開放-閉合雙元領導模式對於創新行為的影響－以創造力自我效能為中介變項

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：47

、訪客IP：18.117.229.16

姓名

葉日銓(Jih-Chuan Yeh) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

高階主管企管碩士班

論文名稱

開放-閉合雙元領導模式對於創新行為的影響－以創造力自我效能為中介變項

相關論文

★ 溝通與領導課程訓練成效之分析	★ 母國企業直線主管領導風格與國際人力資源管理措施對外派人員績效之影響
★ 豐田管理模式之人才培育對品質與成本之影響-以某汽車公司為例	★ 360 度回饋系統對企業主管行為改變意圖的影響-以跨國飲料 SC 公司為例
★ 兩岸研發人員職能發展應用研究－以M公司為例	★ 企業併購過程中的人力資源角色
★ 組織變革成功個案分析 - John P. Kotter 領導變革八大步驟之觀點	★ 社群網站經營模式分析－以『BB-BOX』網站為例
★ 觸控IC經營策略之個案研究－以Ａ公司為例	★ 科技研發單位實施接班人計畫之探討─以國內某科技研發單位為例
★ 面對數位匯流，傳統媒體代理商應對策略探討─以安吉斯集團偉視捷媒體公司為例	★ 台灣光電產業選擇產品認證外包廠商的決定因素─以發光二極體照明產品為例
★ 團隊激勵獎金與團隊績效關連性之研究	★ 晶圓代工業關鍵成功因素的探討—以台積公司為例
★ 員工潛能與績效對員工晉升的影響--以營造建築業為例	★ 建構整合性智慧健康照護網絡─以中壢天晟醫院醫療小管家為例

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)

近年來，隨著國際情勢的發展下及COVID-19的衝擊之下，經濟的負成長與信息化的快速成長，以及面對中美科技衝突、南海問題及歐盟站隊美國等一系列不穩定的政治環境之下，企業如何應對現今如此複雜及激烈的市場競爭環境，這個課題是企業目前面對後疫情時代所需要面對及解決的問題。在如此詭譎多變的國際情勢之下，創新成為了提高自身競爭力、提升員工滿意度以及增強核心凝聚力等重要手段。因此本研究是以雙元領導作為研究對象, 運用文獻梳理法、問卷調查法對團隊創新績效與工作效率之間存在影響作用這一主題進行實證分析和驗證，結果表明：
1. 企業管理者針對不同的管理模式會採取相應措施來促進其管理工作效果。
2. 創新行為與主管的開放型領導行為中互成為正相關。
3. 創造力的自我效能也是對於創新行為起到中介的效果。
4. 「雙元領導模式」下對主管與部屬同時帶來好處而非單一模式，並以多項式的線性迴歸驗證雙元領導的重要性。
由以上研究發現，領導模式對於創新行為是由正面且積極的影響，本研究也只單單鎖定兩種領導模式為基礎，並輔以中介的方式來研究對於創新行為之間的關係。
本次的研究方向是以主管與其直接領導的部屬之間配對的方式來進行。主管在協調雙元創新矛盾而又統一的關係時，需發揮悖論式領導特質，採取悖論視角看待問題。而部屬對主管的領導行為所產生的效果，會直接的影響部屬的創造力自我效能，而創造力自我效能也會影響部屬創新行為的發生, 創造力自我效能完全中介主管領導風格與創新行為之間的關係。

摘要(英)

During the recent years, there are several key issues that affect the way companies deal with complex and highly competitive global market environment, such as global situation development and impact of COVID-19; negative growth of economy and rapid growth of information technology; as well as a series of unstable political environments: China & US technology conflict, the South China Sea issue and EU joining forces with the US. How to face and resolve the impacts on these issues are a significant factor of companies in the post-epidemic era. Under such volatile global environment, innovation has become an important means to improve one′s own competitiveness, enhancing employee satisfaction, and strengthen core cohesion. Hence, the objective of this research is to study ambidextrous leadership, and to use literature review and survey method to conduct empirical analysis and verification on the influence of team innovation performance and work efficiency.
The results:
1. Enterprise managers will take corresponding measures to promote the management effectiveness based on different management methods.
2. There is a positive correlation between innovative behaviors and open leadership of supervisors.
3. Self-efficacy of creativity also acts as a mediator to innovative behavior.
4. “Ambidextrous leadership” brought along benefits to supervisors and subordinates concurrently. The importance of ambidextrous leadership has been verified by “Multiple Linear Regression Analysis”.
The above research shows that leadership model has a positive influence on innovative behavior. This study is also based solely on the two leadership models, using self-efficacy of creativity as an intermediary to study the relationship between innovative behaviors.
The direction of this research is to pair supervisor and subordinates that is under the direct leadership. When coordinating dual innovation contradictions and unified relationship, supervisors need to utilize paradox leadership characteristics, using a paradoxical perspective to look at the issues. Supervisor′s leadership behavior will directly affect subordinates’ self-efficacy of creativity, and will also have an effect on the occurrences of subordinate’s innovative behavior. Also, creativity self-efficacy mediates the supervisor’s leadership and innovative behavior completely.

