恩威並濟領導行為對主管部屬交換關係之影響

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：30

、訪客IP：18.117.232.198

姓名

李靜怡(Ching-I Lee) 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

恩威並濟領導行為對主管部屬交換關係之影響
(The Effect of Benevolent and Authoritarian Leadership Coexistence Styles on Leader-Member Exchange)

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)

本研究以矛盾思維為立論基礎，探討主管恩威並濟—家長式領導威權與仁慈兩大構面—的領導行為，運用多項式迴歸及反應曲面分析法，分析檢驗其多元整合概念對主管部屬交換關係（LMX）的影響。本研究蒐集台灣企業部屬共計255份有效問卷樣本，將威權與仁慈領導依據程度之不同分為威權領導較高的「威嚴型」、仁慈領導較高的「恩惠型」、威權與仁慈領導均高的「恩威皆重型」、威權與仁慈領導皆低的「無為型」四種模式，以多項式迴歸及反應曲面分析法進行檢驗。研究結果發現：（1）恩威皆重型與無為型相較，有較高的LMX。（2）恩惠型與恩威皆重型相較，有較高的LMX。恩惠型、威嚴型與無為型相較，有較高的LMX。（3）恩惠型與威嚴型相較，有較高的LMX。企業為快速達到營運目標，主管不可避免地需施以威權領導以有效追蹤績效、推動目標實現，特別是在權力距離高的華人企業界；但若可強化矛盾領導思維與能力、將仁慈領導提高到同等程度，即以恩威並重領導，將可達到更佳的主管部屬交換關係。更好的是以恩惠型領導，以強化組織內在關係的方式，因應世代的變化。期冀本研究成果能帶給迎接VUCA世代的企業者更多的整合性發想脈絡，以及運用恩威並濟領導模式時的策略權衡參考。

摘要(英)

Grounding on the paradoxical perspective, this study aims to investigate the effect of the Paternalistic Leadership integrating leader authoritarianism and benevolence on Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), utilizing polynomial regression and response surface methodology. This study collected 255 valid questionnaires from subordinates in Taiwanese corporations and proposed four models according to the level of Benevolent and Authoritarian Leadership, which are: authoritarianism-focused leadership (AFL), benevolence-focused leadership (BFL), authoritarianism-benevolence-focused leadership (ABFL), and laissez-faire leadership (LFL). The results showed that (1) higher LMX was achieved under ABFL, comparing to LFL; (2) higher LMX was achieved under BFL, comparing to ABFL; higher LMX was achieved under BFL and AFL, comparing to LFL. (3) higher LMX was achieved under BFL, comparing to AFL. In order to pursue the business goals, managers may have to implement Authoritarian Leadership to track performance and promote the accomplishment of goals, particularly in Chinese enterprises with high power distance. If managers can build up their paradoxical mindset as well as raise up the Benevolent Leadership to make ABFL possible, better LMX will be acheived. It is even better if managers employ BFL to strengthen the relationship within organizations in response to changes over generations. It is hoped that the research results could inspire more integrative thinking for entrepreneurs encountering the VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) era, and provide a reference for them to weigh the pros and cons of applying Benevolent and Authoritarian Leadership.

關鍵字(中)

★ 恩威並濟
★ 矛盾領導
★ 恩惠型領導
★ 威嚴型領導
★ 恩威並重型領導
★ 多項式迴歸
★ 反應曲面分析
★ 主管部屬交換關係

關鍵字(英)

★ authoritarian-benevolent leadership
★ paradoxical leadership
★ benevolence-focused leadership
★ authoritarianism-focused leadership
★ authoritarianism-benevolence-focused leadership
★ polynomial regression
★ response surface methodology
★ leader-member exchange

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
一、緒論
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 4
二、文獻探討與假設
2-1 恩威並施的雙元領導模式
2-1-1 家長式領導的研究發展與成果 5
2-1-2 矛盾領導的意涵 7
2-2 恩威並濟領導風格類型與主管部屬交換關係的關聯性 9
三、研究方法
3-1 研究樣本與蒐集程序 12
3-2 研究工具
3-2-1 家長式領導 12
3-2-2 主管部屬交換關係 13
3-2-3 控制變項 13
3-3 資料分析與統計方法 13
四、研究結果
4-1 資料來源與樣本特性 15
4-2 信度分析 15
4-3 驗證性因素分析 16
4-4 相關分析 17
4-5 顯著差異樣本數比例 18
4-6 假說檢定 18
五、結論與建議
5-1 研究結果與討論 27
5-2 學術貢獻 29
5-3 管理意涵 30
5-3-1 恩威並重型領導 30
5-3-2 恩惠型領導 30
5-3-3 威嚴型或恩惠型，兩者擇一 31
5-4 研究限制與對未來研究之建議 31
六、參考文獻 33

