本研究採用質性研究的方式 , 訪談九家公司 , 分別是在台灣的三家美國子公司、三家在台灣的台灣公司及三家在大陸的大陸公司 , 同時收集分析次級資料。這九家公司的背景不同 , 所處的產業也不同 , 唯一相似之處是員工的文化背景大致相同(不論在台灣或大陸 , 大多數的員工都是華人) 。在這些情境下 , 經研究分析 , 有些高績效人力資源工作實務的做法 , 被所有公司採用 , 例如 : 嚴格甄選、團隊運作與決策權下放、獎勵性的薪酬制度、廣泛的訓練。同樣在這些情境下 , 也有些高績效人力資源實務的做法 , 沒有被一致性的採用 , 例如 : 雇用的安全性(不因策略錯誤而輕易裁員)、減少階級差距、分享資訊。本研究發現 , 一家公司採用何種人力資源做法 , 受到公司背景與員工背景的相互影響。

本研究也發現 , 有兩項正在進行中的高績效人力資源工作實務趨勢。一是人力資源工作實務會隨著所處地域的文化背景,所處的行業背景, 科技的進步,員工的組成背景等各項因素, 而需要不斷的進行調整 , 才會是符合公司自身需要的 “高績效人力資源工作實務” ;二是透過積極性的運用這些“高績效人力資源工作實務”, 在短時間內培養優秀的高潛力人才, 為公司創造高績效。

另一項研究發現是將這些訪談公司依不同的背景與特性做分組 ,發現差異性較大的人資工作實務是“雇用安全性”與“ 減少階級差距” 。處在非高科技行業的公司、本土公司或華人企業, 比高科技公司、國際化公司或外商, 更傾向於採行“雇用安全性”, 但相對而言, 高科技公司、國際化公司或外商,比非高科技行業的公司、本土公司或華人企業, 更傾向於採行“減少階級差距” 。
關鍵字：高績效人力資源工作實務、人力資源、雇用安全性、減少階級差距、高績效人力資源工作實務趨勢

This study adopts qualitative approach , through interviewing with nine case companies ( including three American subsidiaries in Taiwan , three Taiwanese companies in Taiwan and three Chinese companies in China ) as well as secondary data collection to understand how they implement High Performance Work Practices (HPWP). The nine case corporations have different background and are in different industries. However , most of their employees are Chinese (in Taiwan and China) and have the same culture background.

This study finds out some of the HPWP are implemented by all companies , like Selective hiring、Team & decentralization、Compensation contingency、Extensive training. On the other hand , some of the HPWP are not implemented by all companies , likeEmployment security、Reduced status distinctions、Sharing information.At the same time this studyfinds outthatcompany’s background and employees’ background will affect how the company carries out HPWP.

This study also finds out two ongoing trend of High Performance Work Practices :(1) Continuous modification HR practices to be the update HPWP ; (2) Aggressive application HR practices to develop high performance talents.

Another finding is that , all case companies are grouped according to the different perspectives , non-high-tech corporations , local enterprises or Chinese enterprises are more willing to adopt “employment security” than high-techcorporations , multinational enterprises or Non-Chinese enterprises. On the other hand , high-techcorporations ,or multinational enterprises , or non-Chinese enterprises have fewer status differences than non-high-tech corporations ,or local enterprises , or Chinese enterprises .

Keyword：High Performance Work Practices 、Human Resources 、Employment Security、Reduction of Status Differences、Ongoing Trend of High Performance Work Practices

