Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118392
|
| Title: | 員工參與企業慈善活動之影響因素：以資生堂集團為例
Employees’ Participation in Corporate Philanthropy: The Case of Shiseido in Taiwan |
| Authors: | 黃修陽
Huang, Xiu Yang |
| Contributors: | 蘇威傑
Su, Weichieh
黃修陽
Huang, Xiu Yang |
| Keywords: | 個人關懷傾向
企業認同度
參與者關懷印象
志工活動參與動機
不參與志工活動之原因
Employees prosocial identity
Corporate prosocial identity
Participants prosocial identity,
Motivations of employees to participate in volunteer activities
Reasons for not participating in volunteer activities |
| Date: | 2018 |
| Issue Date: | 2018-07-05 16:49:18 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 臺灣資生堂集團在近幾年的志工活動的發展中，逐漸顯現出志工數量不足的問題。因此本研究旨在探討員工在參與企業主辦之慈善志工活動時的影響因素，和員工參與志工活動的動機，以及不參與志工活動的原因，以利未來更有效率的招募志工。在參與志工活動之影響因素的部分，主要探討以下三個面向：第一個是個人關懷特質，是指員工是否具有關懷他人之特質的自我評價；第二點是企業認同度，指的是員工對於企業文化中關懷特質的認知；最後一點則是參與者關懷印象，指的是員工對於身邊參與志工活動的員工之評價。
本研究以量化研究的方式，針對資深堂全體員工以問卷的形式進行統計。在加入員工職等與地區作爲控制變數后，經過羅吉氏回歸得出結論，個人關懷特質與參與者關懷印象與參與志工活動呈現顯著的正相關，企業認同度則與參與志工活動並無顯著相關性。另外員工參與志工活動的動機中，追尋「意義」、「成就感」和「樂趣」是員工參與動機中得分較高的項目，而員工不參與志工活動的原因中則是「沒有時間」、「資料不足」和「沒有興趣」這三項得分最高。在未來的志工招募中，可以根據志工參與慈善活動的影響因素，制定更爲有效率的招募方式，以解決志工人力不足的問題。
During the development of volunteer activities in Shiseido Company, the problem of the recruitment of volunteers come out gradually in recent years. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the influencing factors of employees’ participation in corporate philanthropy. We mainly discuss the following three aspects: Employees Prosocial Identity, Corporate Prosocial Identity and Participants Prosocial Identity. And in this study, we also discuss about the motivation of employees to participate in volunteer activities, as well as the reasons for not participating in volunteer activities. We used questionnaires to collect data from all employees of Shiseido in Taiwan.
After logistic regression with joining Grades and Regions as control variables, conclusions were drawn. Employees Prosocial Identity and Participants Prosocial Identity showed a significant positive correlation with taking part in volunteer activities. But Corporate Prosocial Identity had no significant correlation with taking part in volunteer activities. In addition, Employees pursuing Meaning, Fulfilling and Fun have higher scores among employee participation motives. The three top reasons why employees do not participate in volunteer activities are The lack of time, The lack of information and Not interested. We hope that in the future recruitment of volunteers, more effective recruitment methods could be formulated according to these influencing factors and solve the problem of the lack of volunteers. |
| Reference: | 中文部分
1. 愛心志工：讓愛飛揚，我們是溫暖的綠色天使（無日期）中國信托慈善基金會官網，2018年4月19日，取自：https://www.ctbcfoundation.org/volunteer/index.aspx
2. 臺灣大哥大通訊救助（無日期）臺灣大哥大基金會官網，2018年4月30日取自https://www.twmf.org.tw/content01.aspx?mid=5135f9aa-4e57-4f49-b11a-58810847f891
3. 顏和正、游羽棠（2017年7月20日）。瑞助：CSR不只提升形象，還能幫助獲利。天下雜誌CSR。2018年1月20日，取自https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/39961
4. 蘇威傑（2017年5月24日）。企業捐錢做慈善 就算善盡社會責任？天下雜誌CSR。2018年5月6日，取自https://csr.cw.com.tw/article/39910
5. 蘇威傑（無日期）。企業慈善能為企業創造價值嗎？用公司治理的觀點為您解答。政大商業評論Summer2016。2018年4月20日，取自http://nccubr.nccu.edu.tw/article.php?aid=119&mid=33
6. 蘇威傑（無日期）。多多益善錯了嗎? 了解企業慈善如何幫助企業創造價值。政大商業評論Winter2014。2018年4月20日,取自http://nccubr.nccu.edu.tw/article.php?aid=68&mid=27
英文文獻
1. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, 710-725.
2. Brady, H., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. 1995. Beyond Ses: a resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review. Vol.89, 269-295.
3. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J. & Miene, P. 1998. Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, 1516-1530.
4. Grant, A. M. 2012. Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37, No. 4, 589-615.
5. Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, 393-417.
6. Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3, 317-375.
7. Grant, A. M., & Patil, S. V. 2012. Challenging the norm of self-interest: Minority influence and transitions to helping norms in work units. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37, 547-568.
8. Herzog, A. R., & Morgan, J. N. 1993. Formal volunteer work among older Americans. Achieving a productive aging society, 199-142. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
9. Leikas, S., Lonnqvist, J. E., & Verkasalo, M. 2012. Persons, situations, and behaviors: Consistency and variability of different behaviors in four interpersonal situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 103, 1007-1022.
10. Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. 2008. The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 95, 76-93.
11. Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire: Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, 1321-1339.
12. Musick, M., Wilson, J., & Bynum, W. 2000. Race and formal volunteering: the differential effects of class and religion. Social Forces, Vol. 78, No. 4, 1539-1570.
13. Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. 2001. Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, 413-440.
14. Patchen, M. 1970. Participation, achievement and involvement on job, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15. Rodell, J. B. 2013. Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56, No. 5, 1274-1294.
16. Rodell, J. B., & Lynch, J. W. 2016. Perceptions of employee volunteering: Is it “credited” or “stigmatized” by colleagues? Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59, No. 2, 611-635.
17. Ryan R. M., & Deci E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, Vol. 55, 68-78.
18. Smith D. 1982. Altruism, volunteers, and volunteerism. In Volunteerism in the Eighties, 23-44. Washington, DC: Univ. Press Am.
19. Sundeen, R. A., Raskoff, S. A., & Garcia, M. C. 2007. Differences in perceived barriers to volunteering to formal organizations: Lack of time versus lack of interest. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 17, No. 3, 279-300.
20. Vallerand R. J. 1997. Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 29, 271–359.
21. Wilson, J. 2000. Volunteering. Annual Reviews of Sociology. Vol. 26, 215-240. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易學系
105351059 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105351059 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/THE.NCCU.IB.009.2018.F06 |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際經營與貿易學系 ] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 105901.pdf | | 984Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 178 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
