Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/89150Full metadata record
| ???org.dspace.app.webui.jsptag.ItemTag.dcfield??? | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 劉康慧 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Helen K. Liu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林威妤 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Wei-Yu Lin | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-08-16T17:20:18Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2023-08-16 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2023-08-09 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分
中華警政研究學會，2015，〈跨機關行政協助機制及其相關法制之研究〉，國家發展委員會委託研究，受委託單位：中華警政研究學會，研究主持人：洪文玲，協同主持人：章光明、許義寶、陳暉淵，研究員：張淵菘、呂理翔。 中華警政學會，2021a，〈中華警政學會2021年會刊〉，取自：http://www.acpr.org.tw/PDF/association%20journal%202021.pdf。 中華警政學會，2021b，〈警察法修正草案〉，取自：https://www.kaozen.com.tw/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/警察法修正草案警政署1101111版.pdf 方秀貞，2020，〈南投縣地價查估之政策執行-基層官僚的觀點〉，國立暨南國際大學公共行政與政策學系碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/q7m46p 王捷，2021，〈南市警查到2盞路燈不亮就記嘉獎 基層：比抓口罩「CP值」還高〉，自由時報，取自：https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/3548809，最後瀏覽日：2023/08/06。 台北市政府警察局警政報告，績效指標，取自：https://police.gov.taipei/cp.aspx?n=696A8028EA3C410C&s=181241C2C4752828 台南市政府，2020，〈馬國女大生事件黃偉哲再次表達歉意 承諾「點亮偏鄉」照亮市民回家的路〉，取自：https://www.tainan.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=13370&s=7725980，最後檢閱日期：2023/08/06。 台南市政府工務局，業務職掌，取自：https://publicworks.tainan.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=15923&s=9335，最後檢閱日期：2023/08/06。 司法改革雜誌編輯部，2003，〈「推動警察績效考評合理化」座談會：獎懲分明提升警察辦案績效〉，《司法改革雜誌》，44： 42-46。 石秀華、 林雅惠 、 謝佳潾， 2021，〈查瘟豬記功 基層酸餿水警察出動〉，中國時報，取自：https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20210827000467-260106?chdtv，最後瀏覽日：2023/08/06。 朱金池、洪光平，2014，〈論輔助警察制度之比較研究〉，《中國行政評論》，20(2)：31-72. 吳書緯，2021，〈警察業務包山包海變「工具人」 民團呼籲警政業務回歸專業〉，自由時報，取自：https://tw.appledaily.com/forum/20210827/KKWPHGO46RB2FCHSGA4KOUJBNI/，最後瀏覽日：2023/08/06。 李招和，2006，〈警察機關推行全面品質管理關鍵成功因素之研究〉，亞洲大學經營管理研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/udb459 於慶璇，2021，〈女大生遇害地「路燈全亮了」警加強巡邏 網怒：早該這樣做〉，三立新聞網，取自：https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=840651，最後瀏覽日：2023/08/06。 林文燦、許道然，2015，《考銓制度》，新北：國立空中大學。 林育瑄， 2021，〈警察業務包山包海 邱顯智籲明確職權行使範圍〉，中央社，取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/202110130185.aspx，最後瀏覽日：2023/08/06。 林建宏，2010，〈從平衡計分卡建構警察機關績效評估制度之研究—以臺北縣政府警察局為例〉，國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系博士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/859yr9 林建宏、孫本初、徐昊杲、林益昌，2010，〈平衡計分卡在警察機關績效評估制度之研究，《經國學報》，28：80-106。 林淑馨，2010，《質性研究理論與實務》，臺北：五南。 林鴻佶，2014，〈派出所主管領導行為與團隊士氣及工作績效關係之研究：以臺中市政府警察局為例〉，國立中正大學政治學研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/d3c4j6 邱柏昌，2020，〈派出所基層員警對所長的領導風格、組織氣候與工作績效關係之研究一以臺中市政府警察局為例〉，逢甲大學公共事務與社會創新研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/53799u 邱毓玫，2008，〈基層官僚政策執行裁量行為之研究---以基層員警執行交通違規舉發為例〉，國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/93es5w 侯崇文，2007，〈警察工作態度之研究－以績效支持度爲例〉，《研究台灣》，3：61-85。 律羲和，2021，〈高層攬業務搶功，「公親變事主」終於導致第一線員警紛紛確診〉，關鍵評論，取自：https://www.thenewslens.com/article/151544，最後瀏覽日：2023/08/06。 洪俊瑋、張淵菘、王舜永、章光明，2023，〈疫災下雙北地方治理之個案比較言教：韌性社區與警政運用〉，《行政暨政策學報》，76：1-41。 洪琬茹，2016，〈警盾之後：太陽花學運中警察的情緒勞動〉，國立臺灣大學公共事務研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/c68f4b 胡博硯，2018，〈談警察人事一條鞭制度之研究〉，《法令月刊》，69(9)。 胡瑞玲，，2021，〈取締2次記1嘉獎！北市警3個月開2054罰單 議員批荒謬〉，聯合報，取自：https://news.housefun.com.tw/news/article/363202316974.html，最後瀏覽日：2023/08/06。 胡龍騰，2016，〈績效悖理之潛因探析:制度邏輯與心理帳戶觀點〉，《東吳政治學報》，34(1)：209-268。 胡龍騰、徐瑋鴻，2017，〈組織成員觀點下公部門團體績效評比之製度效應檢驗：目標校準、績效學習與團隊動態〉，《公共行政學報》，52：1-38。 胡艷，2019，〈交通違規檢舉系統審核警察裁量行為之研究〉，國立臺灣大學公共事務研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3656p6 孫晉華，2008，〈轉換型領導方式與組織績效關係之研究－以海巡署機動查緝隊為例〉，國立臺東大學區域政策與發展研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/99nm49 孫煒，2020，〈臺灣地方基層官僚推動參與式預算的治理模式：桃園市案例研究〉，《政治科學論叢》，85：139-177。 徐俊生、劉嘉茹，2021，〈直轄市警官領導風格與犯罪績效相關之探討－以高雄為例〉，《城市學學刊》，11(1)：1-30。 徐意婷，2020，〈基層官僚回應性之研究 －以勞工保險局國民年金組為例〉，國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/24fhxk 袁方主編，2002，《社會研究方法》，台北：五南。 高繼鴻，2009，〈警察治安策略執行者對績效評核制度之態度研究〉，國立臺北大學犯罪學研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jctb6n 張佳璇、胡龍騰，2018，〈非例行性績效業務重要性之研究：公部門管理中失落的拼圖〉，《行政暨政策學報》，67：79-125。 