Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/94753
|
| Title: | 組織成員知識分享行為之研究-個體行為策略的演化與組織激勵的動態模式
A Study of Knowledge Sharing between Members in an Organization: A Dynamic Model of Individual Behavioral Strategy Evolution and Organizational Incentive Policy |
| Authors: | 吳俊德
Wu, Chun Te |
| Contributors: | 楊亨利
Yang, Heng Li
吳俊德
Wu, Chun Te |
| Keywords: | 知識分享
群體能力
激勵政策
社會網絡
囚犯困境
知識分享之組織行為模型
Knowledge Sharing
Collective Capability
Social Network
Incentive Policy
Prisoner’s dilemma
Organization Behavior Model of Knowledge Sahring |
| Date: | 2008 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-09 11:46:39 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 許多企業的經理人一直在尋求有效的政策以促進員工彼此分享知識。在組織中實施激勵知識分享的政策，因為存在著許多的個人與組織的因素，兩者相互作用會影響組織的成員知識分享的行為，政策的效果很難掌握。在實務上，不同的組織激勵的政策或手段的效果，欲通過田野調查或實驗設計來評估政策所帶來效果及對組織成員行為的影響不容易實現。因此，本研究嘗試運用一項新穎的研究策略-代理人基塑模(agent-based modeling)，經由建構一個人造的世界來模擬組織成員知識分享的行為。在這個人造的社會中，研究者考慮了知識分享的報酬、組織成員的行為策略、行為策略的學習與適應機制、不同組織的群體能力水準、互動的網路、知識的選擇模式與不同的組織激勵政策設計等變數，藉以設計相關的實驗。模擬的結果產生了的幾項有趣的發現： (1) 當分享知識的報酬愈高時，代理人知識分享行為會愈多，無論是在那一種的互動網路、群體能力或分享知識的選擇模式的情況之下。(2) 代理人的互動網路是一項重要影響因素，互動網路扮演著知識流通與行為策略學習的管道，它同時會影響個體知識分享的報酬與行為策略的學習。它可能促成不分享的策略的擴散，可能會提升組織激勵的效果，也可能會增強激勵所帶來的副作用。(3) 個體的知識分享與吸收的能力如果存有差異，則能力較好的代理人將會局部地吸引能力較差的互動對象採用他的策略，即使他所用的不是可以獲致最佳報酬策略。(4) 為促進組織成員分享知識，定期審視固定獎勵的作法可以導致比較好的效果，不但可以提升分享知識的行為，也使代理人比較願意採用傾向分享知識的策略，促成組織信任的氣氛。但是，在某些情況下，可能造成反效果。(5) 最後，根據實驗的結果與研究的發現，研究者建構了一個知識分享之組織行為模型，以做為後續實證研究之參考架構。
Mangers always look for effective policies to prompt knowledge sharing between members in an organization. It is difficult to evaluate the effect of incentive policies for stimulating knowledge sharing because there are many individual and organizational factors. In practice, it is not easy to assess the effects of different incentive policies or methods by the methods of experiment or field investigation. Therefore, a novel research strategy is applied in this study, which is called agent-based modeling. An artificial world was constructed to simulate the knowledge sharing interactions between members in an organization. This study considers some parameters including the payoff of knowledge sharing, the strategies of members, the learning and adaption mechanism of strategies, collective capabilities, interactive network, the selection methods of sharing knowledge and incentive policies to design experiments in the agent-based model. The results of simulations produced some interesting findings: (1) the higher the payoff of sharing knowledge, the more the actions of sharing knowledge is in spite of any kind of interactive networks, collective capabilities, and the selection methods of sharing knowledge. (2) Interactive Network of agents is an important factor, which plays a role of channel of knowledge transition and strategy learning. It simultaneously affects the payoff of knowledge sharing and learning of strategy. It maybe results in the diffusion of strategy of not sharing knowledge, or enhances the effect and side effect brought by incentive policies. (3) Because of difference between agents’ capabilities, agents with better capabilities will locally attract the ones with worse capabilities to learn their strategies, which even are not the best. (4) To enable sharing knowledge between members in an organization, periodic reward will get better results. It does not only increase the action of sharing knowledge, but also make agents to adop the strategies trending toward sharing knowledge. Periodic reward is helpful to form a trustful organization climate. However, in some circumstances, it may get minus effects. (5) Finally, according to experimental results and research findings, an organization behavior model of knowledge sharing has been constructed for the empirical studies in the future. |
| Reference: | [1] Adler, P. S. and Kwon, S. W., “Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No.1, 2002, pp. 17-40.
