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

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：16

、訪客IP：3.17.6.75

姓名

鄧伊惠(Yi-Hui Teng) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

高階主管企管碩士班

論文名稱

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

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)

矛盾領導行為是近幾年才開始關注的議題，過去很少針對主管和下屬之間的關係做研究，然而這些年來，矛盾的領導行為已經引起了很多關注和討論。因此本研究希望藉由擴大矛盾領導行為的探討，進而了解在此過程中，主管部屬之間產生的變化是如何影響任務性績效，期望能夠提供人力資本的參考變數，作為複雜環境中人力資源措施的依據之一。
本研究主要採取二階段的配對問卷，針對台灣民營企業主管及部屬發放紙本或線上問卷，總共發出845份問卷，回收473份有效的主管與部屬的配對問卷，有效樣本回收率55.98%。迴歸分析的結果顯示:
(1) 主管的矛盾領導行為對於部屬的任務性績效具有正向影響；
(2) 部屬的複雜整合力在主管的矛盾領導行為與部屬的任務性績效間之中介效果成立，理論與實務的管理意涵亦將在本研究中討論。

摘要(英)

In the past, few studies were done at the relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate. However Paradoxical Leadership Behavior has been paid much attention and discussed a lot in these years. It’s my intention to expand the study of paradoxical leadership behaviors in order to find out how it affects the task performance, when the relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate change. Also this study will provide the variables as reference for human resource unit in such a complicated working environment.
My research is divided into two sections and each section is constructed by a paired questionnaire filled in either through paper or on line by the supervisors and subordinates from various companies in Taiwan. Surveys were distributed to 845 employees. Ultimately, 473 surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 55.98 percent.
The results of regression analysis indicate that (1) The supervisor’s paradoxical leadership behavior positively effect on the subordinate’s task performance.(2) Integrative complexity does exist as a full mediator between paradoxical leadership behavior and task performance Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

關鍵字(中)

★ 矛盾領導行為
★ 任務性績效
★ 複雜整合力
★ 整合性思維

關鍵字(英)

★ Paradoxical Leadership Behavior
★ Task Performance
★ Integrative Complexity
★ Holistic Thinking

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 4
2-1 名詞解釋 4
2-2 各變數間的關聯性 8
第三章研究方法 11
3-1 研究架構 11
3-2 研究樣本與程序 12
3-3 研究變項衡量 13
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 16
第四章研究結果 17
4-1 資料來源與樣本特性 17
4-2 信度分析 18
4-3 相關分析 19
4-4 階層迴歸分析 19
4-5 複雜整合力的中介效果檢測 20
4-6 整合性思維的中介效果檢測 22
第五章結論與討論 24
5-1 研究結果與討論 24
5-2 學術貢獻 26
5-3 管理意涵與實務貢獻 26
5-4 研究限制與未來建議 28
中文文獻 30
英文參考文獻 31

參考文獻

〔1〕林文政：未來在等待的人才：唯有「學習者」生存。2014年9月19日，取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/45999。
〔2〕林文政：論東西方領導人的追隨力(上)。2012年12月17日，取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/26944。
〔3〕林文政:為何主管需要優先關心員工的需求。2013年08月27日，取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/34054。
〔4〕吳怡靜：VUCA時代，怎麼讓你的組織變敏捷?。2018年02月26，取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5088385。

英文參考文獻
〔1〕 Bandura, A., "Influence of models′ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses." Journal of personality and social psychology, 1(6), pp 589. 1965.
〔2〕 Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H.,Social learning theory, Vol. 1, Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
〔3〕 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A., "The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations." Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), pp 1173. 1986.
〔4〕 Bedeian, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W., "Simple question, not so simple answer: Interpreting interaction terms in moderated multiple regression." Journal of Management, 20(1), pp 159-165. 1994.
〔5〕 Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. (pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA, US: Consulting Psychologists Press.
〔6〕 Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R., "Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study." The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), pp 543-562. 2010.
〔7〕 Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A., "Being different yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes." Administrative Science Quarterly, pp 749-780. 1998.
〔8〕 Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A., "Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), pp 691-705. 2007.
〔9〕 Cilliers, P., "Complexity, deconstruction and relativism." Theory, culture & society, 22(5), pp 255-267. 2005.
〔10〕 Cohen, J., "The cost of dichotomization." Applied psychological measurement, 7(3), pp 249-253. 1983.
〔11〕 Gardner, H., & Hatch, T., "Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences." Educational researcher, 18(8), pp 4-10. 1989.
〔12〕 Garon, E. B., Rizvi, N. A., Hui, R., Leighl, N., Balmanoukian, A. S., Eder, J. P., . . . Horn, L., "Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer." New England Journal of Medicine, 372(21), pp 2018-2028. 2015.
〔13〕 Heneman, H. G., & Judge, T.,Staffing Organizations, Mendota House, 2009.
〔14〕 Hershey, P., & Blanchard, K. H., "Management of organizational behavior." Prentiss Hall, England Cleft, NJ, pp 236-244. 1977.
〔15〕 Hilgard, E. R.,Theories of Learning: 2d Ed, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956.
〔16〕 Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. A.,The Adult Learner: The Definitive Classic in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, Elsevier, 2005.
〔17〕 Lewis, M. W., "Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide." Academy of Management review, 25(4), pp 760-776. 2000.
〔18〕 Magnusson, D., & Torestad, B., "A holistic view of personality: A model revisited." Annual review of psychology, 44(1), pp 427-452. 1993.
〔19〕 Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A., "Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition." Psychological review, 108(2), pp 291. 2001.
〔20〕 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H., "Psychometric theory." 1978.
〔21〕 Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H., "Using paradox to build management and organization theories." Academy of management review, 14(4), pp 562-578. 1989.
〔22〕 Reddin, W. J., "Managerial effectiveness." 1970.
〔23〕 Robbins, S. P., Judge, T., & Breward, K.,Essentials of organizational behavior, Vol. 7, Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, 2003.
〔24〕 Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J., & Osborn, R. (2000). Organizational behavior, NY, John Willy& Sons: Inc.
〔25〕 Shamir, B., "Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study." The Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), pp 19-47. 1995.
〔26〕 Stogdill, R. M., & Bass, B. M.,Stogdill′s handbook of leadership, Free Press, 1981.
〔27〕 Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P., "Integrative complexity of communications in international crises." Journal of conflict resolution, 21(1), pp 169-184. 1977.
〔28〕 Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E., "Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors." Journal of management, 17(3), pp 601-617. 1991.
〔29〕 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), pp 538-566. 2015.

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2018-6-29

推文