從組織文化角度探究健康組織之意涵

Using Organizational Culture Framework to Inquire the Meaning of Healthy Organization

隨著「職場健康心理學」的漸漸興起，「健康」也開始變成組織研究與介入的重要焦點與效標。本研究即在探討究竟何謂「健康的組織」（healthy organizations）。本研究先從相關文獻及定義出發，歸納關於「健康的組織」的若干命題，再進一步從組織文化的角度來具體思考「健康組織」之意涵。結果發現關於「健康的組織文化」之幾種觀點，包括：1.規範性文化觀點；2平衡觀；3整合或契合觀；4適應觀；5一致性觀點。接著本研究透過二個組織個案，具體討論幾種「健康組織」之觀點是否可在現象場中採用，並更細緻的探討與推衍各觀點的意涵，以及各自對組織與其成員之健康的影響。結果發現兩個個案都呈現「封建家長式官僚文化」，這反映出組織本身的相關問題，並對組織成員個人健康有所影響；而GN公司也有組織文化整合不足的問題；ABC學院則有著「外顯價值」與「基本假定」不一致的問題；最後兩個個案都因為外部環境變遷而出現組織文化不再能協助組織適應的問題。而後研究者再將研究議題重新反思，包括對本研究之價值立場做反思，發現隨著論辯過程，研究者觀點有所轉變，從簡單區分「健康 ／不健康的組織」到關注組織內部、組織 ／外部環境之動態變化歷程。本研究清晰的實踐立場在於「努力促進組織與其成員朝向更健康與幸福的存在狀態」，又基於後現代典範而採用多重觀點之對話與辯證。其次，當研究者的思維與觀點朝後現代轉向，自身「文化」觀點也隨之移動，「變與不變」也成為後現代組織的本體性焦慮。於是有意義的提問便從原本的「何種組織文化特質或結構是健康的？」，進一步轉變為「文化動態改變的過程，怎樣才是促進或朝向健康的？」，以及「在持續改變的過程中，我們又能做些什麼，以便促進或維持組織及其成員健康？」

With the rise of 'Occupational Health Psychology', 'health' turns into an important focus and criterion when it comes to the study and intervention about organization. This study inquires what exactly the ‘healthy organization’ is. Proceeding from relevant references and definitions, this study concludes with several propositions in what a 'healthy organization' would consist of, and reflects further about the meaning of 'healthy organization' from the aspect of organizational culture. Then with two organizational cases, this study discusses whether the views of 'healthy organization can be adopted in the field, and explores and develops the meanings of each view and the impact each has had on the health of organizations and their members. The two cases demonstrate 'Feudal Paternalistic Bureaucracy Culture,' which shows that the organizations have their own relevant problems and impacts on members’ health; GN Company has the problem of insufficient integration in organizational culture, and ABC College has the problem of the incongruence between the espoused values and basic assumptions. The two organizations in the end have problems that their organizational culture cannot deal with their adaptation into the external changing environment. And then researchers reflect on the study themes again, including the position of this study and find out that within the process of debating, researchers’ views changed from a focus on the 'healthy-unhealthy organization' to the dynamic changing process of intra-organization and external organization environment. This praxis position of this study lies in 'promoting the organization and its members to move forward to a healthier and happier existence', and adopts multiple views of dialogue and dialectic based on a post-modern paradigm. Secondly, when researchers’ thoughts and views turn towards post-modernism, our cultural views are different, and 'change or not to change' becomes the basic anxiety of post-modern organizations, too. Thus, the meaningful question 'what kinds of organizational culture characteristics or structures are healthy?' turns into 'with the changing process of the dynamic culture, how to promote or move towards healthy?', and 'in the process, what can we do to promote or keep the organization and its members healthy?