高级检索

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

公共管理研究中的目标清晰与目标模糊——来自多个实证研究议题的观察

林民望

downloadPDF
文章导航> bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）> 2019> (6): 116-123
林民望. 公共管理研究中的目标清晰与目标模糊——来自多个实证研究议题的观察[J]. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2019, (6): 116-123. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
引用本文: 林民望. 公共管理研究中的目标清晰与目标模糊——来自多个实证研究议题的观察[J]. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2019, (6): 116-123.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
shu
LIN Minwang. Goal Clarity and Goal Ambiguity in Public Organizations-Evidence from Empirical Research of Public Management[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2019, (6): 116-123. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
Citation: LIN Minwang. Goal Clarity and Goal Ambiguity in Public Organizations-Evidence from Empirical Research of Public Management[J].Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2019, (6): 116-123.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
shu

公共管理研究中的目标清晰与目标模糊——来自多个实证研究议题的观察

doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
  • 1.

    福州大学 公共管理系, 福建 福州 350116

基金项目:

福建省社会科学规划青年项目（FJ2019C041）

详细信息

  • 中图分类号:D035

Goal Clarity and Goal Ambiguity in Public Organizations-Evidence from Empirical Research of Public Management

  • 1.

    Department of Public Administration, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou Fujian 350116, China

  • 摘要:组织目标研究是公共管理研究的重要内容。目标清晰与目标模糊是组织目标研究中使用频繁的两个重要概念。在实证公共管理研究中，两个概念经常被互换使用，鲜有学者对其进行概念辨析。基于多个研究议题对目标清晰与目标模糊的概念化及应用研究进行比较与辨析。研究发现，目标清晰主要以主观感知测量为主，尚无客观衡量指标；目标模糊的测量则经历从主观感知测量到客观指标测量的发展过程。然而在主观感知测量上，二者的调查量表并无显著差异。在公私组织目标差异、组织绩效、组织繁文缛节、组织成员态度及动机等系列议题研究中，虽然一些学者在理论建构上倾向使用目标模糊的概念，但在测量上却倾向使用目标清晰的量表。在目前的实证公共管理研究中，尚未能显著区分目标清晰与目标模糊这两个概念。
    Abstract:Organizational goal plays a significant role in empirical public management research. Organizational goal ambiguity and goal clarity are two concepts that had been widely employed in organizational goal research. In empirical studies,goal ambiguity is interchangeable to goal clarity. We attempt to clarify goal ambiguity and goal clarity from different research perspectives. No one try to measure goal clarity in an objective way. However,some scholars had advanced to develop an objective measurement for goal ambiguity. In the research topics related to organizational performance,red tape,individual attitude and motivation and differences between public and private organizations,scholars often use goal ambiguity to construct their hypothesizes,but use goal clarity to measure the perception. To the end,it is still difficult to difference goal ambiguity and goal clarity in empirical study.
  • [1] O'TOOLE LJ,MEIER K J. Public management,context,and performance:in quest of a more general theory[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2015,25(1):237-256.
    [2] RAINEY H G. Understanding and managing public organizations(4th ed.)[M]. San Francisco,CA:John Wiley & Sons,2009.
    [3] 李声宇. 目标模糊如何影响公共组织的研究述评[J]. 公共行政评论,2016(6):164-188,200-201.
    [4] JUNG C S. Developing and validating new concepts and measures of program goal ambiguity in the U.S. federal government[J]. Administration & Society,2012,44(6):675-701.
    [5] CHUN Y H,RAINEY H G. Goal ambiguity in US federal agencies[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2005,15(1):1-30.
    [6] CAILLIER J G. Linking transformational leadership to self-efficacy,extra-role behaviors,and turnover intentions in public agencies:the mediating role of goal clarity[J]. Administration & Society,2016,48(7):883-906.
