政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/139285

政大典藏 > College of Social Science > Master for Eminent Public Administrators > Theses > Item 140.119/139285

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/139285

Title:	建構國軍人員績效評估指標之研究 –以陸軍基層連隊士官為例 The study on Constructing Performance Evaluation Indicators for Military Personnel- A Case study of Company Non-commissioned Officers in the Army
Authors:	李偉凡 Lee, Wei-Fan
Contributors:	黃明聖李偉凡 Lee, Wei-Fan
Keywords:	績效評估績效指標修正式德菲法層級分析法士官 Performance evaluation Performance indicator Modified Delphi method Analytic Hierarchy Process Non-commissioned officers
Date:	2021
Issue Date:	2022-03-01 17:59:49 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	國軍負有保家衛國之使命，為此必須組建戰力以肆應敵情。而「人」係為戰力之核心，若人力流失恐致無法達成使命。然而國軍現行的人員績效評估機制僅以考評者的主觀思維給予評價，其不客觀公正的評估模式，降低官兵對於國軍的認同感，係為人員離退因素之一。故此，本研究旨在探討國軍人員績效評估中的功績獎點作業，藉由考評者（主官）與受評者（士官）在評估權重上的差異，建構公正且客觀的陸軍基層連隊士官績效評估指標。本研究係以《國軍勳賞獎懲作業實施要點》中的法規條文為基礎，透過探討人力資源管理相關文獻，建構初步的陸軍基層連隊士官績效評估指標架構。接續採用修正式德菲法經專家小組的共識，修正與確立績效評估指標架構。最後透過考評者與受評者進行各評估指標的重要性判斷，運用層級分析法衡量計算相對權重值，探討兩方立場不同下的評估權重差異。經分析結果後獲致以下結論：一、由修正式德菲法確立陸軍基層連隊士官績效評估指標架構，包含3項評估構面（任務績效、情境績效、資訊回饋）與11項評估指標。二、由層級分析法計算分析後，由受評者提供績效評估資訊的「資訊回饋」構面相對權重值，考評者與受考評者之數據皆在20%上下，具一定之重要性。本文因此建議未來國軍在改革人員績效評估制度時，以科學化方式建構績效評估指標，並修訂20%之配比係由受評者提出績效評估資訊回饋，以達到公正且客觀的績效評估模式。 The National Army has the mission of defending the country; therefore, it must form a combat force to respond to the enemy`s situation. And "soldier" is the core of combat power. If the manpower is lost, the mission may not be achieved. However, the current personnel performance evaluation mechanism of the national army only gives evaluations based on the subjective thinking of the assessors. Its unobjective and unfair evaluation model reduces the recognition of members for the national army, which is one of the factors for member to leave. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the merit award points in the performance evaluation of the national army personnel, and to construct a fair and objective non-commissioned officer performance evaluation indicators of the army grass-roots company through the difference in the evaluation weight between the evaluator (chief officer) and the evaluatee (non-commissioned officer). This study is based on the laws and regulations in the "Key Points for the Implementation of Rewards and Punishments of the National Army ", and constructs a preliminary performance evaluation indicators structure for the non-commissioned officers of the Army`s grass-roots company by discussing the relevant literature on human resource management. Continuing to adopt the modified delphi method, through consensus of the expert group, the structure of performance evaluation indicators was revised and established. Finally, through the evaluation of the importance of each evaluation index by the evaluator and the evaluatee, the relative ratio value is measured and calculated by the analytic hierarchy process, and the difference in the evaluation weight of the two parties under different positions is discussed. After analyzing the results, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The modified Delphi method establishes the performance evaluation index structure of the non-commissioned officers in the Army’s compamy, including 3 evaluation dimensions (task performance, contextual performance, information feedback) and 11 evaluation indicators. 2. The "information feedback" aspect of performance evaluation information provided by the evaluator is of certain importance in the evaluation ratio of both the evaluator and the evaluator being around 20%. As a result, this study suggested that when reforming the personnel performance evaluation system in the future, the National Army should construct performance evaluation indicators in a scientific way, and revise the 20% ratio to give feedback of the provide performance evaluation information by the evaluate, so as to achieve a fair and objective performance evaluation model.