張勝甥，2018，〈工作投入、工作績效與工作滿意度之相關性研究─以彰化縣警察局為例〉，國立臺中科技大學企業管理系碩士班碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/txerrb 梁添盛，2022，〈警察法之回顧與展望〉，警大法律學系創系30 週年系列演講，未公開發表。 許弘偉，2016，〈警察人員工作壓力與家庭關係之研究-以高雄市政府警察局為例〉，義守大學管理碩博士班碩士論文。 許立一、蔡良文、黃雅榜、李嵩賢、林文燦、謝連參，2019，《人事行政》，新北：國立空中大學。 許宗瓦，2017，〈澎湖縣村里幹事執行低收入戶家庭資格審查的角色認知與作為〉，國立中山大學碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/8tg6kp 許宗瓦，2019，〈村里幹事對低收入戶家庭資格審查的認知與作為－以澎湖縣為例〉，《中華行政學報》，24：119-136。 陳文村，2007，〈領導行為、組織信任與組織績效之關聯性研究－以台南市警察局為例證〉，國立成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/2jxjkp 陳弘章，2010，〈影響基層裁量權之因素探討─以台中市執行「馬上關懷專案」為例〉，國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/62aw8q 陳向明，2002，《社會科學研究方法》，台北：五南。 陳明哲，2003，〈平衡計分卡應用於警務機關之績效評估〉，中原大學工業工程研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/eun8ac 陳智昆，2011，〈國賠案件中基層官僚機關的行爲動機與行爲類型〉，《公共行政學報》，38：75-113。 陳雍鎧，2016，〈影響警務人員服務品質之因素：公平理論的觀點〉，義守大學企業管理學系碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/q2h79g 陳澤寬，2016，〈使用通訊軟體對個人工作績效的影響-以台北市北投和士林區派出所員警為例〉，國立臺灣大學碩士論文。 陳錦明、劉育偉、張孟智，2020，〈警察執行緝毒專案之困境及對策－以2011年至2018年新北市為例〉，《藥物濫用防治》，5(3)：1-34。 彭莞婷，2018，〈從基層官僚的觀點探討參與式預算的政策執行—以臺北市區公所為例〉，國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/p5bw5c 曾冠球，2004，〈基層官僚人員裁量行為之初探 : 以台北市區公所組織 為例〉，《行政暨政策學報》，38：95-140。 曾冠球、趙書賢，2014，〈影響基層官僚組織服務品質的因素：政府服務品質獎的資料分析〉，《公共行政學報》，47：35-72。 游毓蘭，2007，〈警政績效管理之探讨〉，《研考雙月刊》，31(2)：66-75。 游毓蘭，2015，〈警察勤務改革 從台北市開始〉，取自：https://hk.on.cc/tw/bkn/cnt/commentary/20150402/bkntw-20150402000420755-0402_04411_001.html，最後瀏覽日：2023/03/06。 馮佩君，2015，〈警察相關政事型特種基金設置之探討〉，《中央警察大學警察行政管理學報》，11：87-107。 馮佩君，2018，〈基層員警工作權益認知之研究〉，《中央警察大學警察行政管理學報》，14：73-91. 黃克先，2021，〈台灣遊民社福體制的運作與效果：從基層官僚治理取徑切入〉，《台灣社會學》，41：51-94。 黃忠道，2019，〈臺北市政府警察局組織改造之研究- 以大同分局為例〉，國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/r677uf 黃炎東，2020，〈公共關係與警民聯防之研究－以日本警民聯防制度為例（下）〉，《人權會訊》，135：25-40。 黃俊樹、李宗勳，2019，〈新加坡臺籍輔助警察委外模式對我國之啟示》，《中央警察大學警察行政管理學報》，15：53-71。 黃俊樹、李宗勳，2019，〈新加坡臺籍輔助警察案例之研究〉，《文官制度》，11(2)：95-119。 楊雅淋，2021，〈我國政府機關承辦人員在政策過程中之角色研究：基層官僚的分析觀點〉，國立政治大學公共行政學系碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/g4a94t 廖洲棚，2006，〈基層官僚提供線上申辦服務之評估：以臺北市政府為例〉，《政策研究學報》，6：133-171。 廖晨諭，2008，〈警務人員休閒參與、工作績效與工作滿意關係之研究─以南投縣政府警察局為例〉，亞洲大學國際企業學系碩士班碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/73q365 監察院，2017/10/05，〈基層員警專案績效壓力大 栽槍養案各類違規問題多 監察院糾正內政部警政署及桃園市政府警察局〉，取自：https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=213&s=8181，最後瀏覽日：2023/03/06。 臺北市政府警察局統計室，2022/01/11，警政統計指標，取自：https://www-ws.gov.taipei/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvMzYwL3JlbGZpbGUvMTY1MDUvNTM2NS83MDU5ZThiNi1hZjgxLTRjYWQtOWE1NC0wZDFiZjI0Njk0MjQucGRm&n=MTEwMTIucGRm&icon=..pdf 劉湘琦，2010，〈原住民代表性官僚的理想與現實─以溪洲部落拆遷事件為例〉，國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9zm6b6 劉進財，2001，〈領導型態對部屬工作績效、工作滿意度及角色認知之影響─以刑事警察為對象之探索性研究〉，元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/95957d 潘金葉，2007，〈所長領導風格與基層員警工作投入之研究─以臺北市政府警察局派出所為例〉，國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/22d2sx 蔡其宏，2013，〈苗栗縣警察局員警工作壓力與工作績效之研究〉，國立中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/x496s5 蔡孟諺，2015，〈高雄市政府警察局專案性獎懲制度與工作績效相關之研究-以所屬十七個分局為例〉，義守大學管理碩博士班碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/prv3rn 蔡富雄，2013，〈警察訓練評鑑導入評鑑中心法之芻議〉，《中央警察大學警察行政管理學報》，9：225-239。 蔡萬來，2007，〈臺北市基層警察主管領導之研究〉，國立臺灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/v58f4m 蔡震榮、劉俊男，2021，〈警察行政調查裁處法制與運用〉，《軍法專刊》，67(5)：28-62。 蔣有福，2010，〈工作滿意度對警政專案績效的影響－不同專案型態之探討〉，淡江大學全球華商經營管理數位學習碩士在職專班碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/889uwc 鄭羽軒，2015，〈警察職權行使法問題研析〉，《危機管理學刊》，12(2)： 57-70。 盧偉斯、林大椿，2018，〈人格特質、工作投入及工作績效關係的探討－以高雄市政府警察局為例〉，《中央警察大學警察行政管理學報》，14：41-60。 蕭宇珊，2021，〈以目標管理觀點探討警察績效運作問題之研究〉，中央警察大學警察政策研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ay4zu9 蕭建宏，2019，〈探討警察派出所所長之取才困境：以臺北市政府警察局為例〉，《中央警察大學警察行政管理學報》，15：181-200。 謝宗融，2016，〈刑事警察人員家庭壓力與工作績效關聯性之研究〉，國立中正大學犯罪防治碩士在職專班碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/525jsv 謝欣容，2019，〈警察人員工作滿足感與工作績效相關性之研究〉，淡江大學公共行政學系公共政策碩士班碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/d7462b 謝青宏、鄭怡君、李盈瑩、余佛如、方儷靜，2001，〈公務人員績效考核認知之實證研究：以台北市政府一般行政人員與台北市警局警員為例〉，《行政管理學報》，3：141-160。 謝嚴，2019，〈警察人員的工作壓力與調適〉，《諮商與輔導》，402：25-27、34。 