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

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：21

、訪客IP：18.117.75.226

姓名

陳詩比(Shih-Pi Chen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

高階主管企管碩士班

論文名稱

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

相關論文

★ 溝通與領導課程訓練成效之分析	★ 母國企業直線主管領導風格與國際人力資源管理措施對外派人員績效之影響
★ 豐田管理模式之人才培育對品質與成本之影響-以某汽車公司為例	★ 360 度回饋系統對企業主管行為改變意圖的影響-以跨國飲料 SC 公司為例
★ 兩岸研發人員職能發展應用研究－以M公司為例	★ 企業併購過程中的人力資源角色
★ 組織變革成功個案分析 - John P. Kotter 領導變革八大步驟之觀點	★ 社群網站經營模式分析－以『BB-BOX』網站為例
★ 觸控IC經營策略之個案研究－以Ａ公司為例	★ 科技研發單位實施接班人計畫之探討─以國內某科技研發單位為例
★ 面對數位匯流，傳統媒體代理商應對策略探討─以安吉斯集團偉視捷媒體公司為例	★ 台灣光電產業選擇產品認證外包廠商的決定因素─以發光二極體照明產品為例
★ 團隊激勵獎金與團隊績效關連性之研究	★ 晶圓代工業關鍵成功因素的探討—以台積公司為例
★ 員工潛能與績效對員工晉升的影響--以營造建築業為例	★ 建構整合性智慧健康照護網絡─以中壢天晟醫院醫療小管家為例

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)

近年來，由於國際局勢的動盪和疫情變化的影響，企業正處於多變、不確定、複雜和模糊的經營環境之中。特別是在劇烈的變化和經濟衰退時期，市場變得更加困難，企業因此難以預測未來的模糊性。同時，現今組織以團隊導向的工作特性，使得團隊成員之間形成高度相互依存的工作模式。當面對模糊不確定的工作環境時，個人可能因為角色功能或工作職責缺乏明確性和可預測性進而產生角色模糊，並影響個人和組織的績效及創新能力。在現今競爭激烈的市場環境中，組織要維持其競爭優勢，必須具備創新能力。而員工的創新行為是影響組織創新能力的關鍵因素之一。然而，員工的創新行為受到許多因素的影響。
本研究的研究目的是探討主管的矛盾領導行為對員工創新的影響，並且進一步探討任務複雜度與模糊容忍度在這個關係中扮演的中介及調節角色。
經過對本研究各項假設進行驗證後，我們得到了以下結果：
1. 模糊容忍度在主管矛盾領導行為與員工創新間具有中介效果
2. 任務複雜度在主管矛盾領導行為與模糊容忍度間具有調節效果
3. 任務複雜度在主管矛盾領導行為、模糊容忍度與員工創新間具有調節式中介效果
當主管的矛盾領導行為越強，部屬對模糊容忍度越高，越能達到創新的行為任務的複雜性提高時，主管矛盾領導行為與部屬的模糊容忍度正向關係越強；當任務複雜性提高時，主管的矛盾領導更能提高部屬對任務模糊的忍受力，進而激勵部屬產生創新行為。。理論與實務的管理意涵亦將在本研究中討論。

摘要(英)

In recent years, due to the turbulence in international situations and the impact of pandemic changes, businesses are operating in a dynamic, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment. Particularly during periods of drastic changes and economic recession, the market becomes more challenging, making it difficult for businesses to predict future ambiguities. Moreover, the current organizational emphasis on team-oriented work characteristics has led to highly interdependent work patterns among team members. When faced with a vague and uncertain work environment, individuals may experience role ambiguity due to a lack of clarity and predictability in role functions and job responsibilities, thereby affecting individual and organizational performance as well as innovation capability. In today′s competitive market environment, organizations must possess innovation capabilities to maintain their competitive advantage. Employee innovation behavior is one of the key factors influencing organizational innovation capabilities. However, employee innovation behavior is influenced by various factors.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of supervisor′s paradoxical leadership behavior on employee innovation and further explore the mediating and moderating roles of task complexity and ambiguity tolerance in this relationship.
After validating the hypotheses in this study, the following results were obtained:
1) Ambiguity tolerance mediates the relationship between supervisor′s paradoxical leadership behavior and employee innovation.
2) Task complexity moderates the relationship between supervisor′s paradoxical leadership behavior and ambiguity tolerance.
3) Task complexity serves as a moderated mediator in the relationships among supervisor′s paradoxical leadership behavior, ambiguity tolerance, and employee innovation.

