矛盾追隨行為量表之建立

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：34

、訪客IP：18.221.11.68

姓名

邱郁雅(Yu-Ya Chiu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所

論文名稱

矛盾追隨行為量表之建立
(The Scale Development of Paradoxical Followership 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]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

在組織環境變遷快速之下，組織及個人對於矛盾(Paradox)的需求與日俱增，更顯現出矛盾對於現代企業的重要性。有鑑於此，學者 Zhang, Waldman, Han, and Li (2015)首先將矛盾概念應用於管理層面，提出矛盾領導行為，而本研究受此啟發，將矛盾概念延伸至追隨者，定義矛盾追隨行為是一種「追隨者為了同時達成在工作領域中對立的要求，而出現看似對立卻互相關聯的追隨行為」，回顧過去追隨力相關文獻，儘管曾有學者提出類似的想法，但目前仍尚未有人進行有系統地探討。因此，本研究即以此為題，探究矛盾追隨行為之內涵，並建立矛盾追隨行為之量表。
本研究首先透過文獻探討及訪談，歸納出矛盾追隨行為之三個構面，並由 15 位專家進行內容效度檢驗，編寫量表初稿，共 14 題。而後於台灣地區發放 200 份主管問卷，回收有效樣本共 176 份，經探索性因素分析後，確認量表共 12 題。最後則於台灣及大陸地區發放共 884 份主管問卷，回收有效樣本為 633 份，經驗證性因素分析、聚斂效度、信度、效標關聯效度等檢測，確認矛盾追隨行為量表具備良好信效度。
而本研究之貢獻可分為兩部份，第一，於學術上延伸矛盾概念之研究範疇，提供矛盾領導行為研究新思維，也近一步填補追隨力研究之缺口，建立與傳統追隨量表不同之矛盾追隨行為量表，第二，於實務上提供組織以矛盾的新視角思考管理議題，並提供企業、主管及員工更了解何謂好的追隨行為。

摘要(英)

As organizational environments become more global, dynamic, and competitive, the paradox become more important for organization, individual, and enterprise. As a result, in 2005, Zhang, Waldman, Han, and Li took the lead to apply the concept of paradox to the management, and develop the construct of “paradoxical leadership behavior” (PLB). Inspired by this study, we extend the concept of paradox to followers, and propose “paradoxical followership behavior” (PFB) to describe follower behaviors that are seemingly competing, yet interrelated, to meet competing workplace demands simultaneously and overtime.
After literature review, interviews and expert testing, we generalized 3 dimensions and 14 questions of paradoxical followership behavior. In the pre-test, exploratory factor analysis (n=176) reserved 12 questions. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (n=633) showed the 3 dimension model of paradoxical followership behavior scale fit the data best of reliability and validity.
The results of this study could not only expand the research field of paradox and paradoxical leadership behavior, but also fill up the gap of followership research. Moreover, paradoxical followership behavior could provide enterprise, leaders, and employees with a new perspective to rethink management issues, and also realize what the effective follower should be like.

關鍵字(中)

★ 追隨力
★ 矛盾領導行為
★ 矛盾追隨行為

關鍵字(英)

論文目次

中文摘要 v
ABSTRACT vi
誌謝 vii
目錄 viii
圖目錄 ix
表目錄 x
第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景與動機 1
第二節　研究目的 5
第二章　文獻探討 6
第一節　矛盾概念與內涵 6
第二節　矛盾追隨行為 7
第三節　矛盾追隨行為量表預測效標 12
第三章　研究一：質性訪談 15
第一節　研究方法 16
第二節　研究結果 19
第四章　研究二：量表預試問卷 42
第一節　研究方法 42
第二節　研究結果 44
第五章　研究二：量表正式問卷 52
第一節　研究方法 52
第二節　研究結果 56
第六章　綜合討論 64
第一節　研究結果與討論 64
第二節　學術貢獻 67
第三節　管理意涵 70
第四節　研究限制與未來建議 70
參考文獻 72