論文審定書 i
摘要 ⅱ
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES ix
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Motivation and Objective 3
1.3 Research Procedure 5
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Strategic Human Resource 7
2.1.1 Universalistic perspective 7
2.1.2 Contingency perspective 9
2.1.3 Configurational perspective 10
2.1.4 Section summary 11
2.2 High Performance Work Practices 12
2.2.1 Employment security 13
2.2.2 Selective hiring of new personnel 15
2.2.3 Self-managed teams and decentralization of decision making as the basic principles of organizational design. 17
2.2.4 Comparatively high compensation contingent on organizational performance. 19
2.2.5 Extensive training 21
2.2.6 Reduced status distinctions and barriers , including dress , language , office arrangements , and wage differences across levels 22
2.2.7 Extensive sharing of financial and performance information throughout the organization 23
Chapter 3 Research Method 24
3.1 The Framework of the Study 24
3.2 Qualitative Approach 25
3.2.1 Selection criterion of case companies 27
3.3 Case Company Profile 34
Chapter 4 Analysis and Finding 43
4.1 The main interview contents of case companies 43
4.2 The Comparisons of High Performance Work Practices 59
4.2.1 Corporations in the high-tech industry VS. Corporations in thenon-high-tech industry 59
4.2.2 Local enterprises VS. Multinational enterprises 61
4.2.3 Chinese enterprises VS. Non-Chinese enterprises 63
4.2.4 Taiwan-located enterprises VS. Mainland China-located enterprises 65
4.3 The future trend of HPWP 71
4.3.1 Continuous modification HR practices to be the update HPWP 71
4.3.2 Aggressive application HR practices to develop high performance talents 72
Chapter 5 Conclusion 74
5.1 Summary and discussion 74
5.2 Research Limitation 79
5.3 Further research suggestion 80
Reference 81

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1Research procedure 6
Figure 2The Framework of the Study 25

Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage:Why High Performance Systems Pay Off, Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Arthur, J.B. (1992) ‘The Link between Business Strategy and Industrial Relations Systems in American Steel Minimills’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45(3),488-506

Arthur, J.B. (1994) ‘Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover’ ,Academy of Management Journal 37(3) , 670-687.

Bae, J. and Lawler, J.J. (2000) ‘Organizational and HRM Strategies in Korea: Impact of Firm Performance in an Emerging Economy’ , Academy of Management Journal 43(3) , 502-517.

Bailey, T., and Merritt, D. 1992. Discretionary Effort and the Organization of Work:
Employee Participation and Work Reform Since Hawthorne, Working paper, Teacher
College and Conservation of Human resources. Columbia University, New York.
112-113

Barnaby Feder, “At Monsanto, Teamwork Works,” NewYork Times, June 25, 1991, C1.

Barney, J.B. and Wright, P. (1998) ‘On becoming a strategic partner : the roles of human resources in gaining competitive advantage’ , Human Resource Management 37, 31-46.

Barney, J. B. 1995. Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of ManagementExecutive, 9(4): 49-61.

Becker,B. and Gerhart,B.(1996) ‘ The Impact of Human Resource Management on Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects’,Academy of Management Journal 39(4) , 779-801.

Becker, B.A. and Huselid, M.A. (1998). `High performance work systems and firm
performance: a synthesis of research and managerial applications’ . Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 16, 53-101.

Björkman, I. and Fan, X.(2002) ‘Human resource management and the performance of Western firms in China’ , The International Journal ofHumanResourceManagement, 13(6) , 853-864.

Buren, M. V., and J. M. Werner. 1996. High Performance Work Systems. Business and
Economic Review. 43(1): 15-23.

Clair Brown, Michael Reich, and David Stern, “Becoming aHigh Performance Work Organization: The Role of Security,Employee Involvement, and Training,” Working Paper 45, Instituteof Industrial Relations (Berkeley, CA: University of California,
1992), 3.

David I. Levine and Laura D’Andrea Tyson, “Participation,Productivity, and the Firm’s Environment,” in Alan S. Blinder(ed.), Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence (Washington,DC: The Brookings Institution, 1990), 183–243.

David Neumark, and Peter Cappelli (1999) ‘Do "High Performance" Work Practices Improve Establishment-Level Outcomes?’ ,NBER Working Paper , 7374.
Deanne N. Den Hartog , and Robert M. Verburg.(2004) ‘High performance work systems, organizational culture and Žfirm effectiveness’ , Human Resource Management Journal , 14(1) , 55-78.

