律師事務所受雇律師績效評核指標之研究

The Research of Performance Appraisal Indicators for Hired Attorneys

莊佩頴(Pei-Ying Juang)

指導教授 ： 戚樹誠

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/商學研究所/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.00899

摘要

「績效評核」(Performance Appraisal)此一企業耳熟能詳並行之有年的制度，在目前我國律師事務所的經營環境中卻仍是相當的陌生與罕見，對於聘有受雇律師的律師事務所而言，要在高度勞力密集的律師業中保持競爭力，建立完善的受雇律師「績效評核」制度應為其首要之務。
本研究首先利用文獻探討為律師事務所建立「績效評核指標」作為其未來推行績效評核制度的基礎，共計得到七個構面十二個指標，包括：構面一「專業表現」下有指標一「法令的熟悉、解釋與適用」、指標二「事實的整理」、指標三「證據的搜集」與指標四「實務運作」；構面二「書狀撰寫」下有指標五「書狀的用字」與指標六「書狀的內容」；構面三與指標七為「法庭表現」；構面四與指標八為「曠職行為」；構面五「人際互動」下有指標九「同事相處」與指標十「客戶服務」；構面六與指標十一為「學習成長」；構面七與指標十二為「公共服務」。接著參考行為尺度基準法(Behaviorally- Anchored Rating Scales)的發展程序，將構面四與指標八獨立為客觀指標後，依次經過六個階段：(1)工作行為的蒐集(2)工作構面與指標的決定(3)工作行為的優劣排序(4)審核工作行為語意與尺度同意度的檢測(5)資深律師審核量表(6)量表語句的最後修改，為其餘六個構面與十一個指標建立一套五點評核量表。
量表檢測結果顯示，信度部分的Cronbach’s α值為.9335，因素分析結果僅萃取出一個因子；效度部份經過上述六個程序後應認本量表具有內容效度；為檢測理論效度的五個預期，經由複迴歸模型檢測發現：「受雇律師組織公民行為與其工作績效具有正向關係」、「受雇律師曠職行為與其工作績效具有負向關係」與「受雇律師工作績效與其談話費率具有正向關係」得到支持，「案件抽成權利與受雇律師的工作績效具有正向關係」與「受雇律師工作績效與其處理費率具有正向關係」並未獲得支持。而承接組織公民行為、曠職行為與工作績效各有正向與負向關係的預期，利用類似「多特質多方法」(Multitrait Multimethod)進行Pearson’s r相關矩陣分析，十一個績效評核指標與組織公民行為之間的相關係數皆較與曠職行為之間的相關係數高，表示本量表具有收斂與區辯效度。綜合上述信度與效度的檢測結果，本研究所發展的績效評核指標應可做為各律師事務所建立其專屬受雇律師績效評核指標的參考之一。

關鍵字

受雇律師 ； 律師事務所 ； 績效評核指標 ； 行為尺度基準法

並列摘要

The performance appraisal system is not prevalent in Taiwan’s law firms as it in enterprises. For the law firms hiring attorneys, establishing a well performance appraisal system should be the top priority to keep their competency in high labor-intensive law service industry.
The research uses literature review to build up a set of performance appraisal indicators, which includes 9 dimensions and 14 indicators. The dimension 1 “Professional Performance” has indicator 1 “The Familiarity, Explanation and Application of Law”, indicator 2 “Facts Arrangement, indicator 3 “Evidence Research” and indicator 4 “Practice Proficiency”. The dimension 2 “Papers and Plaints Drafting” has indicator 5 “Wording” and indicator 6 “Content”. The dimension 3 and indicator 7 is “On-Court Performance”. The dimension 4 and indicator 8 is “Check on Work Attendance”. The dimension 5 “Interpersonal Relationship” has indicator 9 “Getting Along With Co-Workers” and indicator 10 “Client Service”. The dimension 6 and indicator 11 is “Work Efficiency”. The dimension 7 and indicator 12 is “Voluntary Learning”. The dimension 8 and indicator 13 is “Professional Ethic”. The dimension 9 and indicator 14 is “Public Service” After excluding the dimension 4 (indicator 8), dimension 6 (indicator 11) and dimension 8 (indicator 13), the research follows the steps of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales Method to complete a five-point scale. These steps include :(1)Collection of work behavior, (2)Determination of dimensions and indicators, (3)Order of work behaviors, (4) Check the wording and scale agreements, (5) Review of experienced lawyer, and (6)Final revises.
The result of reliability analysis indicates that the above scale has consistency and stability of measurement because the Cronbach’s α is .9335 and the number of extracted factors is 1. In validity analysis, the scale should be considered to have good content validity after finishing the six steps. Furthermore, in order to test the nomological validity, the research has five predictions and uses multi liner regression to verify them. The prediction “The organizational citizenship behavior of the hired attorney has positive relationship with his/her performance.”, the prediction “The absent behavior of the hired attorney has negative relationship with his/her performance.” and the prediction “The consulting fee rate of the hired attorney has positive relationship with his/her performance.” are supported. The prediction “The own of commission possession has positive relationship with the performance of the hired attorney.” and the prediction “The working fee rate of the hired attorney has positive relationship with his/her performance.” are not supported. Following the predictions of organizational citizenship behavior and absent behavior both have relationship with performance, the research uses the similar method of Multitrait- Multimethod to test discriminant and convergent validity. The result that Pearson’s r of 11 indicators with the organizational citizenship behavior is higher than they with the absent behavior is presented as predicted. To sum up, the performance appraisal indicators developed by the research should be beneficial to law firms in establishing the performance appraisal system of hired attorneys.

並列關鍵字

hired attorney ； law firms ； performance appraisal indicator ； Behaviorally- Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)

參考文獻

20.魏千峰(民89)，處在十字路口之台灣律師改革運動，律師雜誌，第246期，頁15-19。

4.俞慧君等人(民79)，法律服務業，台北：行政院勞工委員會職業訓練局。

1.Bernardin & Smith (1981), A Clarifications of Some Issues Regarding the Development and Use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS), Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.66, No.4, pp458-463.

3.Campbell, D. R. & Fiske, D. W. (1959), Convergent and Discriminant Validation by Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56, pp. 81-105.

8.Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004), Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, Vol.15, pp241-253.