績效薪資是廣泛應用的員工激勵機制，透過將薪酬與績效掛鉤，激勵員工、提高績效，進而提升組織競爭力。過去關於教師績效薪資的研究多著重分析績效薪資對教師工作動機的影響，卻忽略實施績效薪資的過程中，制度環境對於薪資設計與改革推行的影響。本研究透過制度邏輯視角，採用個案研究法來分析公立學校績效薪資改革之過程，了解改革前後不同邏輯所造成的影響。理論上，本文提出績效薪資制度的設計和推行，會受到組織內外制度環境中不同邏輯的制約，進而影響績效薪資制度的樣貌和實施效果。實務上，本研究建議，推行薪資改革前需釐清不同邏輯的訴求和潛在的衝突，並保留一定的彈性，才到達到績效薪資的預期效益。

Performance-related pay (PRP) is a system that links pay to performance, aiming to motivate employees to improve their performance and therefore increase organizational competitiveness. Previous research on PRP for schoolteachers has usually focused on its impact on their motivation, while tending to neglect the influence of the institutional environment on the design of pay systems and implementation of reform. Taking a case study approach, this study analyzes the PRP system reform in two public junior high schools, exploring how different institutional logics embedded within the institutional environment of the schools impacted the PRP system design and reform implementation. This research illustrates the key phenomenon and underlying rationale behind the PRP reform in public schools in China, proposing that the conflicts between different institutional logics formed a blind spot in the reform which restricted the functional design of the PRP system and led to imperfections in the reform. In practice, our findings suggest that, before implementing pay system reform, it is critical to identify the demands of each institutional logic and analyze potential conflicts between them. When introducing a PRP system, it is important to leave a certain amount of flexibility in the choice of pay range in order to achieve the desired motivational impact.

人力資源管理的發展過程中，績效薪資在公私部門都被廣泛的應用，並在激勵員工、提高工作產量方面得到了實證研究的肯定。在公部門推動績效薪資成為很多國家的政策趨勢，績效薪資改革在諸多公部門領域（包括教育，醫療等機構）也越來越普及。 本研究從制度邏輯的視角，分析公立學校推行績效薪資改革過程中，不同的制度邏輯與彼此間的關係，如何影響績效考核、薪資設計和推行過程。本研究指出，雖然公平的評估機制、有效的員工參與和組織內部溝通、適當的薪酬刺激等，都是推行有效的教師績效薪資的重要因素，但在實際薪資改革過程中，公立學校所處內外制度環境中不同制度邏輯間的衝突，會直接制約績效薪資的優化設計，形成改革的盲點，進而影響改革的效果。 在實務上，本研究建議在導入績效薪資改革前，需要了解組織制度環境中不同邏輯的訴求和彼此間的關聯，考量不同邏輯間可能存在的衝突以及對薪資改革的影響，從而制定妥善的改革方案。本研究所提出的制度邏輯視角，對公私部門規劃績效薪資改革，提供了兩點重要的實務管理意涵： 第一，除了少部分能夠客觀界定並衡量具體工作產出的工作，不同組織中工作者的職能往往包含多元且長短期不一的工作目標。在推行績效薪資改革時，由於不同邏輯之間可能存在衝突，進而會影響改革成效。因此，在改革過程中建議預留一定的彈性空間，以因應在複雜的制度環境下，平衡不同制度邏輯間的訴求，以制定出最契合改革目的之薪資改革方案。 第二，改革前期的政策宣傳和輿論導向會對員工的心裡預期產生直接的影響，尤其是當組織內部存在多元職業邏輯的情況下，需要針對不同職業邏輯的特性和訴求，確認改革的主次目的並妥善規劃改革的流程，盡可能的降低不同職業邏輯在改革過程中的衝突和矛盾。

吳清在、施念恕、朱靜玉，2014，「台灣地區大學教授薪資待遇之合理性初探：大，中，小學教師之比較研究」，臺大管理論叢，24卷2期：1~52。(Wu, T. Z., Shih, N. S., and Chu, C. Y., 2014, “On the Equity of University Professor’s Compensation: A Comparative Study on Compensations of University Professors and High/Elementary School Teachers in Taiwan,” NTU Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1-52.)
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卷2期：87~118。(Tu, M. F., 2012, “Innovating Against the Institutional Constraints: The Agency of Strategic Actors,” NTU Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, 87-118.)
涂敏芬、洪世章，2016，「建構服務創新的制度工作」，臺大管理論叢，27卷1期：129~154。(Tu, M. F. and Hung, S. C., 2016, “Institutional Work in Building Service Innovation,” NTU Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, 129-154.)
許文宗、王俊如，2013，「組織間模仿與關係專屬性投資–績效期望之干擾效果」，中山管理評論，21卷3期：661~688。(Hsu, W. T. and Wang, C. J., 2013, “Inter-Organizational Imitative Behavior and Relationship-Specific Investment: The Moderating Effect of Performance Aspiration,” Sun Yat-sen Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, 661-688.)
