績效悖理之潛因探析：制度邏輯與心理帳戶觀點

Exploring the Root Causes of Performance Paradox: Perspectives of Institutional Logics and Mental Accounting

我國現行之中央部會績效評核制度，推動至今已有十四年的實行經驗，但仍被平面媒體指出，各部會的關鍵績效指標高達八成的內容是「不K，不P，也不I」，未能發揮效果且有流於形式之嫌。是以，本文之主要目的，在於藉由我國中央部會於績效評核制度推動之實證經驗，試圖剖析其運作現況並回答以下的研究問題：公部門績效評核制度為何產生績效悖理現象？為何會流於形式？有無可能從學理上找到解釋原因？爰此，藉由四場焦點團體座談，包含11 個部會、22 人次之資料蒐集結果與分析，本文發現，現行機關施政績效評核制度確實已衍生出不少績效悖理現象，而這些悖理現象的集合，便是該項制度已漸流於形式。而本文從制度邏輯和心理帳戶觀點嘗試提出解釋，認為那些已對機關績效評核制度失去信服的機關與人員，會將此一制度與屬試辦階段之團體績效評比制度視為不同的制度或心理帳戶，並將二者予以脫勾處理。一方面在形式上象徵性地服從機關績效評核制度的要求，避免或降低該制度對機關的實質干預或影響，另一方面則是將機關內部的績效重點，與團體績效評比制度加以扣合，追求各單位在考績甲等比例分配上的最大利益；而這樣的策略性回應行為，不僅具備心理上的說服效果，亦具心理效益。

The Taiwan central government’s agency performance assessment system, which follows the United States’ GPRA rationale and has been carried out for more than a decade, was recently criticized by the media as ineffective as having become ritualized. More specifically, it was indicated that the assessment system has produced managerial dysfunctions and the so-called performance paradox phenomenon. With four focus-group interviews which covered participants from one-third of the ministries at the cabinet level, this study aims at exploring the root causes of the performance paradox phenomenon through theoretical angles. The findings show that the agency performance assessment system cannot fully reflect governmental employees’ daily efforts and does not offer incentive rewards, as public employees confront multiple and competing evaluation systems in the field. This situation forces employees to decouple the agency performance assessment system from the team-based performance evaluation system which is tightly associated with individual employee’s appraisal results. Decoupling the external agency performance assessment system from the internal team-based performance evaluation system could be understood as a strategic response toward the pressure derived from multiple institutional logics in a given organization. Moreover, considering these performance measurement systems as different institutional or mental accounts and responding to them in a differentiated way is definitely in line with the underlying argument of mental accounting.