    [7] RAINEY H G. Public agencies and private firms:incentive structures,goals,and individual roles[J]. Administration & Society,1983,15(2):207-242.
    [8] RAINEY H G,PANDEY S,BOZEMAN B. Research note-public and private managers perceptions of red tape[J]. Public Administration Review,1995,55(6):567-574.
    [9] RAINEY H G,BOZEMAN B. Comparing public and private organizations:empirical research and the power of the a priori[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2000,10(2):447-470.
    [10] JUNG C S. Organizational goal ambiguity and performance:conceptualization,measurement,and relationships[J]. International Public Management Journal,2011,14(2):193-217.
    [11] JUNG C S. Navigating a rough terrain of public management:examining the relationship between organizational size and effectiveness[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2013,23(3):663-686.
    [12] JUNG C S,RAINEY H G. Organizational goal characteristics and public duty motivation in U.S. federal agencies[J]. Review of Public Personnel Administration,2011,31(1):28-47.
    [13] LAN Z,RAINEY H G. Goals,rules,and effectiveness in public,private,and hybrid organizations:more evidence on frequent assertions about differences[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,1992,2(1):5-28.
    [14] MOYNIHAN D P,PANDEY S K. Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance management[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2005,15(3):421-439.
    [15] CHEN G,WILLIAMS D W. How political support influences red tape through developmental culture[J]. Policy Studies Journal,2007,35(3):419-436.
    [16] YANG K F,PANDEY S K. How do perceived political environment and administrative reform affect employee commitment?[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2009,19(2):335-360.
    [17] PANDEY S K,GARNETT J L. Exploring public sector communication performance:testing a model and drawing implications[J]. Public Administration Review,2006,66(1):37-51.
    [18] WRIGHT B E,PANDEY S K. Public organizations and mission valence:when does mission matter?[J]. Administration & Society,2011,43(1):22-44.
    [19] MOYNIHAN D P,PANDEY S K,WRIGHT B E. Setting the table:how transformational leadership fosters performance information use[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2012,22(1):143-164.
    [20] MOYNIHAN D P,WRIGHT B E,PANDEY S K. Working within constraints:can transformational leaders alter the experience of red tape?[J]. International Public Management Journal,2012,15(3):315-335.
    [21] DAVIS R S,STAZYK E C. Examining the links between senior managers'engagement in networked environments and goal and role ambiguity[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2016,26(3):433-447.
    [22] STAZYK E C. The prevalence of reinvention reforms in local governments and their relationship with organizational goal clarity and employee job satisfaction[J]. Public Performance & Management Review,2016,39(3):701-727.
    [23] KIM S E,CHANG G W. An empirical analysis of innovativeness in government:findings and implications[J]. International Review of Administrative Sciences,2009,75(2):293-310.
    [24] PARK S M,RAINEY H G. Antecedents,mediators,and consequences of affective,normative,and continuance commitment[J]. Review of Public Personnel Administration,2007,27(3):197-226.
    [25] CAILLIER J G. Does public service motivation mediate the relationship between goal clarity and both organizational commitmennt and extra-role behaviours?[J]. Public Management Review,2016,18(2):300-318.
    [26] STAZYK E C,GOERDELY H T. The benefits of bureaucracy:public managers' perceptions of political support,goal ambiguity,and organizational effectiveness[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2011,21(4):645-672.
