探索和開發的個人雙元性與創新行為之關聯探討—以矛盾領導行為為調節變項

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：17

、訪客IP：44.220.247.152

姓名

劉芷伶(Zhi-Ling Liu) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所

論文名稱

探索和開發的個人雙元性與創新行為之關聯探討—以矛盾領導行為為調節變項
(Exploration and exploitation of individual ambidexterity and innovation behavior: The Moderating Effect of paradoxical leadership behav林文鄭)

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)

本研究結合「探索與開發行為之個人雙元性」與「矛盾領導行為」，探討當部屬同時展現探索與開發行為與展現單一行為，對其創新行為是否有程度上的差異，而同時展現個人雙元性，對創新行為之影響為何，同時加入矛盾領導行為為調節變項，深入分析當部屬展現個人雙元性或單一探索或開發行為，意欲提高創新行為時，若主管展現矛盾領導行為，是否能夠強化個人雙元性對於部屬本身創新行為的影響。本研究收集且分析211 份台商之主管與部屬配對問卷，其中有些部屬具備管理職，並使用多項式迴歸方程式與反應曲面分析圖，計算部屬個人雙元性之探索與開發行為展現一致與不一致的情況下，會如何影響部屬的創新行為程度。

研究結果發現，當部屬所展現之探索行為與開發行為趨於一致時，相較於兩者行為展現不一致時，有更高的創新行為表現；而當兩者呈現不一致時，部屬展現高探索行為比起部屬展現高開發行為，有更高的創新行為表現。最後也發現矛盾領導行為能夠增強部屬探索行為與開發行為對於創新行為之影響。

摘要(英)

The research combines "individual ambidexterity of exploration and exploitation " and "paradoxical leadership behavior" to explore whether there is a difference in the degree of innovative behavior when subordinates simultaneously develop exploration and exploitation or display a single behavior and to investigate the impact of individual ambidexterity acting on innovative behavior was explored. Moreover, the researcher added paradoxical leadership behavior as a moderating variable to make an in-depth analysis of whether supervisors demonstrate contradictory leadership behaviors can strengthen the influence of individual ambidexterity on the innovative behavior of subordinates when subordinates display individual ambidexterity of exploration and exploitation or only display exploration or exploitation, intending to improve innovative behavior.

This researcher collected and analyzed 211 paired questionnaires between supervisors and subordinates of Taiwanese enterprises. Some of the subordinates also have managerial positions. Polynomial regression equations and response surface analysis graphs were used to calculate the consistency and inconsistency of subordinates’ exploration and exploitation to investigate how it affected the degree of innovative behavior of subordinates.

The results of the study showed that when the exploratory behavior and development behavior displayed by subordinates tend to be consistent, they have higher innovative behavior performance than when the two behaviors are inconsistent. Furthermore, the results demonstrated that when the two are inconsistent, subordinates exhibiting high exploratory behavior have higher innovative behavior than subordinates exhibiting high development behavior. Finally, it was found that paradoxical leadership behavior could enhance the influence of subordinate exploration and exploitation on innovation behavior.

關鍵字(中)

★ 矛盾領導
★ 個人雙元性

關鍵字(英)

論文目次

中文摘要 I
英文摘要 II
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 VII
一、緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 4
二、文獻探討 5
2-1 組織雙元性(organizational ambidexterity)與個人雙元性(individual ambidexterity) 5
2-2個人雙元性(individual ambidexterity) 5
2-2-1探索行為(Exploration) 6
2-2-2開發行為(Exploitation) 6
2-3 創新行為(Innovative behavior) 7
2-4 個人雙元性與創新行為的關聯性 7
2-5矛盾領導行為（Paradoxical Leadership Behavior） 9
2-5-1以自我為中心與以他人為中心(SO) 10
2-5-2與部屬維持距離又同時保有親近(DC) 10
2-5-3一視同仁地對待他人又能夠許允個別差異(UI) 11
2-5-4維持決策的控制權力又允許他人保有自主性(CA) 11
2-5-5強化對他人的工作要求也允許其保持彈性(RF) 12
2-6 矛盾領導行為在個人雙元性與創新行為間的調節效果 12
三、研究方法 14
3-1 研究架構 14
3-2 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序 15
3-3 研究工具 16
3-3-1 個人雙元性(Individual Ambidexterity) 16
3-3-2矛盾領導行為(Paradoxical Leadership Behavior) 17
3-3-3創新行為(Innovative Work Behavior) 18
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 19
四、研究結果 21
4-1樣本來源與特性 21
4-2 題項包裹法 23
4-3 信度與效度分析 24
4-3-1信度分析 24
4-3-2 效度分析 25
4-4 驗證性因素分析 27
4-5 相關分析 28
4-6 顯著差異樣本比例 28
4-7假設檢定 29
五、結論與建議 32
5-1 研究結果與討論 34
5-2 學術貢獻 35
5-3 管理意涵與實務建議 36
5-4 研究限制與未來研究建議 37
六、參考文獻 34