參考文獻

〔1〕 Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R., Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions., Sage., London, 1996.
〔2〕 Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., & Sinha, J.P.B., “Organizational Culture and Human Resource Management Practices: The Model of Culture Fit”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(4), 501-526, 1999.
〔3〕 Bass, B. M., Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, 1985
〔4〕 Bentler, P. M., “Confirmatory Factor Analysis via Noniterative Estimation: A Fast, Inexpensive Method”, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 417-424, 1982.
〔5〕 Bentler, P. M., “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models”, Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238., 1990.
〔6〕 Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R., “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit”, Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258, 1992.
〔7〕 Bollen K. A. & Long J. S., “Testing Structural Equation Models”, Sage Focus Editions, 136-162, 1993.
〔8〕 Chan, S.-C., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K., “The Janus Face of Paternalistic Leaders: Authoritarianism, Benevolence, Subordinates′ Organization‐based Self‐esteem, and Performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128, 2013.
〔9〕 Chan, S.-C., & Mak, W.-M., “Benevolent Leadership and Follower Performance: The Mediating Role of Leader–member Exchange (LMX)”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2), 285-301, 2012.
〔10〕 Chen, C. C., & Farh, J.-L., “Developments in Understanding Chinese Leadership: Paternalism and its Elaborations, Moderations, and Alternatives”, The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology, 599–622, 2010.
〔11〕 Chen, X.-P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T.-J., Farh, J.-L., & Cheng, B.-S., “Affective Trust in Chinese Leaders: Linking Paternalistic Leadership to Employee Performance”, Journal of Management, 40(3), 796-819, 2014.
〔12〕 Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L., “Paternalistic Leadership and Subordinate Responses: Establishing a Leadership Model in Chinese Organizations”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89-117. 2004.
〔13〕 Chernyak-Hai, L., Rabenu, E., “The New Era Workplace Relationships: Is Social Exchange Theory Still Relevant?”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 456-481, 2018.
〔14〕 Collins, J., Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and others Don′t, HarperBusiness, 2001.
〔15〕 Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W., “A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Role Making Process”, Organizational Behavior Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78, 1975.
〔16〕 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M., “Self-determination Theory”, Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Sage Publications Ltd, 416-436, 2012.
〔17〕 Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C., “Leader-member Exchange Model of Leadership: A Critique and Further Development”, Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618-634, 1986.
〔18〕 Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G., “A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the End-user Computing Satisfaction Instrument”, MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 259-274, 1994.
〔19〕 Edwards, J., “Alternatives to Difference Scores: Polynomial Regression and Response Surface Methodology”, Advances in Measurement Data Analysis, 350-400, 2002.
〔20〕 Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E., “On the Use of Polynomial Regression Equations as an Alternative to Difference Scores in Organizational Research”, Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577-1613, 1993.
〔21〕 Fang, T. J., “Asian Management Research Needs More Self-confidence: Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and Beyond”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(1), 155-170, 2010.
〔22〕 Farh, J.-L., & Cheng, B.-S., “A Cultural Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese Organizations”, Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context, 84-127, 2000.
