組織間締約協議與執行過程中公正性之角色：締約前因後果之探討

The Role of Justice in Inter-organizational Contracting Negotiation and Implementation: Antecedents and Consequences

邱志芳(Chih-Fang Chiu)

指導教授 ： 莊正民

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/國際企業學研究所/博士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.11350

摘要

契約治理與關係治理的議題在組織間合作研究已相當豐富，但大多研究是以經濟與社會學觀點探討，較少從社會心理層面思考交易者如何協議與執行交易活動。尤其是交易者在不同締約階段，其心理認知如何影響各階段的發展及結果，在實證上仍需進一步探索。從認知角度的意義性在於，交易者心理認知是由內而外地接受合作安排，透過認知角度有助於瞭解在哪些內在認知下，交易者如何設計交易正式與非正式的治理內涵。此外，由於認知具有動態特性，有別於經濟因素對交易情境設定既定條件，本研究透過締約不同階段認知要素的變化，以進一步探索交易者在締約過程的心智模式。
為了探討上述從認知角度對組織間治理的課題，本研究以公正認知角度試圖打開交易者締約過程的心路歷程。其中，公正認知包括分配公正、程序公正、與互動公正，藉以探索各類型的公正認知如何影響組織間正式簽約前的協議結果，以及簽約後執行階段各類型公正認知如何影響合作結果。本研究以台灣傳統手工具產業為樣本，該產業廠商在商業活動中習於採用社會關係維繫合作關係，契約亦是必需的交易工具。透過97份問卷樣本的分析結果後，研究結果發現手工具廠商在締約協議階段中，分配與互動公正直接影響協議之經濟與社會性結果，經濟結果包括契約內容、交易頻率、與交易問題，社會結果包含信任、規範、與長期導向。程序公正則需藉由互動公正的氛圍以使交易者更瞭解合作管理的正當性，進而願意擬定複雜的契約內容，與增進彼此信任度。在執行階段中，交易者程序公正認知彌補契約之不足與關係隱而不顯的規則，該合作經驗增進了交易者未來締約重覆的機會，以及使交易者學習到未來如何更有效地締約。本研究對組織間合作研究的貢獻提供另一面向思考---公正認知角度，使管理者在進行締約活動時，除了經濟與社會層面外，尚需考量締約過程中心理認知感受，善用各類型的公正於不同締約階段，以使各階段結果獲致成效。

關鍵字

公正 ； 契約 ； 關係治理 ； 締約協議 ； 締約執行

並列摘要

Based mainly on economic and social perspectives, the studies of contractual and relational governances on how transaction parties negotiate formal contract and based on these agreements the inter-organizational transactions are executed have been well documented. Recently, the psychological cognition perspective has been induced to further enrich the contracting literature. Based upon this perspective, how parties design formal and informal governances as well as implement the collaborative arrangements is hinged on their internal psychological cognition. Since the cognitions are diversified and dynamic, we can therefore study how these various cognitions affect, independently and collectively, the negotiation and implementation of contracting in inter-organizational exchanges.
This study adopts the concept of justice to explore the above issues. We argue that three types of justice, e.g., distributive, procedural, and interactive justice, will impact outcomes of the two contracting stages, e.g., negotiation and implementation. On the contracting negotiation stage, based on an empirical study of 97 buyer-supplier contracts in the industry of hand tools, we find that both the distributive and interactional justice are positively associated with (1) the economic outcomes, including contractual complexity, negotiating frequency, and transactional problems, and (2) the social outcomes, including trust, norm, and long-term orientation. The moderating effect between procedural and interactive justice ensures that parties are willing to design more complex contracts and develop stronger trust. On the contracting implementation stage, a high procedural justice between transaction parties could complement the incomplete formal contracts as well as the implicit relations that will facilitate future repeated contracts and contracting learning. Our contribution is that managers not only consider economic and social factors, but also cognize various justice perceptions to achieve negotiating and implementing effects in inter-organizational collaborations.

並列關鍵字

justice ； contract ； relation ； contracting negotiation ； contracting implementation

參考文獻

Abdi, M., & Aulakh, P. S. 2015. Locus of uncertainty and the relationship between contractual and relational governance in cross-border interfirm relationships. Journal of Management. (Forthcoming)

Achrol, R. S., & Gundlach, G. T. 1999. Legal and social safeguards against opportunism in exchange. Journal of Retailing, 75(1): 107-124.

Adams, J. 1965. Inequality in social exchange, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2: 267-299.

Agarwal, R., Croson, R., & Mahoney, J. T. 2010. The role of incentives and communication in strategic alliances: An experimental investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(4): 413-437.

Anderson, S. W., & Dekker, H. C. 2005. Management control for market transactions: The relation between transaction characteristics, incomplete contract design, and subsequent performance. Management Science, 51(12): 1734-1752.