Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112147
|
| Title: | 會計師事務所向上績效評估制度之探討
Discussion on the Upward Appraisal System of Accounting Firm |
| Authors: | 張博翔
Chang, Bor Shyang |
| Contributors: | 馬秀如
張博翔
Chang, Bor Shyang |
| Keywords: | 會計師事務所績效評估制度
雙向績效考核
向上績效評估
對績效評估制度公平性之認知
Performance evaluation system of accounting firm
Two-way performance appraisal
Upward appraisal
The perception of fairness of performance evaluation system |
| Date: | 2017 |
| Issue Date: | 2017-08-28 11:23:00 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 我國近年勞工意識抬頭，受雇者日漸重視自身工作權益，罷工運動頻傳，其中，工會理事表示，過去上對下的單向考評制度並不公平，因此，工會所訴求之員工績效評估方式，不再只是主管打員工的考績，而是雙向評估，亦即，員工亦打主管的考績。會計師事務所為服務型組織，成敗基於人，故衡量成員之績效相當重要。因此，本文以其員工之績效評估為例，探討其適當之績效評估制度為何。本研究以問卷方式蒐集資料，並以我國大專院校之會計系、所學生為受測對象。透過情境設計，結合不同績效評估制度，以了解並推論會計師事務所員工對向上績效評估制度公平程度之認知。本研究之結論有二，第一，會計師事務所員工對績效評估制度公平程度之認知，會受到向上績效評估影響，且在有向上績效評估時，認為績效評估制度比較公平。第二，向上績效評估結果是否納入受評主管之年底績效，會影響員工對績效評估制度公平程度之認知，且當該結果納入績效時，員工認為績效評估制度比較公平。易言之，當向上績效評估結果無法直接影響受評主管之年底績效，員工仍認為事務所之績效評估制度有欠公平。
Labor consciousness is rising in recent years, and labor are paying more and more attention to their interest. The director of a labor union after one striking activity pointed out that the traditional (top-down) performance evaluation approach is unfair, and requested for a two-way performance evaluation approach, that is, subordinate also evaluate the performance of their supervisor in addition to the traditional way. This research studies the performance evaluation system of accounting firm, for it is a service organization, it’s very important to measures the performance of members, and establishing an appropriate performance evaluation system is an continuing challenge for them. To infer the perception regarding the fairness of performance evaluation of the staff of the accounting firm, the research uses method of questionnaire survey to collect data, a combination of different performance evaluation systems with designed context is embedded in the questionnaire. Students of the department of accounting of universities participate in the experiment. There are two findings. First, the perception of fairness of performance evaluation system by the staff of the accounting firm will be affected by the upward appraisal system. Moreover, the performance evaluation system will be considered fair when there is an upward appraisal system. Second, the staff’s perception of fairness of performance evaluation system will also be affected if the results of upward appraisal system is counted as the performance of the supervisor. Furthermore, the performance evaluation system will be considered fair when the results of upward appraisal system will be counted as the supervisor’s performance. In other words, the performance evaluation system will be considered unfair if the results of upward appraisal system have no direct impact on the supervisor’s performance. |
| Reference: | 一、中文文獻
行政院國家科學委員會，2011，組織公平在員工對於組織內之績效評估活動認知與組織承諾間所扮演的角色研究成果報告（精簡版）（4月）。
朱武獻，2003，公務人績效管理制度，T&D飛訊，第15期：1-17。
孫本初，2013，新公共管理，台北市：一品文化。
鄭惠之，2004，績效管理的迷思 關鍵指標聚焦策略 雙向溝通發展職能，會計研究月刊，第223期：46-53。
二、英文文獻
Barry, G., and R. Cropanzano 2015. Justice and fairness are not the same thing. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36, 313-318.
Brutus, S., and M. Derayeh. 2002. Multisource assessment programs in organizations: an insider’s perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly 13 (2): 187-202.
Cawley, B. D., L. M. Keeping, and P. E. Levy. 1998. Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (4): 615-633.
Cohen-Charash, Y., and P. E. Spector. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86 (2): 278-321.
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. 2013. Interal control – integrated framework.
Cropanzano, R., D. E. Bowen, and S. W. Gilliland. 2007. The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives 21 (4): 34-48.