Delaney,J.M., Huselid,M.A.. 1996. The impact of human resource management practices onperceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal.39(4):949-969

Delery,J.E. and Doty,D.H. 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource
management: tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance
predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 802-835.

Dyer, L. and Reeves, T. (1995). `Human resource strategies and ® rm performance: whatdo we know, where do we need to go?’ The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 3: 6, 656-70.

Edward P. Lazear, “Play Equality and Industrial Politics,”Journal of Political Economy 97, 1989, 561–580.

Evans, W. R. & Davis, W. D. (2005). High performance work systems and organizational performance: the mediating role of internal social structure. Journal of Management, 31(5), pp. 758-775.

Fey, C.F. ,Björkman,I. and Pavlovskaya, A.(2000) ‘The Effect of Human Resource Management on Firm Performance in Russia’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1) , 1-18.

Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, “Individual Differencesin Productivity: An Empirical Test of Estimates Derivedfrom Studies of Selection Procedure Utility,” Journal of AppliedPsychology 68, 1983, 407–414.

George Akerlof, “Gift Exchange and Efficiency Wage Theory,”American Economic Review 74, 1984, 79–83.

Guthrie, J.P. (2001) ‘High-Involvement WorkPractices , Turnover and Productivity :Evidence from New Zealand’ , Academy of Management Journal 44(1) ,180-190.

Huselid, M.A. (1995) ‘The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance’ ,Academy of Management Journal 38(3) ,635-672.

Huselid,M.A., Jackson,S.E. and Schuler,R.S.(1997) ‘Technical and Strategic Human Resources Management Effectiveness as Determinants of Firm Performance’ . Academy of Management Journal 40(1) ,171-188.

Ichniowski, C., and Shaw. K. 1999. The effects of human resource management systems oneconomic performance: An international comparison of U.S. and Japanese plants.Management Science, 45(5): 704-721.

John E. Delery and D. Harold Doty (1996).‘Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational Performance Predictions’ , The Academy of Management Journal 39(4) , pp.802-835

Lismen L.M. Chan , Margaret A.Shaffer and Ed Snape (2004) ‘ In Search of Sustained Competitive Advantage : the Impact of Organizational Culture, Competitive Strategy and Human Resource Management Practices on Firms Performance’ , The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 15(1), 17-35
Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage (New York, NY:Free Press, 1985), 1.

Paul Milgrom and John Roberts, “An Economic Approach toInfluence Activities in Organizations,” American Journal of Sociology94, 1988, S154–S179.


Peter Cappelli and David Neumark. 2001. Do “high-performance” work practices improveestablishment-level outcomes, Industria1 and Labor Relations Review, 54(4): 737-775.

Pierce, J. L., &Jussila.(2010). ‘ Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context : Construct introduction and elaboration. ’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, pp.810-834.

Pierc e, J. L. & Linn Van Dyne.(2004) Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior ,25, pp.439-459.

Pierce, J. L., & Rodgers, L. (2004). The psychology of ownership and worker-owner productivity.Group & Organization Management, 29, pp.560–587.

Pfeffer, J.(1995) ‘ Producing Sustainable Competitive Advantage through the Effective Management of People’, Academy of Management Executive, 9(1):55-72.

Pfeffer, J.(1998) ‘The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Boston,MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Preffer, J. and Veiga, J. F. 1996. When It Comes to Best Practices Why Not Smart
Organizations Occasionally Do Dumb Things? Organizational Dynamics, 25(1): 33-45.

Pringle, C.D. and Kroll, M.J. (1997).‘ Why Trafalgar Was Won before It Was Fought: Lessons from Resource-Based Theory’, Academy of Management Executive, 11(4):73-89.

Thomas F. O’Boyle, “Working Together: A ManufacturerGrows Efficient by Soliciting Ideas from Employees,” The WallStreet Journal, June 5, 1992, A4.

Youndt, M.A., Snell, S.A., Jr,Dean, J.W. and Lepak, D.P.(1996) ‘ Human Resource Management, Manufacturing Strategy, and Firm Performance’ , Academy of Management Journal 39(4) , pp.836-866.