悖論領導行為、主管部屬交換關係與部屬任務性績效的關聯性 －一項內隱領導理論的觀點

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：104

、訪客IP：3.145.155.149

姓名

趙怡寧(Yi-Ning Chao) 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

悖論領導行為、主管部屬交換關係與部屬任務性績效的關聯性－一項內隱領導理論的觀點
(The Relationship between Paradoxical Leadership Behavior, Leader-Member Exchange, and Subordinate Task Performance: An Implicit Leadership Theory Perspective)

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)

隨著資訊科技進步、AI人工智慧應用普及化，讓現今社會發展出勞動力多樣性以及跨文化溝通緊密化。在當前企業組織面臨高度動態和複雜環境的情況下，領導者展現悖論領導能力能更有效地應對悖論情境。同時，考量部屬對領導者悖論領導行為的接受程度因人而異，本研究以內隱領導理論的觀點探討，當部屬對領導者悖論領導行為的期待與實際感受程度越具一致性，與部屬任務性績效的關聯性，並以主管部屬交換關係為中介因子。本研究以268份台灣企業主管與部屬配對之樣本，經統計迴歸分析，研究結果得到以下結論：（1）在內隱領導觀點下，部屬對主管悖論領導行為的期待與實際感知之一致性與部屬任務性績效有正向關聯；（2）主管部屬交換關係在部屬對主管悖論領導行為的期待與實際感知之一致性與部屬任務性績效間具有完全中介效果
本研究探討內隱領導理論對主管部屬交換關係質量的影響，並支持主管悖論領導行為對部屬任務性績效的正向影響。透過本研究結果顯示，悖論領導需要在部屬與主管有一致性認同下才能發揮效益，因為部屬對主管的實際感知會影響其對管理決策的接受度，進而提升任務性績效。

摘要(英)

In the VUCA environment faced by organizations, leaders demonstrating paradoxical leadership abilities can more effectively manage paradoxical situations. Considering that subordinates′ acceptance of leaders′ paradoxical leadership behavior varies, this study explores, from the perspective of implicit leadership theory, the relationship between the consistency of subordinates′ expectations and actual perceptions of leaders′ paradoxical leadership behavior and their task performance, with leader-member exchange (LMX) as a mediating factor.
This study analyzed 268 matched samples of supervisors and subordinates from Taiwanese enterprises using statistical regression analysis, leading to the following conclusions: (1) From the perspective of implicit leadership theory, the consistency between subordinates′ expectations and actual perceptions of supervisors′ paradoxical leadership behavior is positively related to subordinates′ task performance; (2) LMX fully mediates the relationship between the consistency of subordinates′ expectations and actual perceptions of supervisors′ paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinates′ task performance.
The findings indicate that paradoxical leadership can only be effective when there is consistent recognition between subordinates and supervisors, as subordinates′ actual perceptions of their supervisors influence their acceptance of management decisions, thereby enhancing task performance.

關鍵字(中)

★ 悖論領導行為
★ 內隱領導理論
★ 主管部屬交換關係
★ 任務性績效

關鍵字(英)

★ Paradoxical Leadership Behavior
★ Implicit Leadership Theory
★ Leader-Member Exchange
★ Task Performance

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract ii
謝誌 iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 v
表目錄 vi
第一章緒論 1
1-1 研究背景與動機 1
1-2 研究目的 4
第二章文獻探討 5
2-1 悖論領導行為 5
2-2 內隱領導理論 8
2-3 主管部屬交換關係 9
2-4 任務性績效 10
2-5 部屬對主管悖論領導行為期待與實際感知之一致性 11
第三章研究方法 15
3-1 研究架構 15
3-2 研究樣本與程序 15
3-3 研究工具 16
3-4資料分析與統計方法 19
第四章研究結果 20
4-1 資料來源及樣本特性 20
4-2 信度與效度分析 23
4-3 驗證性因素分析 27
4-4 相關分析 28
4-5 假設模型檢驗 29
第五章結論建議 32
5-1 研究結果與討論 32
5-2 研究貢獻 33
5-3 管理意涵 33
5-4 研究限制與未來建議 35
參考文獻 36

