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：31

、訪客IP：18.188.100.195

姓名	張晶玉(Grace)  查詢紙本館藏	畢業系所	人力資源管理研究所
論文名稱	悖論領導期待與感知契合對員工行為之影響-內隱領導理論的觀點
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)	現今複雜的商業環境中，存在著許多悖論（Paradox），即相互對立卻又相互關聯的元素。做為一名領導者，需要採用相對應的領導風格，以回應環境的需求。悖論領導（Paradoxical Leadership）為一種能同時具備兩相對立特質之領導行為，能有效地應對複雜的商業環境，並有效地刺激部屬之創新工作行為，因為創新本身，也具有悖論的特質。 然而，悖論領導並不總是有效。有些學者發現，當部屬個人觀點或特質不同，同樣的悖論領導行為，會產生增強和抑制創新兩種結果。因此，本研究採用內隱領導觀點，探討悖論領導是否需要基於部屬認同其一種理想的領導原型，才能發揮最大的效果。此外，內隱領導原型契合研究領域中，發現其能提升領導成員交換關係（Leader-Member Exchange）的文獻非常充分，但究竟領導成員交換關係是會促進還是抑制創新工作行為，學者們仍有歧見。故而本研究中介變項設定為領導成員交換關係，以研究基於悖論領導行為期待感知契合的領導成員交換關係（Leader-Member Exchange），是否能促進創新，進而提出悖論領導促進創新過程中一種可能的作用機制，即是當領導者與追隨者存在高質量的交換關係時，會有效地促進創新。 通過內隱領導為悖論領導的有效性提供解釋，並運用悖論領導擴張內隱領導的研究範疇，本研究結果顯示，當部屬對悖論領導行為有所期待，且主管有確實展現悖論領導行為時，會有最高品質的領導成員交換關係，進而促進創新工作行為。這個結果支持了內隱領導理論之主張，同時也展現了悖論領導經由領導成員交換關係，對創新的積極影響。
摘要(英)	In the contemporary volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world, numerous elements exhibit paradoxical qualities—being mutually contradictory yet interdependent. As a leader, it is necessary to adopt corresponding leadership styles to respond to environmental demands. Paradoxical leadership is a type of leadership behavior that simultaneously embodies two contradictory traits. Research suggests that it can effectively address complex business environments and stimulate innovative work behavior among subordinates, as innovation itself also possesses paradoxical characteristics. However, paradoxical leadership is not always effective. Some scholars have found that due to differences in individual characteristics among subordinates, the same paradoxical leadership behavior can either enhance or inhibit innovation. Therefore, this study adopts an Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) framework to examine whether the effectiveness of leadership depends on subordinates′ perception of paradoxical leadership as an ideal leadership prototype, thereby maximizing its impact. Furthermore, research has shown that the alignment of implicit leadership prototypes significantly enhances Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). However, whether LMX promotes or inhibits innovative work behavior remains debated among scholars. Hence, this study positions LMX as a mediating variable to investigate whether the perceived fit between expectations and paradoxical leadership behavior can foster innovation. This study further proposes a possible mechanism through which paradoxical leadership promotes innovation—when leaders and followers share high-quality exchange relationships, innovation is more effectively stimulated. This study explains the effectiveness of paradoxical leadership through implicit leadership theory and extends the scope of implicit leadership research by applying it to paradoxical leadership behaviors. The findings indicate that when subordinates expect paradoxical leadership behavior and supervisors demonstrate such behavior, it establishes the highest quality of LMX, thereby stimulating innovative work behavior. These results support the assertions of Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) and further demonstrate the positive impact of paradoxical leadership on innovation. By elucidating the effectiveness of paradoxical leadership through implicit leadership theory and leveraging paradoxical leadership behavior to broaden the scope of implicit leadership research, this study aims to contribute to leadership theory research.