[2] Adams, J. S., “Towards an Understanding of Inequity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, No. 5, 1963, pp. 422-436.
[3] Alderfer, C. P., Existence, Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational Settings. New York: Free Press, 1972.
[4] Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A., Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
[5] Axelrod, R. and Tesfatsion, L., “A Guide for Newcomers to Agent-Based Modeling in the Social Sciences,” 2005.
[6] Axelrod, R. M., The Evolution of Cooperation New York: Basic Books, 1984.
[7] Becerra-Fernandez, I., Gonzalez, A., and Sabherwal, R., “The Nature of Knowledge,” in Knowledge Management- Challenges, Solution, and Technologies: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004, pp. 12-29.
[8] Blau, P. M., Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964.
[9] Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., and Lee, J. N., “Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No.1 , 2005, pp. 87-111.
[10] Brown, R. L. and Holmes, H., “The Use of Factor-Analysis Procedure for Assessing the Validity of and Employee Safety Climate Model,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 18, 1986, pp. 147-153.
[11] Cederman, L. E., “Computational Models of Social Systems,” ETH - Center for Comparative and International Studies http://www.icr.ethz.ch/teaching/compmodels 2004.
[12] Charnell, H. and Ellen, K., “Easing into Knowledge Management,” Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 27, No.2, 1999, pp. 4-9.
[13] Chris, N., “Getting to Know Knowledge Management,” Network World, Vol. 14, No.39, 1997, p. 101.
[14] Chua, A. and Polytechnic, N. A., “Relationship between the Types of Knowledge Shared and Types of Communication Channels Used,” Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 2, 2001. available from http://www.tlainc.com/articl26.htm
[15] Coase, R., “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica, Vol. 4, No.16, 1937, pp. 386-405.
[16] Dan, S., “Knowledge Management Competitive Advantages Becomes a Key Issue,” Chemical Market Reporter, Vol. 254, No.17, 1998, pp. 3-4.
[17] Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L., Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, 1998.
[18] Dawes, R. M., “Social Dilemmas,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 31, 1980, pp. 169–193.
[19] Eguiluz, V. M., Zimmermann, M. G., Cela-Conde, C. J., and San Miguel, M., “Cooperation and the Emergence of Role Differentiation in the Dynamics of Social Networks,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110, No.4, 2005, pp. 977-1008.
[20] Ekeh, P. P., Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.
[21] Emerson, R. M., “Power-Dependence Relations,” American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, No.1, 1962, pp. 31-41.
[22] Garvin, D. A., “Building a Learning Organization,” Business Credit, Vol. 96, No.1, 1994, pp. 19-28.
[23] Georg Von, K., “Care in Knowledge Creation,” California Management Review, Vol. 40, No.3, 1998, pp. 133-153.
[24] George, J. M. and Jones, G. R., Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1999.
[25] Gilbert, N. and Troitzsch, K. G., Simulation for the Social Scientist. New York: Open University Press, 2005.
[26] Hardin, G., “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, Vol. 162, 1968, pp.1243-1248.
[27] Hedlund, G., “A Model of Knowledge Management and the N-Form Corporation,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, 1994, pp. 73-90.
[28] Hendriks, P., “Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of ICT on the Motivation for Knowledge Sharing,” Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6, No.2, 1999, pp. 91-100.
[29] Herzberg, F., The Motivation to Work, 2 ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959.
[30] Hiebeler, R. J., “Benchmarking: Knowledge Management,” Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 24, No.2, 1996, pp. 22-27.
[31] Holland, J. H., Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Michigan: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1975.
[32] Holland, J. H. and Miller, J. H., “Artificial Adaptive Agents in Economic-Theory,” American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No.2, 1991, pp. 365-370.
