跳到主要內容

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 張庭瑋
Chang, Ting-Wei
論文名稱: 從社會交換理論探討師徒制對知識分享之影響
Exploring the Impact of Mentorship Systems on Knowledge Sharing from the Perspective of Social Exchange Theory
指導教授: 黃東益
Huang, Tong-Yi
口試委員: 傅凱若
Fu, Kai-Jo
黃妍甄
Huang, Yen-Chen
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 社會科學學院 - 行政管理碩士學程
Master for Eminent Public Administrators
論文出版年: 2025
畢業學年度: 114
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 83
中文關鍵詞: 師徒制度知識分享社會交換理論
外文關鍵詞: Mentorship, Knowledge Sharing, Social Exchange Theory
相關次數: 點閱:23下載:7
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  •   本研究探討國軍單位中師徒制度對知識分享之影響,並以社會交換理論作為核心分析框架。在軍事組織高度階層化與任務導向的特殊脈絡下,如何透過師徒間的互動促進專業經驗與內隱知識的傳遞,已成為維繫部隊戰力與組織效能的核心課題。研究動機源於國軍人力精進與知識管理的關鍵轉型期,需深入理解階層權力結構如何形塑師徒間的社會交換歷程。
      研究採用質性研究方法,以國軍某單位為研究對象,透過立意抽樣選取五位具指導經驗的資深主官(管)作為「師父」,以及五位資淺的參謀或基層執行者作為「徒弟」,共計十位受訪者進行半結構式深度訪談。透過逐字稿整理與文本分析,由雙向視角建構師徒制度在軍事場域的運作模式。
      研究發現顯示,國軍現行主要依賴以學長學弟制為核心的非正式師徒關係,雖無制度化配對,但透過情境教導能有效協助新進人員縮短適應期。在社會交換歷程中,信任是開啟深度分享的前提,通常需透過任務合作與同甘共苦逐步累積。互惠機制則表現於師父將內隱知識視為投資式交換,期望換取徒弟的任務分擔與忠誠回饋。然而,軍中的階級威權可能導致知識流動呈現單向灌輸,且師父在面對涉及核心競爭力的關鍵資源時,往往會出現選擇性保留的行為。
      綜合而言,有效的師徒互動能達成師父自我反思與徒弟專業成長的雙向效益,並強化組織的凝聚力。基於研究結果,本研究提出相關實務建議,包括應優化非正式師徒制的支援配套、建立數位化知識管理平台以強化組織記憶,並形塑信任導向的開放溝通文化,同時引入指導績效獎勵等社會交換激勵機制,以補償師父的教學成本並降低知識保留動機,確保國軍核心戰力得以永續傳承。


      This study explores the impact of mentorship on knowledge sharing within military units, utilizing Social Exchange Theory as the core analytical framework. Within the unique context of highly hierarchical and mission-oriented military organizations, facilitating the transfer of professional experience and tacit knowledge through mentor-mentee interactions has become a pivotal issue for maintaining combat readiness and organizational effectiveness. The research is motivated by the critical transition period of manpower refinement and knowledge management within the Republic of China (ROC) Armed Forces, necessitating a profound understanding of how hierarchical power structures shape the social exchange process between mentors and mentees.
      A qualitative research method was adopted, focusing on a specific unit of the ROC Armed Forces. Through purposive sampling, ten respondents were selected for semi-structured in-depth interviews, including five senior officers with mentoring experience (mentors) and five junior staff members or grassroots executors (mentees). By analyzing verbatim transcripts and textual data, this study constructs an operational model of mentorship in the military field from a dyadic perspective.
      The findings indicate that the ROC Armed Forces currently rely primarily on informal mentoring relationships centered around the "senior-junior" (seniority) system. Although institutionalized pairing is absent, situational coaching effectively helps newcomers shorten their adjustment period. In the social exchange process, trust is the prerequisite for deep sharing, typically accumulated through mission collaboration and shared hardships. The reciprocity mechanism is manifested when mentors view tacit knowledge as an investment-based exchange, expecting task distribution and loyalty in return. However, military authoritarianism may cause knowledge flow to become a unidirectional indoctrination, and mentors often exhibit selective knowledge hiding when dealing with key resources involving core competencies.
      In conclusion, effective mentoring interactions achieve bilateral benefits—self-reflection for mentors and professional growth for mentees—while strengthening organizational cohesion. Based on these results, this study proposes practical recommendations: optimizing support systems for informal mentoring, establishing digital knowledge management platforms to enhance organizational memory, and fostering a trust-oriented culture of open communication. Furthermore, introducing social exchange incentives, such as mentoring performance rewards, is suggested to offset teaching costs and reduce the motivation for knowledge retention, ensuring the sustainable inheritance of core military capabilities.