關鍵字(中)	★ 內隱領導理論 ★ 悖論領導行為 ★ 領導成員交換關係 ★ 創新工作行為	關鍵字(英)	★ Implicit Leadership Theory ★ Paradoxical Leadership Behavior ★ Leader-Member Exchange ★ Innovative Work Behavior
論文目次	摘要 i Abstract ii 目錄 iv 圖目錄 vi 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 5 第二章、文獻探討 6 2-1 悖論領導行為與創新工作行為 6 2-1-1 悖論領導行為（Paradoxical Leadership） 6 2-1-2 創新工作行為（Innovative Work Behavior） 8 2-1-3 悖論領導與創新之關聯 9 2-2 內隱領導理論與領導成員交換關係 10 2-2-1 內隱領導理論（Implicit Leadership Theory） 10 2-2-2 領導成員交換關係（Leader- Member Exchange） 11 2-2-3 內隱領導理論與領導成員交換關係之關聯 13 2-3 領導成員交換關係之中介效果 14 2-3-1 悖論領導與領導成員交換關係之關聯 14 2-3-2 領導成員交換關係與創新工作行為之關聯 14 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 3-3-1悖論領導行為量表 17 3-3-2 領導成員交換關係量表 18 3-3-3創新工作行為量表 18 3-4 資料分析與統計方法 18 第四章、研究結果 20 4-1 樣本敘述統計 20 4-2 題項包裹法 22 4-3建構效度 23 4-3-1收斂效度 23 4-3-2 區辨效度 24 4-5 驗證性因素分析 26 4-6 相關分析 27 4-7 顯著差異樣本比例 28 4-8 假設檢定 29 4-8-1 悖論領導期待與感知的契合對於領導成員交換關係的影響 29 4-8-2 領導成員交換關係的中介效果 31 第五章、結論與建議 32 5-1 研究結果與討論 32 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 34 【附錄】問卷 36 參考文獻 39
參考文獻	王象路, 羅瑾璉, 張超. 創新架構模組化對科創企業雙元創新協同性的影響研究[J]. 外國經濟與管理, 2023, 45(11): 35-48. 彭台光, 高月慈, & 林鉦棽. (2006). 管理研究中的共同方法變異：問題本質、影響、測試和補救. 管理學報, 23(1), 77-98. 蔡居隆（2001）：領導型態與主管效能之研究─以台灣南區郵政管理局為例。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。 Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement. The Career Development International, 17(3), 208–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241063 Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). Managers doing leadership: The extra-ordinarization of the mundane. Human Relations, 56(12), 1435–1459. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035612001 Anderson, Neil & Poto?nik, Kristina & Zhou, Jing. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management. 40. 10.1177/0149206314527128. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406 Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. 2002. Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 673–704. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005) Resolving the Capability—Rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.61 Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988) On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 16, 74-94.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327 Baran, B. E., Shanock, L. R., & Miller, L. R. (2012). Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(2), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3 Basu, R. (1991). An empirical examination of leader-member exchange and transformational leadership as predictors of innovation behavior. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Management, Purdue University. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040711 Bharanitharan, D. K., Lowe, K. B., Bahmannia, S., Chen, Z. X., and Cui, L. (2021).Seeing is not believing: leader humility, hypocrisy, and their impact on followers’behaviors. Boemelburg, R., Zimmermann, A., & Palmie, M. (2023). How paradoxical leaders guide their followers to embrace paradox: Cognitive and behavioral mechanisms of paradox mindset development. Long Range Planning, 56(4), 102319. Bogardus, E. S. (1927). Leadership and social distance. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 173-178. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cameron K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539-553. Capra, F. (1975). The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. Boston: Shambhala Publications. Craig, William Lane (2019). Infinity, Causation, and Paradox by Alexander R. Pruss. Review of Metaphysics 73 (2):380-381. Dansereau, F.J., Graen, G. and Haga, W.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, 13, 46-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7 Deluga, R. J. (1997). Relationship among American presidential charismatic leadership, narcissism, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90030-8 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. DeRue, D. & Ashford, S.. (2010). Who Will Lead and Who Will Follow? A Social Process of Leadership Identity Construction in Organizations. Academy of Management Review. 35. 10.5465/AMR.2010.53503267. Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/256822 Engle, E., & Lord, R. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 988-1010. https://doi.org/10.2307/256956 Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 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, 659–676. Fiedler, F. E. (1974). The contingency model: New direction for leadership utilization. Journal of contemporary business, 3(4), Fleenor, J. W., McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other rating agreement and leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90003-X Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208. Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader–member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 30(1), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(82)90236-7 Graen, G., & 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, 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and advances. Johns Hopkins University Press. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees′ Goal Orientations, the Quality of Leader-Member Exchange, and the Outcomes of Job Performance and Job Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159587 Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical Theory and Stakeholder-Related Decisions: The Role of Stakeholder Culture. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159285 Junker, N. M., Stegmann, S., Braun, S., & Van Dick, R. (2016). The ideal and the counter-ideal follower—Advancing implicit followership theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(8), 1205–1222. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2015-0085 Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding Innovation. Business Horizons, 61, 453-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011 Kaiser, R., & Overfield, D. (2010). Assessing flexible leadership as a mastery of opposites. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 105-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019987 Khoo, H., & Burch, G. (2008). The ‘dark side’ of leadership personality and transformational leadership: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences - PERS INDIV DIFFER, 44, 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.018 Koerner K. R. (1993). Intentional replantation. CDS review, 86(11), 24–27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810032003 Leader. Q. 32, 101440. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101440 Julmi, C. (2021). Crazy, stupid, disobedience: The dark side of paradoxical leadership. Leadership, 17(6), 631-653. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211040693 Lee A, Lyubovnikova J, Zheng Y and Li ZF (2023) Paradoxical leadership: a meta-analytical review. Front. Organ. Psychol. 1:1229543. doi: 10.3389/forgp.2023.1229543 Lee, Jean. (2008). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on innovativeness. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 23. 670-687. 10.1108/02683940810894747. Leonardelli, G., Pickett, C., & Brewer, M. (2010). Optimal Distinctiveness Theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology - ADVAN EXP SOC PSYCHOL, 43, 63-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43002-6 Lewis M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760-776. Li, Q., She, Z., & Yang, B. (2018). Promoting Innovative Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Roles of Paradoxical Leadership and Team Perspective Taking. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1083. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01083 Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking 8 perceptions and performance. Unwin Hyman. 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. 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. Lord, R., Foti, R., & Phillips, J. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In J. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (104-121). Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659 Markham, Steven & Yammarino, Francis & Murry, William & Palanski, Michael. (2010). Leader–member exchange, shared values, and performance: Agreement and levels of analysis do matter. Leadership Quarterly. 21. 469-480. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.010. Marquis, C., & Battilana, J. (2009). Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior - RES ORGAN BEH, 29, 283-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.001 Mom, T. J. M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating managers′ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00697. Mulaik, Stanley & James, Larry & Alstine, Judith & Bennett, Nathan & Lind, Sherri & Stilwell, C.. (1989). Evaluation of Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models. Psychological Bulletin. 105. 430-445. 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430. 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1601_4 Nye, J., & Forsyth, D. (1991). The Effects of Prototype-Based Biases on Leadership Appraisals: A Test of Leadership Categorization Theory. Small Group Research -SMALL GROUP RES, 22, 360-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491223005 Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58. Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58. Owens, B. P., Wallace, A. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: The counterbalancing effect of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1203–1213. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038698 Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1986). Notes on the practical and theoretical consequences of implicit leadership theories for the future of leadership measurement. Journal of Management, 12(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200104 Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.). (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers. Riggs, B., & Porter, C. (2016). 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.009 Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 694-709. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1238358 Rothenberg, A. (1979). Einstein′s creative thinking and the general theory of relativity: A documented report. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 136(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.136.1.38 Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428 Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S. and Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. Academy of Management Annals,10(1), pp. 5-64. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422 Shamir, B. (2007). From Passive Recipients to Active Co-Producers: The Roles of Followers in the Leadership Process. Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to JR Meindl. Stamford, CT: Information Age Publishing. Shao, Yan & Nijstad, Bernard & Tauber, Susanne. (2017). Paradoxical leader behavior and creativity: The role of employee cognitive complexity. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2017. 10522. 10.5465/AMBPP.2017.10522abstract. Slawinski, N., & Bansal, T. (2015). Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability. Organization Science, 26, 150205081204003. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0960 Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623. Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463-478. Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward A Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. The Academy of Management Review, 36. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958 Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain”, Journal of Management, 23(3), pp. 679-704. Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001 Ta?tan, Secil & Davoudi, S.M.M.. (2015). An empirical research on the examination of the relationship between perceived workplace incivility and job involvement: The moderating role of collaborative climate. 7. 35-62. 10.1504/IJWOE.2015.073124. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631848 Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631848 Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60. Van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2011). More than meets the eye: The role of subordinates′ self-perceptions in leader categorization processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.011 White, R. D. (2010). The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure. Public Personnel Management, 39(1), 71-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102601003900105 Yagil, D. (1998). Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: Attribution of charisma to close and distant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 161-176. Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 323–342. Zhang, Y., Waldman, D., Han, Y., & Li, X. (2015). Paradoxical leader behavior in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566.
指導教授	林文政(Lin, Wen-Jeng)	審核日期	2025-3-27
推文	facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu
網路書籤	Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare