整合式思維、複雜整合力、任務性績效與矛盾追隨行為關聯性之探討

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：98

、訪客IP：18.221.214.175

姓名

邹淑宜(Shu-I Chou) 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

整合式思維、複雜整合力、任務性績效與矛盾追隨行為關聯性之探討
(Research on the Relationship among Holistic Thinking, Integrative Complexity, Task)

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)

中文摘要
論文名稱：整合式思維、複雜整合力、任務性績效與矛盾追隨行為關聯性之探討
校所：國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所
研究生：邹淑宜
指導教授：林文政博士
頁數：40 頁
論文提要內容:
矛盾追隨行為理論是近來管理研究領域中的新興議題之一，相關研究刻正方興未艾，此一情形透露出矛盾追隨行為理論之建構正期待學界能有持續不斷的研究成果累積，以便予以補充而厚實其理論基礎。本研究即旨在延伸矛盾追隨行為的相關研究，特別是探尋影響矛盾追隨行為的前因與後果，並針對部屬的整合式思維、部屬的複雜整合力是否影響展現部屬的矛盾追隨行為，以及矛盾追隨行為是否影響部屬的任務性績效等三個面向。
本研究以主管及部屬配對的問卷方式，蒐集台灣企業473 份有效樣本進行分析，研究結果發現包括：（1）部屬的整合式思維對於矛盾追隨行為有正向顯著的影響；（2）矛盾追隨行為對部屬任務性績效有正向顯著影響。據此，本研究確認了部屬的整合式思維是影響矛盾追隨行為的前因，而矛盾追隨行為則會影響員工的任務性績效展現。

關鍵詞：整合式思維、複雜整合力、任務性績效、矛盾追隨行為。

摘要(英)

Research on the Relationship among Holistic Thinking, Integrative Complexity, Task
Performance and Paradoxical Followership Behavior

Abstract

The theory of paradoxical followership behavior is one of the emerging issues in the recent management research field, and related researches are booming. This phenomenon
indicates that this paradoxical followership behavior theory expects to have as many research results as can be, through the endeavor of all relevant researchers, to let this theory become stronger and more solid about its theoretical basis. This study intends to extend the
scope of the current research concerning the theory of paradoxical followership behavior, in particular to explore the antecedents and consequences of this theory. This study
particularly focuses on three aspects: whether ubordinates′ holistic thinking and integrative complexity will have respective influence on what extent of paradoxical followership behavior the subordinates may have; and then whether subordinate′s task performance will be further influenced by the paradoxical followership behavior that subordinates actually exhibit.
In this study, 473 effective samples of Taiwanese companies were collected for analysis by questionnaires answered by supervisor and subordinate paired accordingly. The results
showed that: (1) the holistic thinking of subordinates had positive and significant effect on paradoxical followership behavior; (2) paradoxical followership behavior has positive and significant effect on subordinates’ task performance. According to such result, this study confirms that subordinates’ holistic thinking is the antecedent of paradoxical followership behavior, while paradoxical followership behavior then affects the extent of employees′ task performance.

Keywords: Holistic Thinking, Integrative Complexity, Task Performance and Paradoxical
Followership Behavior.

關鍵字(中)

★ 整合式思維
★ 複雜整合力
★ 任務性績效
★ 矛盾追隨行為

關鍵字(英)

論文目次

目錄
中文摘要.................................................. i
Abstract................................................. ii
誌謝.................................................... iii
目錄 ......................................................
圖目錄.................................................... i
表目錄................................................... ii
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 矛盾追隨行為 ............................................5
2-2 影響矛盾追隨行為的因素 .................................. 7
2-3 矛盾追隨行為對員工任務性績效的影響 ........................ 9
第三章研究方法 ........................................... 11
3-1 研究架構 ............................................. 11
3-2 研究樣本與程序 ........................................ 12
3-3 研究變項衡量 .......................................... 14
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 ..................................... 17
第四章研究結果 ........................................... 18
4-1 資料來源與樣本特性 ..................................... 18
4-2 信度與效度分析 ........................................ 19
4-3 收斂效度與區辨效度 ..................................... 21
4-4 相關分析 ............................................. 24
4-5 假設模型檢驗 ......................................... 26
第五章結論與討論 ......................................... 27
5-1 研究結果與討論 ........................................ 27
5-2 學術貢獻 ............................................. 29
5-3 實務貢獻 ............................................. 30
5-4 管理意涵 ............................................. 32
5-5 研究限制與未來建議 ..................................... 33
英文參考文獻 .............................................. 36
中文參考文獻 .............................................. 40
i
圖目錄
圖1 研究架構圖 ............................................ 11
圖2 結構方程模型假設檢驗結果 ................................ 26
ii
表目錄
表1 信度分析結果 .......................................... 19
表2 驗證性因素分析結果 ..................................... 20
表3 收斂效度分析結果表 ..................................... 23
表4 區辨效度分析結果表 ..................................... 24
表5 相關分析結果表 ........................................ 25

