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

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：18.118.253.141

姓名

鍾怡安(Yi-An Chung) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所

論文名稱

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
("Both/And" Leadership? The Effect of Both Consideration and Initiating Structure Leadership Styles on 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，分別提出關懷與定規型領導風格對於部屬行為的影響，卻少有研究以兩全其美(both/and)的矛盾思維，關注於關懷與定規型領導風格，兩者兼備的可能性。因此，本研究以兩全其美(both/and)的矛盾思維，考量主管在兩種領導風格兼備的可能性，並使用非線性統計方法－多項式迴歸及反應曲面分析，探究兩全其美領導、關懷領導、定規領導、赤貧領導對於員工的任務精熟度及反生產行為之影響。本研究在台灣企業蒐集486份有效主管部屬配對問卷，結果發現，(1)展現兩全其美領導的主管，其部屬的任務精熟度會高於展現赤貧領導的部屬。(2)展現兩全其美領導的主管，其部屬的反生產行為會低於展現赤貧領導的部屬。(3)展現關懷領導的主管，其部屬的任務精熟度會高於展現定規領導的部屬。(4)展現定規領導的主管，其部屬的反生產行為會高於展現關懷領導的部屬。(5)在部屬的任務精熟度及反生產行為方面，主管展現兩全其美領導與展現二者擇一中的關懷領導具有相同的影響程度。

摘要(英)

Most research has been focusing on the study of “either/or” perspective leadership styles in the past years, but there were only a few studies that are rarely focusing 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 a paradox lens to explore the possibility of coexistence of consideration and initiating structure leadership styles on a leader. By employing the polynomial regression with response surface analysis, we can explore the effect of “both/and” leadership, consideration leadership, initiating structure leadership and laissez-faire leadership on subordinates’ task proficiency and counterproductive work behavior.
　　Drawing on an effective cross-organization data of 486 supervisor-subordinate dyads in Taiwan, we found the following results: (1) the subordinates’ task proficiency is higher under the “both/and” leadership when compare with laissez-faire leadership, (2) the counterproductive work behavior is lower under “both/and” leadership when compare with laissez-faire leadership, (3) the subordinates’ task proficiency is higher under the consideration leadership when compare with initiating structure leadership, (4) the counterproductive work behavior is lower under consideration leadership when compare with initiating structure leadership, and (5) the effect of “both/and” leadership and consideration leadership on subordinates’ counterproductive work behavior and task proficiency is similar.

關鍵字(中)

★ 兩全其美領導
★ 矛盾理論
★ 關懷型領導風格
★ 定規型領導風格
★ 多項式迴歸
★ 反應曲面分析

關鍵字(英)

★ “both/and” leadership
★ Paradox Theory
★ Consideration Leadership Style
★ Initiating Structure Leadership Style
★ Polynomial Regression Analysis
★ Response Surface Analysis

論文目次

中文摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
誌謝 iv
目錄 v
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 viii
一、緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 6
二、文獻探討 7
2-1 俄亥俄州立大學的關懷型與定規型領導風格 7
2-2 矛盾理論 8
2-2-1 兩全其美(both/and)的矛盾思維 8
2-2-2 東方陰陽哲學（Yin–Yang Philosophy）與西方權變理論(Contingency Theories) 8
2-2-3 人員管理中的矛盾領導行為 9
2-3 矛盾理論與俄亥俄州立大學關懷與型領導風格之結合 9
2-4 四種領導風格類型與部屬行為的關係 10
三、研究方法 16
3-1 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序 16
3-2 研究工具 16
3-2-1 關懷與定規型領導風格 17
3-2-2 任務精熟度 18
3-2-3 反生產行為 18
3-2-4 控制變項 18
3-3 資料分析方法 19
四、研究結果 20
4-1 資料來源與樣本特性 20
4-2 信度分析 21
4-3 驗證性因素分析 21
4-4 相關分析 22
4-5 差異樣本比例分配 24
4-6 假設模型檢驗 24
五、結論與建議 31
5-1 研究結果與討論 31
5-2 學術貢獻 33
5-3 管理意涵 34
5-4 研究限制與對未來研究之建議 35
5-4-1 僅蒐集台灣樣本 35
5-4-2 更廣泛地探討各種潛在影響機制 36
5-4-3 將矛盾的兩全其美(both/and)思維應用於未來領導相關研究 36
六、參考文獻 37