關鍵字(中)

★ 雙元領導
★ 開放式與閉合式領導行為
★ 悖論式領導
★ 創新行為
★ 創造力自我能效

關鍵字(英)

★ Ambidextrous leadership
★ open and closed leadership behavior
★ paradoxical leadership
★ innovative behavior
★ self-efficiency of creative

論文目次

第一章緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 3
第二章文獻探討 5
2-1 雙元式領導 5
2-2 雙元式領導與創新行為的關係 6
2-3 開放式與閉合式領導與創造力自我效能的關係 8
2-4 創造力自我效能中介變項影響機制 9
第三章研究方法 12
3-1 研究架構 12
3-2 研究樣本與資料收集 12
3-3 研究工具 13
3-3-1 開放式領導與閉合式領導行為 14
3-3-2創新行為 14
3-3-3 創造力自我效能 15
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 15
第四章研究結果 17
4-1 樣本來源與樣本特性 17
4-2 信度與驗證性因素分析 19
4-3 相關分析 21
4-4 研究假設檢驗 21
第五章結論與建議 25
5-1 研究結論與討論 25
5-2 研究貢獻 27
5-3 管理意涵 28
5-4 研究限制與建議 30
第六章參考文獻 32

參考文獻

丁棟虹、張翔（2016）。《經濟與管理研究》2016年9期。
王怡婷（2019)。主管的矛盾領導行為與員工的創新行為之關聯性－以員的模糊容忍度、經驗開放性、矛盾思維為中介變項。國立中央，桃園市。http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw:88/thesis/view_etd.asp?URN=106450073106450073
王重鳴（1990）。心理學研究方法。北京：人民教育出版社。
王婷（2019）。悖論式領導對研發團隊成員雙元創新的影響研究。武漢理工大學。 http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10497-1020733888.htm
李銳, 田曉明. （2014）. 主管威權領導與下屬前瞻行為: 一個被仲介的調節模型構建與檢驗. 心理學報, 46（11）, 1719-1733.
陸珠英（2019）。新時代企業創新人才管理的問題與對策。福建省社會主義學院學報，第二期（總第131期）：107-110。
孫永磊、宋晶（2015）。雙元領導風格、組織柔性與組織創造力。中國科技論壇，2（2）：114-118。
孫彥玲、楊付、張麗華（2012）。創造力自我效能感與員工創新行為的關係:一個跨層分析。經濟管理：95-103。
陳建勛、楊正沛 & 傅升（2009）。低成本與差異化競爭優勢的融合-二元領導行為的啟示與證據。研究與發展管理，21（5）：57-64。
陳建勳（2011）。組織學習的前因後果研究：基於二元視角。科研管理，32（6）：140-149。
陳瑞、鄭毓煌、劉文靜。中介效應分析：原理、程序、Bootstrap方法及其應用。管理科學學報，第9卷第4輯：120–135。
黃春艷（2009）。碩士研究生創造性動機、創造性自我效能與創造性表現的關
楊晶照、楊東濤、趙順娣 & 姜林娣（2011）。工作場所中員工創新的內驅力：員工創造力自我效能感。心理科學進展，19（9），1363-1370。
楊晶照（2012）。提高創造力自我效能感有助員工創新。中國集體經濟，（4）
中國集體經濟，11期（四月），43-44。
楊德森、王冠寧、王寅（2014）。合作創新中探索與開發活動的協調機制研究。現代商業，000（023），224-225。
溫忠麟、葉寶娟（2014）。中介效應分析：方法盒模型發展。心理科學進展Advances in Psychological Science 2014，Vol.22，No.5，731-745。
韓楊、羅瑾璉、鐘競（2016）。雙元領導對團隊創新績效影響研究-基於慣例視。管理科學，2016，29（0）：70-85
羅瑾璉、胡文安、鐘競（2017）。悖論式領導、團隊活力對團隊創新的影響機制研究。管理評論，2017，29（7）：122-134。https://xueshu.baidu.com/usercenter/paper/show?paperid=7077e9ac823ccbab075e00753bff050d&site=xueshu_se
羅瑾璉、趙莉、韓楊、鐘竟 & 管建世（2016）。雙元領導研究進展述評。管理學報第13卷第12期2016年12月。
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (2010). Assessing creativity and it’s antecedent: an exploration of the componential theory of creativity. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds), Handbook of organizational Creativity, (pp. 25-49), Beijing China: Peking University Press.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively.
Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), 45-68.
Bandura, A., Freeman, W., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. In: Springer.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy. Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 1977, 84(3), 191-215.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1): Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (2007). Much ado over a faulty conception of perceived self-efficacy grounded in faulty experimentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 641-658.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(2), 207-218.
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447-457.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology, 389-444.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovice, Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 2009, 20(4), 781-796.
Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates′ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108–128.
Chen, C. J., Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance-The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of business research, 62(1), 104-114.
Chong, E., & Ma, X. (2010). The influence of individual factors, supervision an environment on creative self-efficacy. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(3), 233-247.
Dedahanov, A. T., Lee, D. H., & Rhee, J. (2016). Silence as a mediator between organizational factors and stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(8), 1251–1264.
Gebert, D., Boemer, S., Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: why is it important to combine opposing action strategies. Organization Science, 21(3), 593-608.
Gerlach, F., Hundeling, M., & Rosing, K. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and innovation performance: A longitudinal study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(3), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07- 2019-0321.
Gibson, C.B., Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98(4), 611-625.
Gong, Y., Huang, J., Farh, J. (2009) Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity; the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.
Guo, Z., Yan, J., Wang, X., & Zhen, J. (2020). Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Work Outcomes: A Paradox Theory Perspective. Front Psychol, 11, 1661. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01661
Holsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145.
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549-569. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity research journal, 19(1), 69-90.