鍾智耀，2001，〈警政預算執行績效對治安改善之影響〉，中原大學會計研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/bvq5v5 鍾睿賢，2014，〈平衡計分卡運用於非營利組織合併績效管理之探討--高雄市政府警察局合併個案研究〉，國立屏東科技大學高階經營管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/8kgwx6 闕士淵，2015，〈柯P兌現承諾：刪27項警察冗務、不再「快遞」遲到考生〉，關鍵評論，取自：https://www.thenewslens.com/article/14705，最後瀏覽日：2023/08/06。 魏守斌，2013，〈國道警察交通獎勵金滿意度之研究〉，國立臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/9hwtr3 羅兆匡，2014，〈中國工人集體抗爭的機會與侷限：基層政府與草根組織的影響〉，國立清華大學社會學研究所碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/gw8n8g 蘇建璋，2006，〈領導風格、組織結構與組織績效之關聯性研究 －以台灣警察機關為例證〉，國立成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班碩士論文。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/wu749z 蘇偉業，2009，〈公共部門事前定向績效管理: 反思與回應〉，《公共行政學報》，30：105-130。 二、西文部分 Alcadipani, R., Cabral, S., Fernandes, A., & Lotta, G. 2020. Street-level bureaucrats under COVID-19: Police officers’ responses in constrained settings. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(3):394-403. Anderson, L. M., Petticrew, M., Rehfuess, E., Armstrong, R., Ueffing, E., Baker, P., Francis, D., & Tugwell, P. 2011. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 2(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.32 Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Meier, K. J., O’toole Jr., L. J., & Walker, R. M. 2012.Vertical Strategic Alignment and Public Service Performance. Public Administration, 90(1):77–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01938.x Ayers, R. S. 2013. Building goal alignment in federal agencies’ performance appraisal programs. Public Personnel Management, 42(4):495-520. Ayers, R. S. 2015. Aligning individual and organizational performance: Goal alignment in federal government agency performance appraisal programs. Public Personnel Management, 44(2):169-191. Bartels, K. P. r. 2013. Public Encounters: The History and Future of Face-to-Face Contact Between Public Professionals and Citizens. Public Administration, 91(2), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02101.x Baviskar, S., & Winter, S. C. 2017. Street-Level Bureaucrats as Individual Policymakers: The Relationship between Attitudes and Coping Behavior toward Vulnerable Children and Youth. INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 20(2), 316–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1235641 Behn, R. D. 2003. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606. Berg B.& Lune H. 2017. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. , 9th edition, Pearson Education. Bhuiyan, S. 2022. Risking Lives to Save Others During COVID-19: A Focus on Public Health Care Workers in Bangladesh and Egypt. In INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES ,52(2), 269–275, SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207314211063748 Blauner, R. 1964. Alienation and Freedom, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bohte, J., & Meier, K. J. 2000. Goal Displacement: Assessing the Motivation for Organizational Cheating. Public Administration Review, 60(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00075 Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. 2002. From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168 Braithwaite, D. W., & Sprague, L. 2021. Conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognition in routine and nonroutine problem solving. Cognitive Science, 45(10), e13048. Brehm, J. and Gates, S. 1997. Working, Shirking, and Sabotage: Bureaucratic Response to a Democratic Public, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Brodkin, E. Z. 2012. Reflections on Street-Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940–949. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02657.x Brodkin, E.Z. 1997. ‘Inside the Welfare Contract: Discretion and Accountability in State Welfare Administration’, Social Service Review, 71(1), 1–33. Burtscher, M. J., Wacker, J., Grote, G., & Manser, T. 2010. Managing nonroutine events in anesthesia: the role of adaptive coordination. Human factors, 52(2), 282-294. Campos, S. A., & Peeters, R. 2022. Policy improvisation: How frontline workers cope with public service gaps in developing countries—The case of Mexico’s Prospera program. Public Administration and Development, 42(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1907 Carter, N., Klein, R., & Day, P. 1995. How organisations measure success: The use of performance indicators in government. Psychology Press. Ahrum Chang & Gene. A. Brewer.2022. Street-Level bureaucracy in public administration: A systematic literature review, Public Management Review, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2065517 Choi, S., & Chun, Y. H. 2021. Accountability and organizational performance in the public sector: Analysis of higher education institutions in Korea. Public Administration, 99(2), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12683 Chun, Y. H., & Rainey, H. G. 2005. Goal Ambiguity in U.S. Federal Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui001 Cohen, G. 2021. Public Administration Training in Basic Police Academies: A 50-State Comparative Analysis. AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 51(5),345–359, SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074021999872 Cohen, N. 2022. An Exploratory Examination of the Relationship Between Trust and Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Willingness to Risk Their Lives for Others. In AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 52(3), 221–234. SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211055470 de Bruijn, Hans,van Helden G. Jan 2006. A Plea for Dialogue Driven Performance-Based Management Systems: Evidence from the Dutch Public Sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 22(4), 405-423. Deming, W. Edwards.1994. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Egger, H., & Grossmann, V. 2005. Non-routine tasks, restructuring of firms, and wage inequality within and between skill-groups. Journal of Economics, 86(3), 197-228. Evans, T. 2011. Professionals, Managers and Discretion: Critiquing Street-Level Bureaucracy. The British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368–386. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq074 Ewalt, J. A. G. and Jennings, E. T. 2004. Administration, Governance, and Policy Tools in Welfare Policy Implementation. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 449–62. Folkman, Susan, and Richard S. Lazarus. 1980. An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 21, 219–39. Fountain, J. E. 2001. Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service. Governance, 14(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00151 Frost, J., & Brockmann, J. 2014. When qualitative productivity is equated with quantitative productivity: Scholars caught in a performance paradox. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(6), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0572-8 Hanson, J. D., Melnyk, S. A., & Calantone, R. A. 2011. Defining and measuring alignment in performance management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Harvey, J., & Attwell, K. 2022. Children, COVID, and confusion: How frontline workers cope with the challenges of vaccine mandates. Australian Journal of Public Administration,1-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12567 Hatry, H. P. 2002. Performance measurement: fashion and fallacies. Public Performance and Management Review,25(4), 258-352. Hatry, H. P. 2006. Performance measurement: Getting results. The Urban Insitute. Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. 2014. A Public Service Gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.854401 Jackson, S. E. and Schuler, R. S. 1985. A Meta-analysis and Conceptual Critique of Research on Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict in Work Settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16–78. Jilke, S., & Tummers, L. 2018. Which Clients are Deserving of Help? A Theoretical Model and Experimental Test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy002 Johnston, K., & Houston, J. 2018. Representative bureaucracy: Does female police leadership affect gender-based violence arrests? INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES, 84(1), 3–20, SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315619222 Kalgin, A., Podolskiy, D., Parfenteva, D., & Campbell, J. W. 2018. Performance