參考文獻

［1］ Badin, I. J. (1974). Some moderator influences on relationships between consideration, initiating structure and organizational criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 380-382.
［2］ Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall.
［3］ Bentler, P. M. (1982). Confirmatory factor analysis via noniterative estimation: a fast, inexpensive method. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 417-424.
［4］ Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.
［5］ Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410-424.
［6］ Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: J. Wiley.
［7］ Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 389-444
［8］ Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539-553.
［9］ 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.
［10］ Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
［11］ Cummins, R. C. (1971). Relationship of initiating structure and job performance as moderated by consideration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(5), 489-490.
［12］ 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.
［13］ Demir, M. (2011). Effects of organizational justice, trust and commitment on employees′ deviant behavior. Anatolia, 22(2), 204-221.
［14］ 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.
［15］ Edwards, J. R. (2007). Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 361-371.
［16］ 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.
［17］ 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.
［18］ Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The Contingency Model and the Dynamics of the Leadership Process. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Cambridge: Academic Press, 59-112
［19］ Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(2), 43-56.
［20］ 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.
［21］ 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.
［22］ 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.
［23］ Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., . . . Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228-238.
［24］ 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.
［25］ Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
［26］ 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.
［27］ 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.
［28］ Huang, Q., Davison, R., Liu, H., & Gu, J. (2008). The impact of leadership style on knowledge-sharing intentions in china. Journal of Global Information Management, 16, 67-91.
［29］ Ismail, A., Guatleng, O., Cheekiong, T., Ibrahim, Z., & Dollah, N. F. D. (2009). The indirect effect of distributive justice in the relationship between pay structure and work attitudes and behavior. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(2), 234-248.
［30］ Jackson, S., & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 16-78.
［31］ Jia, J., Yan, J., Cai, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Paradoxical leadership incongruence and Chinese individuals’ followership behaviors: moderation effects of hierarchical culture and perceived strength of human resource management system. Asian Business & Management, 17(1).
［32］ 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.
［33］ 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.
［34］ Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: working through paradox. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.
［35］ Lambert, L. S., Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Holt, D. T., & Barelka, A. J. (2012). Forgotten but not gone: an examination of fit between leader consideration and initiating structure needed and received. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 913-930.
［36］ Lewicki, R., and Bunker, B., Barbara. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in working relations. In Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers in Theory and Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 114-139.
［37］ Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates.". The Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299.
［38］ Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
［39］ 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.
［40］ Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. M. (2012). directive versus empowering leadership: a field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1372-1395.
［41］ McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82.
［42］ Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159-1168.
［43］ Molm, L. D. (2001). Handbook of social theory. In B. Smart & G. Ritzer (Eds.), Theories of Social Exchange and Exchange Networks. London: SAGE Publications, 260-272.
［44］ Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. 21(1), 1-17.
［45］ Neuman, J. H., and Baron, R. A. 2005. Aggression in the workplace: a social-Psychological perspective, In S. Fox and P. E. Spector. (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 13-40.
［46］ Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
［47］ Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754.
［48］ Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 297-321.
［49］ Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. E. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 439-446.
［50］ 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 and Psychology, 25(4), 543-554.
［51］ Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Schanke Aasland, M., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80-92.
［52］ Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: defining ourselves through work relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 9-32.
［53］ Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
［54］ Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). "Both/And" Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62-70.
［55］ Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader behavior description questionnaire-form XII. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
［56］ Teas, R. K. (1983). Supervisory behavior, role stress, and the job satisfaction of industrial salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 84-91.
［57］ 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 and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101-113.
［58］ 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.
［59］ Weissenberg, P., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1972). The independence of initiating structure and consideration: a review of the evidence. Personnel Psychology, 25(1), 119-130.
［60］ Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 118-154.
［61］ Zaccaro, S. J., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Contrasting group and organizational commitment: evidence for differences among multilevel attachments. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(3), 267-273.
［62］ 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.
［63］林俐俐，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，碩士論文，民國102年。
［64］曾玉琦、張瑞當，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，第二卷第二期，61-82頁，民國99年。
［65］黃芳銘，結構方程模式：理論與應用，五南圖書，臺北市：，民國96年。

指導教授

林文政(Wen-Jeng Lin)

審核日期

2019-7-4

推文