矛盾領導行為對部屬工作績效之影響： 部屬雙元行為之中介效果探討

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：31

、訪客IP：18.220.137.164

姓名

徐業翔(Yeh-Hsiang Hsu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所在職專班

論文名稱

矛盾領導行為對部屬工作績效之影響：部屬雙元行為之中介效果探討
(A Study of Paradoxical Leadership Behavior affects Job Performance: The Mediating Effects of subordinates’ Ambidextrous Behaviors)

相關論文

★ 組織精簡與員工態度探討 - 以A公司人力重整計劃為例。	★ 訓練成效評估及影響訓練移轉之因素探討----一項時間管理訓練之研究
★ 主管領導風格、業務員工作習慣及專業證照對組織承諾與工作績效之相關研究	★ 研發專業人員職能需求之研究-以某研究機構為例
★ 人力資本、創新資本與組織財務績效關聯性之研究	★ 企業人力資源跨部門服務HR人員之角色、工作任務及所需職能之研究
★ 新進保全人員訓練成效之評估	★ 人力資源專業人員職能之研究－一項追蹤性的研究
★ 影響企業實施接班人計劃的成功因素	★ 主管管理能力、工作動機與工作績效之關聯性探討─以A公司為例
★ 影響安全氣候因子之探討-以汽車製造業為例	★ 台電公司不同世代員工工作價值觀差異及對激勵措施偏好之研究
★ 不同的激勵措施對員工工作滿足及工作投入之影響性分析	★ 工作價值觀、工作滿足對組織承諾之影響(以A通訊公司研發人員為例)
★ 薪資公平知覺與組織承諾關係之探討－以內外控人格特質為干擾變項	★ 改善活動訓練成效評量之研究

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)

企業的永續性發展與領導策略息息相關，組織處在一個時間、人力、財力資源有限的壓力，伴隨勞力型態多元化、跨文化溝通頻繁增加等狀況，比以往更容易面對多樣化卻相互衝突的難處，進而造成組織中的矛盾情況不斷地加劇。組織若要能維持長期效能，在急速變化的商業環境獲得成功，在各種矛盾目標要求下，領導團隊和個體能力將是其中之關鍵。
　矛盾領導於近年領導管理學術領域已有眾多實證研究，對於組織績效提升、保持創新、適應高度不確定性新常態競爭環境，皆能帶來效用。其次，企業在追求創新達成績效的過程中，團隊和個人互不相融的要求帶來組織內雙元性衝突：既要能探索創新行為，如開發、試驗尋找新方案；又要能平衡傳統商業價值應用性，如改善、執行重組現有的知識能力。如何通過領導行為來平衡矛盾緊張，促進雙元性進而達成績效是本研究的主要動機。
　本研究探討部屬的雙元行為在主管矛盾領導行為與工作績效間的中介效果，雙元行為本身具有一定程度的矛盾衝突性，不容易同時兼容，而矛盾式領導透過兼而有之的管理模式，透過矛盾思維整合，鼓勵部屬執行探索和開發式行為，運用工作程序安排、工作情境匹配，協助部屬平衡兼顧雙元行為；依此部屬雙元行為在矛盾領導行為與工作績效間可能扮演中介角色。
本研究透過兩階段主管與部屬配對方式蒐集問卷，研究發現部屬雙元行為在矛盾領導行為與部屬工作績效間，呈現完全正向中介效果。

摘要(英)

The sustainable development of an enterprise is closely related to its leadership strategy. Organizations are often facing the extreme limited pressure of time, human resources, and financial resources. And with the diversification of labor types and the frequent proliferation of cross-cultural communication, it is easier than ever to face not only diversity but also mutual conflict difficulty, which intensifies the contradictions in the organization. The ability to lead teams and individuals is the key for any organization to maintain long-term performance and to succeed in a rapidly changing business environment under a variety of conflicting goals.
Paradoxical leadership has been extensively studied in the academic field of leadership management in recent years. It has been proven useful for organizations to improve performance, maintain innovations, and adapt to the ever-changing competitive environment. In addition, in the process of pursuing innovation, it is inevitable that the incompatibility between teams and between team members would bring ambidextrous conflicts within the organization: in order to find new solutions, it is necessary to intensively explore innovative behaviors through developing and experimenting new ideas. Moreover, in order to balance traditional business value applicability, organizations need to constantly improving, implementing and reorganizing their existing knowledge capabilities. The motivation of this study is to explore how leadership behaviors solve conflict, balance tensions and enhance ambiguity to achieve organizations’ performance.
This study explores the mediating effect of subordinates’ ambidextrous behavior between their job performance and their supervisors′ paradoxical leadership behaviors.
Ambidextrous behaviors are categorized as contradictory and conflicting behaviors that are consider incompatible to team environments. The paradoxical leadership encourages subordinates to implement exploring and exploiting behaviors using the compatible management model and paradoxical mindset integration. It also assists subordinates to balance ambidextrous behaviors with work procedures arrangement and work situation matching. Therefore, theoretically, the ambidextrous behaviors from subordinates play a mediating role between paradoxical leadership behavior and job performance.
In this study, two-stage distributed and paired-up questionnaires between supervisor and subordinate were collected. The result found that subordinates’ ambidextrous behavior presents a completely positive mediating effect between paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinates’ job performance.

