矛盾領導行為對部屬績效表現與創新行為之影響：探討部屬矛盾領導行為的中介效果

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：88

、訪客IP：3.145.178.240

姓名

李岳豪(Yueh-Hao Lee) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

高階主管企管碩士班

論文名稱

矛盾領導行為對部屬績效表現與創新行為之影響：探討部屬矛盾領導行為的中介效果

相關論文

★ 溝通與領導課程訓練成效之分析	★ 母國企業直線主管領導風格與國際人力資源管理措施對外派人員績效之影響
★ 豐田管理模式之人才培育對品質與成本之影響-以某汽車公司為例	★ 360 度回饋系統對企業主管行為改變意圖的影響-以跨國飲料 SC 公司為例
★ 兩岸研發人員職能發展應用研究－以M公司為例	★ 企業併購過程中的人力資源角色
★ 組織變革成功個案分析 - John P. Kotter 領導變革八大步驟之觀點	★ 社群網站經營模式分析－以『BB-BOX』網站為例
★ 觸控IC經營策略之個案研究－以Ａ公司為例	★ 科技研發單位實施接班人計畫之探討─以國內某科技研發單位為例
★ 面對數位匯流，傳統媒體代理商應對策略探討─以安吉斯集團偉視捷媒體公司為例	★ 台灣光電產業選擇產品認證外包廠商的決定因素─以發光二極體照明產品為例
★ 團隊激勵獎金與團隊績效關連性之研究	★ 晶圓代工業關鍵成功因素的探討—以台積公司為例
★ 員工潛能與績效對員工晉升的影響--以營造建築業為例	★ 建構整合性智慧健康照護網絡─以中壢天晟醫院醫療小管家為例

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

矛盾領導行為是近年備受關注的研究議題，但過去鮮少針對它與「創新」及「工作績效」之間的關係進行研究，尤其是透過階層相互領導的方式，也就是讓主管發揮自身的矛盾領導行為來影響部屬的領導成果。期望這個研究，能為矛盾領導行為如何影響企業組織的成功創新與高工作績效找到方向。為了要能夠同時整合看似對立的需求，矛盾的能力是不可或缺的。矛盾領導行為與部屬的工作績效之間，究竟是扮演著調節亦或者是中介的何種角色？這樣的研究方向便引發了本研究的動機。
本研究主要採取兩階段配對問卷，以兩岸地區民營企業的主管與部屬為對象，蒐集有效334份有效的主管與部屬配對問卷，有效配對樣本回收率為80％，發現部屬矛盾領導行為在主管矛盾領導行為與不同工作績效跟工作創新行為，呈現完全正向中介的效果，而非調節效果。

摘要(英)

Paradoxical leadership behavior has been one of the most popular subjects in the studies of Manager in recent years. Nonetheless, a few studies have discussed the relationship between supervisors` paradoxical leadership behaviors and their subordinates’ innovation and job performance, Especially the assisting leaders will help Supervisors use their own Paradoxical leadership behaviors to influence Subordinates` leadership achievements. I hope this Essay topic can help find how Paradoxical leadership behavior affects the organization′s successful innovation and high job performance. Ability of Paradoxical Leadership is essential In order to be able to integrate seemingly opposite needs at the same time. Paradoxical leadership behavior and work performance of the subordinates. It is playing the role of regulation or intermediary? This research direction inspired the motivation of this treatise. The method of this study mainly adopts a two-stage paired questionnaire form This data is for executives and subordinates of private enterprises in the two sides across the Taiwan Strait. A total of 334 valid questionnaires for supervisors and subordinates were collected. The recovery rate of effectively matched samples was 80%. The study found that the conflict of subordinate leadership behaviors showed a completely positive intermediary effect on the superior leadership′s conflict leadership behaviors and different job performance and job innovation behaviors.

關鍵字(中)

★ 矛盾領導行為
★ 工作表現
★ 創新行為

關鍵字(英)

★ Paradoxical leadership behavior
★ Work performance
★ Innovative behavior

論文目次

第一章緒論
1-1 研究背景與動機1
1-2 研究目的4
第二章文獻探討
2-1 社會學習理論5
2-2 矛盾的基礎理論10
2-3 矛盾領導行為12
2-4 工作績效表現14
2-5 創新行為表現15
2-6 部屬矛盾領導行為在主管矛盾領導行為和部屬績效表現之間的中介效果16
2-7 部屬矛盾領導行為在主管矛盾領導行為和部屬創新行為之間的中介效果18
第三章研究方法
3-1 研究架構20
3-2 研究樣本與程序20
3-3 研究變數與衡量21
第四章研究結果
4-1 樣本來源與樣本特性24
4-2 信度與效度分析26
4-3 驗證因素分析30
4-4 研究假設31
第五章結論與建議
5-1 研究結論33
5-2 管理意函與實務貢獻35
5-3 研究限制與未來建議36

