定規-關懷雙元領導、主管部屬交換關係與部屬行為關聯性之探討

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：117

、訪客IP：18.224.68.121

姓名

楊寶穎(Yong Poh Yin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所

論文名稱

定規-關懷雙元領導、主管部屬交換關係與部屬行為關聯性之探討
(Investigation of the Relationships among Both Consideration and Initiating Structure Leadership Styles ，Leader-Member Exchange and Subordinates′ 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]

[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)

過去研究大多專注於「二者擇一(either/or)」思維，提出關懷型與定規型領導風格分別對於部屬行為的影響，卻少有研究以「兩全其美(both/and)」的雙元理論，應用於關懷型與定規型兩者的領導風格之上。因此，本研究以雙元領導(Ambidextrous Leadership)理論作為出發點，考量主管在二者領導風格兼備的可能性，並使用非線性統計方法－即多項式迴歸以及反應曲面分析，探討主管展現四種不同類型的領導風格（定規-關懷雙元領導、放任領導、關懷領導、定規領導）對於主管部屬交換關係的影響，且主管部屬交換關係是否會在雙元領導風格與部屬行為間產生中介效果。
本研究在台灣企業總共收集 360 份有效主管部屬配對問卷，研究結果顯示：（1）展現定規-關懷雙元領導（高關懷高定規）的主管，相較於展現放任領導（低關懷低定規）的主管，有更高的主管部屬交換關係。（2）展現高關懷領導的主管，相較於展現高定規領導的主管，有更高的主管部屬交換關係。（3）主管部屬交換關係在關懷型與定規型雙元領導與部屬行為面-即任務精熟度及反生產行為間具有中介效果。

摘要(英)

Most of the previous researches focused on the study of “either/or” perspective leadership styles, but there were only few studies that focused on the coexistence of consideration and initiating structure leadership styles which known as “both/and”leadership style. The purpose of this research is to use ambidextrous leadership to explore the possibility of a leader with both coexistence of consideration and initiating structure leadership styles. We adopted polynomial regression and response surface analysis methods to investigate the impact of four different leadership styles (“both/and”leadership, consideration leadership, initiating structure leadership and laissez-faire leadership) on the relationship of leader-member exchange(LMX), and whether will the LMX cause intermediary effect between ambidextrous leadership consistency and
subordinates’ behavior.
Drawing on an effective cross-organization survey with data of 360 supervisor-subordinate dyads in Taiwan, we found the following results: (1) Higher LMX was achieved under “both/and” leadership while being compared with laissez-faire leadership. (2) Higher LMX was achieved under consideration leadership while being compared with initiating structure leadership. (3) The LMX quality has intermediary effect between the consistency of ambidextrous leadership and subordinate’s behavior such as task proficiency and counterproductive behavior.

關鍵字(中)

★ 雙元領導
★ 關懷型領導風格
★ 定規型領導風格
★ 主管部屬交換關係
★ 任務精熟度
★ 反生產行為

關鍵字(英)

★ Ambidextrous Leadership
★ Consideration Leadership Style
★ Initiating Structure Leadership Style
★ Leader-Member Exchange
★ Task Proficiency
★ Counterproductive Behavior

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
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 5
二、文獻探討與假設 6
2-1 俄亥俄州立大學的雙構面領導風格理論 6
2-2 雙元理論與矛盾理論 7
2-2-1 雙元領導(Ambidextrous Leadership)理論的意涵 7
2-2-2 矛盾領導(Paradoxical Leadership)理論的意涵 8
2-3 雙元理論與俄亥俄州立大學雙構面領導風格之連結 8
2-4 主管部屬交換關係(Leader-Member Exchange, LMX)理論 9
2-4-1 四種領導風格與LMX的關係 10
2-5 主管部屬交換關係在雙元領導風格與部屬行為之間的中介作用 12
三、研究方法 13
3-1 研究架構 13
3-2 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序 14
3-3 研究工具 15
3-3-1 關懷型與定規型領導風格 15
3-3-2 主管部屬交換關係 16
3-3-3 任務精熟度 16
3-3-4 反生產行為 16
3-3-5 控制變項 17
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 17
四、研究結果 19
4-1 資料來源與樣本特性 19
4-2 信度與效度分析 21
4-2-1 信度分析 21
4-2-2 效度分析 21
4-2-3 驗證性因素分析 24
4-3 相關分析 24
4-4 顯著差異樣本比例 25
4-5 假設檢定 26
4-5-1 關懷型領導與定規型領導對主管部屬交換關係的影響 26
4-5-2 主管部屬交換關係在雙元領導與部屬行為之間的中介效果 28
五、結論與建議 30
5-1 研究結果與討論 30
5-2 學術貢獻 32
5-3 管理意涵 33
5-4 研究限制與未來建議之研究 34
六、参考文献 35

