悖論領導對創新工作行為的影響：一項內隱領導理論視角的探討

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：49

、訪客IP：52.14.143.155

姓名

江燕茹(Yan-Ju 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

悖論領導對創新工作行為的影響：一項內隱領導理論視角的探討

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)

本研究以部屬為中心的內隱領導理論作為主要視角，結合講究兼容並蓄為領導風格的悖論領導作為主體，探討部屬對於主管展現悖論領導的期待與實際感知一致性，與部屬心理安全感、員工建言及創新工作行為之間的關係。透由深入理解悖論領導與部屬之間的動態互動，以探索對於組織內部運作的影響。
本研究蒐集243份的主管與部屬配對樣本深入探討。研究結果顯示，當部屬對於主管的悖論領導期望與感知一致性高時，未能直接促發部屬展現創新工作行為。而是，需透由心理安全或員工建言做為中介因子，提升部屬的創新工作行為，同時，心理安全與員工建言二者具有序列中介的效果。此外，亦針對研究結果、學術貢獻、管理意涵、研究限制等進一步的說明，以豐富領導者與組織行為之間關係的理解。

摘要(英)

This research adopts the subordinates-centered implicit leadership theory as the primary perspective, combined with paradoxical leader behavior, which emphasizes the both-and leadership styles, as its main concept.
Exploring the consistency between followers′ expectations and actual perception of paradoxical leader behavior presented by supervisors, which examines the relationships be-tween subordinates’ psychological safety, employee voice behaviors and innovative work behavior. Through deeply understanding the dynamic interaction between Leaders’ paradox-ical leader behavior and subordinates’ to explore its impact on internal operations of the or-ganization.
This study collected about 243 paired samples of supervisors and subordinates for in-depth discussion. The research reveals that when subordinates′ expectations and percep-tions are in high congruence of leaders’ paradoxical leader behavior, it does not directly stimulate subordinates to exhibit innovative work behavior. Instead, it is necessary to use psychological safety or employee voice behaviors as the mediating factor, to enhance subor-dinates′ innovative work behaviors. Furthermore, this study also provides further explana-tions from the perspectives of research results, academic contributions, management impli-cations, and research limitations, in order to strengthen the understanding of the relationship between leaders and organizational behavior.

關鍵字(中)

★ 悖論領導行為
★ 內隱領導理論
★ 心理安全
★ 員工建言
★ 創新工作行為

關鍵字(英)

★ Paradoxical Leader Behaviors
★ Implicit Leadership Theory
★ Psychological Safety
★ Employee Voice Behaviors
★ Innovative Work Behavior

論文目次

中文摘要 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 3
第二章文獻探討 4
2-1 悖論領導 4
2-2 內隱領導理論 6
2-3 悖論領導的期望與感知之一致性 8
2-4 心理安全 9
2-5 員工建言 10
2-6 創新工作行為 11
2-7 部屬對主管悖論領導的期望與感知一致性高時，對於創新工作行為的影響 12
2-8 部屬對主管悖論領導期望與感知一致性高時，對心理安全與創新工作行為的影響 13
2-9 部屬對主管悖論領導的期望與感知一致性高時，對員工建言與創新工作行為的影響 14
2-10 部屬對主管悖論領導期望與感知一致性高時，對心理安全、員工建言與創新工作行為的影響 15
第三章研究方法 16
3-1 研究架構與假設 16
3-2 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序 17
3-3 研究工具 17
第四章研究分析與結果 23
4-1 研究樣本來源與特性 23
4-2 效度分析 26
4-3 信度分析 31
4-4 相關分析 32
4-5 廻歸分析與驗證假說 33
第五章結論與建議 37
5-1 研究結論與討論 37
5-2 學術研究貢獻 38
5-3 管理意涵 39
5-4 研究限制與未來建議 40
參考文獻 41

參考文獻

中文文獻
王朝暉（2018）。悖論式領導如何讓員工兩全其美？-心理安全感與工作繁榮的多重中介作用。外國經濟與管理，40(3)，107-120。
王昱翔（2023）。矛盾領導行為對創新行為的影響：以觀點採取與創新角色認同為序列中介變項，複雜整合力為調節變項（碩士論文）。國立中央大學。
毛雯慧（2018）。員工與主管適配度、心理賦權與建言行為關係之研究-職場友誼的調節角色（碩士論文）。私立輔仁大學。
石憲光（2022）。矛盾領導行為對工作績效之影響-以角色衝突、情緒耗竭為序列中介變項（碩士論文）。國立中央大學。
伍嘉文（2021）。性別是成為理想領導者的關鍵？社會角色理論與隱性領導理論之結合（碩士論文）。國立中興大學。
江亦婕（2019）。心理安全感與員工創造性績效：知識交流的中介角色。國立臺灣大學。
余志文、蔡雨利（2014）。倫理領導與創新工作行為關係之研究。人文暨社會科學期刊，10(1)，59-66。
李華晶（2019年7月12日）。內隱領導力：管理者手中的小李飛刀。清華管理評論。https://www.jiemian.com/article/3291420.html。
林文政（2021年7月9日）。為何暴君身邊還有忠臣？部屬誓死追隨的理由，可能和你想的不同。經理人月刊。https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/63308。
林文政（2019年2月）。成為最佳矛盾領導人。哈佛商業評論。打造跨世代不老企業。https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article/18561/become-the-best-contradictory-leader。
林文政、林孜庭、李秉懿（2021）。與矛盾共舞：主管與部屬矛盾領導行為的一致性對部屬行為的影響-探討任務複雜度之調節效果。科技與人力教育季刊，8(1)，1-29。
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。
林皙晨（2022）。心理契約破壞對員工敬業度的影響-關係適配、理性適配與高績效工作系統的調節式中介模型（碩士論文）。國立中央大學。
韋萊韜悅企業管理顧問（2023）。《WTW2023 組織與人才關鍵報告》。
徐業翔（2022）。矛盾領導行為對部屬工作績效之影響：部屬雙元行為之中介效果探討（碩士論文）。國立中央大學。
陳雅沂（2023）。矛盾領導行為、觀點採取與部屬創新行為之關聯性：探討部屬複雜整合力的調節式中介效果（碩士論文）。國立中央大學。
陳詩比（2023）。主管的矛盾領導行為、模糊容忍度與員工創新行為之研究-探討任務複雜度的調節式中介作用（碩士論文）。國立中央大學。
陳維德（2019）。共享領導對創新工作行為的影響-以新創團隊成員為例。私立世新大學。
黃雅靖（2022）。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。
陳慧、楊寧（2021年9月）。悖論式領導與員工越軌創新關係研究。東北大學學報（社會科學版），23(5)。
黃詩晴（2022）。矛盾領導行為對部屬績效的影響：以雙元行為與創新工作行為作為序列中介變項（碩士論文）。國立中央大學。
曾筱珍（2009）。轉換型領導與創新工作行為之關聯：以心理賦權為中介效果（碩士論文）。私立元智大學。
劉惠、許哲銘、張琴、孫學博（2019年8月）。內隱領導理論對大學生變革型領導行為的影響：領導動機的中介作用。電子科技大學學報（社科版），21(4)。
蔡啟通（2012年9月）。互動正義與員工創新行為：自我效能及主管部屬交換之干擾效果。修平學報。25, 137-159。