參考文獻

[1] Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
[2] Aragón-Correa, J. A. (1998). "Strategic Proactivity and Firm Approach to the Natural Environment." A cademy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556-567.
[3] Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W. C., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P.(2004).Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: “Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.
[4] Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Social learning theory. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall.
[5] Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies, Cambridge University.
[6] Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the Use of Structural Equation Model In experimental Desgns. Journal of Marketing Research, 26 August, 271-284.
[7] Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., &Farr, J. (2009). A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(03), 305-337.
[8] Borman, & Motowidlo. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance.
[9] Byrne, D. (1971) The Attraction Paradigm, Vol. 11 Academic Press, New York.
[10] Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., &Farr, J. (2009). A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(03), 305-337.
[11] Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, and associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-90). San Francisco：Jossey-Bass.
[12] Bruce Curran and Scott Walsworth. (2014). Can you pay employees to innovate? Evidence from the Canadian private sector, Human Resource Management Journal, 24(03), 290-306.
[13] Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128.
[14] Christina E. Shalley & Lucy L. Gilson. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 35-53.
[15] Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). "A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational behavior and human performance, 13(1), 46-78.
[16] Ella, M.-S., & Erez, M. (2016). LOOKING AT CREATIVITY THROUGH A PARADOX LENS: DEEPER UNDERSTANDING AND NEW INSIGHTS. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, &A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford University Press. (p. 434).
[17] Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(2), 43-56.
[18] Galbraith, J. K. (1979). The age of uncertainty. (N. C. Tu, Trans.). Taipei : China Times Publishing.
[19] Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., &Parker, S. K. (2007). A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behavior in Uncertain and Interdependent Contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347.
[20] Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., &Purdy, K. (1975). A New Strategy for Job Enrichment. California Management Review, 17(4), 57-71.
[21] Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., &Anderson, R. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
[22] Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
[23] Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
[24] O′Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013)."Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
[25] Neal, A. F., &Hesketh, B. (1999). "Technology and performance." In D. Ilgen &D. Pulakos (Eds.), The Changing Nature of performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation and Development (pp.21-55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[26] Rosing, K., Frese, M., &Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
[27] Schneider, K. J. (1990). The paradoxical self: Toward an understanding of our contradictory nature. New York, NY, US: Insight Books/Plenum Press.
[28] Smith, C., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P.(1983). "Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653.
[29] Smith, W. K., &Lewis, M. W. (2011). TOWARD A THEORY OF PARADOX : ADYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM MODEL Tecnicas de communicative. Academy of Manahement Review, 36(2), 381–403.
[30] Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607.
[31] VanVianen, A. E. M., Shen, C.-T., &Chuang, A. (2011). Person-organization and person-supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 906-926.
[32] Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., &Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293.
[33] Yukl, G., &Mahsud, R. (2010). "Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81-93.
[34] Zhang, Xiaomeng, &Bartol, K. M. (2010). The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 862-873.
[35] Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566.

中文參考文
[1] 林文政：「矛盾拿捏新時代領導思維」。2017年8月9日取自https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20170809000165-260210?chdtv.
[2] 林文政：『未來在等待的人才：唯有「學習者」生存』。2014年9月19日取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/45999。
[3] 林文政：領導者思維：「能否承受變動，主管需要培養三大關鍵思考力」。2017年9月14日取自https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article_content_AR0008639.html。
[4] 林真余，「矛盾領導行為與目標導向的關係：檢視團隊成員關係品質的中介效果」，國立中山大學，碩士論文，民國一零五年。
[5] 傅馨瑩，「矛盾領導行為對部屬工作績效之影響：矛盾追隨行為的中介與調節效果探討」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零七年。
[6] 張明智，「不確定性規避對創新行為與工作績效之影響：以主管的矛盾領導行為作為調節變項」國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零八年。
[7] 陳慶源，「矛盾領導行為與部屬工作行為表現關聯性之探討：以部屬思維層面變數與矛盾追隨行為為中介變項」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零八年。
[8] 巴納德，經理人員的職能，初版，台北市，五南出版社，民國一零七年。
[9] 李悅＆王懷勇，「優勢匹配感對員工雙元行為的影響機制研究」，中國學術期刊網路出版總庫第七期，2017年。
[10] 黃翠新&蔣俊賢，「親情文化視角下的信用制度構建研究」，廣西欽洲市，欽州學院學報，2009年

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2020-6-29

推文