參考文獻

沈伊默, 周婉茹, 魏麗華, & 張慶林（2017）。仁慈領導與員工創新行為: 內部人身份感知的中介作用和領導− 部屬交換關係差異化的調節作用。心理學報， 49（8），頁 1100-1112。
林文政（ 2016 年 6 月 24 日）。銳利、嚴格卻不傷人的領導者【經理人】。取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/52696。
林俐利（2013）。領導風格與任務不確定性對員工創新行為表現的影響。國立交通大學。
張偉豪、鄭時宜（ 2012）。與結構方程模型共舞：曙光初現。新北市：前程文化。
曾玉琦, & 張瑞當（2010）。會計師事務所領導行為對審計小組成員溝通行為之影響-以審計結構化為調節變數。會計學報， 2（2），頁 61-83。
黃芳銘（ 2015）。結構方程模式理論與應用（五版）。台北：五南。
趙紅丹, & 江葦（2018）。雙元領導如何影響員工職業生涯成功?。外國經濟與管理， 40（1）。
趙楷, & 向姝婷（2020）。如何解決團隊創新悖論? 基於成員認知風格 “組型” 與 “構型” 視角的探究。心理科學進展， 29（1），頁 1。
蔡松純, 鄭伯壎, & 姜定宇（2009）。領導者上下關係認定與部屬利社會行為: 權力距離之調節效果。中華心理學刊（51），頁 121-138。
鍾怡安（2019）。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。碩士論文，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所，桃園縣。
羅瑾璉, 趙莉, 韓楊, 鐘競, & 管建世（2016）。雙元領導研究進展述評。管理學報， 13（12），頁 1882。
譚樂, 蒿坡, 楊曉, & 宋合義（2020）。悖論式領導: 研究述評與展望。外國經濟與管理， 42（4），頁 63-79。
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions: sage.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 104-122.
Badin, I. J. (1974). Some moderator influences on relationships between consideration, initiating structure and organizational criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 380.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis: prentice-hall.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual (Vol. 6): Multivariate software Encino, CA.
Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life: New York: J Wiley & Sons.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305-337.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods Research, 21(2), 230-258.
Burke, P. J., & Tully, J. C. (1977). The measurement of role identity. Social Forces, 55(4), 881-897.
Chan, S. C., & Mak, W. M. (2012). Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leader–member exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2), 285-301.
Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2-3), 179-199.
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796-819.
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 962.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cummins, R. C. (1971). Relationship of initiating structure and job performance as moderated by consideration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(5), 489.
Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within-person approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1051-1066.
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.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618-634.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 453-461.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1(1), 167-188.
Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. Advances in measurement data analysis, 350-400.
Edwards, 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.
Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. The organizational Frontiers Series, 209-258.
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.
Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(2), 43-56.
Fleishman, E. A., & Salter, J. A. (1963). Relation between the leaders behavior and his empathy toward subordinates. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 1(3), 79-84.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership Frontiers, 143(1), 143-166.
Graen, G., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader—member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior Human Performance, 30(1), 109-131.
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.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader–member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 66(2), 203-214.
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.
Guo, Z., Yan, J., Wang, X., & Zhen, J. (2020). Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Work Outcomes: A Paradox Theory Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, vol. 5 Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Havermans, L. A., Den Hartog, D. N., Keegan, A., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2015). Exploring the role of leadership in enabling contextual ambidexterity. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), 179-200.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., . . . Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228-238.
Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2013). Effects of leadership consideration and structure on employee perceptions of justice and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 492-519.
House, R. J., Filley, A. C., & Kerr, S. (1971). Relation of leader consideration and initiating structure to R and D subordinates′ satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(1), 19-30.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Huang, Q., Davison, R. M., Liu, H., & Gu, J. (2008). The impact of leadership style on knowledge-sharing intentions in China. Journal of Global Information Management, 16(4), 67-91.
Johnson, R. W. (2001). An introduction to the bootstrap. Teaching Statistics, 23(2), 49-54.
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.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, D., & Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12(1), 62-82.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269-299.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
Liden, R., Wayne, S., & Sparrowe, R. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407-416.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465.
Lowin, A., Hrapchak, W. J., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1969). Consideration and initiating structure: An experimental investigation of leadership traits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(2), 238-253.
McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions.
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 740-760.
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.
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), 430-445.
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice: Sage publications.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill. _ d.
Nystrom, P. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American business managers. Group Organization Studies, 15(3), 296-312.
Park, S., Sturman, M., Vanderpool, C., & Chan, E. K. (2013). Only time will tell: the dynamics of LMX, job performance, and justice. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754.
Portugal, E., & Yukl, G. (1994). Perspectives on environmental leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(3-4), 271-276.
Putnam, L., Fairhurst, G., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-171.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.
Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25(6), 1860-1877.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
Schreuders, J., & Legesse, A. (2012). Organizational ambidexterity: How small technology firms balance innovation and support. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(2), 17-21.
Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior Human Performance, 15(2), 297-321.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader-member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 298-318.
Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. E. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 439-446.
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 Psychology, 25(4), 543-554.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9-32.
Smith, W., Lewis, M., & Tushman, M. (2016). Both/and” leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62-70.
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.
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire-Form XII: An experimental revision: Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio ….
Waldman, D., & Bowen, D. (2016). Learning to be a Paradox-savvy Leader. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 316-327.
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. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(6), 686-697.
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 Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101-113.
Weissenberg, P., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1972). The independence of initiating structure and consideration: A review of the evidence. Personnel Psychology, 25(1), 119-130.
Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods Research, 16(1), 118-154.
Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership Organization Development Journal, 36(1).
Zacher, H., & Wilden, R. G. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self‐reported employee innovation. Journal of Occupational Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 813-820.
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

2021-8-11

推文