博碩士論文 106427018 詳細資訊




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:13 、訪客IP:18.210.28.227
姓名 劉佳肇(Chia-Chao Liu)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 人力資源管理研究所
論文名稱 矛盾領導行為量表之檢驗
(Reexamination of Paradoxical Leadership Behavior Measurement)
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]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 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。
  3. 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) 隨著組織環境快速變遷,科技日新月異以及資訊的快速流通,組織將面臨更多的互相衝突的挑戰,尤其是在人力資源管理上。舉個例子來說,部屬期待領導者能依據他們的能力和專業來分派任務,但部屬同時也期待領導者能分配一樣的工作量給所有的部屬,而能夠化解這樣的矛盾衝突的領導者,被稱作矛盾領導人,未來組織將會需要更多能夠解決互相矛盾衝突挑戰等的領導人。在2015年由Zhang et al. 等人提出衡量矛盾領導者行為的量表,但此量表是採用雙管問題 (Double-barreled question) 的設計,一般在建立量表時,會避免使用雙管問題,因為此設計容易混淆填答並產生謬誤。同時,這樣的設計在研究矛盾領導者對於部屬行為影響上,也有可能忽略了 “either/or” 領導者對於部屬的影響,在2018年Wang et al. 等人發現 “both/and” 領導者和”either/or”領導者對於部屬在績效的影響效果是一樣,這與Zhang et al. 等人做出的研究是不一樣的。
本研究的目的是在於解決雙管問題量表所產生的謬誤問題、重新檢驗矛盾領導領為對於部屬熟練度行為的影響及探討 “both/and” 領導者和 “either/or” 領導者者對於部屬熟練度行為的領導,究竟是 “both/and” 領導者對於部屬的熟練度行為影響比較大呢?還是 “either/or” 領導者對於部屬的熟練度行為影響比較大呢?本研究將會把 Zhang et al. 等人所建置雙管問題,拆成單一行為問題,並透過多項式回歸將領導者行為分成 “both/and” 領導者、 “either/or” 領導者及 “neither/nor” 領導者,這三種領導風格對於部屬熟練度行為的影響,然後在運用反應曲面分析法進一步探討哪一種領導風格會對部屬的熟練度行為產生比較大的影響 。最後,我們發現 “both/and” 領導者對於部屬熟練度行為的影響比 “neither/nor” 領導者大, “either/or” 領導者有的時候對於部屬熟練度行為的影響會比 “both/and” 領導者還要好。
摘要(英) As organizational environments are becoming increasingly more dynamic, complex, and competitive, leaders are often confronted with contradictive demands or tension in people management (Y. Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015). The leaders, who can resolve these tensions, are paradox leader. In prior research, Zhang et al. (2015) has established a double-barreled questionnaire to measure paradoxical leadership behaviors. Due to nature of double-barreled questions, the questionnaire may cause confusion and ambiguity to raters which may ignore the effect of “either/or” perspective while examine the effect on subordinates’ proficient behavior. Another research also shown that “both/and” leadership and “either/or” leadership has the same influence on the performance of subordinates.
The purpose of this research is to resolve the issue cause by double-barreled question items, reexamining the effect of paradoxical leadership behavior on proficient behavior of subordinates, and explore the effect of “both/and” leadership and “either/or” leadership on subordinates’ proficient behavior. We detach the double-barreled question items in Zhang et al. (2015)’s measurement and employ polynomial regression with response surface to reexamine the effect of paradox leader on subordinates’ proficient behavior. We also further to compare the effect of each leadership style on proficient behavior of subordinates on response surface. As result, we found “both/and” leadership has better effect on subordinates’ proficient behavior than “neither/nor” leadership and “either/or” leadership sometimes may have greater influence than “both/and” leadership on subordinates’ proficient behavior.
