本研究以跨層級治理架構下之跨國企業地方市場為研究情境，探討績效問責制度在高 度制度化運作下，如何影響組織成員對制度、決策與組織關係的理解。本研究關注的 核心並非績效目標是否被傳達，而是當目標已被清楚傳導後，其背後的脈絡、理由、 取捨與價值承諾是否同樣被說明、轉譯與承接。 本研究採質性研究取向，運用紮根理論精神與 Gioia 方法進行資料分析，並結合深度 訪談、組織文本與員工回饋文本作為多元資料來源。研究發現，在產業收縮與跨層級 治理壓力下，個案組織傾向強化績效問責制度，使目標設定、控制流程、成本審核與 人力配置更為明確。此一制度化過程有助於組織回應全球與區域層級對效率、績效與 資源配置的要求，但也使績效、成本與問責逐漸成為地方市場日常管理中的主要語 言。 然而，績效問責制度化並不必然帶來一致的意義理解。研究發現，組織成員多能理解 績效要求與目標內容，也能理解組織面臨市場壓力與資源限制；真正形成落差的，是 目標背後的決策脈絡、價值考量與取捨邏輯，未必被同等清楚地說明與承接。當制度 訊號缺乏充分脈絡轉譯時，員工可能依據自身經驗與可觀察結果進行歸因，將原本源 自跨層級治理壓力與資源限制的制度結果，重新理解為在地管理者、HR 或組織本身的價值選擇。此一歸因轉向會隨時間與經驗累積，逐漸影響員工對組織未來的期待、組織信任與自身投入的判斷。 基於上述發現，本研究提出「詮釋責任缺口」作為理解此一現象的核心概念。所謂詮 釋責任缺口，並非單純指溝通不足或資訊傳遞不完整，而是指在績效目標與問責要求 已能被清楚傳達的情況下，目標背後的意義、取捨與承諾，尚未形成同等穩定的制度 化承接機制。HR 並非詮釋責任的唯一承擔者，也不一定擁有最終決策權；但因其同 時面對組織制度要求與員工端回饋，往往較早看見目標傳導與員工理解之間的落差， 並察覺組織信任逐漸變化的訊號。 本研究補充制度理論、賦名與意會理論、歸因理論、心理契約理論與策略型人力資源 管理文獻，說明在跨層級治理情境中，績效問責制度化與意義詮釋制度化之間可能存 在不對稱發展。當績效責任可以被追蹤、分配與問責，而目標背後的意義未能被同等 承接時，組織便可能在目標清楚的同時，產生意義理解上的落差，進而影響成員對組 織未來、信任關係與自身投入的判斷。;This study examines how highly institutionalized performance accountability systems shape organizational members’ interpretation of decisions， institutional arrangements， and organizational relationships within the local market of a multinational corporation under multi-level governance. Rather than asking whether performance targets are communicated， this study focuses on whether the context， rationale， trade-offs， and value commitments behind those targets are also explained， translated， and carried across organizational levels. Adopting a qualitative research approach， this study draws on the spirit of grounded theory and the Gioia methodology. Data were collected from in-depth interviews， organizational texts， and employee feedback documents. The findings show that， under industry contraction and multi-level governance pressures， the case organization tended to strengthen its performance accountability system through clearer target setting， control processes， cost review， and workforce allocation. Such institutionalization enabled the organization to respond to global and regional demands for efficiency， performance， and resource optimization. At the same time， performance， cost， and accountability gradually became the dominant language of day-to-day management in the local market. However， the institutionalization of performance accountability did not necessarily produce shared meaning. Organizational members were generally able to understand performance requirements， target content， market pressure， and resource constraints. The gap emerged not from the absence of targets， but from the insufficient explanation and carrying of the decision-making context， value considerations， and trade-offs behind those targets. When institutional signals lacked sufficient contextual translation， employees tended to make attributions based on their own experiences and observable decision outcomes. As a result， institutional outcomes originally shaped by multi-level governance pressures and resource constraints could be reinterpreted as the value choices of local management， HR， or the organization itself. Over time， this shift in attribution gradually influenced employees’expectations for the organization’s future， organizational trust， and willingness to remain invested. Based on these findings， this study proposes the concept of an “interpretive responsibility gap.” This gap does not simply refer to insufficient communication or incomplete information transmission. Rather， it refers to a condition in which performance targets and accountability requirements are clearly communicated， while the meanings， trade-offs， and commitments behind those targets have not been supported by an equally stable and institutionalized mechanism of interpretation and carrying. This study further argues that HR is neither the sole bearer of interpretive responsibility nor necessarily the final decision maker. However， because HR is positioned at the intersection of institutional transmission and employee experience， it often becomes one of the organizational positions that can sense interpretive gaps and changes in organizational trust at an earlier stage. This study contributes to institutional theory， framing and sensemaking perspectives， attribution theory， psychological contract theory， and the literature on strategic human resource management. It highlights the possible asymmetry between the institutionalization of performance accountability and the institutionalization of meaning interpretation under multi-level governance. When performance responsibilities can be tracked， assigned， and held accountable， while the meanings behind those responsibilities are not equally carried， organizations may achieve clarity in targets while still producing gaps in meaning. Such gaps may further shape employees’ judgments about the organization’s future， trust relationships， and their own continued investment.
