矛盾領導行為對部屬績效的影響：以雙元行為與創新工作行為作為序列中介變項

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：123

、訪客IP：3.128.198.107

姓名

黃詩晴(Shih-Cing Huang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所

論文名稱

矛盾領導行為對部屬績效的影響：以雙元行為與創新工作行為作為序列中介變項
(Effects of the paradoxical leadership behavior on subordinate performance: The mediating role of individual ambidexterity and innovative work behavior)

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)

隨著組織中的環境變得更加快節奏、競爭性和全球化，組織的內部運作過程也變得更加複雜，並帶來越來越大、越來越多樣化的衝突需求。為了使組織能夠長期的發展，領導者需要具備雙元性以同時接受和協調這些持續存在的複雜性和互相矛盾的所有要求，他們對於這種緊張局勢的反應將是決定組織命運的重要因素。但是，若是領導者直接將這樣雙元的想法、決策聚焦於一個部屬而非領導整個組織或團隊時，則僅有領導者具有雙元的認知是不夠的，如此反而會給部屬帶來負面影響。因此，本研究以181對主管和部屬作為研究樣本，探討具有矛盾領導行為的領導者是否能夠有效的引導部屬更好的執行雙元性任務並提高其工作表現。研究結果表示，主管的矛盾領導行為並不能直接影響部屬的工作角色績效。但是，可以透過影響部屬的雙元行為，來提高其工作角色績效。並且，部屬的創新工作行為在主管的矛盾領導行為與部屬的工作角色績效之間也具有中介效果。但是，相較於雙元行為來說，創新工作行為的中介效果比較微弱。另外，主管的矛盾領導行為還可以透過影響部屬的雙元行為來提高其創新工作行為，最終導致其工作角色績效的提高。

摘要(英)

In a changing, competitive, and globalized environment, the internal management of the organization becomes more complicated. Therefore, leaders need to be ambidextrous to deal with the conflict situations for the long-term development of the organization. However, if leaders concentrate the ambidextrous thinking and decision-making on subordinates rather than on the team or entire organization, it will have negative influences on subordinates who don′t have ambidextrous. Therefore, in this study, 181 data which are pairs of supervisors and subordinates are used to investigate whether supervisors with paradoxical leadership behavior effectively guide subordinates to perform well in ambidextrous tasks and improve their work role performance. The study shows that although leaders with paradoxical leadership behavior have no direct impact on the work role performance of subordinates, the individual ambidexterity and innovative work behavior have mediating effect between the paradoxical leadership behavior of leaders and the work role performance of subordinates. That is to say, leaders with paradoxical leadership behavior influence the individual ambidexterity of subordinates to improve their innovative work behavior and ultimately improve their work role performance.

關鍵字(中)

★ 矛盾領導行為
★ 個人雙元行為
★ 創新工作行為
★ 工作角色績效

關鍵字(英)

★ Paradoxical Leadership Behavior
★ Individual Ambidexterity
★ Innovative Work Behavior
★ Work Role Performance

論文目次

中文摘要 I
英文摘要 II
誌謝 III
目錄 IV
圖目錄 VI
表目錄 VII
第一章、緒論 1
1-1研究背景與動機 1
1-2研究目的 2
第二章、文獻探討 4
2-1 矛盾領導行為（Paradoxical Leadership Behavior） 4
2-2 雙元行為（Individual Ambidexterity） 7
2-3 創新工作行為（Innovation Work Behavior） 8
2-4 工作角色績效（Work Role Performance） 9
2-5 矛盾領導行為對工作角色績效的影響 11
2-6 部屬雙元行為的中介效果 13
2-7 部屬創新工作行為的中介效果 15
2-8 部屬雙元行為和創新工作行為的序列中介效果 17
第三章、研究方法 18
3-1 研究架構與假設 18
3-2 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序 19
3-3 研究工具 20
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 24
第四章、研究分析與結果 25
4-1 研究樣本來源與特性 25
4-2 題項包裹法 27
4-3 信度分析 28
4-4 效度分析 29
4-5 模型適配度分析 32
4-6 相關分析 33
4-7 迴歸分析與驗證假說 35
第五章、結論與建議 39
5-1 研究結論與討論 39
5-2 管理意涵與實務建議 41
5-3 研究限制與未來研究建議 44
參考文獻 45

參考文獻

中文部分
1.趙紅丹、郭利敏、羅瑾璉（2021）。雙元領導的雙刃劍效應——基於認知緊張與工作活力雙路徑。管理評論，33(8)，211。
2.黃芳銘（2015）。結構方程模式-理論與應用。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。

