题名

組織防衛：國民小學學校行政決策中「艾比林弔詭」之探討

并列篇名

Organizational Defense: A Study of ＂The Abilene Paradox＂ in Elementary School Administration Decision-Making

DOI

10.6423/HHHC.201811_(118).0006

作者

陳成宏(CHENG-HUNG CHEN)；張文權(WIN-CHUAN CHANG)

关键词

艾比林弔詭 ； 組織防衛 ； 學校行政 ； The Abilene Paradox ； organizational defense ； school administration

期刊名称

學校行政

卷期/出版年月

118期（2018 / 11 / 16）

页次

85 - 110

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

本研究採取焦點團體方法，由研究者訪談共12位立意取樣的學校教師、組長、主任與校長，進而深入探討學校行政決策中因為組織防衛所衍生之「艾比林弔詭」的原因和影響。根據資料分析的結果，造成學校行政決策中艾比林弔詭的原因計有，「互動協調的溝通不良」、「一廂情願的以和為貴」與「孤立排擠的擔憂恐懼」。艾比林弔詭對學校行政決策造成的影響，呈現「犬儒主義的充斥瀰漫、但也傾向倫理互動」、「組織八卦的流傳播散、但卻突顯融洽文化」與「組織正義的隱匿不彰、但亦隱含民主制度」等對應弔詭，同時再受到成因影響，形成交叉弔詭。根據研究發現，本研究提出結論與相關建議供理論和實務參考。
英文摘要

Applying a qualitative focus group methodology, this study interviewed twelve faculty members who were selected purposefully to investigate the causes and influences of ＂The Abilene Paradox＂ derived by organizational defense within school administration. According to the results, the causes of ＂The Abilene Paradox＂ include ＂poor communication and interaction,＂ ＂wishful thinking on organizational harmony,＂ ＂fear and worry about isolation and exclusion,＂ and ＂abandonment-protection effect resulted from strategic voting.＂ The influences of ＂The Abilene Paradox＂ contain ＂emerging cynicism but it also tends to be ethical,＂ ＂arising gossip but it highlights the harmonious culture,＂ and ＂harmed organizational justice but it also implies a democratic system＂ formed a correspond paradox. At the same time, it was affected by the causes and formed a intersect paradox. Based on the research findings, this study proposed several conclusions and suggestions for the theoretical as well as practical references.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 陳成宏(2008)。教育行政中的異議管理與同意管理。國立屏東教育大學學報，30，1-22。
    連結：
  2. 陳成宏,粘忠倚(2007)。學校組織變革的團體決策行為。興國學報，7，263-274。
    連結：
  3. 鄭新輝(2009)。國民中學校長行政兩難來源、困擾與成因之研究。教育科學研究，54(3)，175-210。
    連結：
  4. Argyris, C.(1994).Good Communication that blocks learning.Harvard Business Review,72(4),77-85.
  5. Argyris, C.(1990).Overcoming organizational defense.Needham Height, MA:Allyn and Bacon.
  6. Argyris, C.(1982).Reasoning, learning and action.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
  7. Bolman, L. G.,Deal, T. E.(2008).Reframing organizations.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
  8. Carlisle, A.,Harvey, J.,Kanter, R.(1988).The Abilene Paradox: The management of agreement.Organizational Dynamics,17(1),16-43.
  9. Chen, Z.,Lawson, R. B.(1996).Groupthink: Deciding with the leadership and devil.Psychological Record,46(4),581-591.
  10. Coutts, P. (2000). An introduction to organizational defensive routines. Retrieved from http://www.coutts.name/Other%20Documents/%25PDF-Defensive%20Routines.pdf
  11. David, R. H.,Alan, D. M.,Marc-David, L. S.(2017).Escape from Abilene: The developmental dpportunity of the review process.Journal of Management Inquiry,27(2),140-143.
  12. Harvey, J. B.(1988).The Abilene Paradox and other meditations on management.Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.
  13. Heinemann, G. D.,Farrell, M. P.,Schmitt, M. H.(1994).Groupthink theory and research: Implications for decision making in geriatric health care teams.Educational Gerontology,20(1),71-85.
  14. Hoyt, B. R.(2002).Facilitating agreement for effective knowledge management systems: The Abilene Paradox is thriving in the new millennium.International Journal on E-Learning,1(3),15-20.
  15. Janis, I. L.(1982).Groupthink.Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.
  16. Janis, I. L.(1972).Victims of groupthink.Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.
  17. Janis, I. L.,Mann, L.(1977).Decision making.New York, NY:Free Press.
  18. Lunenburg, F. C.(2010).Group decision making: The potential for groupthink.International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration,13(1),1-6.
  19. Maykut, P.,Morehouse, R.(1994).Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide.London, UK:Falmer.
  20. McAvoy, J.,Butler, T.(2006).Resisting the change to user stories: A trip to Abilene.International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management,1(1),48-61.
  21. Miner, J. B.(2002).Organizational behavior: Foundations, theories, and analyses.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
  22. Morel, C.,黃敏次（譯）(2004).關鍵決策.台北:時報.
  23. Rizzi, F.,Frey, M.,Testa, F.,Appolloni, A.(2014).Environmental value chain in green SME networks: The threat of the Abilene paradox.Journal of Cleaner Production,85,265-275.
  24. Robbins, S. P.(1998).Organization behavior.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
  25. Rusbult, C. E.,Farrell, D.,Rogers, G.,Mainous, A. G., III(1988).Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction.The Academy of Management Journal,31(3),599-627.
  26. Sauser, W. I., Jr.(1988).Injecting contrast: A key to quality decisions.Advanced Management Journal,53(4),20-23.
  27. Schein, E. H.(2010).Organizational culture and leadership.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
  28. Senge, P. M.(1990).The fifth discipline.New York, NY:Doubleday Currency.
  29. 王政彥(1994).團體式教育決策參與.台北:五南.
  30. 李智卿(2013)。論組織中傳聞現象對組織成員工作投入之影響。警察行政管理學報，9，241-258。
  31. 胡幼慧(1996).質性研究─理論、方法及本土女性研究實例.台北:巨流.
  32. 郝聚民(2009)。探索用行動學習的方式打破組織防衛。新視角，1，68-69。
  33. 張士菊,廖建橋(2006)。西方組織犬儒主義研究探悉。外國經濟與管理，28(12)，12-18。
  34. 章美英,許麗齡(2006)。質性研究─焦點團體訪談法之簡介與應用。護理雜誌，53(2)，67-72。
  35. 潘淑滿(2010).質性研究：理論與應用.台北:心理.
print cancel