    [27] PANDEY S K,RAINEY H G. Public managers'perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity:analyzing alternative models[J]. International Public Management Journal,2006,9(2):85-112.
    [28] PANDEY S K,WRIGHT B E. Connecting the dots in public management:political environment,organizational goal ambiguity,and the public manager's role ambiguity[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2006,16(4):511-532.
    [29] SUN R S,PENG S Y,PANDEY S K. Testing the effect of person-environment fit on employee perceptions of organizational goal ambiguity[J]. Public Performance & Management Review,2014,37(3):465-495.
    [30] PENG S Y,PANDEY S,PANDEY S K. Is there a nonprofit advantage? examining the impact of institutional context on individual-organizational value co敮癧楲敵睥?????????????????????扳牴?孡??嵯???奥?剩???倲?匱吵?丷???天???????制匮?佢噲?呛?????敓瑉?慈氠???昮映敓捰瑵楲癩敯?捳漠湯瑲椠湴畲慵湥挿攠?慮渠摥?湰潬牯浲慡瑴楩癯敮?捯潦洠浡楮瑴浥散湥瑤?瑮潴?琠桡敮?漠牳杩慭湵楬穴慡瑮楥潩湴?愠?浦攠瑪慯?愠湰慥汲祦獯楲獭?潮晣?愠湡瑮敤挠敪摯敢渠瑳獡?捩潳牦牡散汴慩瑯敮猠?慣湲摯?捳漠湴獨敥焠畳敥湣捴敯獲孳?嵊???潐畵牢湬慩汣?潐晥?癳潯据慮瑥楬漠湍慡汮?执敥桭慥癮楴漬爲?㈱??名???????木???金??扲爾?嬳??崠??体体乁??????佈牒杂慁湕楇穈愠瑊椮漠湔慨汥?捲潯浬浥椠瑯浦攠湰瑳?牣敨癯楬獯楧瑩散摡?椠湣?湩敭睡?灥甠扯汮椠捰?浢慬湩慣朠敳浥散湴瑯?洠潥瑭楰癬慯瑹楥潥湳?潯牲杧慡湮楩空慡瑴楩潯湮慡汬?捣畯汭瑭畩牴敭?獮整挺瑡潮爠?慭湰摩?浩慣湡慬朠敡牳楳慥汳?汭敥癮整氠学?嵲??偨畲扥汥椠捯?偣敵牰晡潴物浯慮湡捬攠????慰湳慛杊敝洮攠湉瑮?剥敲癮楡整睩??ちぬ?????????????????扴爠?孯??嵮??唬串????匱?刨?吩娺′????漮愼汢?派慛渳愳杝攠浈敁湓瑓?济愠湓愬杒敏浈敒湂瑁?片效映潊爮洠?慡湲摩?慢晩晬敩捴瑹椠癩敮?潴牨来愠湯楲穧慡瑮楩潺湡慴汩?据潡浬洠楣瑬浩敭湡瑴?椠湯?琠桧敯?灥畲扮汭楥据?猠敯捦瑦潩牣孥?崠???渠瑡敦牦湥慣瑴楩潶湥愠汯?偧畡扮汩楺捡??慯湮慡杬攠浣敯湭瑭??潭略牮湴慛汊?金???????????????????扒牥?孩??崬′?唱串????匵??圵栶礳?愵爸攴?朼潢慲氾獛″椴浝瀠潃版瑕慎渠瑙?楈測?瑁桉敎?灙甠扈氠楇挮?獇敯捡瑬漠牡??敩硧灵汩潴特椠湡杮?琠桯敲?扡敮湩敺晡楴瑩獯?潡晬?杰潥慲汦?捲汭慡牮楣瑥礠?普漠牵?爠敦摥畤捥楲湡杬?瑡畧牥湮潣癩敥牳?楊湝琮攠湊瑯極潲湮孡?崠???潐畵牢湬慩汣?潁晤?偩畮扩汳楴捲??摩浯楮渠楒獥瑳牥慡瑲楣潨渠?剮敤猠敔慨牥捯桲?愬渲搰‰吵栬攱漵爨礴?呼????特?????????特????扎片?孃??崮??啸乴????卮??側牨敥搠楴捨瑥楯湲杹?潯牦朠慧湯楡穬愠瑡業潢湩慧汵?慴捹琠畴慯氠?瑲畯牧湲潡癭敳爺?牸慡瑭敩獮?楮湧?瑴桨敥?啲?卬??晩敯摮敳牨慩汰?杢潥癴敷牥湥浮攠湧瑯孡?崠???湩瑧敵物湴慹琠楡潮湤愠汰?偲畦扯汲業捡??慥湛慊杝攮洠敐湵瑢??潣甠牁湤慭汩??びぴひ????????????????戴爬?嬴??崩?匲吰?娭?失?????倾?丳??夠?协???坁剎???呋??????啙渠摇攮爠獒瑩慳湫搠楃湵杬?慵晲晥攠捩瑮椠癐敵?潬物杣愠湡楮穤愠瑐楲潩湶慡汴?挠潏浲浧楡瑮浩敺湡瑴?瑯桮敳?楊浝瀮漠牐瑵慢湬捩散?潁晤?楩湮獩瑳楴瑲畡瑴楩潯湮愠汒?捶潩湥瑷攬砱琹嬹?崬???洲攩爺椱挰愹渭?刱攸瘮椼敢睲￣潛昳?偝甠扔汈楏捍??摏济椠湊椠獄琮爠慏瑲楧潡湮??ち??????????っ???????扣物?孬??嵣?坥剮???呢??????呦栠敡?牭潩汮敩?潴晲?睴潩牶步?捴潨湥瑯敲硹瑛?楝渮?睎潥牷欠?浯潲瑫椺癍慣瑇楲潡湷?慈?灬畬戬氱椹挶?献攼换瑲漾牛″愸灝瀠求楏捙慎瑅椠潇渠?漮映?杵潢慬汩?愠湡摮?猠潰捲楩慶污?捥漠杭湡楮瑡楧癥敭?瑮桴攺潷牨楡整猧孳?嵴???潤畩牦湦慥汲?潮晣?倿畛扊汝椮挠??摵浲楮湡楬猠瑯牦愠瑍楡潮湡?剥敭獥敮慴爠捓桴?慤湩摥?听栲攰漰爲礬?代〨???????????????39] LOWI T. The end of liberalism[M]. New York,NY:Norton,1969.
    [31] LINDBLOM C E.The science of"muddling through"[J]. Public Administration Review,1959,19(2):79-88.
    [32] BALDWIN J N. Public versus private:not that different,not that consequential[J]. Public Personnel Management,1987,16(2):181-193.
    [33] LOCKE E A,LATHAM G P. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation:a 35-year odyssey[J]. American Psychologist,2002,57(9):705-717.
    [34] DOSSETT D L,LATHAM G P,MITCHELL T R. Effects of assigned versus participatively set goals,knowledge of results,and individual differences on employee behavior when goal difficulty is held constant[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,1979,64(3):291.
    [35] LATHAM G P,MITCHEL T R,DOSSETT D L. Importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,1978,63(2):163.
    [36] ANDERSO D M,STRITCH J M. Goal clarity,task significance,and performance:evidence from a laboratory experiment[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2016,26(2):211-225.
    [37] HO A T K. Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of midwestern mayors[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2006,16(2):217-237.
    [38] INGRAHAM P W,MOYNIHAN D P. Beyond measurement:managing for results in state government[C]//Quicker,Better,Cheaper?:Managing Performance in American Government.New York,NY:Rockefeller Institute Press,2001,309-334.
