Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: 員工滿意度調查之模式建構與運用
Other Titles: The Establishment and Use of a New Model for Measuring Employee Satisfaction: Case Study of a High-Tech Company
Authors: 楊錦章
King-Jang Yang, Ching-Chow Yang, and Tsu-Ming Yeh
Issue Date: Oct-2006
Publisher: 國立臺灣師範大學研究發展處
Office of Research and Development
Abstract: 員工是決定公司營運績效的最重要關鍵因素。員工滿意度調查以往被企業界所忽略,但近年來已逐漸受到重視。然而只做員工滿意度調查是不夠的,如能同時進行重要度調查,則企業不但可由重要度調查的分析中瞭解到員工的需求,且藉由滿意度衡量值與重要度衡量值的比較中找到企業迫切需要改善之項目。本研究仿照SERVQUAL 之調查方式建構了衡量員工滿意度的重要模式 -EMPLSATI。透過EMPLSATI 進行調查,可瞭解到員工對於各項需求之期望程度,及實際感受程度。且由EMPLSATI 衡量值亦可考量所欲改善之項目。此外,本研究亦同時進行傳統的員工滿意度調查及重要度調查,並針對滿意度調查、重要度調查及EMPLSATI 調查做了相關統計分析與比較,結果顯示重要度衡量值與期望度衡量值是有些差別。
Its employees are a company’s most important resource for the achieving of excellence. Therefore industries pay much attention to the assessment of employee satisfaction. But only to assess employee satisfaction is not enough. If firms have a scale that can measure not only employee’s satisfaction with regard to various items but also the relative importance, to employees, of these various items, then they not only can understand their employees’ requirements from the analytic results of the “importance” survey, but can also determine where to make improvements from a comparison between the degree of importance degree and the satisfaction level. In this project, therefore, we developed a measurement model of employee satisfaction by imitating the SERVQUAL model: we call it EMPLSATI. If we conduct an evaluation of employee satisfaction by using the EMPLSATI model, then we can understand the employees’ requirements in terms of both real perceptions and (perhaps unrealistic) expectations.. From the analytic results of the EMPLSATI survey, the items to be improved can also be verified. We also conducted simultaneous surveys of “satisfaction” and “importance,” using EMPLSATI, for a high-tech company in Taiwan. From statistical analyses and comparisons, we found a few differences between our evaluation results and those of McDougall & Leuesque (1992) and Comm & Mathaisel (2000), who thought that the evaluation of degree of expectation could be replaced by that of degree of importance.
Other Identifiers: B18BFFA4-5AD4-4A1E-5EEB-A2941F746CB8
Appears in Collections:師大學報

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
ntnulib_ja_L0805_5101_001.pdf1.07 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.