[33] Holtshouse, D., “Knowledge Research Issues,” California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1998, pp. 277-280.
[34] Kidd, J. B., “Knowledge Creation in Japanese Manufacturing Companies in Italy,” Management Learning, Vol. 29, No.2, 1998, pp. 131.
[35] Kilduff, M. and Tsai, W., Social Networks and Organizations. London: SAGE, 2003.
[36] Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R., “Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75, No.4, 1997, pp. 65-75.
[37] Kogut, B. and Zander, U., “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology,” Organization Science, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1992, pp. 383-397.
[38] Kym, F. and Joseph, N., “Managing the Empowerment of Employees to Address Issues of Inter-Employee Co-Operation, Communication and Work Redesign,” The Learning Organization, Vol. 5, No.3, 1998, pp. 109-120.
[39] Lange, V., M., P. A., Liebrand, W. B. G., David M. Messick, and Wilke, H. A. M., “Social Dilemmas: The State of the Art,” in Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings, Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., and Wilke, H. A. M., Eds., 1992, pp. 3-41.
[40] Litwin, G. H. and Stringer, R. A., Motivation and Organizational Climate. Boston Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1968.
[41] Maslow, A. H., Motivation and Personality. New York Harper, 1954.
[42] Mccain, R. A., Game Theory: A Non-Technical Introduction to the Analysis of Strategy: South-Western College Pub, 2003.
[43] Mcclelland, D. C., The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.
[44] Mcclelland, D. C., The Achieving Society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1961.
[45] Mcclelland, D. C., Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Halstead, 1975.
[46] Moran, E. and Volkwein, J., “The Culture Approach to the Formation of Organizational Climate,” Human relations, Vol. 45, No.1, 1992, pp. 19-47.
[47] Morrow, J. D., Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.
[48] Michael, J. N., Nicholson, T. C., and Jerry, R. V., “Experiences Creating Three Implementations of the Repast Agent Modeling Toolkit,” ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-25, 2006.
[49] Nancy, M. D., Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.
[50] Nelson, K. M. and Cooprider, J. G., “The Contribution of Shared Knowledge to Is Group Performance,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, No.4, 1996, pp. 409-429.
[51] Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company : How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[52] Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965.
[53] Peter, C., “I Heard It through the Grapevine: Making Knowledge Management Work by Learning to Share Knowledge, Skills and Experience,” Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 31, No.3, 1999, pp. 101-105.
[54] Polanyi, M., The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.
[55] Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., and Finkelstein, S., “Managing Professional Intellect: Making the Most of the Best,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, No.2, 1996, pp. 71-80.
[56] Rapoport, A. and Chammah., A. M., Prisoner`s Dilemma: A Study in Conflict and Cooperation. Ann Arbor Mich: University of Michigan Press, 1965.
[57] Rapoport, A., Two-Person Game Theory: The Essential Ideas. Ann Arbor: The Univ. of Michigan Press, 1966.
[58] Rindfleisch, A. and Heide, J. B., “Transaction Cost Analysis: Past, Present, and Future Applications,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, No.4, 1997, pp. 30-54.
[59] Robert, S. K. and David, P. N., “Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assets,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No.2, 2004, p 52-63.
[60] Robyn, M. D. and David, M. M., “Social Dilemmas,” International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 35, No.2, 2000, pp. 111-116.
[61] Rousseau, D. M., “The Construction of Climate in Organizational Research,” in International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cooper, C. and Robertson, I. L., Eds. Chichester: Wiely, 1988.
[62] Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., and Osborn, R. N., Organizational Behavior, 8 ed. New York John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
[63] Schneider, B., “Organizational Climate: An Essay, Personnel Psychology,” Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28, 1975, pp. 447-479.
[64] Schneider, B., “Interactional Psychology and Organizational Behavior,” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, 1983, pp. 1-31.
[65] Schneider, B., “The Climate for Service: An Application of the Climate Construct ” in Organizational Climate and Culture, Schneider, B., Ed., 1st ed ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990, pp. 383-412.
[66] Senge, P., “Sharing Knowledge,” Executive Excellence, Vol. 14, No.11, 1997, pp. 17.