    [39] POISTER T H,STREIB G. Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government:status after two decades[J]. Public Administration Review,2005,65(1):45-56.
    [40] DAVIS R S,STAZYK E C. Developing and testing a new goal taxonomy:accounting for the complexity of ambiguity and political support[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2015,25(3):751-775.
    [41] RAINEY H G,JUNG C S. A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2015,25(1):71-99.
    [42] JUNG C S. Organizational goal ambiguity and job satisfaction in the public sector[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,2014,24(4):955-981.
    [43] JUNG C S,KIM S E. Structure and perceived performance in public organizations[J]. Public Management Review,2014,16(5):620-642.
    [44] MOYNIHAN D P. Uncovering the circumstances of performance information use findings from an experiment[J]. Public Performance & Management Review,2015,39(1):33-57.
    [45] BUCHANAN B. Government managers,business executives,and organizational commitment[J]. Public Administration R
  • [1] 刘宇, 羊凌玉, 李欣蓓, 姜琛, 张静.碳中和目标实现下中国转型发展路径研究. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2022, 24(4): 27-36.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2022.1604
    [2] 余碧莹, 赵光普, 安润颖, 陈景明, 谭锦潇, 李晓易.碳中和目标下中国碳排放路径研究. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2021, 23(2): 17-24.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2021.7380
    [3] 廖青虎, 陈通, 孙钰, 陶志梅.公共文化服务设施的最优投资管理模式选择. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2016, (1): 96-102.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2016.0113
    [4] 邓剑伟, 杨添安.当代治理模式下公共组织的变化和趋势. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2016, (3): 92-97.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2016.0312
    [5] 诸克军, 李兰兰, 龚承柱.天然气工业用户峰谷分时定价多目标优化模型. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2012, (1): 9-14.
    [6] 程志超, 王丹, 沈佩龙, 季晓明, 申薇.碳交易给我国节能减排目标带来的风险与机遇. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2011, (6): 37-40.
    [7] 翟杰全.科技传播政策：框架与目标. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2009, (2): 10-12.
    [8] 张艳丽, 李蒙娜.企业重整的价值目标及其实现——从重整制度构成的角度. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2008, (6): 3-8.
    [9] 冯立杰, 罗慧, 崔立新.突发公共事件应急管理质量评价体系研究. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2008, (2): 39-43.
    [10] 王慧, 洪瑾.公共危机管理与公信力关系分析. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2008, (5): 93-96.
    [11] 杜亚灵, 尹贻林.基于模糊逻辑的公共项目风险分配模型. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2008, (3): 94-97.
    [12] 姜红仁.对实现法律硕士(JM)培养目标的思考. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2007, (6): 112-114.
    [13] 张艳丽.法学本科教育目标与教学方法. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2007, (1): 95-99.
    [14] 赵黎明, 刘振聚, 何红峰.改进的双目标Friedman竞标模型. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2007, (2): 50-52.
    [15] 张艳丽.现代破产法立法目标与制度构成. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2006, (1): 32-35.
    [16] 裴蓉, 张平淡.公共品牌初探. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2006, (1): 55-57.
    [17] 段小勤.试论现代网络型经营组织对传统会计目标与会计假设的影响. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2005, (4): 61-62.
    [18] 杜健.财务管理目标与企业资本结构优化. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2004, (5): 95-96.
    [19] 栾海峰.美、加公共管理领域非学位教育的借鉴意义. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2002, (3): 20-22.
    [20] 宋桂芝, 洪瑾.关于公共事业管理专业建设的思考与设想. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2001, (4): 85-87.
  • 加载中
WeChat 点击查看大图
计量
  • 文章访问数:355
  • HTML全文浏览量:1
  • PDF下载量:210
  • 被引次数:0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:2018-12-28
  • 刊出日期:2019-12-23