    第一章 緒論1
    第一節 研究背景與動機2
    第二節 研究目的與問題3
    第三節 研究流程4
    第二章 文獻探討7
    第一節 師徒關係7
    第二節 知識分享16
    第三節 社會交換理論21
    第四節 小結26
    第三章 研究設計29
    第一節 研究架構29
    第二節 研究方法30
    第三節 研究對象35
    第四節 資料蒐集過程37
    第四章 結果與分析39
    第一節 師徒關係的運作與挑戰39
    第二節 師徒互動中的社會交換歷程46
    第三節 知識分享效果與評估54
    第四節 師徒制的效益59
    第五章 結論與建議67
    第一節 研究發現67
    第二節 本研究對學術之貢獻69
    第三節 本研究對實務之貢獻70
    第四節 研究限制與後續研究建議72
    參考文獻74
    附錄一 訪談邀請函81
    附錄二 訪談同意書83

    中文部份
    江大樹、張力亞(2008)社區營造中組織信任的機制建構:以桃米生態村爲例。東吳政治學報,26(1),87-142。
    林佳暖(2005)師徒關係與組織承諾〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所。
    施特勞斯(Strauss, A)、科爾賓(Cobin, J)(1998)。質性研究概論(徐宗國譯)。巨流圖書公司。(原著出版於1990)
    威克曼(Wickman, F)、柔丁(Sjodin, T)(2003)。成功-有師為伴(李碧芬譯)。麥格羅希爾台灣分公司。(原著出版於1997)
    胡幼慧(1996)。質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。巨流圖書公司。
    高淑珍(2012)。以知識分享為中介變數探討學習動機、學習互動以及學習平台對協同學習滿意度的影響。商管科技季刊,13(1),75-98。
    國防部(2023)。中華民國112年國防報告書。國防部。
    許道然(2001)。公部門組織信任與組織公民行為關係之研究〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立政治大學公共行政學系。
    張兆宇(2009)。信任、工作滿足與服務導向組織公民行為關係之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺北大學合作經濟學系。
    張婷婷(2017)。中餐廚師之師徒關係研究—從華人文化觀點切入﹝未出版之博士論文﹞銘傳大學企業管理學系。
    陳必碩(2004)。工作價值觀、工作動機與知識分享行為關係之研究—以台灣高科技業員工為例〔未出版之博士論文〕。國立臺灣大學商學研究所。
    陳向明(2024)。社會科學質的硏究。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
    陳念姍(2006)。師徒制對客服人員職業適應之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系。
    勞勃‧殷恩(Robert K. Yin)(2023)。質性研究:從開始到完成(李政賢譯)。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。(原著出版於2014)
    楊登伍(2004)。師徒關係對組織承諾與組織公民行為影響之研究—國稅局稅務人員之分析〔未出版之碩士論文〕。銘傳大學公共事務學系碩士在職專班。
    詹瑜蕙(1999)。師徒制與員工生涯發展之研究-以壽險業為例〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育研究所。
    潘淑滿(2022)。質性研究:理論與應用。心理出版社股份有限公司。
    蔡啟通(2006)。領導者部屬交換與員工創新行為:組織正義之中介效果及組織特性之干擾效果。管理學報,23(2),171-193。
    劉文雅(2015)。師徒功能對工作滿意與離職傾向之關係中-性別角色之調節角色〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立高雄師範大學事業經營系。
    劉筱寧(2001)。徒弟個人特質、性別角色與師徒關係類型、性別組合對師徒功能影響之研究〔未出版之碩士論文〕。中原大學企業管理研究所。
    錢淑芬、劉彥佑(2012)。制度化生活對軍人角色性格的模塑意義:以軍校生活的規律性與集體性為例。復興崗學報,(02),255-278。

