由社會交換理論探討勞退新制滿意度對員工績效之影響

The Impact of New Pension System Satisfaction on Employee Performance by Social Exchange Theory Perspective

10.30409/JPA.200709_(24).0002

劉仲矩(Chung-Chu Liu)；黃梅君(Mei-Jun Huang)

勞退新制滿意度 ； 員工績效 ； 社會交換 ； 組織信任 ； 知覺組織支持 ； the new pension system satisfaction ； job performance ； social exchange ； organizational trust ； perception of organizational support

公共行政學報

24期（2007 / 09 / 01）

29 - 69

繁體中文

近來勞退新制的實施可能影響勞資關係、員工態度與工作行為，如何藉由保障性福利來吸引與留住關鍵性人才，並提升員工績效是相當重要的議題。本研究目的是以社會交換理論探討勞退新制滿意度對員工的組織信任、知覺組織支持，及員工績效的影響。本研究以便利抽樣法針對台灣地區不同產業共225位參與勞退新制之員工為研究對象，研究發現：勞退新制滿意度與組織信任、知覺組織支持皆具部分正向影響關係；而組織信任、知覺組織支持與員工績效皆具顯著正向影響關係；組織信任對於知覺組織支持與員工績效之關係具正面干擾效果；在勞退新制滿意度與員工績效的關係上，組織信任、知覺組織支持分別扮演了部分中介角色。本文最後依照上述研究結果提出理論意涵、管理實務與後續研究建議。

Due to the implementation of new pension system might impact on labor relation, employee attitude and work behavior, how to attract and retain key talents and improve employee performance by indemnity benefits has become a very important issue. In this study, we mainly refer the social exchange theory to explore the mediating effects of organizational trust and organizational support among the new pension system satisfaction and employee performance. A questionnaire survey comprising 225 copies from multiple industries in Taiwan is used. The results indicate that the new pension system satisfaction has partial and positive effects on organizational trust and organizational support. There are also positive relationships between organizational trust, organizational support and employee performance. It is found that organizational trust has positive moderating effect on organizational support and employee performance. Furthermore, it appears that organizational trust and organizational support play mediating roles among the new pension system satisfaction and employee performance. At the final section of this paper we discuss the implications for theory and managerial practices, and suggestions for the further study.

1. Chen, D.-S.(2005).The Limitations of Deliberative Democracy: The Case of Citizen Conferences in Taiwan.Paper presented at International Conference on Deliberative Democracy,Taiwan, Taipei:
   連結：
2. 林國明、陳東升(2003)。公民會議與審議民主：全民健保的公民參與經驗。台灣社會學，6，61-118。
   連結：
3. 郭秋永(1999)。強勢民主：新時代的政策參與。問題與研究，38(6)，63-93。
   連結：
4. Benhabib, S.(1996).Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.
5. Bessette, J. M.(1994).The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and merican National Government.Chicago:Chicago University Press.
6. Bingham, L. B.,N. Tina,O. Rosemary(2005).The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government.Public Administration Review,65(5),547-558.
7. Bohman, J.(1996).Public Deliberation.Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
8. Dryzek, J.(1990).Discursive Democracy.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
9. Dunn, W.(2004).Public Policy: An Introduction.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
10. Elster, J.,Jon Elster (Ed.)(1998).Deliberative Democracy.New York:Cambridge University Press.
11. Feraon, J. D.,Jon Elster (Ed.)(1998).Deliberative Democracy.New York:Cambridge University Press.
12. Fishkin, J. S.(1995).The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
13. Fishkin, J. S.(1991).Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reforms.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
14. Fishkin, J.,R. Luskin,Max McCombs (Ed.)(1999).A Poll With a Human Face: The National Issues Convention Experiment in Political Communication.Mahwah, N.J.:Lawrence E. Erlbaum Associates.
15. Fukuyama, F.(1992).The End of History and the Last Man.New York:Free Press.
16. Gambetta, D.,Jon Elster (Ed.)(1998).Deliberative Democracy.New York:Cambridge University Press.
17. Gutmann, A.,D. Thompson(1996).Democracy and Disagreement.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
18. Gutmann, A.,D. Thompson(2004).Why Deliberative Democracy?.Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.
19. Habermas, J.(1984).Theory of Communicative Action.Boston:Beacon Press.
20. Habermas, J.,S. Benhabib (Ed.)(1996).Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.Princeton University Press.
21. Lin, K.-M.(2005).Deliberative Inequalities: Experiences from Three Consensus Conference in Taiwan.Paper presented at International Conference on Deliberative Democracy,Taiwan, Taipei:
22. Lovan, W. R.,M. Murray,R. Shaffer(2004).Participatory Governance: Planning, Conflict Mediation and Public Decision Making in Civil Society.Burlington, Vt.:Ashgate.
23. Luskin, R.,J. Fishkin,R. Jowell(2002).Considered Opinion: Deliberative Polling in Britain.Britishi Journal of Political Science,32,455-487.
24. Macedo, S.(1999).Deliberative Politics.New York:Oxford University Press.
25. Pierre, J.,B. G. Peters(2000).Governance, Politics and the State.New York:St. Martin Press.
26. Rawls, J.(1971).A Theory of Justice.Harvard University Press.
27. Ryfe, D.(2005).Does Deliberative Democracy Work?.Annual Review of Political Science,8,9-72.
28. Warren, M.(1992).Emocratic Theory and Self-Transformation.American Political Science Review,86(1),8-23.
29. 林水波(1999)。選舉與公投。台北:智勝。
30. 林水波編(1999)。政府再造。台北:智勝。
31. 林水波、石振國(1999)。以直接民主改革間接民主的論述與評估。立法院院聞月刊，27(3)，33-44。
32. 胡滌生、魯炳炎(2005)。從政策論證模式觀點對我國與西方古代論辯之比較研究。行政暨政策學報，41，1-34。
33. 翁興利(1996)。政策論證與政策制定：以核四興建爲例。公共政策學報，17，193-216。
34. 張世賢(1996)。政策論證對話模式之探討。中國行政評論，5(4)，1-62。
35. 許國賢(2000)。商議式民主與民主想像。社會科學論叢，13，61-92。
36. 陳俊宏(1998)。永續發展與民主：審議式民主理論初探。東吳政治學報，9，85-121。
37. 黃東益(2003)。審慎思辯、議題資訊與核四政策偏好：一個審慎思辯意見調查結果的初探。理論與政策，16(4)，65-88。
38. 黃東益(2000)。審慎思辯民調：研究方法的探討與可行性評估。民意研究季刊，211，123-143。
39. 黃瑞祺(2005)。社會理論與社會世界。北京:北京大學。
40. 楊意菁(1998)。民意調查的理想國：一個深思熟慮民調的探討。民意研究季刊，204，63-76。
41. 鄭興弟、胡至沛(2002)。「審慎思辯式」民調（Deliberative Poll）在我國運作模式之研究與方法論問題之探討。第四屆「調查研究方法與應用」學術研討會，台北:

1. 揭維恆(2017)。職場友誼因果關係觀念性模式之建構。淡江大學管理科學學系博士班學位論文。2017。1-114。