參考文獻

李俊華，张春彩(2021)。雙元領導、员工雙元行為與企業創新绩效—员工主動性人格的調節作用。河南師範大學，企業與區域發展研究中心。
林文政(2019)。成為最佳矛盾領導人。哈佛商業評論https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article_content_AR0008639.html.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions: sage.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior
human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Alexander, L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 423-438.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
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.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20(4), 696-717.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673-704.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity research journal, 11(2), 173-177.
Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741-758.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298.
Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 229-258.
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.
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.
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.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological methods
research in organizational behavior, 21(2), 230-258.
Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2), 179-199.
Chuang, C.-K. (2009). 從產品創新與產品改良的角度來看台灣高科技產業的策略演進. 成功大學國際企業研究所學位論文, 1-40.
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. (2012). Leadership in the plural. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 211-283.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS quarterly, 453-461.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. J. A. o. M. j. (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. J. A. i. m., & analysis, d. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. Advances in measurement data analysis, 350-400.
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202-225.
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. (2014). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Driving Desired Futures, 296-327.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gabler, C. B., Ogilvie, J. L., Rapp, A., & Bachrach, D. G. (2017). Is there a dark side of ambidexterity? Implications of dueling sales and service orientations. Journal of Service Research, 20(4), 379-392.
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.
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.
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.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. J. A. o. m. J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. 47(2), 209-226.
GRAEN, G. (2005). Vertical dyad linkage and leader-member exchange theory. B Miner. Organizational Behavior I. Essential Theories of Motivation
Leadership, 256-279.
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.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization science, 15(1), 70-81.
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.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. J. S. e. m. a. m. j. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. 6(1), 1-55.
Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007.
Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity research journal, 13(2), 185-195.
Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299-312.
Kauppila, O. P. T., Michiel (2016). The social‐cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behaviour and the supportive role of group managers’ leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 1019-1044.
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.
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.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. J. O. R. M. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. 3(2), 186-207.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal, 14(S2), 95-112.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California management review, 56(3), 58-77.
Li, C. R. (2013). How top management team diversity fosters organizational ambidexterity: The role of social capital among top executives. Journal of Organizational Change Management.
Liu, Y., Xu, S., & Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: How a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 347-366.
Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Golant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. (2021). The role of innovation narratives in accomplishing organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization, 19(4), 693-721.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
Methot, J. R., Melwani, S., & Rothman, N. B. (2017). The space between us: A social-functional emotions view of ambivalent and indifferent workplace relationships. Journal of management, 43(6), 1789-1819.
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240.
Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & 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.
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. J. P. b. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. 105(3), 430.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological bulletin, 103(1), 27.
Nasser, F., & Takahashi, T. J. A. M. i. E. (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. 16(1), 75-97.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: MacGraw-Hill. _ d. Intentar embellecer nuestras ciudades y también las.
O Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business review, 82(4), 74-83.
Olchi, W. G. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 173-192.
Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual review of psychology, 65, 661-691.
Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J., & López-Gamero, M. D. (2020). The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 2340944420929711.
Prieto, I. M., & Pilar Pérez Santana, M. (2012). Building ambidexterity: The role of human resource practices in the performance of firms from Spain. Human Resource Management, 51(2), 189-211.
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 Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 694-709.
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.
Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., Heggestad, E. D., & Psychology. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business, 25(4), 543-554.
Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., Täuber, S. J. O. B., & Processes, H. D. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 155, 7-19.
Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597-624.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. J. A. o. m. R. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W. J. I., & Psychology, O. (2012). Leadership skills for managing paradoxes. Industrial Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 227-231.
Stogdill, R. M., Goode, O. S., & Day, D. R. (1963). The leader behavior of corporation presidents. Personnel Psychology.
Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization science, 20(4), 718-739.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591-620.
Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317-332.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management science, 32(5), 590-607.
West, M. (1990). Innovation at work. In mA West & JL Farr. Innovation creativity at work, 3-13.
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y.-L., & Li, X.-B. J. A. o. M. J. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566.
張偉豪, 統計學, 鄭時宜, & 公共行政. (2012). 與結構方程模型共舞: 曙光初現: 前程文化.
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.

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2022-7-2

推文