參考文獻

〔1〕 Amabile, T., & Gryskiewicz, S. S.,Creativity in the R&D laboratory, Center for Creative Leadership, 1987.
〔2〕 Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F.,"Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students." Psychological
Science, 15(8), pp 507-510. 2004.
〔3〕 Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A., "A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles." Journal of
Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(3), pp 304. 2006.
〔4〕 Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J., "A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity." Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), pp 305-337. 2009.
〔5〕 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S., "Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance." Personnel Selection in Organizations; San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp 71. 1993.
〔6〕 Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W., "Who is this" We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations." Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(1), pp 83. 1996.
〔7〕 Brouthers, K. D., "Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance." Journal of international business studies, 33(2), pp 203-221.2002.
〔8〕 Byars, L., & Rue, L. (1994). Human Resource and Personnel Management:Homewood: New York: John Wiley and Sons.
〔9〕 Chaleff, I.,The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2009.
〔10〕 Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A., "Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), pp 691-705. 2007.
〔11〕 Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E., "Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership." Organization Science, 6(5),pp 524-540. 1995.
〔12〕 Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C., "Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs." Journal of management studies, 40(6), pp 1359-1392. 2003.
〔13〕 Evans, P. A., "The dualistic leader: Thriving on paradox." S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Management C, 21, pp 66-82. 2000.
〔14〕 Hair, J., Black, W., & Babin, B. (2010). R. Anderson (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
〔15〕 Handy, C., "The Age of Paradox (Harvard Business School Press)." Harvard/Mass. 1994.
〔16〕 Heneman, H. G., Heneman, R. L., & Judge, T.,Staffing organizations, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 1997.
〔17〕 Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M., "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives." Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), pp 1-55. 1999.
〔18〕 Jawahar, I., & Ferris, G. R., "A longitudinal investigation of task and contextual performance influences on promotability judgments." Human Performance, 24(3), pp
251-269. 2011.
〔19〕 Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K., "Supervisory feedback: Alternative types and their impact on salespeople′s performance and satisfaction." Journal of Marketing Research, pp 190-201. 1991.
〔20〕 Kellerman, B., "What every leader needs to know about followers." Harvard Business Review, 85(12), pp 84. 2007.
〔21〕 Kelley, R. E.,In praise of followers, Harvard Business Review Case Services, 1988.
〔22〕 Korman, A. (1977). Organization behavior engiewoods: New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
〔23〕 Lee, Y.-T., Han, A.-G., Byron, T. K., & Fan, H.-X., "Daoist leadership: Theory and application." Leadership and management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices, 5179. 2008.
〔24〕 Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E., "When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations
and promotions of upper-level female and male managers." Journal of applied psychology, 91(4), pp 777. 2006.
〔25〕 Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A., "Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition." Psychological review, 108(2), pp 291. 2001.
〔26〕 Pulakos, E. D., & Wexley, K. N., "The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in manager-subordinate dyads." Academy of Management
Journal, 26(1), pp 129-139. 1983.
〔27〕 Reddin, W. J., "Managerial effectiveness." 1970.
〔28〕 Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A., "Organizational Behavior Prentice Hall." Rowold J, Heinitz K (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the
convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Leadersh. Q, 18(2), pp 121-133. 2003.
〔29〕 Rosenbach, W. E., Taylor, R. L., & Youndt, M. A.,Contemporary issues in leadership, Hachette UK, 2012.
〔30〕 Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N., "Organizational behavior." John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. 2000.
〔31〕 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.
〔32〕 Spector, P. E., & Wimalasiri, J., "A cross‐ cultural comparison of job satisfaction dimensions in the United States and Singapore." Applied Psychology, 35(2), pp 147-158. 1986.
〔33〕 Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P., "Integrative complexity of communications in international crises." Journal of conflict resolution, 21(1), pp 169-184. 1977.
〔34〕 Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. W: CP Smith (red.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (s.393-400): New York: Cambridge University Press.
〔35〕 Van Scotter, J. R., "Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment." Human resource
management review, 10(1), pp 79-95. 2000.
〔36〕 Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J., "Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as
separate facets of contextual performance." Journal of applied psychology, 81(5), pp 525. 1996.
〔37〕 Walker, J. W., & LaRocco, J. M., "Talent pools: The best and the rest.(Perspectives)." Human Resource Planning, 25(3), pp 12-15. 2002.
〔38〕 Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X., "Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and
followers′ performance and organizational citizenship behavior." Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), pp 420-432. 2005.
〔39〕 Wheaton, B., "Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables." Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), pp 118-154. 1987.
〔40〕 Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y.-L., & Li, X.-B., "Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences." Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), pp 538-566. 2015.

中文參考文獻
〔1〕 Robbins，組織行為學，一版，李青芬、李雅婷和趙慕芬，九版，華泰文化事業公司出版，台北市，民國九十年。
〔2〕司徒達賢，管理學的新世界，一版，天下遠見出版股份有限公司出版，台北市，民國九十四年。
〔3〕刘建军，领导学原理——科学与艺术，四版，复旦大学出版社出版，中國大陸上海，民國九十六年。
〔4〕林志峰，「管領導型態、人格特質、組織承諾與工作績效關聯性之研究—以國防部軍備局生產製造中心生產工廠為例」，台南科技大學，碩士論文，民國九十五年。
〔5〕罗文豪，「随研究的历史溯源、现实驱力与未来展望」，中国人力资源开发，15，6-15 頁，民國一零四年。
〔6〕邱郁雅，「矛盾追隨行為量表之建立」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零六年。
〔7〕赵慧军，「追随行为的探索性研究」，经济与管理研究，4，106-110 頁，民國一零二年。
〔8〕張容瑄，「矛盾追隨行為前因及後果探討」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零六年。
〔9〕彭台光、高月慈和林鉦棽，「管理研究中的共同方法變異:問題本質、影響、測試和補救」，管理學報，23(1)，77-982 頁，民國九十五年。
〔10〕黃錦淑，「研發人員的工作設計與工作績效關係之研究: 兩種工作特性模式之應用」，國立中山大學，碩士論文，民國八十九年。
〔11〕鍾珮珊和林文政，「員工組織年資、工作績效與挑戰性工作經驗對晉升力評分的相對影響效果」，輔仁管理評論，23(1)，1-22 頁，民國一零五年。
〔12〕簡博浩和韓志翔，「任務性、脈絡性及適應性績效表現對主管獎酬決策的影響:調查法及實驗法」，臺大管理論叢，18(2)，27-62 頁，民國九十七年。

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2018-7-10

推文