本個案以美商宏源科技股份有限公司(以下簡稱PG)台灣廠為情境，PG為世界知名的高爾夫球配件製造廠，主要銜接外國總部設計之產品進行接單生產與出貨，目前許多的巡迴賽職業選手選用其產品，是業界公認的配件技術領導品牌，產品線涵蓋一般消費者、競技業餘選手到球具製造商與維修通路。
探討功能型組織在新產品導入（NPI）過程中，因各部門 KPI 設計差異所引發的跨部門目標衝突，以及新任總經理如何透過兩個核心理論層次的介入，推動跨部門共識建立：其一為共同目標理論 Superordinate Goal Theory（Sherif, 1958），解釋如何透過引入公司層級上位目標與 Shared KPI 制度設計，重導各部門行為方向；其二為領導型溝通 Communicative Leadership（Johansson et al., 2014），解釋領導者如何透過四種核心溝通行為，讓制度設計真正被組織接受並內化。
本論文以哈佛式個案撰寫方法，包含個案本文及個案教學指引兩部份。教學指引對個案中需討論的內容做詳細說明，主要議題包含目標衝突的結構根源診斷、上位目標的三個設計條件、Shared KPI 與 Decision Gate 的制度設計，以及溝通型領導者如何透過結構化、促進、關係建立與代表四種行為落地執行，讓學員透過本個案達到理論與實務相結合之目的。

This teaching case examines how a newly appointed general manager addresses cross-functional goal conflict during New Product Introduction (NPI) at the Taiwan plant of Hongyuan Technology Co., Ltd., a U.S.-owned golf product accessories manufacturer. Although Manufacturing, Supply Chain Management (SCM), Quality, and Research and Development (R&D) each met their functional performance targets, NPI projects continued to miss customer commitments because the departments optimized different objectives and protected themselves from risks outside their own control. The study adopts the Harvard case-writing approach and integrates case facts with a teaching note. It applies Superordinate Goal Theory to explain how a company-level shared purpose, Shared KPIs, and a Decision Gate can redirect departmental behavior, and Communicative Leadership to explain how institutional changes become accepted through structuring, facilitating, relating, and representing. The analysis shows that local rationality can create system-level failure when performance measures are disconnected. A workable response therefore requires both governance and communication: shared outcomes must create interdependence and joint accountability, while professional authority, especially Quality’s right to stop release, must remain protected. The case concludes that consensus is not achieved through repeated meetings or executive arbitration alone. It emerges when a leader designs a legitimate common goal, creates transparent joint decisions, listens to functional concerns, and brings external customer expectations into internal dialogue.

1.DiBenigno, J. (2018). Anchored personalization in managing goal conflict between professional groups: The case of U.S. Army mental health care. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(3), 526–569.
2.Johansson, C., Miller, V. D., & Hamrin, S. (2014). Conceptualizing communicative leadership: A framework for analysing and developing leaders' communication competence. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 19(2), 147–165.
3.Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349–356.
4.Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
5.March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Wiley.
6.Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.
7.Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
8.Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
9.Kumar, S. S., et al. (2024). Exploring the impact of communicative leadership on employee engagement. Journal of Ecohumanism, 4(1), 86–105.
10.Li, J. Y., Sun, R., Tao, W., & Lee, Y. (2021). Employee coping with organizational change in the face of a pandemic: The role of transparent internal communication. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 101984.
11.Sun, R., Li, J. Y., Lee, Y., & Tao, W. (2023). The role of symmetrical internal communication in improving employee experience. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(3), 870–892.