〔23〕 Farh, J. L., Chen, B. S., Chou, L.-F., & Chu, X. P., “Authority and Benevolence: Employees’ Responses to Paternalistic Leadership in China”, China′s Domestic Private Firms: Multidisciplinary Perspectives On Management Performance, Taylor and Francis, 230-260, 2006.
〔24〕 Farh, J. L., Liang, J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S., “Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese Organizations: Research Progress and Future Research Directions”, Leadership and Management in China: Philosophies, Theories, and Practices, Cambridge University Press, 171-205, 2008.
〔25〕 Frieder, R. E., “The Rules of Social Exchange: Unchanged but More Important Than Ever”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 535-541, 2018.
〔26〕 Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F., “A Role-making Model of Leadership in Formal Organizations: A Developmental Approach”, Leadership Frontiers, 143, 165, 1975.
〔27〕 Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M., “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, 1995.
〔28〕 Hofstede, G., “Culture and Organizations”, International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15-41, 1980.
〔29〕 Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H., “The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth”, Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5-21, 1988.
〔30〕 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), 1-55, 1999.
〔31〕 Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R., “The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of Consideration and Initiating Structure in Leadership Research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36, 2004.
〔32〕 Lewis, M. W., “Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide”, Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776, 2000.
〔33〕 Liden, R. C., & Graen, G., “Generalizability of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model of Leadership”, Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465, 1980.
〔34〕 Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L., “Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups”, Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402-433, 1996.
〔35〕 Niu, C. P., Wang, A. C., & Cheng, B. S., “Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: Probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership”. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 32-39, 2009.
〔36〕 Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A., “Paternalistic Leadership: A Review and Agenda for Future Research”, Journal of Management, 34(3), 566-593, 2008.
〔37〕 Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T.A., Jayaraman, V., “Cross-Cultural Generalizability of Paternalistic Leadership: An Expansion of Leader-Member Exchange Theory”, Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 391-420, 2010.
〔38〕 Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E., “Culture, Dialectics, and Reasoning about Contradiction”, American Psychologist, 54(9), 741, 1999.
〔39〕 Redding, S., Norman, A., & Schlander, A., “The Nature of Individual Attachment to Theory: A Review of East Asian Variations”, Handbook of Industrial Organizational Psychology, 4, 674-688, 1994.
〔40〕 Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A., “Explaining the Heterogeneity of the Leadership-innovation Relationship: Ambidextrous Leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974, 2011.
〔41〕 Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D., “Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis: A Powerful Approach for Examining Moderation and Overcoming Limitations of Difference Scores”, Journal of Business Psychology, 25(4), 543-554, 2010.
〔42〕 Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M.-G., “Resources for Change: The Relationships of Organizational Inducements and Psychological Resilience to Employees′ Attitudes and Behaviors toward Organizational Change”, Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 727-748, 2012.
〔43〕 Silin, R. H., Leadership and Values: The Organization of Large-scale Taiwanese Enterprises, Harvard Univ Asia Center, Cambridge, 1976.
