本研究目的是建置全球人才移動服務(Global Mobility Service, GMS)專業人員的職能模型，以Spencer＆Spencer所提出的職能模型建置的方法為參考, 採用行為事例訪談以及檔案資料處理方式來進行。其中，行為事例訪談的方法透過事先設計好的訪談問題，向個案公司五位目標訪談對象分別進行訪談，從受訪者口述的實際案例，進行質化研究與分析，歸納出GMS專業人員的職能模型，再透過收集和整理個案公司的檔案資料，除公開資訊和核心價值之外，也包括該公司內部的工作說明書、客戶簽約服務內容和績效考核表等檔案資料，進行交叉驗證。
建置完成的GMS專業人員的職能模型包含12項職能，分別為可觀察到的外在表現的「外語溝通能力」、「解決問題的能力」、「團隊合作」、「專業知識」、「注重工作品質」和「正常差勤及積極參與所內活動」，以及不可觀察到的內在特質的「以客為尊的態度」、「人際敏銳度」、「耐心及抗壓的工作態度」、「積極主動的責任感」、「彈性變通」和「維持良好客戶關係」。 經檢視比較結果發現，此職能模型和個案公司之6個核心價值都有相互關聯，但個案公司的績效評估項目並未包含針對「以客為尊的態度」、「人際敏銳度」、「耐心及抗壓的工作態度」以及「彈性變通」等行為方面的評估。建議個案公司人資部門在未來績效考核時，增列這些屬於行為評估的項目，安排情境個案的討論訓練，提升員工解決問題的能力和培養「彈性變通」的特質，以及應徵人才時，仍然強調「外語溝通能力」的要求。
由於時間的限制，本研究僅進行和個案公司之內部資料進行交叉比較驗證的階段，成果只適用個案公司內部進行研究及調查，希望後續應用到實務界，進一步地加強與擴充研究範圍，以期有更多的研究發現和效益。

The purpose of this study is to build a competence model for Global Mobility Service (GMS) providers, according to the competence model defined by Spencer & Spencer, the research methods adopted in this study include the Behavioral Event Interview (BEI) and file data processing. Interviews were conducted separately with a total of five target interviewees from the case company through pre-designed questionnaires. The research procedures utilized in this study included recording actual cases narrated by the interviewees, further qualitative research and analysis to develop the competency model for GMS providers, and then collecting and organizing the case company's file data, public information, and core values, internal cross-validation of the work manual, engagement letters, performance assessment forms, and other files.
The competency model for GMS providers includes 12 competencies, which include the observable external performance characteristics "foreign language communication ability", " problem solving ability", "teamwork", "expertise", "focus on quality of work" and "work attendance and active participation in company activities ", as well as the unobservable inherent characteristics "customer-oriented attitude", "interpersonal acuity", "patient and stress-resistant working attitude", "proactive sense of responsibility", "flexibility" and "maintaining good customer relationships". After reviewing and comparing the results, it was found that this competency model and the six core values of the case company are interrelated, but the performance evaluation assessment of the case company does not include "customer-oriented attitude", "interpersonal acuity", and "patient" characteristics. In addition, the case company also doesn’t not include “stress-resistant work attitudes", "flexibility" and other behavioral assessments. It is recommended that the human resources department of the case company add these behavior evaluation items to future performance evaluations, arrange discussion training for situational cases to improve problem solving ability, and also cultivate the characteristic of "flexibility", and continue to strongly require "foreign language communication ability".
Due to time constraints, this research ended at the stage of cross-comparison and verification with the internal data of the case company. The results are only applicable to the internal research and investigation of the case company. Hopefully the research results can be applied to case company’s work practices, and in the future further expand the research scope to build up more results and benefits for related parties.

中文文獻
1. 張火燦 (1996)，「策略性人力資源管理」，台北：揚智文化。
2. 吳四明譯 (2000)，Marcus Buckingham & Curt Coffman著，「首先，打破成規－八萬名傑出經理人的共通特質」，台北：先覺文化。
3. 許志隆 (2000)，「職能辭典的發展與應用」，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
4. 魏梅金譯 (2002)，「才能評鑑法-建立卓越績效的模式/Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance by Lyle M. Spencer, Jr. Signe M. Spencer」。
5. 湯明哲 (2003)，「策略精論（基礎篇）」，台北：天下文化。
6. 黃定國 (2013)，「新進業務員職能表現與績效預測之個案研究」，國立台灣科技大學企業管理系碩士班碩士學位論文。
7. 林綾葳 (2019)，「關鍵人才職能模型建構與留任因素之探討」，國立交通大學管理學院碩士班碩士論文。
 英文文獻
1. Boyatzis, R. E. (1982), The Competence Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Lyle M. S. & Signe M. S. (1993), Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3. Dalton M. (1997), “Are competency models a waste?” Training & Development, 51(10), 46-49.
4. McClelland, D. C. (1973), “Testing for competence rather than for Intelligence,” American Psychologist, 28, 1-14.
5. Jim K. (1997), “Competence-based management,” Training & Development, 51(10), 40-44.
6. Patricia A. M. (1980), “Competency Models,” Training and Development Journal, 34(12), 22-26.
7. Richard J. M. (1997), “Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling,” Training & Development, 51(8), 73-77.
8. Lahti, R.K. (1999), “Identifying and integrating individual level and organizational level core competencies,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(1), 59-95.
9. Rothwell W. J. & Lindholm J. E. (1999), “Competency identification, modeling and assessment in the USA,” International Journal of Training and Development, 3(2), 90-105.