關鍵字(中)

★ 矛盾領導行為
★ 雙元行為
★ 探索式行為
★ 開發式行為
★ 工作績效

關鍵字(英)

★ Paradoxical Leadership Behavior
★ Ambidextrous Behavior
★ Exploring Behavior
★ Exploiting Behavior
★ Job performance

論文目次

中文摘要 I
Abstract II
誌謝 IV
目錄 V
表目錄 VII
圖目錄 VIII
第一章、緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 4
第二章、文獻探討 5
2-1 矛盾領導行為 5
2-1-1整合自我中心與他人中心（SO） 6
2-1-2與部屬保持距離，同時又保持親近的關係（DC） 6
2-1-3對待部屬一視同仁，同時又允許部屬的個人化（UI） 7
2-1-4強制部屬執行工作要求的同時，又允許部屬保持彈性（RF） 7
2-1-5保持決策控制的同時，又給予部屬自主性（CA） 7
2-2 員工雙元行為 8
2-2-1 雙元化演進 8
2-2-2 員工雙元行為探討 10
2-2-3 員工雙元行為的特徵與內涵 11
2-3 工作績效 12
2-4 矛盾領導行為對工作績效的影響 14
2-5 員工雙元行為的中介效用 15
2-5-1 矛盾領導行為對員工雙元行為的影響 15
2-5-2 員工雙元行為(開發式行為、探索式行為)對工作績效的影響 16
第三章、研究方法 18
3-1 研究架構 18
3-2 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序 18
3-3 研究變項衡量 20
3-3-1矛盾領導行為量表 20
3-3-2 開發式行為量表 21
3-3-3 探索式行為量表 21
3-3-4 工作績效量表 22
3-3-5 控制變項 22
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 22
第四章、研究結果 23
4-1 資料來源與樣本特性 23
4-2 信度與效度分析 24
4-2-1信度分析 24
4-2-2 驗證性因素分析 24
4-2-3 收斂效度與區辨效度分析 26
4-3 相關分析 28
4-4 結構方程模型分析與假設模型檢驗 29
第五章、結論與建議 31
5-1 研究結論與討論 31
5-2 學術研究貢獻 32
5-3 管理意涵 32
5-4 研究限制與未來研究建議 34
一、中文參考文獻 36
二、英文參考文獻 37