〔44〕 Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E., “Relational Identity and Identification: Defining Ourselves through Work Relationships”, Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9-32, 2007.
〔45〕 Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W., “Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing”, Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403, 2011.
〔46〕 Tsai, C.Y., Spain, S. M., & Wang, A.C., “Paternalistic Leadership: Impact of Authoritarianism and Benevolence on Subordinate performance”. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013
〔47〕 Tsui, A. S., & O′Reilly III, C. A., “Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-subordinate Dyads”, Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402-423, 1989.
〔48〕 Uhl-Bien, M., Tierney, P. S., Graen, G. B., Wakabayashi, M., “Company Paternalism and the Hidden-investment Process: Identification of the "Right Type" for Line Managers in Leading Japanese Organizations”, Group & Organization Management, 15(4), 414-430, 1990.
〔49〕 Wang, A.C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C.Y., Lin, T.T., & Cheng, B.S. “Gender Makes the Difference: The Moderating Role of Leader Gender on the Relationship between Leadership Styles and Subordinate Performance”, Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101-113, 2013.
〔50〕 Wang, T. F, Wang, F., Tang, Y. C. et al., “Land Collectivization and the Structural Transformation of Traditional Rural Families”, Social Science in China, 37(3), 111-129, 2016.
〔51〕 Wang, A.C., Tsai, C.Y., Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Spain, S. M., Ling, H.-C., Huang, M. P., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B.S., “Benevolence-dominant, Authoritarianism-dominant, and Classical Paternalistic Leadership: Testing Their Relationships with Subordinate Performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, 29(6), 686-697, 2018.
〔52〕 Wu, M., Huang, X., Li, C., & Liu, W., “Perceived Interactional Justice and Trust-in-supervisor as Mediators for Paternalistic Leadership”, Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 97-121, 2012.
〔53〕 Xin, K., Farh, J., Cheng, B., & Tsui, A.S., “Guanxi and Vertical Dyads: Evidence from Taiwan and the PRC”. Paper presented at the Conference of the Asia Association of Social Psychology, Taipei, 1999.
〔54〕 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), 538-566, 2014.
〔55〕于海波、鄭曉明、方俐洛、淩文輇和劉春萍，「如何領導組織學習：家長式領導與組織學習的關係，科研管理，29(5)，180-186頁，2008。
〔56〕王亞德，「專權領導、尚嚴領導對組織信任影響之研究」，科技與人力教育季刊，2(2)，30-45頁，2015。
〔57〕王亞德，「專權領導、尚嚴領導對員工工作滿意度影響之研究-以組織信任為仲介變項」，國立臺灣師範大學，碩士論文，2016。
〔58〕吳宗祐、周麗芳、鄭伯壎。「主管的權威取向及其對部屬順從與畏懼的知覺對威權領導的預測效果」，本土心理學研究，30，65-115頁，2008。
〔59〕李豔、孫健敏、焦海濤，「分化與整合—家長式領導研究的走向」，心理科學進展，21(7)，1294-1306頁，2013年。
〔60〕周浩、龍立榮，「恩威並施，以德服人—家長式領導研究述評」。心理科學進展，13(02)，227-238頁，2005。
〔61〕周婉茹、周麗芳、鄭伯壎、任金剛，「專權與尚嚴之辨：再探威權領導的內涵與恩威並濟的效果」，本土心理學研究，34，223-284頁，2010。
〔62〕周婉茹、鄭伯壎、連玉輝，「威權領導：概念源起，現況檢討及未來方向」，中華心理學刊，56(2)，165-189頁，2014。
〔63〕侯楠、彭堅，「恩威並施、積極執行與工作績效—探索中國情境下雙元領導的有效性」，心理學報，51(1)，117-127頁，2018。
〔64〕張燕、懷明雲，「威權式領導行為對下屬組織公民行為的影響研究—下屬權力距離的調節作用」，管理評論，24(11)，97頁，2012。
〔65〕許金田、胡秀華、淩孝綦、鄭伯壎和周麗芳，「家長式領導與組織公民行爲的關係：上下關係品質之仲介效果」，交大管理學報，2，119-149頁，2004。
〔66〕傅曉、李憶、司有和，「家長式領導對創新的影響：一個整合模型」，南開管理評論，15(2)，121-127頁，2012。
〔67〕曾天成，「家長式領導、領導者部屬交換關係品質、組織承諾與組織公民行為之間關係之研究－以亞洲華人地區非營利組織為例」，大葉大學，碩士論文，2008。
〔68〕鄒豔春、印田彬，「多層次視角下的心理安全研究評述」，中國人力資源開發4，66-75頁，2017。
〔69〕趙安安、高尚仁，「台灣地區華人企業家長式領導風格與員工壓力之關聯」，應用心理研究，27，111-131頁，2005。
〔70〕劉善仕、淩文輇，「家長式領導與員工價值取向關係實證研究」，心理科學，4，674-676頁，2004。
〔71〕樊景立、鄭伯壎，「華人組織的家長式領導：一項文化觀點的分析」，本土心理學研究，13，126-180頁，2000。
〔72〕蔡松純，「領導者與部屬上下關係認定之模式建構及其影響效果」，國立臺灣大學，博士論文，1-145頁，2012年。
〔73〕蔡松純、鄭伯壎、周麗芳，「領導者與部屬上下關係認定之理論模式建構」，中華心理學刊，57(2)，121-144頁，2015年。
〔74〕鄭伯壎、周麗芳、黃敏萍、樊景立和彭泗清，「家長式領導的三元模式：中國大陸企業組織的證據」，本土心理學研究，20，209-250頁，2003年。
〔75〕鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立，「家長式領導：三元模式的建構與測量」，本土心理學研究，14，3-64頁，2000。
〔76〕鍾怡安，「兩全其美領導? 關懷與定規領導風格兼具對部屬行為之影響」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，2019。
〔77〕鞠芳輝、萬松錢，「家長型領導行為對民營企業績效及員工工作態度的影響研究」，東北大學學報，10(4)，312-318頁、326頁，2008。
〔78〕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。
〔79〕蘇柏丞，「威權領導與創造性績效：心理資源的仲介」，國立成功大學，碩士論文，2013。

指導教授

林文政(Wen‐Jeng Lin)

審核日期

2020-7-6

推文