參考文獻

Adair, R. (2008). The art of followership (R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen Eds.). San Francisco: JOSSEY-BASS.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative science quarterly, 408-437.
Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative science quarterly, 1-21.
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership_A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(3), 304-319.
Blanchard, K. H. (2007). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high performing organisations: Pearson Education.
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(3), 305-337.
Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression‐management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 281-297.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who Is This "We"? Levels of Collective Identity and Self Representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation: Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture Based on the competing values framework. MA: Addison Wesley: Jossey-Bass.
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543-562.
Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending Paradox The Chinese Middle Way Perspective.pdf>. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 179-199.
Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1997). Nonconscious Behavioral Confirmation Processes: The Self-Fulfilling Consequences of Automatic Stereotype Activation. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 33, 541-560.
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. e. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483-503.
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627-647.
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 539.
Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1360-1392.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American sociological review, 31-41.
Fang, T. (2010). Asian management research needs more self-confidence: Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(1), 155-170.
Fang, T. (2011). Yin Yang: A New Perspective on Culture. Management and Organization Review, 8(01), 25-50.
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel. human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17(2), 447-488.
Frese, M., & Fay, M. (2001). Personal initiative An Active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
Gilbert, G. R., & Hyde, A. C. (1988). Followership and the Federal Worker. Public Administration Review, 48(6), 962-968.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 22-41.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7): Pearson Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5): Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harris, T. B., Li, N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). 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), 314-328.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of leadership.
Hooper, D. T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee reactions. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 20-30.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The Role of Followers in the Charismatic Leadership Process_Relationships and Their Consequences. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96-112.
Hu, L. t., & 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.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and psychological measurement, 20(1), 141-151.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
Kamdar, D., & Dyne, L. V. (2007). The Joint Effects of Personality and Workplace Social Exchange Relationships in Predicting Task Performance and Citizenship Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1286-1298.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders: Harvard Business School Press Boston.
Kelley, R. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662.
Martin, R., Thomas, G., Charles, K., Epitropaki, O., & McNamara, R. (2005). The role of leader-member exchanges in mediating the relationship between locus of control and work reactions. . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 141-147.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizen behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 430.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods: New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Peiró, J. M., & Meliá, J. L. (2003). Formal and Informal Interpersonal Power in Organisations: Testing a Bifactorial Model of Power in Role‐sets. Applied Psychology, 52(1), 14-35.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). An Examination Of Substitutes For Leadership Within A Levels-Of-Analysis Framework. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 289-328.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
Rosenbach, W. E., Pittman, T. S., & Potter III, E. H. (2012). What Makes a Follower? Contemporary issues in leadership, 77-87.
Rosenthal, R. (1993). Interpersonal expectations: Some antecedents and some consequences. Interpersonal expectations: Theory, research, and applications, 3-24.
Seers, A. (1989). Team-Member Exchange Quality: A New Construct for Role-Making Research. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision, 43, 118-135.
Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463-478.
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.
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73-84.
Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., & Binns, A. (2011). Harvard Business Review, 89, 74-80.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 487.
Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 232-260.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role of human capital, motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(5), 577-595.
Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 118-154.
Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders′ conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 822-834.
Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations: Pearson Education India.
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.
王博（1993）。老子思想的史官特色。台北市：文津。
林文政（2016）。銳利、嚴格卻不傷人的領導者，才能讓部屬信服！3個歷史小故事。經理人。取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/52696
羅文豪（2015）。追隨研究的歷史溯源，現實驅力與未來展望，中國人力資源開發，15，6-15。
林淑馨（2010）。質性研究：理論與實務。台北市：巨流。
姜定宇（2009）。華人企業主管知覺部屬效忠。中華心理學刊，51（1），101-119。
姜定宇、鄭伯壎、鄭紀瑩、周麗芳（2007）。華人效忠主管的概念分析與量表建構。中華心理學刊，49，407-432。
徐宗國（譯）（1997）。質性研究概論。台北市：巨流。(Anselm Strauss & Juliet Corbin, 1990)
涂金堂（2012）。量表編制與SPSS。台北市：五南。
曹元坤、許晟（2013）。部屬追隨力：概念界定與量表開發。當代財經，3，82-89。
齊力、林本炫（2005）。質性研究方法與資料分析。高雄：復文。
潘涵筠（2010）。功高震主的權力分析：權力差距理論的驗證（未出版碩士論文）。國立台灣大學心理學研究所，台北市。
鄭伯壎（1995）。差序格局與華人組織行為。本土心理學研究，3，142-219。
鄭紀瑩（1996）。華人企業的組織忠誠：結構與歷程（未出版碩士論文）。國立台灣大學心理學研究所，台北市。
羅建法、博鋒、李偉、魏玉祺（2005）。走出「功高震主」怪圈。中國新時代，6，90-96。
嚴奇峰、卓明德、李粵強（2014）。領導者定位、領導行為與部屬對主管滿意度關係之研究－華人對偶關係之情境觀點。商略學報，6（2），105-132。

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2017-7-24

推文