management and job-goal alignment: A conditional process model of turnover intention in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Kelman and Friedman, 2009, Performance Improvement and Performance Dysfunction: An Empirical Examination of Distortionary Impacts of the Emergency Room Wait-Time Target in the English National Health Service, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(4), 917-946. Kerpershoek, E., Groenleer, M., & de Bruijn, H. 2016. Unintended responses to performance management in Dutch hospital care: Bringing together the managerial and professional perspectives. Public Management Review, 18(3), 417-436. Kroll, A. 2013. The Other Type of Performance Information: Nonroutine Feedback, Its Relevance and Use. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 265-276. Kroll., A. 2015. Drivers of Performance Information Use: Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research, 38(3) https://doi/epdf/10.1080/15309576.2015.1006469 Lipsky, M. 1980. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 71. Lipsky, M. 2010. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation. Lipsky, M., & Hill, M. 1993. Street-level bureaucracy: An introduction. The policy process: A reader,381-385. Locke, A. L., & Latham, G. P. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717. Lowe, Toby. 2013. The Paradox of Outcomes: The More We Measure, the Less We Understand , Public Money & Management, 33(3), 213-216. Lowi, T. 1969. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. New York: Norton Loyens, K. 2016. How police detectives deal with policy alienation in the investigation of human exploitation crimes.In: Stress in Policing: Sources, Consequences and Interventions, Editor: Burke, R. Chapter 8. New York: Routledge. Lu, X., Xu, H., & Wang, W. 2021. Clients’ Help Deservingness, Crowd Situational Stress And Discretionary Decision-making: An Experimental Study Of Regulatory Street-level Bureaucrats In China. In INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, 24(2), 287–312. ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1661892 Masood, A., & Nisar, M. A. 2022. Repairing the State: Policy Repair in the Frontline Bureaucracy. In PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW , 82(2), 256–268. WILEY. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13414 May, P. J. 2003. ‘Policy Design and Implementation’ in B. Guy Peters and J. Pierre (eds) Handbook of Public Administration, London: Sage. May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. 2009. Politicians, Managers, and Street-Level Bureaucrats: Influences on Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum030 Mayer, M. W., & Gupta, V. 1994. The performance paradox. Research. Organizational Behavior, 16:309-369. McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (2015). Using Logic Models. In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 62–87). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch3 Meyer, M. W. 1993. Organizational Design. Explorations in economic sociology, 249. Meyer, M. W., O’Shaughnessy, K. C., & Swedberg, R. ,1993, Explorations in economic sociology. Meza, O., Perez-Chiques, E., Campos, S. A., & Varela Castro, S. 2021. Against the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analyzing Role Changes of Healthcare Street-Level Bureaucrats in Mexico. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLICY ANALYSIS, 23(1,SI), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1846993 Mihaylov, E., & Tijdens, K. G. 2019. Measuring the routine and non-routine task content of 427 four-digit ISCO-08 occupations. Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W. and Burton, S. 1990. Analysis of Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity in a Structural Equations Framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148–57. Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. 2015. Planning and Designing Useful Evaluations. In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation ,7–35, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch1 O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. 