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock, London. 8. Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization studies, 23(5), 687-710. 9. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 386. 10. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425. 11. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. Handbook of organizational justice, 1, 3-58. 12. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of management perspectives, 21(4), 34-48. 13. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press. 14. De Vries, R. E., Van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2006). Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication research, 33(2), 115-135. 15. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California management review, 41(2), 79-94. 16. Ferrell, O. C., & Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations. Journal of marketing research, 25(1), 103-109. 17. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management journal, 32(1), 115-130. 18. Ford, J. D., & Slocum Jr, J. W. (1977). Size, technology, environment and the structure of organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2(4), 561-575. 19. George, H., & Homans, M. (1961). Social behavior: its elementary forms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 20.Goldstein, I. L.(1993). Training in organizations (3rd. ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth 21. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management review, 12(1), 9-22. 22. Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 23. Hall, R. H., Johnson, N. J., & Haas, J. E. (1967). Organizational size, complexity, and formalization. American Sociological Review, 903-912. 24. Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and process management, 6(2), 91-100. 25. Holtzhausen, D. (2002). The effects of a divisionalised and decentralised organisational structure on a formal internal communication function in a South African organisation. Journal of communication management, 6(4), 323-339. 26. Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human resource development review, 2(4), 337-359. 27. James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1976). Organizational structure: A review of structural dimensions and their conceptual relationships with individual attitudes and behavior. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(1), 74-113. 28. John, G. (1984). An empirical investigation of some antecedents of opportunism in a marketing channel. Journal of marketing Research, 21(3), 278-289. 29. Kidwell, J. J., Vander Linde, K., & Johnson, S. L. (2000). Applying corporate knowledge management practices in higher education. Educause quarterly, 23(4), 28-33. 30. Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability, 9(2), 205. 31. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory?. In Social exchange (pp. 27-55). Springer, Boston, MA. 32. Michaels, R. E., Cron, W. L., Dubinsky, A. J., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1988). Influence of formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of salespeople and industrial buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(4), 376-383. 33. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?. Journal of applied psychology, 76(6), 845. 34. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14-37. 35. Pierce, J. L., & Delbecq, A. L. (1977). Organization structure, individual attitudes and innovation. Academy of management review, 2(1), 27-37. 36. Polanyi, M. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 41(155), 1-18. 37. Polanyi, M. (2012). Personal knowledge. Routledge. 38. Pugh, D. S. (1973). The measurement of organization structures: does context determine form?. Organizational Dynamics, 1(4), 19-34. 39. Reimann, B. C. (1973). On the dimensions of bureaucratic structure: An empirical reappraisal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 462-476. 40. Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of knowledge management, 9(3), 18-35. 41. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates. 42. Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?. Journal of management studies, 38(7), 973-993. 43. Wei, Z., Yi, Y., & Yuan, C. (2011). Bottom-up learning, organizational formalization, and ambidextrous innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 314-329. 44. Yeşil, S., & Dereli, S. F. (2013). An empirical investigation of the organisational justice, knowledge sharing and innovation capability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75, 199-208. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73273 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究旨在探討員工知識分享、知覺組織正義及組織正式化的關係。其中知識分享包括知識分享態度、知識分享意願與知識分享行為，知覺組織正義分為員工知覺的程序正義、分配正義與互動正義，而組織正式化則為組織結構的衡量構面之一。本研究建構了一個以知識分享作為依變項，知覺組織正義作為自變項，組織正式化作為調節變項的模型，來探討知識分享與知覺組織正義的關聯性，及組織正式化對兩者之間的調節效果。
本研究採取問卷調查法，並藉由網路社交平台發放問卷，以目前仍在職者為受試對象，共蒐集到181份有效樣本。分析方式則採用階層迴歸分析法，針對研究假說進行驗證。 研究結果顯示，知覺組織正義對知識分享的各項關係皆為顯著的正向影響，而組織正式化則對其中部分關係具有顯著的調節效果，分別是知覺程序正義與知識分享意願、知覺分配正義與知識分享全部面向、知覺互動正義與知識分享態度、知識分享意願。 依據分析結果，本研究建議企業應提升組織內的正義，並將內部規範明確定義，以強化員工的知識分享。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study is to discuss the relationship among knowledge sharing, perceived organizational justice and organizational formalization. Knowledge sharing is composed of attitude, willingness and behavior. Perceived organizational justice is composed of procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional justice, which are perceived by employees. As for organizational formalization, it is an aspect of the organizational structure measurement.
This study used knowledge sharing as dependent variables, perceived organizational justice as independent variables, and organizational formalization as an moderator to constructs an model to realize the relationship among them. This study chose questionnaire method and collected data through social network platforms with the limitation that the subject must have a job. 181 valid samples were received and the hierarchical linear regression analysis was done. The study used the results to examine the hypothesis proposed. The result shows that all aspects of perceived organizational justice positively affect all aspects of knowledge sharing. While organizational formalization moderates some of them, including the relationship between perceived procedural justice and knowledge sharing willingness, the relationship of perceived distributive justice and all aspects of knowledge sharing, and the relationship of perceived interactional justice and knowledge sharing attitude and willingness. Based on the results of analyses, this study suggests that company should improve their organizational justice and define their norms more specifically to enhance employees’ knowledge sharing. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T07:25:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R06741003-1.pdf: 1285774 bytes, checksum: aef29f66ab455f363fc9279e838878e7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 I
英文摘要 II 目錄 III 表目錄 IV 圖目錄 V 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 2 第三節 研究流程 3 第二章 文獻回顧 4 第一節 知識分享 4 第二節 知覺組織正義 7 第三節 組織正式化 9 第四節 假說推導 10 第三章 研究方法 13 第一節 研究架構 13 第二節 操作型定義 13 第三節 資料分析方法 17 第四章 問卷發放、資料分析與結果 18 第一節 問卷發放及樣本結構之敘述統計 18 第二節 研究變項之信度分析 19 第三節 研究變項之敘述統計 20 第四節 研究變項之相關性分析 21 第五節 知覺組織正義對知識分享效果之檢定 23 第六節 組織正式化調節效果之檢定 27 第七節 假說驗證 35 第五章 結論與建議 36 第一節 研究結論 36 第二節 理論意涵與實務建議 38 第三節 研究限制 39 第四節 後續研究建議 40 參考文獻 41 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 知覺組織正義與知識分享的關係：探討組織正式化的調節效果 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Relationship between Perceived Organizational Justice and Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Moderating Effects of Organizational Formalization | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 許碧芬,陳淑貞 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 知識分享,知覺組織正義,組織正式化, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Knowledge Sharing,Perceived Organizational Justice,Organizational Formalization, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 45 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201901090 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-06-28 | |
| 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-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.26 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。