[67] Senge, P., “Sharing Knowledge,” Executive Excellence, Vol. 15, No.6, 1998, pp. 11.
[68] Senge, P., “Sharing Knowledge,” Executive Excellence, Vol. 16, No.9, 1999, pp. 6.
[69] Simon, T., “The Rules of the Game,” The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 19, No.1, pp. 16, 1998.
[70] Skinner, B. F., The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, incorporated, 1938.
[71] Teece, D. J., “Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets,” California Management Review, Vol. 40, No.3, 1998, pp. 55-79.
[72] Tucker, A. W., A Two-Person Dilemma. Mimeo: Stanford University, 1950
[73] Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O., Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943.
[74] Vroom, V. H., Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
[75] Wiig, K. M., Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking about Thinking : How People and Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge. Arlington, Tex.: Schema Press, 1993.
[76] Williamson, O. E., Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press, 1975.
[77] Zohar, D., “A Group-Level Model of Safety Climate: Testing the Effect of Group Climate on Microaccidents in Manufacturing Jobs,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No.4, 2000, pp. 587-596.
[78] Zohar, D. and Luria, G.., “A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-Level Relationships between Organization and Group-Level Climates,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No.4, 2005, pp. 616-628.
[79] 方世杰 、方世榮， 「知識管理：觀念架構的建立」， 商管科技學刊， 第 1卷第3期， 2000年，頁 355-374。
[80] 王文彥， 知識分享內外在動機與知識分享行為之研究：以a 公司為例， 中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文， 2002年。
[81] 王宜敏， 影響資訊人員知識分享行為之因素-以社會交換理論為基礎來探討， 國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文，2000年。
[82] 王維劭， 組織知識分享氣候的發展及其對員工知識分享行為影響之研究， 義守大學管理研究所碩士論文， 2004年。
[83] 任金剛， 組織文化、組織氣候及員工效能：一項微觀的探討， 台灣大學商學研究所博士論文， 1996年。
[84] 朱文禎， 軟體元件電子市集突現--以代理人為基礎之計算經濟研究途徑， 政治大學資訊管理研究所博士論文， 2003年。
[85] 吳偉立， 促動因子與知識分享要素關係之研究－以人格特質及工作特性， 靜宜大學企業管理研究所碩士論文， 2002年。
[86] 林育理， 組織知識活動氣候對員工知識活動行為影響之研究：一個跨層次模式的驗證， 元智大學管理研究所博士論文， 2005年。
[87] 林東清， 知識管理， 台北： 智勝文化事業有限公司， 2004年。
[88] 夏侯欣鵬， 信任與權力對組織內知識分享意願影響之研究--以銀行放款， 政治大學 企業管理研究所博士論文，2000年。
[89] 張華葆， 社會心理學理論， 台北： 三民書局， 1992年。
[90] 許士軍， 「有關黎史(Litwin and Stringer)二氏『組織氣候』尺度在我國企業機構之適用性探討」， 國立政治大學學報， 第 26期，1972年，頁. 103-138。
[91] 陳世明， 知識分享與創新績效之研究-以交易成本理論觀點探討， 長榮管理學院 經營管理研究所 碩士論文， 2000年。
[92] 陳榮德， 組織內部社會網絡的形成與影響：社會資本觀點， 中山大學 人力資源管理研究所 博士論文， 2004年。
[93] 黃銘廷， 公務人員知識分享意願、組織信任與組織文化之關係研究， 台灣科技大學 技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文， 台北市， 2002年。
[94] 楊棍智， 知識分享之研究－以社會交換之觀點， 義守大學管理研究所碩士論文， 2002年。
[95] 蔡文輝， 社會學理論， 台北：三民書局， 1990年.
[96] 蔡培村， 國民中小學校長領導特質、權力基礎、學校組織結構及組織氣候與教師工作滿足關係之比較研究， 政治大學教育研究所博士論文，1985年。
[97] 蘇柏州， 企業員工知識分享意願因素之研究， 長榮管理學院 經營管理研究所碩士論文， 2001年。 |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
92356503 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0923565032 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [資訊管理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 169 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