參考文獻

江玉秀（2023）。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（碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
林文政（2016年6月24日）。銳利、嚴格卻不傷人的領導者【經理人】。取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/52696。
林文政（2019年2月）。成為最佳矛盾領導人【哈佛商業評論繁體中文版】。取自https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article/18561/become-the-best contradictory-leader。
林孜庭（2020）。主管與部屬矛盾領導行為的一致性對部屬行為之影響—以任務複雜度為調節效果（碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
傅馨瑩（2017）。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（碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
黃熾森（2013）研究方法入門：組織行為及人力資源的應用研究方法入門（第二版）。臺北市：鼎茂出版。
黃芳銘（2015）。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。
黃雅靖（2021）。部屬視角的矛盾內隱領導理論對部屬行為關聯性之探討－以對主管的認同為中介變項（碩士論文）。國立中央大學，桃園市。
鄧伊惠（2018）。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，桃園市。
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2017). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Perspectives, 129-160.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. sage.
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. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2), 99-109.
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.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology.
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.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of applied psychology, 89(2), 293.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 90(4), 659.
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2002, August). PERSON-ORGANIZATION FIT AND WORK ATTITUDES: THE MODERATING ROLE OF LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2002, No. 1, pp. F1-F6). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Feldman, M. S. (1989). Order without design: Information production and policy making (Vol. 231). Stanford University Press.
Foldy, E. G., Goldman, L., & Ospina, S. (2008). Sensegiving and the role of cognitive shifts in the work of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 514-529.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
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.
Graen, G. B., & 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.
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.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis with readings (Vol. 6). New York, NY: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
Herzberg, F. (2017). Motivation to work. Routledge.
Hocine, Z., & Zhang, J. (2014). Autonomy support: Explaining the path from leadership to employee creative performance. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2014.
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.
Jung, Y., & Takeuchi, N. (2014). Relationships among leader–member exchange, person–organization fit and work attitudes in Japanese and Korean organizations: testing a cross-cultural moderating effect. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1), 23-46.
Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J. (1996). Implicit leadership theories: Defining leaders described as worthy of influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(11), 1128-1143.
Kimura, J. (2013). Electrodiagnosis in diseases of nerve and muscle: principles and practice.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). On the edge of identity: Boundary dynamics at the interface of individual and organizational identities. Human relations, 59(10), 1315-1341.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186-207.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness–mindfulness. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 137-173). Academic Press.
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.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational behavior and human performance, 34(3), 343-378.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (2002). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Routledge.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative science quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (2014). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. In Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Contextual Performance (pp. 71-83). Psychology Press.
Nasser, F., & Takahashi, T. (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. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(1), 75-97.
Nunnally, B., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: Oxford Univer.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy Jr, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The leadership quarterly, 5(1), 43-58.
Ouchi, W. G., & Johnson, J. B. (1978). Types of organizational control and their relationship to emotional well being. Administrative Science Quarterly, 293-317.
Reddin, W. J. (1970). Managerial effectiveness.
Sagie, A. (1997). Leader direction and employee participation in decision making: Contradictory or compatible practices?. Applied Psychology: An International Review.
Schermerhorn Jr, J. R., Osborn, R. N., Uhl-Bien, M., & Hunt, J. G. (2011). Organizational behavior. john wiley & sons.
Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 19-47.
Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7-19.
She, X. J., Chen, C., Divitini, G., Zhao, B., Li, Y., Wang, J., ... & Sirringhaus, H. (2020). A solvent-based surface cleaning and passivation technique for suppressing ionic defects in high-mobility perovskite field-effect transistors. Nature Electronics, 3(11), 694-703.
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). A paradoxical conception of group dynamics. Human Relations, 40(10), 633-657.
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.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536.
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Both/and” leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62-70.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of management Review, 22(2), 522-552.
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.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(3), 607.
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). 27 Conceptual/integrative complexity.
Topakas, A. (2011). Measurement of implicit leadership theories and their effect on leadership processes and outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, Aston University).
Van Gils, S., Hogg, M. A., Van Quaquebeke, N., & van Knippenberg, D. (2017). When organizational identification elicits moral decision-making: A matter of the right climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 155-168.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American psychologist, 62(1), 17.
Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 316-327.
Weick, K. E., & Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 1-231). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
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.
Yagil, D. (1998). Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: Attribution of charisma to close and distant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 161-176.
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.
Zhang, W., Liao, S., Liao, J., & Zheng, Q. (2021). Paradoxical leadership and employee task performance: A sense-making perspective. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 753116.

指導教授

林文政(Wen-Jeng Lin)

審核日期

2024-7-10

推文