矛盾領導行為對工作績效之影響-以主管部屬交換關係作為中介、尋求回饋行為作為調節變項

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：64

、訪客IP：18.117.104.56

姓名

江玉秀(Yu-Hsiu Chiang) 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

矛盾領導行為對工作績效之影響-以主管部屬交換關係作為中介、尋求回饋行為作為調節變項
(The impact of paradoxical leadership behavior on job performance：The leader-member exchange as the mediating variable, feedback-seeking behavior as the moderating variable)

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)

科技快速發展、全球競爭加劇，商業環境變得越來越動態、複雜、模糊，更緊密連結，也更難以預測。領導者可能面臨越來越多的矛盾，或者看似矛盾的需求。近年來，矛盾的領導行為越來越受到研究者的關注。本研究基於社會學習理論、主管和部屬交換理論，提出矛盾的領導行為會影響主管和部屬交換關係，進而影響部屬的工作績效；而部屬的尋求回饋行為，會影響矛盾領導行為透過主管部屬交換關係對工作績效的影響程度。因此，本研究以企業主管和部屬作為研究對象，採主管和部屬配對的方式，進行兩階段的問卷調查，對台灣地區的企業發放紙本或電子線上問卷，共回收335份主管和部屬有效配對樣本。以「矛盾領導行為」為自變項，「主管部屬交換關係」為中介變項，部屬的「工作績效」為依變項，以及部屬的「尋求回饋行為」為調節變項，進行研究分析。
研究結果得到以下結論：(1)矛盾領導行為與部屬工作績效有正向關聯；(2)主管部屬交換關係在矛盾領導行為與部屬工作績效間具有部份中介效果；(3)部屬尋求回饋行為在主管部屬交換關係與工作績效間具有調節效果。當部屬展現尋求回饋行為越強，主管部屬交換關係與工作績效間的正向關係會越強；(4)部屬尋求回饋行為會調節矛盾領導行為透過主管部屬交換關係影響工作績效的正向中介效果。當部屬展現較強的尋求回饋行為，矛盾領導行為透過主管部屬交換關係而影響部屬工作績效的正向中介效果會較強。

摘要(英)

With rapid technological advancements and intensified global competition, the business environment has become increasingly dynamic, complex, ambiguous, interconnected, and difficult to predict. Leaders may face more and more contradictions or seemingly conflicting demands. In recent years, paradoxical leadership behavior has received increasing attention from researchers. Based on social learning theory and the theory of leader-member exchange, this study proposes that paradoxical leadership behavior impacts the leader-member exchange, which in turn affects subordinate’s job performance. Furthermore, subordinate’s feedbackseeking behavior moderates the paradoxical leadership behavior on job performance through the leader-member exchange. Therefore, this study focuses on supervisors and subordinates in organizations as research subjects, using a paired survey approach and conducting a two-stage questionnaire survey. A total of 335 valid supervisor-subordinate matched samples were collected through paper or online questionnaires distributed to companies in Taiwan. The research was conducted using the "paradoxical leadership behavior" as the independent variable, the "leader-member exchange" as the mediating variable, "job performance" as the dependent variable, and "feedback-seeking behavior" as the moderating variable.
The findings of the study draw the following conclusions: (1) Paradoxical leadership behavior is positively correlated with subordinate’s job performance; (2) Leader-member exchange partially mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinate’s job performance; (3) Subordinate’s feedback-seeking behavior moderates the relationship between leader-member exchange and job performance. The stronger the subordinate′s feedback-seeking behavior, the more positive the relationship between leader-member exchange and job performance; (4) Subordinate’s feedback-seeking behavior moderates the positive mediating effect of leader-member exchange on the relationship between paradoxical leadership behavior and job performance. When subordinates exhibit stronger feedbackseeking behavior, the positive mediation effect of paradoxical leadership behavior on job performance is stronger.

關鍵字(中)

★ 矛盾領導行為
★ 主管部屬交換關係
★ 工作績效
★ 尋求回饋行為

關鍵字(英)

★ paradoxical leadership behavior
★ leader-member exchange
★ job performance
★ feedback-seeking behavior

論文目次

摘要i
ABSTRACT ii
誌謝iii
目錄iv
圖目錄vi
表目錄vii
第一章緒論1
1-1 研究背景與動機1
1-2 研究目的2
第二章文獻探討3
2-1 矛盾領導行為3
2-2 主管部屬交換關係6
2-3 工作績效6
2-4 尋求回饋行為7
2-5 矛盾領導行為對工作績效之影響8
2-6 主管部屬交換關係之中介效果9
2-7 部屬尋求回饋行為之調節效果10
2-8 部屬尋求回饋行為之調節式中介效果11
第三章研究方法13
3-1 研究架構與假設13
3-2 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序14
3-3 研究工具15
3-4 資料分析與統計方法18
第四章研究分析與結果19
4-1 研究樣本來源與特性19
4-2 信度分析21
4-3 效度分析21
4-4 模型配適度分析24
4-5 相關分析25
4-6 迴歸分析與驗證假設26
第五章結論與建議30
5-1 研究結論與討論30
5-2 管理意涵與實務建議31
5-3 研究限制與未來建議33
參考文獻34