Dehaghani, M. V., and F. S. Mirhadi. 2013. Impressing organizational justice rules based on information technology (Case study: Telecommunication company). International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences 3 (4): 197-207.
DeLeon, L., and A. J. Ewen. 1997. Multi-source performance appraisals. Review of Public Personnel Administration 17 (1): 22-36.
Drucker, P. 1977. People and performance: The best of Peter Drucker on management. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
Earley, P. C., E. A. Lind, and R. Kanfer. 1990. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (5): 952-959.
Greenberg, J. 1986. Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (2): 340-342.
Greenberg, J., and J. A. Colquitt. 2005. Handbook of organizational justice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hall, J. L., J. K. Leidecker, and C. DiMarco. 1996. What we know ablut upward appraisals of management: facilitating the future use of UPAs. Human Resource Development Quarterly 7 (2): 209-226.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences. 1st. California: SAGE Publications.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences. 2nd. California: SAGE Publications
International Accounting Education Standards Board. 2017. Handbook of International Education Pronouncements. 2017 ed. New York: International Federation of Accountants.
Khatri, N. 2009. Consequences of power distance orientation in organisations. The Journal of Business Perspective 13 (1): 1-9.
Korsgaard, M. A., and L. Roberson. 1995. Procedural justice in performance evauation: the role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions. Jo urnal of Management 21 (4): 657-669.
Wooten, T. C., and B. K. Brown. 1998. Upward performance appraisals for audit teams: professional development that is simple. The CPA Journal 68 (11): 60-61.
三、網路資料
民報，2016，以客為尊?血汗勞動?上百空姐怒嗆癱瘓華航，http://www.peoplenews.tw/news/e2bedd38-f7df-46a8-9201-5090207aa553，搜尋日期：2017年7月1日。
自由時報，2016，華航空服員勞資爭議，華航要求仲裁被桃市府拒絕，http://news.ltn.com.tw/index.php/news/life/breakingnews/1728555，搜尋日期：2017年7月1日。
自由時報，2016，華航上百空姐怒吼：勞基法責任制殘害空服員！，http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/1695259，搜尋日期：2017年7月1日。
自由時報，2016，批空服員罷工，華航企業工會遭轟御用工會，http://news.ltn.com.tw/index.php/news/life/breakingnews/1735523，搜尋日期：2017年7月2日。
自由時報，2016，華航空服員24日0時起開始罷工，http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/life/breakingnews/1739511，搜尋日期：2017年7月2日。
財團法人國家政策研究基金會，國政評論，2016，華航空服員罷工事件平議，http://www.npf.org.tw/1/15944，搜尋日期：2017年7月1日。
桃園市空服員職業工會網頁，2016，桃園市空服員職業工會有關5月27日與華航公司調解破裂聲明稿，https://www.facebook.com/TFAUTF AU/posts/1782629058638252，搜尋日期：2017年7月1日。
桃園市空服員職業工會網頁，2016，罷工說明會—社會場，https://www.facebook.com/TFAUTFAU/photos/a.1742929959274829.1073741828.1741021699465655/1787828684784956/?type=3&theater，搜尋日期：2017年7月2日。
華航空服罷工說明專區，2016，https://www.china-airlines.com/tw/zh/discover/news/press-release/strike_announcement#，搜尋日期：2017年7月2日。
聯合財經網，2016，華航空服員罷工大事記，https://money.udn.com/money/story/8853/1785193，搜尋日期：2017年7月2日。
關鍵評論，2016，三大工會聯合抗議後，華航空服員台北、高雄、桃園三地連續舉辦罷工投票，https://www.thenewslens.com/feature/chinaairline-strike/41751，搜尋日期：2017年7月2日。
Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors. 2017. Performance management. Available at: https://www.iia.org.uk/resources/auditing-business-functions/human-resources/performance-management/?downloadPdf=true. Accessed: June 21, 2017.
Institute for Employment Studies. 2011. Performance Management: Literature Review. Available at: http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/resource/performance-management-literature-review. Accessed: June 26, 2017. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
會計學系
104353039 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1043530391 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [會計學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 039101.pdf | 1244Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 20 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