2003. Plus ça Change: Public Management, Personnel Stability, and Organizational Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 43–64. Pandey, S. K., & Rainey, H. G. 2006. Public Managers’ Perceptions of Organizational Goal Ambiguity: Analyzing Alternative Models. International Public Management Journal, 9(2), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490600766953 Peeters, R., & Campos, S. A. 2022. Street-level bureaucracy in weak state institutions: A systematic review of the literature. International Review of Administrative Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221103196 Pellegrin, L., Chassery, L., Chaudet, H., Texier, G., & Bonnardel, N. 2021. Decision-making during nonroutine outbreak management: Toward an exploration of experts’ creative decisions. Applied Ergonomics, 90, 103232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103232 Peter Dahler-Larsen. 2014. Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences, Public Management Review, 16(7):969-986, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.770058 Potipiroon, W. 2022. Rule Formalization, Bureaucratic Red Tape, and Prosocial Rule Breaking Among Street-Level Bureaucrats: A Citizen-Centered Perspective. In PUBLIC PERFORMANCE & MANAGEMENT REVIEW ,45(3),638–671, ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2065644 Pritchard, R. D. 1969. Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational behavior and human performance, 4(2):176-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(69)90005-1 Raaphorst, N. 2023. An empirical conceptualization of front line enablement by performance management. Public Management Review, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2212255 Raaphorst, N., & Van de Walle, S. 2018. A signaling perspective on bureaucratic encounters: How public officials interpret signals and cues. In SOCIAL POLICY & ADMINISTRATION (Vol. 52, Issue 7,pp. 1367–1378). WILEY. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12369 Rainey, H. G., & Jung, C. S. 2015. A Conceptual Framework for Analysis of Goal Ambiguity in Public Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu040 Riccucci, N.M., M.K. Meyers, I. Lurie and J.S. Han. 2004. The Implementation of Welfare Reform Policy: The Role of Public Managers in Front-Line Practices’, Public Administration Review, 64, 4, 438–48. Riccucci, Norma M. 2005. How Management Matters: Street-level Bureaucrats and Welfare Reform , Georgetown University Press. Washington D.C. Rodas-Gaiter, A., & Sanabria-Pulido, P. 2020. Management, goal alignment, and performance assessment legitimacy: Evidence from the Colombian public sector. Public administration issues, 5(5):81-104. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2020-0-5-81-104 Sabatier, P. A. 1986. Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00003846 Savaneviciene, A., Rutelione, A., & Ciutiene, R. 2014. CRUCIAL TRANSVERSAL COMPETENCES IN THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT: CASE OF THE EUROPEAN SMES MANAGERS. Economics and Management, 19(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.em.19.1.5485 Schaubroeck, J., Judge, T. A. and Taylor, L. A. 1998. Influences of Trait Negative Affect and Situational Similarity on Correlation and Convergence of Work Attitudes and Job Stress Perceptions Across Two Jobs. Journal of Management, 24(4), 553–76. Tubre, T. C. and Collins, J. M. 2000. Jackson and Schuler, 1985. Revisited: A Meta-analysis of the Relationships Between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance. Journal of Management, 26:1, 155. Seabright, P. 2000. Skill versus judgement and the architecture of organisations. European Economic Review, 44(4), 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(00)00045-3 Showkat, N., & Parveen, H. 2017. In-depth interview. e-PG Pathshala (UGC & MHRD) Simon, H., & March, J. 1976. Administrative behavior and organizations. Siverbo, Cäker, & Åkesson. 2019. Conceptualizing dysfunctional consequences of performance measurement in the public sector. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/14719037.2019.1577906?needAccess=true&role=button Skinner, Ellen A., Kathleen Edge, Jeffrey Altman, and Hayley Sherwood. 