關鍵字(中) ★ 矛盾領導行為
★ 多項式回歸
★ 曲面分析法
★ 部屬熟練度行為
關鍵字(英) ★ paradoxical leadership behavior
★ polynomial regression
★ response surface analysis
★ proficient behavior of subordinates
論文目次 中文摘要 ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Contents v
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis 5
2-1. Paradoxical Leadership Behavior 5
2-2 Work Role Performance 6
2-3 Measurement of Paradoxical Leadership Behavior 6
2-4 An Enhanced Measurement of Paradoxical Leadership Behavior 8
2-4-1 Treating subordinates uniformly while allowing individualization (UI) Behavioral Dimension 9
2-4-2 Combining Self-Centeredness with Other-Centeredness (SO) Behavioral Dimension 12
2-4-3 Maintaining Decision Control while Allowing Autonomy (CA) Behavioral Dimension 15
2-4-4 Enforcing Work Requirements while Allowing Flexibility (RF) Behavioral Dimension 18
2-4-5 Maintaining Both Distance and Closeness (DC) Behavioral Dimension 21
3. Methods 24
3-2 Measure 26
3-2-1 Paradoxical Leadership Behavior 26
3-2-2 Work Role Performance of Subordinates 27
3-2-3 Control Variables 27
3-3 Analysis 28
4. Results 29
4-1 Sample 29
4-2 Reliability Analysis 30
4-3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 30
4-4 Hypothesis Test for UI Dimension 34
4-6 Hypothesis Test for CA Dimension 42
4-8 Hypothesis Test for DC Dimension 50
4-9 The Summary of Hypothesis and Research Questions 54
5. Discussion 57
5-2 Limitation and Future Direction 67
5-3 Practical Implication and Conclusion 70
6. Reference 72
參考文獻 Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an Understanding of Inequaity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 422–436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequality in Social Exchange. Advanced Experiemental Psychology, 335–343.
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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.43
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945
Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 55–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.002
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of Leader-Member Exchange: A Longitudinal Test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538–1567. https://doi.org/10.5465/257068
Baumard, P., & Starbuck, W. H. (2005). Learning from failures: Why it May Not Happen. Long Range Planning, 38(3), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2005.03.004
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In J. W. Berry & H. C. Triandis (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Brutus, S., & Facteau, J. (2003). Short, Simple, and Specific: The Influence of Item Design Characteristics in Multi-Source Assessment Contexts. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(4), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00254.x
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2005). Failing to Learn and Learning to Fail (Intelligently). Long Range Planning, 38(3), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2005.04.005
Cattell, R. B., & Burdsal Jr., C. A. (1975). The Radial Parcel Double Factoring Design: A Solution to the Item-Vs-Parcel Controversy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1002_3
Chen, T. Y., Hwang, S. N., & Liu, Y. (2009). Employee Trust, Commitment and Satisfaction as Moderators of the Effects of Idealized and Consideration Leadership on Voluntary Performance: A Structural Equation Investigation. International Journal of Management, 26(1), 127–147.
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective Trust in Chinese Leaders. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604
Chiu, Y.-Y. (2017). The Scale Development of Paradoxical Followership Behaviors. National Central University.
Clegg, S. R., Vieira Da Cunha, J., & Pina E Cunha, M. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702555001
De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.005
de Luque, M. S., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008). Unrequited Profit: How Stakeholder and Economic Values Relate to Subordinates’ Perceptions of Leadership and Firm Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 626–654. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.4.626
Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-Member Exchange Quality and Effectiveness Ratings. Group & Organization Management, 23(2), 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601198232006
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5.524
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument. MIS Quaterly, 453–461.
Drasgow, J. A., Drasgow, F., Rhoades, J. A., & Arad, S. (2000). The Empowering Leadership Questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Edmondson, A. C. (2002). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089.48.3.158
Edward, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). ON THE USE OF POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION EQUATIONS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DIFFERENCE SCORES IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613. https://doi.org/10.2307/256822
Edward, Jeffrey R. (2007). Polynomial Regression and Response Surface Methodology. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 361–372). Psychology Press.
Edwards, J. R. (1992). A Cybernetic Theory of Stress, Coping, and Well-Being in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 238–274. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279536
Farson, R., & Keyes, R. (2002). The Failure-Tolerant Leader. Harvard Business Review.
Feinian Chen, Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An Empirical Evaluation of the Use of Fixed Cutoff Points in RMSEA Test Statistic in Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108314720
Fiedler, F. E. (1966). The Effect of Leadership and Cultural Heterogeneity on Group Performance : A Test of the Contingency Model The performance groups is today of considerable clude , to mention but a few , Belgium , Canada , Finland , Israel , Italy ,. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.2(3), 237–264.
Fiedler, F. E. (1981). Leadership Effectiveness. American Behavioral Scientist, 24(5), 619–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276428102400503
Fiedler, F. E. (1986). The Contribution of Cognitive Resources and Leader Behavior to Organizational Performance1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(6), 532–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01157.x
Fleishman, E. A., & Peters, D. R. (1962). INTERPERSONAL VALUES, LEADERSHIP ATTITUDES, AND MANAGERIAL “SUCCESS.” Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1962.tb01855.x
Fu, X.-Y. (2018). A Study of Paradoxical Leadership Behavior affects Work Performance: The Mediating and Moderating Effects of Paradoxical Followership Behavior. National Central University.
Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). VISIONARY COMMUNICATION QUALITIES AS MEDIATORS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NARCISSISM AND ATTRIBUTIONS OF LEADER CHARISMA. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 509–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01179.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
Glad, B. (2002). Why Tyrants Go Too Far: Malignant Narcissism and Absolute Power. Political Psychology, 23(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00268
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
Griethuijsen, R. A. L. F. van, Eijck, M. W. van, Haste, H., Brok, P. J. den, Skinner, N. C., Mansour, N., … BouJaoude, S. (2015). Global Patterns in Students’ Views of Science and Interest in Science. Research in Science Education.
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634438
Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A New Strategy for Job Enrichment. California Management Review, 17(4), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164610
Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too Much of a Good Thing: The Curvilinear Effect of Leader-Member Exchange on Stress. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.1.65-84
Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader–member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.006
Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). The mediating role of organizational job embeddedness in the LMX–outcomes relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.003
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
Haunschild, P. R., & Sullivan, B. N. (2002). Learning from Complexity: Effects of Prior Accidents and Incidents on Airlines’ Learning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 609. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094911
Hemp, P. (2008). Where Will We Find Tomorrow’s Leaders? Harvard Business Review.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality, (June), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.6.493
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355
House, R. J. (1971). A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bonno, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). THE CORE SELF-EVALUATIONS SCALE: DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and Initiating Structure in Leadership Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36
Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2005). Building a better mouse trap: Item characteristics associated with rating discrepancies in 360-degree feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal, 57(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.57.4.235
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. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1031–1057. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22798186
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2015). The impact of workplace empowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment (Vol. 2, pp. 59–85). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-8231(02)03006-9
Lavine, M. (2014). Paradoxical Leadership and the Competing Values Framework. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522510
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707712
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model of Leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451–465. https://doi.org/10.5465/255511
MacCallum, R. C., & Hong, S. (1997). Power Analysis in Covariance Structure Modeling Using GFI and AGFI. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3202_5
Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus empowering leadership: A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1372–1395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0113
Milosevic, I., Bass, A. E., & Combs, G. M. (2018). The Paradox of Knowledge Creation in a High-Reliability Organization: A Case Study. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1174–1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315599215
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2017). Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: Paradox Mindset, Limited Resources and Tensions. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 10930. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.10930abstract
Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The Importance of Job Autonomy, Cognitive Ability, and Job-Related Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 399–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.399
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Alstine, J. Van, Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models. Psychological Bulletin, 3(105), 430–445.
Murphy, P. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing Work-Role Performance: Challenges for 21st Century Organizations and Employees. In The Changing Nature of Work Performance (pp. 325–365). Jossey-Bass.
Owens, B. P., Wallace, A. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: The counterbalancing effect of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1203–1213. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038698
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic Leadership: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316063
Peterson, R. A. (1999). Survey Research Methods (1st ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.
Pfeffer, J. (1977). The Ambiguity of Leadership. The Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.2307/257611
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science. The Academy of Management Annals, 6520(May), 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking Empowerment to the Next Level: A Multiple-Level Model of Empowerment, Performance, and Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332–349. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159585
Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. E. (1988). Supervisory Leadership and Subordinate Burnout. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.5465/256559
Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis: A Powerful Approach for Examining Moderation and Overcoming Limitations of Difference Scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007
Sluss, D., & Sluss, D. M. (2017). Relational Identity and Identification : Defining Ourselves Through Work Relationships RELATIONAL IDENTITY AND IDENTIFICATION : RELATIONSHIPS. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.23463672
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478718
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and personality (pp. 393–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527937.028
Sunder, S. (2007). Adverse Effects of Accounting Uniformity on Practice, Education, and Research 1 Shyam Sunder Yale School of Management. Yale University.
Taber, K. S. (2017). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Ullman, M. (2001). The Declarative/procedural Model of Lexicon and Grammar.
Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S. F., Hart, C. M., & De Cremer, D. (2004). Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00061-1
Vannette, D. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2018). The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research. (D. L. Vannette & J. A. Krosnick, Eds.). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6
Wang, A. C., & Cheng, B. (2009). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.634
Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T.-J., Tsai, C.-Y., Lin, T.-T., & Cheng, B.-S. (2013). Gender makes the difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.001
Wang, A. C., Tsai, C. Y., Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Spain, S. M., Ling, H. C., … Cheng, B. S. (2018). Benevolence-dominant, authoritarianism-dominant, and classical paternalistic leadership: Testing their relationships with subordinate performance. Leadership Quarterly, (June), 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.06.002
Weinzimmer, L. G., & Esken, C. A. (2017). Learning From Mistakes: How Mistake Tolerance Positively Affects Organizational Learning and Performance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(3), 322–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316688658
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). Pearson.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking Empowering Leadership and Employee Creativity: The Influence of Psychological Empowerment, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creative Process Engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037118
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995
指導教授 林文政(Wen-Jeng Lin) 審核日期 2019-7-2
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明