參考文獻

一、中文參考文獻
王朝暉：悖論式領導如何讓員工兩全其美—心理安全感和工作繁榮感的多重仲介作用，外國經濟與管理，2018年3月
王朝暉：員工資質過剩感與越軌創新—基於悖論視角的鏈式仲介關係研究，經濟經緯，2019年第5期
朱朝暉：《探索性學習、挖掘性學習和創新績效》，《科學學研究》，2008年第4期
宋錕泰，張正堂，趙李晶：《時間壓力對員工雙元創新行為的影響機制》，《經濟管理》，2019年第5期
李俊華，張春彩：雙元領導、員工雙元行為與企業創新績效－員工主動性人格的調節作用，河南師範大學學報（哲學社會科學版）2021年第48卷第4期
余惠敏，矛盾領導行為對部屬工作績效之影響：工作熟練度、適應行為與主動積極行為的仲介效果探討，國立中央大學，碩士論文，2019年
姚豔虹，季凡祺：悖論思維對創造力的“過猶不及”效應研究，中國人力資源開發，2021年第4期
陳婉如，矛盾領導行為對創新行為與工作績效之影響，國立中央大學，碩士論文，2020年
傅馨瑩，矛盾領導行為對部屬工作績效之影響：矛盾追隨行為的仲介與調節效果的探討，國立中央大學，碩士論文，2018年
張濤，悖論式領導、員工雙元行為與創新績效的關係研究，2018
鄧伊惠，矛盾領導行為與部屬任務性績效的關聯性─以部屬複雜整合力及部屬整合性思維為仲介變項，國立中央大學，碩士論文，2018年
韓楊, 羅瑾璉, 鐘競. 雙元領導對團隊創新績效影響研究—基於慣例視角[J]. 管理科學, 2016, 29(1):70-85.
蘇品真，矛盾領導行為、矛盾追隨行為與部屬適應性行為關聯性之探討—不確定性規避的調節式仲介效果的檢驗，國立中央大學，碩士論文，2019年
二、英文參考文獻
Andriopoulos C, Lewis M W. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation[J]. Organization Science, 2009, 20（4）: 696–717.
Alexander L, Van Knippenberg D. Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective [J]. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 2017, 45(1):105-120.
Angeliki Papachroni and Loizos Heracleous, Ambidexterity as Practice: Individual Ambidexterity Through Paradoxical Practices, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science I-23. 2020.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G., "Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures." Psychological bulletin, 88(3), pp 588. 1980.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Personnel selection in organizations, 71–98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown S L, Eisenhardt K M. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-based evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42 (1): 1-34.
Benner M J, Tushman M L. Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited [J]. Academy of Management Review, 2003, 28(2):238-256.
Blanchard, K.,Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high performing organisations, Pearson Education, 2007.
Bledow R, Frese M, Anderson N, et al. A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity [J]. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 2009, 2(3):305-337.
Borman, Bryant, & Dorio, J. (2010). The measurement of task performanceas criteria in selection research. In Handbook ofemployee selection , 439–462.
Campbell. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 687–732.
Carmeli A, Halevi M Y. How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity.[J]. Leadership Quarterly, 2009, 20(2):207-218.
Chang Chen and Zhe Zhang, Ming Jia Effect of stretch goals on work–family conflict Role of resource scarcity and employee paradox mindset, 2020.
Damanpour F. Organizational complexity and innovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models [J]. Management science 1996; 42(5): 693-716.
Duncan R B. The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation. The Management of Organization Design, 1976(1).
Floyd S W, Lane P J. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal [J]. Academy of management review, 2000, 25(1): 154-177.
Gerstner, C. R., &Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827–844.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T., "Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences." Educational researcher, 18(8), pp 4-10. 1989.
Gibson C B, Birkinshaw J. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2004, 47(2):209-226.
Gupta A K, Smith K G, Shalley C E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation [J]. Academy of management journal, 2006, 49(4): 693-706.
Griffin, M. A., et al. (2007). "A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts." Academy of Management journal 50(2): 327-347.
Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. H., "Management of organizational behavior." Prentiss Hall, England Cleft, NJ, pp 236-244. 1977
Hochwarter, W. A., Kiewitz, C., Gundlach, M. J., & Stoner, J. (2004). The impact of ocational and social efficacy on job performance and career satisfaction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(3), 27-40.
He Z L, Wong P K. Exploration v.s Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 2004(4)
Han M. Achieving superior internationalization through strategic ambidexterity. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 2005, 15 (1): 43-77.
Harreld J B, Tushman M L. Organizational ambidexterity: IBM and emerging business opportunities [J]. California Management Review, 2009. 51(4): 75-99.
Heneman, H. G., & Judge, T.,Staffing Organizations, Mendota House, 2009.
Hair, J., Black, W., & Babin, B. (2010). R. Anderson (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Holmqvist M, Spicer A. The Ambidextrous Employee: Exploiting and Exploring People′s Potential [M]. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2012:1-23.
Hoffman & Dilchert, S. (2012). A review of citizenship and counterproduc-tive behaviors in organizational decision-making. In The Oxfordhandbook of personnel assessment and selection, 543–569.
Hannah, S. T., Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Jennings, P. L., & Thatcher, R. W., "The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive decision-making." Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), pp 393. 2013.
Harris, T. B., Li, N., & Kirkman, B. L., "Leader–member exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX′s influence on OCB and turnover intention." The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), pp 314-328. 2014.
Ishaq, E., Bashir, S., & Khan, A. K. J. A. P. (2021). Paradoxical leader behaviors: Leader personality and follower outcomes. 70(1), 342-357.
Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y., "Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis." The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), pp 299-312. 2013.