Hu, W., Luo, J., Chen, Z., & Zhong, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leaders helping newcomers get on board: Achieving adjustment and proaction through distinct pathways. Journal of Business Research, 118, 406-414. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.064
Jiang, H. Y., Chen, Y., Sun, P. Z., & Yang, J. (2017). The relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees’ deviant workplace behaviors: The mediating effects of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 732.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
Kelloway, E. K., & Day, A. L. (2005). Building healthy workplaces: what we know so far. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 37(4), 223.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. (2002). Product development tensions exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3): 546-564.
Lewis M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
Li, S., Jia, R., Seufert, J. H., Wang, X., & Luo, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and radical innovative capability: The moderating role of leader support. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(4), 621-633. doi:10.1111/caim.12402.
Li, Y., & Sun, J. M. (2015). Traditional Chinese leadership and employee voice behavior: A cross-level examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 718 心理與行為研究, 第16卷, 26(2), 172–189.
Martin, S. L., Liao H., Campbell, E. (2013). Directive versus empowering leadership: a field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and pro-activity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1372-1395.
Madison, K., & Eva, N. (2019). Social exchange or social learning: a theoretical fork in road for servant leadership researchers. In Leading for high performance in Asia (pp. 133- 158): Springer.
Miron-Spektor, E., & Erez, M. (2017). Looking at creativity through a paradox lens. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, 434.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human resource management review, 10(3), 313-351.
Oldham, G. R., Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leader-ship as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics Theory Research & Practice, 6(2), 172-197.
Popova, N., & Shynkarenko, V. (2016). Personnel development at enterprises with regard to adaptation to the VUCA world. Економічний часопис-ХХІ(156), 88-91.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004) SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Model. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond Rational Management. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of business Venturing, 26(4), 441-457.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1238358
Schreuders, J., Legese, A. (2012). Organizational ambidexterity: how small technology firms balance innovation and support. Technology Innovation Management Review, (2), l7-21.
Schumpeter, J. A. The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Joseph A.; Opie, Redvers (1983) [1934]. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books. ISBN 9780878556984. Translated from the 1911 original German, Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung.
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.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004
Smith, W. K., Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 52-536.
Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132-157.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically-Based Tests for the Number of Common Factors.
Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1984). Confirmatory hierarchical factor analyses of psychological distress measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.621
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: it’s potential antecedents and relationship to creative performances. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity[J]. Journal of Management, 30(3), 413-432.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
Ullman, J.B. and Bentler, P.M. (2003), “Structural equation modelling”, in Weiner, I.B., Schinak, J.A. and Velicer, W.F. (Eds), Handbook of Psychology,
Waldman D.A. & Bowen D.E. (2016). Learning to Be a Paradox-savvy Leader. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 316-327.
Wang, S., Eva, N., Newman, A., & Zhou, H. (2020). A double-edged sword: the effects of ambidextrous leadership on follower innovative behaviors. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. doi:10.1007/s10490-020-09714-0
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00951.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14, 361-384.
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. doi:10.1002/jocb.66
Zacher, H., Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54-68.
Zacher, H., & Wilden, R. G. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self- reported employee innovation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 813-820. doi:10.1111/joop.12070
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. . Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682-696.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 165-217).

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2021-7-9

推文