矛盾追隨行為之研究：前因與其後果的探討

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：127

、訪客IP：3.144.45.175

姓名

童苑琇(Yuan-Hsiu Tung) 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

矛盾追隨行為之研究：前因與其後果的探討
(Toward the Study of Paradoxical Followership Behaviors : Antecedents and Consequences)

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)

綜觀近二十年來管理科學領域中針對領導延伸至追隨力的研究，隨著高度不確定、複雜性及競爭程度的全球組織環境發展變化快速，追隨者經常在職場上面臨了矛盾對立的競合局勢，即會展現出矛盾追隨行為，以符合個體、顧客、主管或組織不同的需求及期待。然而矛盾追隨行為是一門新興研究議題，過往探討部屬矛盾追隨行為前因與後果的文獻鮮少，且仍未有學者以人格特質及個人績效責任作為變數進行研究分析，故本研究擷取部屬的模糊容忍度及經驗開放性等兩項人格特質做為前因；以部屬的熟練度行為、適應性行為及主動性行為等三項工作角色行為做為後果，進一步探討矛盾追隨行為的前因與後果。
本研究蒐集台灣企業之樣本，共回收669份有效主管部屬配對問卷，並採用結構方程模型分析方法統計研究結果，最終證明了員工的模糊容忍度確實為矛盾追隨行為的形成前因，能強化矛盾追隨行為的展現，也確認了矛盾追隨行為會影響員工的熟練度、適應性及主動性三種工作角色行為。

摘要(英)

Looking at the research on leadership extension to followership in the field of management science in the past two decades, rapid changes in the global organizational environment with high uncertainty, complexity and competition have led followers to often face conflicting and confrontational situations in the workplace. Because of this, paradoxical followership behaviors (PFB) has been shown to meet the different needs and expectations of individuals, customers, supervisors or organizations. However, PFB is an emerging research topic. Past literature has rarely touched on the causes and consequences of PFB, and there are still no scholars who use the personality traits and individual performance responsibilities as variables to conduct research and analysis. Therefore, this study draws on the subordinates. Two personality traits, namely tolerance for ambiguity and openness of experience, are used as the antecedents. The three work-role behaviors, namely proficiency behavior, adaptive behavior and proactive behavior, are taken as the consequences, and the causes and consequences of PFB are further explored.
This study collected 669 valid subordinates’ questionnaires for the competent departments from Taiwanese companies. The results of structural equation modeling analysis were used to prove the tolerance for ambiguity of employees. PFB also confirms that it will affect the employee′s proficiency, adaptive and proactive behavior.

關鍵字(中)

★ 矛盾思維
★ 矛盾追隨行為
★ 模糊容忍度
★ 經驗開放性
★ 工作角色行為
★ 熟練度行為
★ 適應性行為
★ 主動性行為

關鍵字(英)

★ Paradoxical Mindset
★ Paradoxical Followership Behavior(PFB)
★ Tolerance for Ambiguity
★ Openness to Experiences
★ Work Role Behavior
★ Task Proficiency Behavior
★ Adaptive Behavior
★ Proactive Behavior

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 矛盾追隨行為 5
2-2 影響矛盾追隨行為的因素 8
2-3 矛盾追隨行為對工作角色行為的影響 11
第三章研究方法 13
3-1 研究架構 13
3-2 研究樣本與程序 13
3-3 研究變項衡量 14
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 18
第四章研究結果 19
4-1 樣本來源與樣本特性 19
4-2 信度與效度分析 20
4-3 相關分析 25
4-4 假設模型檢驗 27
第五章結論與建議 29
5-1 研究結論 29
5-2 研究貢獻 31
5-3 管理意涵 32
5-4 研究限制與未來建議 33
參考文獻 35