2003. Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216–69. Stazyk, E. C., & Kim, J. 2022. Goals as a driver of public sector motivation. Research Handbook on Motivation in Public Administration. 71-88 Edward Elgar Publishing. Tantardini, M. 2019. Routine and nonroutine performance information: an assessment about substitution and complementarity. Public Management Review 21(5), 755-774. Thomann, E. 2015. Is Output Performance All About the Resources? A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Switzerland. Public Administration, 93(1), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12130 Tonkens, E., Bröer, C., van Sambeek, N., & van Hassel, D. 2013. Pretenders and performers: Professional responses to the commodification of health care. Social Theory & Health, 11(4), 368-387. Tummers, L. 2012. Policy Alienation of Public Professionals: The Construct and Its Measurement. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02550.x Tummers, L. 2017. The Relationship Between Coping and Job Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw058 Tummers, L. L. G., Bekkers, V., Vink, E., & Musheno, M. 2015. Coping During Public Service Delivery: A Conceptualization and Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu056 Tummers, L., Vermeeren, B., Steijn, B., & Bekkers, V. 2012. PUBLIC PROFESSIONALS AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Conceptualizing and measuring three types of role conflicts. In PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW.14(8), 1041–1059. ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.662443 Tummers, L.G. 2011. Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 555-581. Van der Voet, J., Steijn, B., & Kuipers, B. S. 2017. What’s in it for others? The relationship between prosocial motivation and commitment to change among youth care professionals. Public Management Review, 1-20. van Thiel, Sandra and Frans L. Leeuw. 2002. The Performance Paradox in the PublicSector.Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 267-281. Walker, R. M., Jung, C. S., & Boyne, G. A. 2013. Marching to Different Drummers? The Performance Effects of Alignment between Political and Managerial Perceptions of Performance Management. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 73(6):833–844. WILEY. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12131 Waller, M. J. 1999. The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management journal, 42(2), 127-137. Wang, Y., Gray, P. H., & Meister, D. B. 2014. Task-driven learning: The antecedents and outcomes of internal and external knowledge sourcing. Information & Management, 51(8), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.009 Wood, B. D., & A. Doan. 2003. The politics of problem definition: Applying and testing threshold models. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4):640-653. Yang, F., Huang, X., & Li, Z. 2022. Gender, situational visibility, and discretionary decision-making of regulatory street-level bureaucrats under pandemic emergency: An experimental study in China. In PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW , 24(8), 1312–1329. ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1886316 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/89150 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 警察「承攬」行政協助之現象在當今公共治理複雜化之下日益顯著，同時行政協助作為不同於警政本業的外來業務，「口罩、路燈巡佐」之現象亦在實務發生，顯然成為基層官僚之績效管理議題，恐怕陷入Lipsky對於基層官僚目標錯置現象之預言。然而公共行政學界對此關注付之闕如，引起本文對於基層官僚以及非例行性績效業務視角之研究興趣。本研究採用基層官僚作為理論視角，並結合績效管理研究之成果，將警察人員之行政協助業務對應至基層官僚之非例行性績效業務的學理概念，進行系統性的文獻回顧，並展開實證訪談結果與理論之對話。
