Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0702121-143438 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0702121-143438
論文名稱
Title
資源認知落差對權力認知所帶來的影響
How the cognition of resource affect the interpretation of power
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
52
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2021-07-28
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2021-08-02
關鍵字
Keywords
權力、認知、資源、衝突、依賴關係、環境
power, cognition, resource, conflict, dependency, environment
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 128 次,被下載 21
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 128 times, has been downloaded 21 times.
中文摘要
這篇研究目的在於了解依賴關係中權力無法被意識的原因。大多數的資源依賴文獻都假設依賴關係中的成員能夠清楚意識到彼此的權力。雖然資源依賴理論指出權力的大小取決於資源的重要程度,但每個人對於資源的價值認知仍會存在主觀差異。資源價值的認知落差會讓雙方在談判的過程中無法認同彼此的權力,因為雙方都會認為自己是掌權者、是對方依賴自己的資源。這樣的狀況會影響到談判過程的態度,也因此資源價值的認知過程對於依賴關係中權力的解讀會是重要的影響因素。

這篇研究選擇以組織內部成員的專業知識作為觀察資源,並以教授以及公司管理階級人員為樣本觀察依賴關係中的資源認知差異。以訪談的方式了解受訪者對於組織內部同事之間對於價值衡量的看法,檢視組織內部成員對於貢獻資源是否得到合理的回饋來對認知差距進行討論,並觀察資源的認知差異如何影響權力的解讀。透過受訪者的經驗以及想法來找出影響資源價值認知的原因以及對權力的影響。

最後,在研究中從組織內部的依賴關係中發現兩種資源認知落差的狀況,分別為資源重要性的落差以及該以何種資源作為貢獻的認知差異,認知的差異會受到個體原先的環境以及不同的目的所影響。在雙方有資源價值認知差異時,使彼此對權力關係無法達成共識進而使談判發生衝突。從研究中可以發現,依賴關係並非在一開始就能意識到彼此權力的大小,而是透過衝突的過程逐漸塑造而成。在衝突的過程中,雙方會比較其他待遇來了解資源的價值以及自己所擁有的權力。過程中也證實了,資源認知差異模糊了雙方對權力的見解,進而對權力不對等以及相互依賴的認知產生影響,成為吸收約束的阻礙。
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to understand why power cannot be recognized in dependencies. Most of studies assume actor in dependencies can recognize power. Although resource dependence theory mentions power comes from the importance of resources, there are still have subjective differences in cognition of resource value. Those cognitive gaps of resource value will make both actors disagree with other's power in the negotiation because both actors will treat themself as powerful side.

This study uses professional knowledge within the organization as the observation resource and takes professors and manager as samples to observe the resource cognitive differences in dependency. We discuss the cognitive gap by examining whether actors within the organization are properly rewarded for contributing resources, and observe how cognitive gaps in resources value affect the interpretation of power.

In this study, I found out two kinds of cognitive gaps in resource value which are the cognitive gap over the value of resource and the cognitive gap over which resources are valuable. Cognitive gaps shaped by initial environment and different purposes of actor. They will have a conflict because they cannot reach consensus on the power when they have different view on resources. Cognitive gap of resource value blurred the power. Thus, it affects the cognition of power imbalance and mutual dependence and becomes an obstacle to absorption constraints.
目次 Table of Contents
Table of Contents
審定書 i
摘 要 ii
Abstract iii
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature review 3
2.1 Resource dependence perspective 3
2.2 Asymmetric interdependence 4
2.3 Absorbing constraint
2.4 Blurring power in intra-organization 6
2.5 Cognitive gaps in intangible resource 7
2.6 Conflict and voice 8
3. Research Methods 9
3.1 Starting point 9
3.2 Sampling 10
3.3 Method 11
3.4 Interview procedure 12
4. Results 14
4.1 Why power cannot be recognized in dependencies 15
4.1.1 Different perceptions of resource value (How important) 16
4.1.2 Different definitions of the resource (What is important) 21
4.2 The factors affect cognition of resource value 25
4.3 Unable to recognize the power 27
4.4 Power shaping after conflict 32
5. Conclusion 38
6. Limitation and Discussion 41
6.1 Limitation 41
6.2 Discussion 42
7. References 43
參考文獻 References
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of intuition‐analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management studies, 33(1), 119-135.