英文部分
1. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43-68.
2. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
3. Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & d′Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of management Studies, 45(8), 1424-1447.
4. Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational Leadership, Innovative Behavior, and Task Performance: Test of Mediation and Moderation Processes. Human Performance, 25(1), 1-25.
5. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
6. Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. In: Springer.
7. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. In: Psychology press.
8. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual (Vol. 6). Multivariate software Encino, CA.
9. Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building an ambidextrous organization. MIT Sloan management review, 45(4), 47-55.
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(3), 305-337.
11. Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader–member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 246-257.
12. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance.
13. Bresman, H. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21(1), 81-96.
14. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality social psychology bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.
15. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.
16. Brusoni, S., & Rosenkranz, N. A. (2014). Reading between the lines: Learning as a process between organizational context and individuals’ proclivities. European Management Journal, 32(1), 147-154.
17. Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 836-849.
18. Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock, London, 120-122.
19. Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(3), 52-66.
20. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. Personnel selection in organizations, 3570, 35-70.
21. Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending Paradox: The Chinese “Middle Way” Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2), 179-199.
22. Chen, X.-P., Xie, X., & Chang, S. (2011). Cooperative and Competitive Orientation among Chinese People: Scale Development and Validation. Management and Organization Review, 7(2), 353-379.
23. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.
24. Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford University Press.
25. Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General Psychology, 15(2), 138-157.
26. Dashuai, R., & Bin, Z. J. H. S. M. (2020). How does paradoxical leadership affect innovation in teams: An integrated multilevel dual process model. 39(1), 11-26.
27. De Spiegelaere, S., HIVA–KU, Guy Van, G., HIVA–KU, & Geert Van, H., CESO–KU. (2014). The Innovative Work Behaviour concept: definition and orientation.
28. Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS quarterly, 453-461.
29. Fairhurst, G. T., Smith, W. K., Banghart, S. G., Lewis, M. W., Putnam, L. L., Raisch, S., & Schad, J. (2016). Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a paradox meta-perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 173-182.
30. 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.
31. Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 25-50.
32. Fang, T. (2015). From "Onion" to "Ocean": Paradox and Change in National Cultures. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(4), 71-90.
33. Feldman, S. P. (1989). The broken wheel: The inseparability of autonomy and control in innovation within organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 26(2), 83-102.
34. Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of management review, 25(1), 154-177.
35. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
36. Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37-63.
37. Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3), 593-608.
38. Getz, I., & Robinson, A. G. (2003). Innovate or die: is that a fact? Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(3), 130-136.
39. Good, D., & Michel, E. J. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of psychology, 147(5), 435-453.
40. 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.
41. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
42. 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.
43. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. In: University of Kansas, KS.
44. Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 517-534.
45. Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 273-285.
46. 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.
47. Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). Job design and roles. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2, 165-207.
48. Ishaq, E., Bashir, S., & Khan, A. K. (2021). Paradoxical leader behaviors: Leader personality and follower outcomes. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 342-357.
49. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302.
50. Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039-1050.
51. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2). Wiley New York.
52. Keller, T., & Weibler, J. (2015). What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: Linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 54-71.
53. Kobarg, S., Wollersheim, J., Welpe, I. M., & Spoerrle, M. (2017). Individual ambidexterity and performance in the public sector: A multilevel analysis. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 226-260.
54. Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where is the “Me” Among the “We”? Identity Work and the Search for Optimal Balance. 49(5), 1031-1057.
55. Laureiro‐Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., & Zollo, M. (2015). Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision‐making performance. Strategic management journal, 36(3), 319-338.
56. Leong, C. T., & Rasli, A. (2013). Differences in innovative work behaviour and everyday work role performance of employees: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Economics, 3(5C), 94-99.
57. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. 25(4), 760-776.
58. Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model of Leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465.
59. Liu, D., Chen, X.-P., & Yao, X. (2011). From autonomy to creativity: a multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 294.
60. Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of management review, 6(1), 105-113.
61. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
62. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.
63. McCarthy, J. M., Trougakos, J. P., & Cheng, B. H. (2016). Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 279.
64. Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240.
65. Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers′ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812-828.
66. Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating Managers′ Exploration and Exploitation Activities: The Influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Horizontal Knowledge Inflows*. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910-931.
67. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
68. 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.
69. Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The Dynamics of Intense Work Groups: A Study of British String Quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 165-186.
70. Myers, C. G. (2020). Performance benefits of reciprocal vicarious learning in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3).
71. Nasser, F., & Takahashi, T. (2003). The effect of using item parcels on ad hoc goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: An example using Sarason′s Reactions to Tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 75-97.
72. Neal, A., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Technology and performance (D. I. a. D. Pulakos, Ed.). Jossey-Bass.
73. Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education.
74. O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator′s dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206.
75. Oeser, O. A., & Harary, F. (1964). A mathematical model for structural role theory, II. Human Relations, 17(1), 3-17.
76. Offermann, L. R., & Coats, M. R. (2018). Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), 513-522.
77. Offermann, L. R., Kennedy Jr, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43-58.
78. Olchi, W. G. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 173-192.
79. Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self‐efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 447-469.
80. Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual review of psychology, 65, 661-691.
81. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636.
82. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754.
83. Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 194-208.
84. Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612.
85. Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of Innovative Work Behaviour: Development and Test of an Integrated Model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142-150.
86. Robinson, A. G., & Schroeder, D. M. (2004). Ideas are free: How the idea revolution is liberating people and transforming organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
87. Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
88. Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 26(5), 694-709.
89. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
90. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
91. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1998). Following the leader in R&D: The joint effect of subordinate problem-solving style and leader-member relations on innovative behavior. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 45(1), 3-10.
92. Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7-19.
93. 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.
94. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
95. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering Leadership in Management Teams: Effects on Knowledge Sharing, Efficacy, and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239-1251.
96. Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of management review, 28(3), 397-415.
97. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management science, 32(5), 590-607.
98. Van der Borgh, M., de Jong, A., & Nijssen, E. J. (2017). Alternative mechanisms guiding salespersons’ ambidextrous product selling. British Journal of Management, 28(2), 331-353.
99. Vihari, N. S., Yadav, M., & Panda, T. K. (2021). Impact of soft TQM practices on employee work role performance: role of innovative work behaviour and initiative climate. The TQM Journal.
100. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24.
101. Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-Based Measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555.
102. Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 118-154.
103. Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323-342.
104. Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees′ self‐reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24-46.
105. 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(Wen-Jeng Lin)

審核日期

2022-6-24

推文