    英文部份
    Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of marketing,54(1), 42-58.
    Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employees: An interactionist approach. Group & Organization Management, 21(3), 261-277.
    Beckman, T. (1997). A methodology for knowledge management. IASTED.
    Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of management journal, 43(6), 1177-1194.
    Bellinger, G (1997), “Knowledge Management”, http://www.systems-thinking.org/kmgmt/kmgmt.htm.
    Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
    Buckman, R. H. (2004). Building a knowledge-driven organization.(No Title).
    Burke, R. J. (1984). Mentors in organizations. Group & Organization Studies, 9(3), 353-372.
    Chao, G. T., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel psychology, 45(3), 619-636.
    Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., & Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé outcomes in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of organizational behavior, 33(8), 1071-1094.
    Dukes, S. (1984). Phenomenological methodology in the human sciences.Journal of religion and health,23(3), 197-203.
    Dansereau Jr, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers.Organizational behavior and human performance,10(2), 184-200.
    Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.
    Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development.Academy of management review,11(3), 618-634.
    Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes.
    Dixon, N. M. (2001).Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Harvard business school press.
    Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. NY.
    Emerson, R. M. (1964). Power-dependence relations: Two experiments.Sociometry, 282-298.
    Fagenson-Eland, E. A., Marks, M. A., & Amendola, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of mentoring relationships. Journal of vocational behavior, 51(1), 29-42.
    Fisher, B. (1994). Mentoring. Library Training Guides Series. UNIPUB, 4611-F Assembly Dr., Lanham, MD 20706-4391.
    Forret, M. L. (1996). Issues facing organizations when implementing formal mentoring programmes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(3), 27-30.
    Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review, 161-178.
    Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing.Research in organizational behavior.
    Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
    Gregg F.Martin,George E.Reed,RuthB.Collins & Cortex .K.Dial(2002) .”The road to Mentoring:Paved with Good intentions.“ParaMeters,32(3), 115-127.
    Haas, M. R., & Hansen, M. T. (2007). Different knowledge, different benefits: Toward a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations. Strategic management journal, 28(11), 1133-1153.
    Harris, D. B. (1996). Creating a knowledge centric information technology environment.Harris Training & Consulting Services Inc., Seattle, WA.
    Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
    Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms.Harcout, Brace, Jovanovich.
    Hubbell, A. P., & Chory‐Assad, R. M. (2005). Motivating factors: Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial and organizational trust. Communication studies,56(1), 47-70.
    Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS quarterly, 113-143.
    Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management journal, 26(4), 608-625.
    Kram, K. E. (1985).Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. University Press of America.
    Krok, E. (2013). Willingness to share knowledge compared with selected social psychology theories. Contemporary Economics, 7(1), 101-109.
    Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K. (2006). Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge sharing.Management learning,37(4), 523-540.
    Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations.Journal of marketing research,29(3), 314-328.
    Murray-Hicks, M., & Nugent, J. (1971). Positive motivation process for changing human behavior. In National Society for Performance and Instruction Conference, Rochester, NY.
    Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other's effort on relationship quality.Journal of applied psychology,86(4), 697.
    Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.Academy of management review,20(3), 709-734.
    Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel psychology, 41(3), 457-479.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), “The knowledge-creating Company”, Oxford University Press.
    Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1990). Organizational behavior: A management challenge. (No Title).
    Olian, J. D., Giannantonio, C. M., & Carroll, S. J. (1986). Managers’ evaluations of the mentoring process: The protégé’s perspective. Proceedings of the Midwestern Academy of Management, 29, 143-148.
    Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London: Rout ledge and Kegan Paul.I966.
    Ragins, B. R. (1997). Antecedents of diversified mentoring relationships.Journal of Vocational Behavior,51(1), 90-109.
    Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of management journal, 43(6), 1177-1194.
    Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: a comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of applied psychology, 84(4), 529.
    Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice. Sage.
    Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender mentoring relationships. Journal of vocational behavior, 37(3), 321-339.
    Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American psychologist, 35(1), 1.
    Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of vocational behavior, 43(3), 251-265.
    Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of organizational behavior, 13(2), 169-174.
    Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth: Managing & measuring knowledge-based assets. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
    Turban, L., Berche, P. E., & Berche, B. (1994). Surface magnetization of aperiodic Ising systems: a comparative study of the bond and site problems.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General,27(19), 6349.
    Wickman, F. (1997). Mentoring. New York: Irwin Professional Group.
    Yamagishi, T. (2001). Social Intelligence. Trust in society, 2, 121.
    Zey, M. G. (1991). The mentor connection: Strategic alliances in corporate life. Transaction Publishers.

    QR CODE
    :::