蔡依倫、高明瑞，2013，「制度變遷與組織型態創設：身心障礙者社會企業的浮現歷程研究」，中山管理評論，21卷2期：339~368。(Tsai, I. L. and Kao, M. R., 2013, “Institutional Changes and New Organizational Forms Creation: The Emergence of the Disability Social Enterprises,” Sun Yat-sen Management Review, Vol. 21, No. 2, 339-368.)
蕭瑞麟、歐素華、陳蕙芬，2014，「劣勢創新：梵谷策展中的隨創行為」，中山管理評論，22卷2期：323~367。(Hsiao, R. L., Ou, S. H., and Chen, H. F., 2014, “Innovating under Disadvantages: Bricolage Behaviors in van Gogh Art Curation,” Sun Yat-sen Management Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, 323-367.)
Alford, R. R. and Friedland, R., 1985, Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State, and Democracy, 1st, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Atkinson, A., Burgess, S., Croxson, B., Gregg, P., Propper, C., Slater, H., and Wilson, D., 2009, “Evaluating the Impact of Performance-related Pay for Teachers in England,” Labour Economics, Vol. 16, No. 3, 251-261.
Baruch, Y., Wheeler, K., and Zhao, X., 2004, “Performance-Related Pay in Chinese Professional Sports,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, 245-259.
Bernard, H. R., 1995, Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 2nd, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Belfield, R. and Marsden, D., 2003, “Performance Pay, Monitoring Environments, and Establishment Performance,” International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 24, No. 4, 452-471.
Crowston, K. and Myers, M. D., 2004, “Information Technology and the Transformation of Industries: Three Research Perspectives,” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1, 5-28.
Dahlstrom, C. and Lapuente, V. 2009, “Explaining Cross-Country Differences in Performance-Related Pay in the Public Sector,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 20, No. 3, 577-600.
Dolton, P., McIntosh, S., and Chevalier, A., 2003, Teacher Pay and Performance, 1st, London: Bedford Way Papers, Institute of Education.
Durant, R. F., Kramer, R., Perry, J. L., Mesch, D., and Paarlberg, L., 2006, “Motivating Employees in A New Governance Era: The Performance Paradigm Revisited,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, No. 4, 505-514.
Eberts, R., Hollenbeck, K., and Stone, J., 2002, “Teacher Performance Incentives and Student Outcomes,” Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 37, No. 4, 913-927.
Farjoun, M., 2002, “The Dialectics of Institutional Development in Emergent and Turbulent Fields: The History of Pricing Conventions in the On-line Database Industry,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5, 848-874.
Fernie, S. and Metcalf, D., 1998, “(Not) Hanging on the Telephone: Payment Systems in the New Sweatshops,” CEPDP, No. 390, Center for Economic Performance, London: London School of Economics and Political Science,
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/20275/1/%28Not%29Hanging_on_the_Telephone_Payment_systems_in_the_New_Sweatshops.pdf, accessed on February 20, 2019.
Fernie, S. and Metcalf, D., 1999, “It’s Not What You Pay it’s the Way that You Pay it and that’s What Gets Results: Jockey’s Pay and Performance,” Labour, Vol. 13, No. 2, 385-411.
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R., 2001, “Fairness Theory: Justice as Accountability,” in Greenberg, J. and Cropanzano, R. (eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1-55.
Friedland, R. and Alford, R. R., 1991, “Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions” in Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 1st, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 232-263.
Garrow, E. E. and Oscar G., 2013, “Institutional Logic and Street-Level Discretion: The Case of HIV Test Counseling,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 23, No. 1, 103-131.
Greenwood, R. and Suddaby, R., 2006, “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 1, 27-48.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin-Andersson, K., and Suddaby, R., 2008, The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 1st, London: Sage.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E., and Lounsbury, M., 2011, “Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses,” Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 5, No. 1, 317-371.
Hardy, C. and Maguire, S., 2008, “Institutional Entrepreneurship,” in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., and Sahlin-Andersson, K., The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Sage, London, 198-217.
Kelman, S. and Friedman, J. N., 2009, “Performance Improvement and Performance Dysfunction: An Empirical Examination of Distortionary Impacts of the Emergency Room Wait-Time Target in the English National Health Service,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 19, No. 4, 917-946.
Kleiner, M., 2006, Licensing Occupations: Ensuring Quality or Restricting Competition, 1st, Kalamazoo: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Lavy, V., 2007, “Using Performance-based Pay to Improve the Quality of Teachers,” Future of Children, Vol. 17, No. 1, 87-109.
Lavy, V., 2009, “Performance Pay and Teachers’ Effort, Productivity, and Grading Ethics,” American Economic Review, Vol. 99, No. 5, 1979-2011.
Lazear, E. P., 1986, “Salaries and Piece Rates,” Journal of Business, Vol. 59, No. 3, 405-431.
Lazear, E. P., 2000, “Performance Pay and Productivity,” American Economic Review, Vol. 90, No. 5, 1346-1361.
