隨著勞動力結構高齡化、工作型態轉變與數位工具普及等轉型情境，員工互動與體驗逐漸成為企業治理與勞動關係中的重要議題，在此背景下，多元共融（Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, DEI；或稱D&I）近年來被廣泛納入企業治理與人力資源政策之中，成為組織回應外部ESG壓力與內部營運需求的核心策略。有別於研究多元共融作為治理工具對組織之影響，本研究以轉譯與意義建構為理論視角，選定臺灣大型金融機構為單一個案，探討多元共融如何被不同行動者理解、編輯並轉化為日常實踐，研究關注的重點不在於評估共融政策是否成功，而在於分析理念在組織內部實作的動態過程。本研究採取質性個案研究法，透過次級資料與半結構式訪談，蒐集個案公司的行動，以及其策略推動者（多元共融專案人員等）及跨世代員工的真實經驗，並以主題分析法歸納資料。研究主要發現如下：
1. 理念轉譯為動態歷程：多元共融的落地是內外部張力下形成的動態轉譯歷程，制度設計與文化塑造為漸進式而非一蹴即就。
2. 組織展現能動性但存在意義弱化風險：組織透過調整理念定義與溝通方式以降低文化摩擦，然過程中多元共融的核心意涵可能遭到稀釋。
3. 跨世代屏障本質為權力不對等：跨世代互動的張力多源自垂直的科層權力不對等，而非單純的年齡代溝，組織若要邁向實質共融，除制度倡議外更需直視科層權力結構。
4. 主管為政策落地的關鍵樞紐：基層主管的管理行動決定了員工對共融職場的實質感知，其個人裁量權對理念能否落實具有關鍵影響。
5. 組織多元共融行動與員工體感存在落差：理念若缺乏與日常業務的實務對接，易使員工產生認知距離，形成制度宣示與真實體感之間的脫鉤現象。
本研究從勞動場域與跨世代情境出發，補充既有多元共融研究較少關注的制度轉譯視角，深化對制度理念如何在組織內部、勞動場域中被重新定義與實踐的理解。在實務與政策層面上，本研究提出可操作的三階段轉譯診斷架構，提供組織於推動多元共融政策時，調整制度設計與優化實踐路徑之參考。

As workforce aging, changing work arrangements, and the increasing use of digital technologies continue to reshape the workplace, employee interactions and experiences have become important concerns in corporate governance and labor relations. In response to these changes, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has increasingly been incorporated into corporate governance and human resource management practices as a key strategy for addressing both external ESG expectations and internal organizational needs.
Unlike previous studies that primarily examine the organizational outcomes of DEI initiatives, this study adopts the perspectives of translation and sensemaking to explore how DEI is interpreted, adapted, and enacted by different organizational actors. Focus-ing on a large financial institution in Taiwan as a single case, the study is concerned not with whether DEI policies are successful, but with how DEI ideas are translated into everyday organizational practices.
This research employs a qualitative case study approach. Data were collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews with DEI practitioners, policy promoters, and employees from different generations within the organization. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
The findings reveal that:
1. DEI implementation is a dynamic process of translation. Its development is shaped by ongoing interactions between internal and external pressures, and both institutional arrangements and cultural change emerge gradually over time.
2. Organizations exercise considerable agency in adapting DEI concepts and communication practices to fit local contexts. However, such adaptations may also weaken or dilute the original meaning of DEI.
3. Tensions in intergenerational interactions are rooted more in hierarchical power inequalities than in age differences alone. Therefore, achieving meaningful inclusion requires attention not only to diversity initiatives but also to underlying organizational power structures.
4. Managers play a pivotal role in policy implementation. Employees’ perceptions of workplace inclusion are largely shaped by the everyday decisions and behaviors of frontline managers, whose discretion significantly influences how DEI is enacted in practice.
5. A gap between organizational DEI initiatives and employees’ experiences. When DEI efforts are not meaningfully connected to daily work practices, employees may perceive them as distant from their actual workplace experiences.
Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature by extending understanding of how institutional ideas are translated and enacted within workplace settings. Practically, it proposes a three-stage translation diagnostic framework that may serve as a useful reference for organizations seeking to refine DEI policies and strengthen their implementation.