理論上，本文藉由邏輯模型（Logic Model）之「投入」、「過程」、「產出」、「結果」作為文獻分析架構，系統性地以投入面的目標模糊、資源不足；過程面的政策異化、應付行為；結果面的例行與非例行性績效資訊、績效業務；結果面的績效悖理，結合基層官僚與績效管理研究，解釋理論上非例行性績效業務如何助長基層官僚之負面績效行為。 實證上，本研究與來自派出所、分局、刑事局之行政、交通、刑事警察人員進行半結構式深度訪談。行政協助作為非本業的非例行性績效業務對於警察本業的干擾跨越組織階層和職務類科。行政協助主要出現在派出所層級之行政警察身上，但分局刑事警察亦需投入牽涉蒐證之行政協助業務，對本業造成排擠，甚至使人員被迫犧牲辦案品質。 行政協助作為非例行性績效業務，具有臨時性、內容與時間的不可預期性，並且因跨機關而具有「非本業」特質，加深了政策異化以及角色衝突。警察人員在績效壓力以及資源不足之困境下，限額提供服務以及例行化的負面應付行為加深，對警察工作品質產生間接影響，例如案件品質和辦案時程延宕，負面影響民眾權益。 總結而言，本研究揭示行政協助作為非例行性績效業務，加深了績效資訊落差，在警察績效制度下助長了警察人員偏離本業之結果。行政協助確為當代治理的工具之一，甚至使警察成為了第一線的防疫功臣，然而本文提供不同的視角，以基層人員的觀點出發，當「偏離本業」成為日常，警察人員之工作動機恐怕在績效壓力及長官期待、民眾權益以及專業認知，三者構築的張力之中日益削弱。期待來者對於行政協助作為非例行性績效業務內生的非本業特質及其影響更加關注。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The phenomenon of police conducting administrative assistance has become increasingly prominent in public governance in Taiwan. The administrative assistance, as a type of exogenous task , is distinctive from police core functions and highly rewarded administrative assistance tasks crowd out frontline workers efforts from their core tasks, bringing to a performance management issue for street-level bureaucrats and may potentially fall into Lipsky's prophesied phenomenon of goal displacement among street-level bureaucrats. However, little scholarly attention in public administration has paid to this issue, leading to the interest of this paper in studying street-level bureaucrats and non-routine performance tasks. A systematic literature review under the Logic Model is conducted, and empirical in-depth interview results are engaged in a dialogue with the theory.
As non-routine performance tasks, administrative assistance exhibits temporality, unpredictability in content and timing, and the characteristic of being "non-core" due to its cross-agency nature, which intensifies policy alienation and role conflicts. Police personnel, facing performance pressures and resource constraints, resort to rationing and routinizing coping behaviors, which impact the quality of core police work, such as case quality, ultimately negatively affecting the rights of citizen-clients. This study elucidates that administrative assistance as a non-routine performance task, exacerbates the performance gap, and police deviating from their core duties under the police performance system. While administrative assistance is indeed a contemporary governance tool and even positions the police as front-line heroes in epidemic prevention, this article provides a different perspective, starting from the viewpoint of street-level bureaucrats. When it becomes a daily occurrence that police deviates from core duties, the work motivation of police may be weakened amid the tensions among performance pressure and superiors' expectations, public rights, and professional cognition. It is hoped that future researchers will pay closer attention to the non-core nature of administrative assistance as a non-routine performance task and its impact. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-08-16T17:20:18Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-08-16T17:20:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 圖目錄 VII
表目錄 VIII 第一章 前言 1 第一節 研究背景 1 第二節 研究目的 6 第三節 研究問題 7 第四節 研究方法 8 第二章 文獻檢閱 13 第一節 基層官僚理論概念與文獻檢閱 13 第二節 我國警政現況與相關研究 16 第三節 本章小結 22 第三章 基層官僚之績效行為影響因子：系統性文獻回顧 25 第一節 投入面之績效行為因子 29 第二節 過程面之績效行為因子 35 第三節 產出面之績效行為因子 41 第四節 結果面之績效行為因子 45 第五節 本章小結 50 第四章 警察人員之行政協助作為非例行性績效業務：實證與學理的對話 53 第一節 實證訪談發現與分析 53 第二節 綜合討論 72 第三節 理論與實證之對話 75 第五章、結論與政策反思 77 第一節 結論 77 第二節 研究限制 79 第三節 未來研究建議 80 第四節 政策反思與建議 81 參考文獻 85 一、中文部分 85 二、西文部分 92 附錄一、深度訪談題綱（個人） 101 附錄二、深度訪談題綱 （警察工作權益推動協會） 102 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.title | 初探基層官僚之績效行為影響因子：以我國警察人員行政協助作為非例行性績效業務為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Exploring the Factors of Performance Behavior among Street-level Bureaucrats: A Case Study of Nonroutine Performance Tasks in Administrative Assistance by Police Officers in Taiwan | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 洪美仁;胡龍騰 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Mei-Jen Hung;Lung-Teng Hu | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 基層官僚,非例行性績效業務,警政績效,行政協助, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | street-level bureaucrats,nonroutine performance task,nonroutine performance information,police performance management,administrative support, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 103 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202303225 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2023-08-11 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共事務研究所 | - |
| Appears in Collections: | 公共事務研究所 | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-111-2.pdf | 2.67 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.