Reference:	中華民國108年國防報告書編纂委員會（2019）。中華民國108年國防報告書。臺北市：國防部。方雪玲（2004）。國軍人員參與在職進修動機取向及其自我效能、工作績效之研究。未出版，國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程。吳書緯（2021）。志願役部分戰鬥單位編現比不及8成。自由時報電子報。取自：https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/paper/1481045。吳復新（2003）。人力資源管理：理論分析與實務應用。臺北市：華泰文化。宋文娟（2001）。一種質量並重的研究法－德菲法在醫務管理學研究領域之應用，醫務管理期刊，2（2），11-20。唐惠英（2007）。應用平衡計分卡之觀點探討志願役軍官績效之評估。未出版，大葉大學事業經營研究所碩士在職專班，彰化縣。孫本初（2010）。公共管理。臺北市：智勝文化。徐政璿（2020）。志願役士兵1.1萬人、留營率78%，國軍最新募兵數據曝光。ETtoday新聞雲電子報。取自https://www.ettoday.net/news/20201005/1824680.htm。徐敏榮（2002）。國民小學教師評鑑規準之研究。未出版，國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所，屏東縣。徐懋興（2004）。國軍軍官績效評估制度改進之探討─以桃園縣軍訓教官為例。未出版，元智大學管理研究所，桃園縣。國防部（2004）。國軍軍語辭典。臺北市：國防部。國防部（2019）。國軍內部管理工作教範。臺北市：國防部。國防部（2020）。中華民國110年度國防部所屬單位預算（上冊）。臺北市：國防部。國軍勳賞獎懲作業實施要點。（民105年3月21日）。國家教育研究院（2021）。科層體制理論。取自：https://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1307685/?index=1。張火燦（1998）。策略性人力資源管理。臺北市：揚智。張俊陽、楊禎為、吳敏筑（2019）。建構商業智慧委外承包商評選指標之研究。臺大管理論叢，29（1），171-200。張紹勳（2012）。模糊多準則評估法及統計。臺北市：五南。張緯良（2018）。人力資源管理。臺北市：雙葉書廊。陳海漢（2016）。國軍獎酬制度與激勵制度對於提升志願役人員工作績效之研究─以陸軍砲兵為例。未出版，美和科技大學企業管理系經營管理碩士班，屏東縣。陳楷禹（2006）。國軍士官績效評量指標之研究。未出版，中華大學科技管理研究所，新竹市。傅文成、王隆綱（2016）。應用修正式德菲法評估國軍新媒體議題管理關鍵因素之研究。新聞學研究，129，33-96。黃英忠（2007）。人力資源管理概論。高雄市：麗文文化。黃賀（2013）。組織行為：影響力的形成與發揮。新北市：前程文化。葉晉嘉、翁興利、吳濟華（2007）。德菲法與模糊德菲法之比較研究。調查研究-方法與應用，21，31-58。董俊璋（2020）。海軍陸戰隊領導型態、建言行為與工作績效關聯性之研究。未出版，國立高雄師範大學經營管理碩士班，高雄市。榮泰生（2012）。Expert Choice 在分析層級程序法（AHP）之應用：五南。劉協成（2012）。德懷術之理論與實務初探。教師之友，47（4），91-99。劉明德、鄭伯壎（譯）（1993）。管理學：競爭優勢（Gray, E. R. 原著）。臺北市：桂冠圖書公司。潘清泉（1994）。人事考核:評價與培育：人才活性化實務。臺北市：超越企管發行。鄧振源（2012）。多準則決策分析：方法與應用。臺北市：鼎茂圖書。鄭舜峻（2015）。國軍士官考績與工作績效貼和度之探討。未出版，中華大學工業管理學系碩士班，新竹市。戴國樑（2020）。人力資源管理：理論、實務與個案。臺北市：五南。戴聖左、羅賓思、許世雨、楊雪倫、張瓊玲、范宜芳（譯）（2009）。人力資源管理（DeCenzo, D. A. & Robbins, S. P. 原著）。臺北市：五南。謝松志（2012）。特定寵物業評鑑指標之建構。未出版，國立臺灣大學農業經濟學研究所，臺北市。簡博浩（2009）。任務性、脈絡性及適應性績效表現與主管獎酬決策影響效果之研究。未出版，國立政治大學企業管理研究所，臺北市。 Byars, L. L. & Rue, L. W. (1997). Human resource management (5th ed.). Chicago, IL: Irwin. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol.1, pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Carroll, S. J. & Schneier, C. E. (1982). Performance appraisal and review systems: the identification, measurement, and development of performance in organizations. Northbrook, IL: Scott Foresman. Dunn, W. N. (2016). Public policy analysis (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Holden, M. C. & Wedman, J. F. (1993). Future issues of computer-mediated communication: The results of a delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(4), 5-24. Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Werner, S. (2012). Managing human resources (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Locher, A. H. & Teel, K. S. (1977). Performance appraisal- A survey of current practices. Personnel Journal, 56(5), 245-254. Motowidlo, S. J. & Borman, W. C. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance Presonnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480. Murphy, K. R. & Kroeker, L. P. (1989). Dimensions of job performance. Testing: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 218-247). New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. Murry, J. W. & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. The Review of Higher Education, 18(4), 423-436. Osborn, A. F. (1942). How to think up. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Robbins, S. P. & Judge. T. A. (2017). Organizational behavior (17th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Saaty, T. L. (1992). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation (2nd ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications. Schermerhorn, J. R. Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. (1997). Organizational behavior (6th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程 109921313
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109921313
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU202200158
Appears in Collections:	[Master for Eminent Public Administrators] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
131301.pdf		3764Kb	Adobe PDF2	48	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...