Johansson, P. E. Transcending the dichotomy of exploitative and explorative work-orientations［C］. 22nd International Annual EurOMA Conference EurOMA15, 26 Jun-26 July 1 2015, Neuchatel, Switzerland, 2015.
Kline, R. B., & Santor, D. A., "Principles & practice of structural equation modelling." Canadian Psychology, 40(4), pp 381. 1999.
Kauppila O P. Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships [J]. Strategic organization, 2010, 8(4): 283-312.
Knight E, Harvey W. Managing exploration and exploitation paradoxes in creative organisations[J]. Management Decision, 2015, 53(4):809-827.
Kao Y L, Chen C F. Antecedents, consequences and moderators of ambidextrous behaviours among frontline employees[J]. Management Decision, 2016, 54(8):1846-1860.
Lewis, M. W., ” Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide”. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), pp. 760-776, 2000.
Lüscher L S, Lewis M W. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2008, 51（2）: 221–240.
Lavie D, Kang J, Rosenkopf L. Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances [J]. Organization Science, 2011, 22(6): 1517-1538
March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J]. Organization science 1991; 2(1): 71-87
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P., "Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business." Administrative science quarterly, 48(2), pp 268-305. 2003.
Mom T J M, Van Den Bosch F A J, Volberda H W. Investigating managers′ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top‐down, bottom‐up, and horizontal knowledge inflows [J]. Journal of management studies, 2007, 44(6): 910-931.
Mironspektor E, Gino F, Argote L. Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. [J]. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 2011, 116(2):229-240.
Martinperez V. Does HRM generate ambidextrous employees for ambidextrous learning? The moderating role of management support [J]. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2015, 26(5):589-615.
Moscoso, S., Salgado, J. F., &Anderson, N. (2017). How Do I Get a Job, What Are They Looking For? Personnel Selection and Assessment. In An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology, 25–47. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Marjolein C.J. Caniëls, Carmen Neghina and Nico Schaetsaert, Ambidexterity of employees: the role of empowerment and knowledge sharing, JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VoL.21, 2017.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H., "Psychometric theory." 1978.
O′Reilly C A, Tushman M L. Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future [J]. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 2013, 27(4): 324-338. [46].Brown S L, Eisenhardt K M. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-based evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42 (1): 1-34.
Parker S K. Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more [J]. Annual review of psychology, 2014, 65: 661-691.
Papachroni A, Heracleous L, Paroutis S. Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Extending the research agenda[J]. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2015, Forthcoming(1).
Reddin, W. J., "Managerial effectiveness." 1970.
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T., & Breward, K.,Essentials of organizational behavior, Vol. 7, Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, 2003.
Raisch S, Birkinshaw J. Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators [J]. Journal of Management: Official Journal of the Southern Management Association, 2008, 34(3): 375-409.
Rogan M, Mors M L. A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations [J]. Organization Science, 2014, 25(6): 1860-1877.
Rosing K, Zacher H. Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance[J]. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 2016, 26(5):694-709.
Rothman, N. B., &Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling Mixed, Ambivalent, and in Flux: The Social Functions of Emotional Complexity for Leaders. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 259–282.
Shamir, B., “Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study.” Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19-47, 1995.
Smith W K, Binns A, Tushman M L. Complex Business Models: Managing Strategic Paradoxes Simultaneously [J]. Long Range Planning, 2010, 43(2): 448-461.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W., "Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing." Academy of management Review, 36(2), pp 381-403. 2011.
Schad J, Lewis M W, Raisch S, et al. Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward[J]. Academy of Management Annals, 2016, 10(1):1-60.
Tushman M L, O′Reilly III C A. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change [J]. California management review, 1996, 38(4): 8-29.
Turner N, Swart J, Maylar H. Mechanisms for Managing Ambidexterity: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2013(3)
Tran, H. Q. Organizational ambidexterity in small firms: the role of top management team behavioral integration and entrepreneurial orientation［J］. Journal of Business & Economic Policy, 2015(4):31-39.
Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M.,Structural equation modeling, Wiley Online Library, 2003.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yu T, Patterson P. ACHIEVING SERVICE-SALES AMBIDEXTERITY IN HETEROGENEOUS SERVICE BRANCHES[C]// 2013.
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.

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2022-6-24

推文