參考文獻

英文文獻
〔1〕Baker, S. D., “Followership: The Theoretical Foundation of a Contemporary Construct”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), pp. 50-60, 2007.
〔2〕Bandura, A., Social Learning Theory, New York: General Learning Press, New York, 1977.
〔3〕Bandura, A., Self-efficacy in changing societies, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995.
〔4〕Budner, S., “Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable”, Journal of Personality, 30(1), pp. 29-50, 1962.
〔5〕Cameron, K., & Quinn, R., “Organizational paradox and transformation”, In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, pp. 1-18, Cambridge, MA:Ballinger, 1988.
〔6〕Campbell, D. J., “The proactive employee : Managing workplace initiative”, Academy of Management, 14(3), pp. 52-66, 2000.
〔7〕Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., &Marrone, J. A., “Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), pp. 1217-1234, 2007.
〔8〕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.
〔9〕Chaleff, I., The Courageous Follower. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2009.
〔10〕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.
〔11〕Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V.da, &Cunha, M. P. e., “Management paradoxes: A relational view”, Human Relations, 55(5), pp. 483-503, 2002.
〔12〕Costa, P. T., &McCrae, R. R., “Solid grounds in the wetlands of personality”, Psychological Bulletin, 117 (2): 2(2), pp. 216-220, 1995.
〔13〕Crant, J. M., “Proactive Behavior in Organizations”, Journal of Management, 26(3), pp. 435-462, 2000.
〔14〕Crozier, M., &Thoenig, J.-C. , “The Regulation of Complex Organized Systems”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 547-570, 1976.
〔15〕Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., &Hu, J., “Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives”, Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), pp. 36-62, 2014.
〔16〕Ehrhart, M. G., &Klein, K. J., “Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality”, Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), pp. 153-179, 2001.
〔17〕Frenkel-Brunswik, E., “Tolerance towards ambiguity as a personality variable”, American Psycholo- gist, 3, p. 268, 1949.
〔18〕Furnnam, A., &Ribchester, T., “Tolerance of Ambiguity : A Review of the Concept , Its Measurement and Applications”, Current Psychology: Developmental ,Learning, Personality, Social Fall, 14(3), pp. 179-199, 1995.
〔19〕Goldberg, L. R., “The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits”, American Psychologist, 48(1), pp.26-34, 1993.
〔20〕Gordon W. Allport, Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, Henry Holt Later Printing, New York, 1937.
〔21〕Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., &Parker, S. K., “A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), pp. 327-347, 2007.
〔22〕Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E., Multivariate Data Analysis (7 ed.), New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2010.
〔23〕Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., &Oddou, G., “The Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), pp. 58-65, 2010.
〔24〕Ilgen, D. R., &Hollenbeck, J. R., “The structure of work: Job design and roles”, Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(December), pp. 165-207, 1991.
〔25〕Johnson, J. W., Toward a Better Understanding of the Relationship Between Personality and Individual Job Performance, Ssrn, 2003.
〔26〕Jokinen, T., “Global leadership competencies: A review and discussion”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(3), pp. 199-216, 2005.
〔27〕Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L., The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley, 1978.
〔28〕Kayes, D. C., “An Experiential Approach to Cross-Cultural Learning : A Review and Integration of Competencies for Successful International University of Japan”, Academy of Managment Learning & Education, 3(4), pp. 362-379, 2004.
〔29〕Kelley, R. E., “In Praise of Followers”, Harvard Business Review, 142-148, 1988.
〔30〕Latack, J. C., “Person / Role Conflict : Holland ’ s Model Extended to Role-Stress Research , Stress Management , and Career Development”, Academy of Management Review, 6(1), pp. 89-103, 1981.
〔31〕Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., &Sels, L., “Authentic Leadership, Authentic Followership, Basic Need Satisfaction, and Work Role Performance: A Cross-Level Study”, Journal of Management, 41(6), pp. 1677-1697, 2012.
〔32〕Lewis, M. W., “Exploring Paradox : Toward a More Exploring Guide”, Academy of Magement Reveiw, 25(4), pp. 760-776, 2002.
〔33〕Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L., “Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, 76(1), p. 127, 1991.
〔34〕McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., &Costa Jr, P. T., “Conceptions and Correlates of Openness to Experience”, Handbook of Personality Psychology, Chapter 31(May), pp. 825-847, 1997.
〔35〕McCrae, R. R., &John, O. P., “An Introduction of the Five-Factor Model and Its Applications”, Journal of Personality, 60(2), pp. 175-215, 1992.
〔36〕Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., &Lewis, M. W., “Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: the Problem Is How We Think About the Problem”, Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), pp. 26-45, 2017.
〔37〕Murphy, P. E., &Jackson, S. E., “Managing Work-Role Performance: Challenges for 21st Century Organizations and Employees”, The Changing Nature of Work Performance, (January 1999), 325–365, 1999.
〔38〕Paul Hersey & Ken H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, 1969.
〔39〕Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., &Bachrach, D. G., “Organizational citizenship behaviors: Critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, 26(3), pp. 513-563, 2000.
〔40〕Raudenbush, S. W. and Bryk, A. S., Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. 2nd ed, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
〔41〕Rosenbach, W. E., Pittman, T. S., &Iii, E. H. P., “What Makes a Follower?”, Contemporary Issues In Leadership, 7, 2012.
〔42〕Shamir, B., House, R. J., &Arthur, M. B., “The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory”, Organization Science, 4(4), pp. 577-594, 1993.
〔43〕Smith, K., & Berg, D., Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 1987.
〔44〕Smith, W. K. (2011), “Toward A Theory of Paradox : A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing”, Academy of Management Review, 36(APRIL 2011), pp. 381-403, 2011.
〔45〕Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., &Morris, A, “A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles”, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, pp.304-319, 2006.
〔46〕Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., &Wagner, S. H., “A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), pp. 473-489, 2003.
〔47〕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.

中文文獻
〔1〕林文政，「兩全其美領導力」，哈佛商業評論，64-74頁，台北市，民國一零六年。
〔2〕邱郁雅，「矛盾追隨行為量表之建立」，桃園市國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零六年。
〔3〕原濤，淩文輇，「追隨力研究述評與展望」，心理科學進展，18(8)，769-780頁，民國九十九年。
〔4〕張容瑄，「矛盾追隨行為前因及後果探討」，桃園市國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零六年。
〔5〕張軍成，淩文輇，「悖論視角下的領導者—追隨者契合研究探析」，外國經濟與管理，35，55-62頁，民國一零二年。
〔6〕彭堅，王霄，「與上司心有靈犀會讓你的工作更出色嗎？追隨原型一致性、工作投入與工作績效」，心理學報，48(9)，1151-1162頁，民國一零五年。
〔7〕傅馨瑩，「矛盾領導行為對部屬工作績效之影響：矛盾追隨行為的中介與調節效果的探討」，桃園市國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零七年。
〔8〕黃芳銘，結構方程模式：理論與應用，五南出版，台北市，民國九十九年。
〔9〕黃熾森，研究方法入門：組織行為及人力資源的應用，二版，鼎茂出版，台北市，民國一零二年。

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2019-7-12

推文