參考文獻

一、中文文獻：
林文政：〈成為最佳矛盾領導人〉，2019 年 2 月，取自 https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article/18561/become-the-best contradictory-leader。
黃芳銘：〈結構方程模式-理論與應用〉，第五版，臺北市：台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司，民國 104 年。
鄧伊惠：〈矛盾領導行為與部屬任務性績效的關聯性-以部屬複雜整合力及部屬整合性思維為中介變項〉，碩士論文，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所，民國 107年。

二、英文文獻：
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 465-487.
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Walle, D. V. (2003).Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 29(6), 773-799.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational behavior and human performance, 32(3), 370-398.
Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 251-280.
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models′ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology press.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual (Vol. 6). Multivariate software Encino, CA.
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.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance.
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.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological methods & research, 21(2), 230-258.
Callister, R. R., Kramer, M. W., & Turban, D. B. (1999). Feedback seeking following career transitions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 429-438.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation.
Collins, J. (2007). Level 5 leadership. The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership, 2, 27-50.
Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational behavior and human performance, 13(1), 46-78.
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, 453-461.
Drazin, R., Kazanjian, R. K., & Glynn, M. (2008). Creativity and sensemaking among professionals. Handbook of organizational creativity, 263-281.
Fang, T. (2010). Asian management research needs more self-confidence: Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond. Asia Pacific journal of management, 27, 155-170.
Feldman, S. P. (1989). The broken wheel: The inseparability of autonomy and control in innovation within organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 26(2), 83-102.
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 vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational behavior and human performance, 38, 46-78.
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. The 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 and Human Decision Processes, 66(2), 203-214.
Guo, Z., Yan, J., Wang, X., & Zhen, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and employee work outcomes: A paradox theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1661.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol.5, No.3, pp.207-219). In: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach,1, 20.
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The leadership quarterly, 20(4), 517-534.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
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. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
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.
Kantz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organization. In: John Willey And Son. New York.
Krasman, J. (2010). The feedback-seeking personality: Big five and feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 18-32.
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.
Levy, P. E., Albright, M. D., Cawley, B. D., & Williams, J. R.(1995). Situational and individual determinants of feedback seeking: A closer look at the process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(1), 23-37.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. 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.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4),730.
Magnusson, D., & Torestad, B. (1993). A holistic view of personality: A model revisited. Annual review of psychology, 44(1), 427-452.
McCarthy, J. M., Trougakos, J. P., & Cheng, B. H. (2016). Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 279.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Information seeking within organizations. Human communication research, 28(2), 229-242.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475.
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.
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1978). Psychometric theory mcgraw-hill new york. The role of university in the development of entrepreneurial vocations: A Spanish study, 387-405.
O′Reilly, C. A. (1983). The use of information in organizational decision making: A model and some propositions. Research in Organizational Behavior.
Park, S., Sturman, M., Vanderpool, C., & Chan, E. K. (2013). Only time will tell: The dynamics of LMX, job performance, and justice. Academy of Management.
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185.
Portugal, E., & Yukl, G. (1994). Perspectives on environmental leadership. The leadership quarterly, 5(3-4), 271-276.
Renn, R. W., & Fedor, D. B. (2001). Development and field test of a feedback seeking, self-efficacy, and goal setting model of work performance. Journal of management, 27(5), 563-583.
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.
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.
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.
Teunissen, P. W., Stapel, D. A., van der Vleuten, C., Scherpbier, A., Boor, K., & Scheele, F. (2009). Who wants feedback? An investigation of the variables influencing residents′ feedback-seeking behavior in relation to night shifts. Academic medicine, 84(7), 910-917.
Tsui, A. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: A process view of managerial effectiveness. Journal of management, 20(1), 93-121.
Tuckey, M., Brewer, N., & Williamson, P. (2002). The influence of motives and goal orientation on feedback seeking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(2), 195-216.
Vancouver, J. B., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Feedback inquiry: The effect of source attributes and individual differences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(3), 276-285.
VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. (2000). An integrated model of feedback-seeking behavior: Disposition, context, and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 996.
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation. Handbook of self-regulation, 19.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American psychologist, 62(1), 17.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations, vol. 3 Sage. In: London.
Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological methods & research, 16(1), 118-154.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617.
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

2023-6-27

推文