Buffinton, K. W., Jablokow, K. W., & Martin, K. A. (2002). Project team dynamics and cognitive style. Engineering Management Journal, 14(3), 25-33.

Bruns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock, London, 120-122.

Biermann, R., & Harsch, M. (2017). Resource dependence theory. In Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics (pp. 135-155). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Badke‐Schaub, P., Goldschmidt, G., & Meijer, M. (2010). How does cognitive conflict in design teams support the development of creative ideas?. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 119-133.

Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative science quarterly, 50(2), 167-199.

Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Resource dependence theory: Past and future. Stanford's organization theory renaissance, 1970–2000.

Drees, J. M., & Heugens, P. P. (2013). Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1666-1698.

Essabbar, D., Zrikem, M., & Zolgadri, M. (2016). Power imbalance in collaboration relationships. International Journal of Supply and Operations Management, 2(4), 1021-1034.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American sociological review, 31-41.

Finkelstein, S. (1997). Interindustry merger patterns and resource dependence: A replication and extension of Pfeffer (1972). Strategic Management Journal, 18(10), 787-810.

Hirschman, A. O. (1974). " Exit, voice, and loyalty": Further reflections and a survey of recent contributions. Social Science Information, 13(1), 7-26.

Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of management, 35(6), 1404-1427.

Heffernan, C. J. (1988). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Albert Bandura Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1986, xiii+ 617 pp. Hardback. US $39.50. Behaviour Change, 5(1), 37-38.

Hoffmann, E. A. (2006). Exit and voice: Organizational loyalty and dispute resolution strategies. Social Forces, 84(4), 2313-2330.

Hogbin, G. (2006). Power in employment relationships: Is there an imbalance?. New Zealand Business Roundtable.

Jablokow, K. W., & Booth, D. E. (2006). The impact and management of cognitive gap in high performance product development organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23(4), 313-336.

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of applied psychology, 61(5), 622.

Kholmuminov, S., Kholmuminov, S., & Wright, R. E. (2019). Resource dependence theory analysis of higher education institutions in Uzbekistan. Higher Education, 77(1), 59-79.

Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1996). Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion. American sociological review, 89-108.

McNaughton, R. B., & Cozzarin, B. P. (2014). Inter-organizational linkages and resource dependence. Cogent Economics & Finance, 2(1), 920269.

Nienhüser, W. (2008). Resource dependence theory-How well does it explain behavior of organizations?. management revue, 9-32.

Ozturk, O. (2020). Bibliometric review of resource dependence theory literature: an overview. Management Review Quarterly, 1-28.

Orth, P. B., & Cheng, A. S. (2018). Who’s in charge? The role of power in collaborative governance and forest management. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 40, 191-210.

Orbell, J. M., & Uno, T. (1972). A theory of neighborhood problem solving: Political action vs. residential mobility. American Political Science Review, 66(2), 471-489.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative science quarterly, 218-228.

Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2014). Cognitive style and religiosity: The role of conflict detection. Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 1-10.

Purdy, J. M. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public administration review, 72(3), 409-417.

Stürmer, B., Sommer, W., & Frensch, P. (2009). Conflicts as signals: bridging the gap between conflict detection and cognitive control.

Sadler-Smith, E., & Riding, R. (1999). Cognitive style and instructional preferences. Instructional science, 27(5), 355-371.

Stum, J. (2009). Kirton’s adaption-innovation theory: managing cognitive styles in times of diversity and change. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 2(1), 66-78.

Weber, M. (1958). Science as a Vocation. Daedalus, 87(1), 111-134.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內校外完全公開 unrestricted
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code