公共管理研究中的目标清晰与目标模糊——来自多个实证研究议题的观察

doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
  • 1. 福州大学 公共管理系, 福建 福州 350116
    • 基金项目:

    福建省社会科学规划青年项目（FJ2019C041）

  • 收稿日期:2018-12-28
  • 刊出日期:2019-12-23

  • 中图分类号:D035

摘要:组织目标研究是公共管理研究的重要内容。目标清晰与目标模糊是组织目标研究中使用频繁的两个重要概念。在实证公共管理研究中，两个概念经常被互换使用，鲜有学者对其进行概念辨析。基于多个研究议题对目标清晰与目标模糊的概念化及应用研究进行比较与辨析。研究发现，目标清晰主要以主观感知测量为主，尚无客观衡量指标；目标模糊的测量则经历从主观感知测量到客观指标测量的发展过程。然而在主观感知测量上，二者的调查量表并无显著差异。在公私组织目标差异、组织绩效、组织繁文缛节、组织成员态度及动机等系列议题研究中，虽然一些学者在理论建构上倾向使用目标模糊的概念，但在测量上却倾向使用目标清晰的量表。在目前的实证公共管理研究中，尚未能显著区分目标清晰与目标模糊这两个概念。

English Abstract

林民望. 公共管理研究中的目标清晰与目标模糊——来自多个实证研究议题的观察[J]. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2019, (6): 116-123. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
引用本文: 林民望. 公共管理研究中的目标清晰与目标模糊——来自多个实证研究议题的观察[J]. bob手机在线登陆学报（社会科学版）, 2019, (6): 116-123.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
shu
LIN Minwang. Goal Clarity and Goal Ambiguity in Public Organizations-Evidence from Empirical Research of Public Management[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2019, (6): 116-123. doi: 10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
Citation: LIN Minwang. Goal Clarity and Goal Ambiguity in Public Organizations-Evidence from Empirical Research of Public Management[J].Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2019, (6): 116-123.doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.3707
shu
参考文献 (45)

目录

    /

      返回文章
      返回

        作者相关

        写作规范

        友情链接

        总访问量: 今日访问量:

        版权所有：bob手机在线登陆学术期刊中心

        主管单位: 中华人民共和国工业和信息化部 主办单位: bob手机在线登陆 地址: 北京市海淀区中关村南大街5号

        本系统由北京仁和汇智信息技术有限公司开发  百度统计

        Baidu
        map