中華民國（民國112年8月16日修正）。性別平等工作法。全國法規資料庫。
中華民國（民國112年8月16日修正）。性騷擾防治法。全國法規資料庫。
中華民國（民國113年7月31日修正）。中高齡者及高齡者就業促進法。全國法規資料庫。
中華民國（民國114年1月20日修正）。就業服務法。全國法規資料庫。
中華民國（民國114年12月19日修正，本法規部分或全部條文尚未生效）。職業安全衛生法。全國法規資料庫。
潘淑滿（2022）。質性研究：理論與應用。心理出版社。
張嘉伶（2023）。如何再度擦亮「金碗」留住Z世代人才的心。台灣銀行家。https://taiwanbanker.tabf.org.tw/paperDetail?id=4119
https://taiwanbanker.tabf.org.tw/paperDetail?id=4119
涂敏芬（2012）。對抗制度的創新：策略行動者的能動性實踐。臺大管理論叢，22(2)，87–118。https://doi.org/10.6226/2012.(22-2).04
李河泉（2025）。「向年輕人學習」只是客氣話？企業如何落實「反向導師制」？。哈佛商業評論全球繁體中文版。https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article/23803/learn-from-young-people
林嘉慧、鄭明哲、吳忠育（2021）。跨世代勞動市場之青銀協作現況探討。經濟前瞻，(197)，51–56。
郭振昌（2017）。跨世代間工作分享的可能模式與展望。新社會政策，(50)，26–31。
胡幼慧（1996）。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。巨流，47-74。
黃煥榮（2021）。世代交替，抑或世代合作？公務體系世代多樣性的管理策略。國家菁英季刊，14(3)，83–104。
蕭阿勤（2005）。世代認同與歷史敘事：台灣一九七Ｏ年代「回歸現實」世代的形成。台灣社會學，9，1-58。
蕭婉鎔、高子晴（2024）。師徒翻轉？探討反向師徒對師父知識分享、創新行為意圖之影響。臺北商業論叢，1(2)，49–73。
陳文彥（2009）。政策移植研究之評析及其在教育領域的展望。教育研究與發展期刊，5(3)，73–94。
吳啟誠、張瓊云（2020）。主題分析在教育研究上的應用。特殊教育發展期刊，(69)，29-42。https://doi.org/10.7034/DSE.202006_(69).0003
王文科、王智弘（2010）。質的研究的信度和效度。彰化師大教育學報，(17)，29–50。https://doi.org/10.6769/JENCUE.201006.0029
溫為翔（2025，12月29日）。為什麼全球頂尖企業開始聘請「長壽長」（CLO）？直面五代同堂的職場現實，推倒「年齡歧視」的關鍵一步。Cheers快樂工作人。https://www.cheers.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5105216&page=1
Kelly, J., Volini, E., Schwartz, J., & Mazor, A. (2023). 內部人才市場設計指南〔How to design an internal talent marketplace〕（王怡棻譯）。哈佛商業評論繁體中文版。（原文出版於2023年） https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article/21985/how-to-design-an-internal-talent-marketplace
Abalo, J., Varela, J., & Manzano, V. (2007). Importance values for Importance–Performance Analysis: A formula for spreading out values derived from preference rankings. Journal of Business Research, 60(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.009
Adamson, M., Kelan, E., Lewis, P., Śliwa, M., & Rumens, N. (2021). Introduction: Critically interrogating inclusion in organisations. Organization, 28(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420973307
Alwin, D. F., & McCammon, R. J. (2003). Generations, cohorts, and social change. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course, 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48247-2_2
Boehm, S. A., Kunze, F., & Bruch, H. (2014). Spotlight on age‐diversity climate: The impact of age‐inclusive HR practices on firm‐level outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 667–704.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychologi-cal, and biological. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, 2, 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for begin-ners. Sage.
Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management perspectives, 5(3), 45-56.
Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. Translating organizational change, 56, 13-47. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879735.13
DBS Bank. (2024). DBS launches Gen AI-powered coaching tool to future-proof its workforce. https://www.dbs.com/newsroom/DBS_launches_Gen_AI_powered_coaching_tool_to_future_proof_its_workforce
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge. (Original work published 1973)
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional patterns and organizations, 3-21.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2), 147-160.
Dixon-Fyle, S., Dolan, K., Hunt, V., & Prince, S. (2020, May 19). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-how-inclusion-matters
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard business review, 94(7), 14.
Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2002). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance, 13(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00121
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.
Foster, K. (2013). Generation and discourse in working life stories. British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12014
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2(163–194), 105.
ISO. (2021). ISO 30415:2021 Human resource management.
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., & Franz, G. (2011). Generations in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 177–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.002
Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management: Employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961 to 1996. American behavioral scien-tist, 41(7), 960-984.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective manage-ment. The health care manager, 19(1), 65-76.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00126450-200019010-00011
Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.
Lyons, S. T., & Kuron, L. K. J. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157.
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1928)
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of market-ing, 41(1), 77-79.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Mor Barak, M. E. (2015). Inclusion is the key to diversity management, but what is inclusion? Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(2), 83–88.
Mor Barak, M. E. (2022). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Sage Publications.
MSCI. (n.d.). ESG ratings. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://www.msci.com/data-and-analytics/sustainability-solutions/esg-ratings
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management journal, 56(6), 1754-1774.
Nkomo, S. M., Bell, M. P., Roberts, L. M., Joshi, A., & Thatcher, S. M. (2019). Diversity at a critical juncture: New theories for a complex phenomenon. Academy of Management Re-view, 44(3), 498–517. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0103
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.
Pew Research Center. (2015, September 3). The whys and hows of generations research. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/09/03/the-whys-and-hows-of-generations-research/
Pew Research Center. (2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A re-source-based view. Academy of management journal, 43(2), 164-177.
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & organization management, 31(2), 212-236.
Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Socio-logical Review, 30(6), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.2307/2090964
Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 218-242.
Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage publications.
Slack, N. (1994). The importance–performance matrix as a determinant of improvement priority. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(5), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579410056803
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201–210.
Weick, K. E., & Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3, No. 10.1002). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations. Re-search in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
World Economic Forum. (2025). Diversity, equity and inclusion lighthouses 2025. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Diversity_Equity_and_Inclusion_Lighthouses_2025.pdf