英文文獻
Ashiru, J.-A., Erdil, G.E., & Oluwajana, D. (2021). The linkage between high performance work systems on organizational performance, employee voice and employee innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35(1).
Brandstätter, M. (2018). Paradoxical Leadership as a Factor of sustainable Growth : Man-agement of Ambidexterity in Organizations. Johannes Kepler University Linz.
De Jong, J.P.J., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2008). Innovative Work Behavior: Measurement and Validation. Scales Research Reports H200820, EIM Business and Policy Research.
Durrah, O. (2022). Do we need friendship in the workplace? The effect on innovative be-havior and mediating role of psychological safety. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. Advance online publication, 45, 28597-28610.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Edmondson, A.C. and Lei, Z. (2014) Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Inter-Personal Construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23-43.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit Leadership Theories in Applied Settings: Factor Structure, Generalizability, and Stability Over Time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2) ,293-310
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), 659-676.
Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: taking stock of information-processing ap-proaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858-881.
Foti, R. J., Hansbrough, T. K., Epitropaki, O., & Coyle, P. T. (2017). Dynamic viewpoints on implicit leadership and followership theories: Approaches, findings, and future direc-tions. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 261-267.
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psy-chological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165.
Ge, Y. (2020). Psychological safety, employee voice, and work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 48(3), e8907.
Hannah, S. T., Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Jennings, P. L., & Thatcher, R. W. (2013). The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 393–411.
Hahn, T., & Knight, E.R.W. (2019). The Ontology of Organizational Paradox: A Quantum Approach. Academy of Management Review. 46(2).
Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit Theories in Organizational Settings: A Sys-tematic Review and Research Agenda of Implicit Leadership and Followership Theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154-1173.
Kundi, Y.M., Aboramadan, M., & Abualigah, A. (2022). Linking paradoxical leadership and individual in-role and extra-role performance:a multilevel examination. Management Decision, 61(10), 2841-2871.
Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Zheng, Y., & Li, Z.F. (2023). Paradoxical leadership: a me-ta-analytical review. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology. 10.3389.
Lee, J., Kim, S.L., & Yun, S. (2021) Encouraging employee voice: coworker knowledge sharing, psychological safety, and promotion focus. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 34(5), 1044-1069.
Lewis, M., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W.K. (2014). Paradoxical Leadership to Enable Stra-tegic Agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58-77.
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92.
Li, X., Xue, Y., Liang, H., & Yan, D. (2020). The impact of paradoxical leadership on em-ployee voice behavior: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 537756.
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, 343-378.
Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates crea-tivity and innovation. European journal of innovation management, 6(1), 64-74.
Miao, R., Lu, L., Cao, Y., & Du, Q.(2020). The High-Performance Work System, Employee Voice,and Innovative Behavior: The Moderating Role of Psychological Safety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17(4).
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future re-search. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.
Nasser, F., & Takahashi, T. (2003). The effect of using item parcels on ad hoc good-ness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: An example using Sarason’s reac-tions to tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 75-97.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta‐analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216–234.
Nye, J. L., & Forsyth, D. R. (1991). The effects of prototype-based biases on leadership ap-praisals: A test of leadership categorization theory. Small Group Research, 22(3), 360-379.
Offermann, L.R, Coats, M.R.. (2018). Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), 513-522.
Oh, S.-H. (David), Dong, L., Nahm, A.Y., & Yu, G.-C. (2023). Fostering innovation and in-volvement among Korean workers in problem solving through trust and psychological safety: the role of paradoxical leader behaviours. Asia Pacific Business Review, 29(3), 701-718.
Pearce, C.L., Wassenaar, C.L., Berson, Y., & Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2019). Toward a theory of meta-paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155,31-41.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradic-tion. American psychologist, 54(9), 741.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organi-zation theories. Academy of management review, 14(4), 562-578.
Riggs, B.S., & Porter, C.O.L.H. (2017). Are there advantages to seeing leadership the same? A test of the mediating effects of LMX on the relationship between ILT congruence and employees′ development. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 285-299.
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in manage-ment science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.
Selvaraj, P., & Joseph, J.(2020). Employee voice implications for innovation in a delibera-tive environment context of Indian organizations. Personnel Review, 49(7) .
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.
Tavares, G.M., Sobral, F., Goldszmidt, R., & Araújo, F. (2018). Opening the Implicit Lead-ership Theories’ Black Box: An Experimental Approach with Conjoint Analysis. Fron-tiers in Psychology, 9.
Topakas, A. (2011). Measurement of implicit leadership theories and their effect on leader-ship processes and outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, Aston University).
Van Quaquebeke, N., Graf, M. M., Kerschreiter, R., Schuh, S. C., & Van Dick, R. (2014). Ideal values and counter‐ideal values as two distinct forces: Exploring a gap in organi-zational value research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2), 211-225.
Williams, L. J., & O’Boyle, E. Jr., 2008. Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 233-242.
Xiao, X., Zhou, Z., Yang, F., & Wang, S. (2021). I am not proactive but I want to speak up: A self-concept perspective. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues. Advance online publication.
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y.-L., & Li, X.-B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents17 and consequences. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 58(2), 538–566.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2).

指導教授

林文政(Wen-Jeng Lin)

審核日期

2024-7-10

推文