Lazear, E. P., 2003, “Teacher Incentives,” Swedish Economic Policy Review, Vol. 10, No.2, 179-214.
Levy, P. E. and Williams, J. R., 2004, “The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future,” Journal of Management, Vol. 30, No. 6, 881-905.
Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P., 2002, “Building A Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-year Odyssey,” American Psychologist, Vol. 57, No. 9, 705-717.
Lounsbury, M., 2007, “A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation in the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2, 289-307.
Lounsbury, M. and Boxenbaum, E., 2013, “Institutional Logics in Action,” in Institutional Logics in Action, Part A, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 3-22.
Markus, M. L., and Soh, C., 2002, “Structural Influences on Global E-commerce Activity,” Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, 5-12.
Marsden, D., 2004, “The Role of Performance-Related Pay in Renegotiating the “Effort Bargain”: The Case of the British Public Service,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 57, No. 3, 350-370.
Marsden, D., 2007, “Individual Employee Voice: Renegotiation and Performance Management in Public Services,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18, No. 7, 1263-1278.
Marsden, D., 2015, “Teachers and Performance Pay,” in 2014: First Results of a Survey, CEP Discussion Paper No. 1332. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science
Marsden, D. and Belfield, R., 2006, “Pay for Performance where Output is Hard to Measure: The Case of Performance Pay for School Teachers,” Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, Vol. 15, 1-34.
Meyer, R. E. and Hammerschmid, G., 2006, “Changing Institutional Logics and Executive Identities: A Managerial Challenge to Public Administration in Austria,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 49, No. 7, 1000-1014.
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B., 1977, “Institutional Organizations: Structure as Myth and Ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, No. 2, 340-363.
Muralidharan, K. and Sundararaman, V., 2011, “Teacher Performance Pay: Experimental Evidence from India,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 119, No. 1, 39-77.
Murnane, R. J. and Cohen, D. K., 1986, “Merit Pay and the Evaluation Problem: Why Most Merit Pay Plans Fail and A Few Survive,” Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 56, No. 1, 1-17.
Murphy, R., 2013, “Testing Teachers: What Works Better for Teacher Evaluation and Appraisal?” Sutton Trust, London, https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/03/MURPHYTEACHEREVALUATION-FINAL-1.pdf, accessed on February 20, 2019.
Orlikowski, W. J. and Barley, S. R., 2001, “Technology and Institutions: What can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other?” MIS quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2, 145-165.
Oliver, C., 1991, “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 145-179.
Pache, A. C. and Santos, F., 2010, “When Worlds Collide: The Internal Dynamics of Organizational Responses to Conflicting Institutional Demands,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, 455-476.
Pache, A. C. and Santos, F. 2013. “Inside the Hybrid Organizations: Selective Coupling as A Response to Competing Institutional Logics,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56, No. 4, 972-1001
Podgursky, M. J. and Springer, M. G., 2007, “Teacher Performance Pay: A Review,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 26, No. 4, 909-949.
Prentice, G., Burgess, S., and Propper, C., 2007, “Performance Pay in the Public Sector: A Review of the Issues and Evidence”, Office of Manpower Economics, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0cf2/2b1e6045eb3e683d67ba0a002f7a47b363eb.pdf, accessed on February 20, 2019.
Rao, H., Monin, P., and Durand, R., 2003, “Institutional Change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as an Identity Movement in French Gastronomy,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 108, No. 4, 795-843.
Richardson, R., 1999, Performance Related Pay in Schools: An Assessment of the Green Papers (A Report Prepared for the National Union of Teachers by the London School of Economics and Political Science), 1st, London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
Smets, M., Greenwood, R., and Lounsbury, M., 2015, “An Institutional Perspective on Strategy as Practice,” in Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 285-300.
Taylor, S. J. and Bogdan, R., 1998, Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource, 3rd, New York: John Wiley.
Thornton, P. H., 2002, “The Rise of the Corporation in A Craft Industry Conflict and Conformity in Institutional Logics,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 1, 81-101.
Thornton, P. H., 2004, Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions in Higher Education Publishing, 1st, Stanford: Colifornia: Stanford University Press.
Thornton, P. H. and Ocasio, W., 1999, “Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958-1990,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105, No. 3, 801-843.
Thornton, P. H. and Ocasio, W., 2008, “Institutional Logics,” in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin-Andersson, K. and Suddaby, R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 99-129.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., and Lounsbury, M., 2012, The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process, 1st, Oxford University Press.
Varlaam, A., Nuttall, D., and Walker, A., 1992, “What Makes Teachers Tick?: A Survey of Teacher Morale and Motivation,” 1st, Clare Market Papers, No. 4, Centre for Educational Research, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.
Weibel, A., Rost, K., and Osterloh, M., 2009, “Pay for Performance in the Public Sector-Benefits and (hidden) Costs,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 20, No. 2, 387-412.
Yin, R. K., 2009, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publications.
Zenger, T. R., 1992, “Why Do Employers Only Reward Extreme Performance? Examining the Relationships among Performance, Pay and Turnover,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 2, 198-219.