When the supervisor′s paradoxical leadership behavior is stronger, and subordinates exhibit higher ambiguity tolerance, the positive relationship between supervisor′s paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinates′ ambiguity tolerance becomes stronger. Additionally, as task complexity increases, the supervisor′s paradoxical leadership behavior enhances subordinates′ tolerance for task ambiguity, thereby stimulating the generation of innovative behavior. The theoretical and practical management implications will also be discussed in this study.

關鍵字(中)

★ 矛盾領導行為
★ 模糊容忍度
★ 任務複雜度
★ 創新行為

關鍵字(英)

★ paradoxical leadership behavior
★ ambiguity tolerance
★ task complexity
★ innovation 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 2
第二章文獻探討 4
2-1 矛盾領導行為理論 4
2-2 創新行為理論 6
2-3 任務複雜度理論 7
2-4 模糊容忍度理論 9
2-5 模糊容忍度是否在主管矛盾領導行為與員工創新行為間有中介效果 10
2-6 任務複雜度在主管矛盾領導行為及模糊容忍度間是否具有調節效果 11
2-7任務複雜度在主管矛盾領導行為及模糊容忍度在員工創新行為間是否具有調節式中介效果 13
第三章研究方法 15
3-1 研究架構與假設 15
3-2 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序 16
3-3 研究工具 17
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 18
第四章研究結果 21
4-1 研究樣本來源與特性 21
4-2 信度分析 23
4-3 效度分析 24
4-4驗證性因素分析 26
4-5相關分析 27
4-6迴歸分析與驗證假說 28
第五章結論與建議 32
5-1 研究結果與探討 32
5-2 管理意涵 33
5-3 研究限制與未來研究建議 34
英文參考文獻 35
中文參考文獻 41

參考文獻

英文參考文獻
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2017). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Perspectives, 129-160.
Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453-1478.
Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751-758.
Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (Eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange. Oxford University Press,10.1093,175-176
Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effectiveleadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 195-210.
Chen, M. J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2), 179-199.
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761-773.
Dambrun, M., & Ricard, M. (2011). Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based psychological functioning and its consequences for happiness. Review of General Psychology, 15(2), 138-157.
Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: a merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 713.
Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. Cambridge University Press,20-28.
Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K., & Keysar, B. (2004). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 760-768.
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.
Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.
Feldman, S. P. (1989). The broken wheel: The inseparability of autonomy and control in innovation within organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 26(2), 83-102.
Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142.
Fuller, C. W., Ekstrand, J., Junge, A., Andersen, T. E., Bahr, R., Dvorak, J., ... & Meeuwisse, W. H. (2006). Consensus statement on injury definitions and data collection procedures in studies of football (soccer) injuries. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in Sports, 16(2), 83-92.
Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109-124.
Hackman, J. R., Oldham, G., Janson, R., & Purdy, K. (1975). A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, 17(4), 57-71.
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.
Harmon-Jones, E. (2000). Cognitive dissonance and experienced negative affect: Evidence that dissonance increases experienced negative affect even in the absence of aversive consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1490-1501.
Hoever, I. J., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity′s potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 525-544.
Jung, K. B., Kang, S. W., & Choi, S. B. (2022). Paradoxical Leadership and Involvement in Creative Task via Creative Self-Efficacy: A Moderated Mediation Role of Task Complexity. Behavioral Sciences, 12(10), 377.
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.
Ku, G., Wang, C. S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The promise and perversity of perspective-taking in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 79-102
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465.
Liu, Y., Xu, S., & Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: how a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 347-366.
Manz, C. C., & Sims Jr, H. P. (1981). Vicarious learning: The influence of modeling on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 105-113.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38(1), 299-337.
Parker, S. K., Atkins, P. W., & Axtell, C. M. (2008). 5 Building better workplaces through individual perspective taking: a fresh look at a fundamental human process. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 23, 149.
Pierce, J. R., Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Sivanathan, N. (2013). From glue to gasoline: How competition turns perspective takers unethical. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1986-1994.
Quintana, S. M., Castaneda-English, P., & Ybarra, V. C. (1999). Role of perspective-taking abilities and ethnic socialization in development of adolescent ethnic identity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(2), 161-184.
Riley, A., & Burke, P. J. (1995). Identities and self-verification in the small group. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61-73.
Rothman, N. B., & Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: The social functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 259-282.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483-503.
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.
Sherf, E. N., & Morrison, E. W. (2020). I do not need feedback! Or do I? Self-efficacy,perspective taking, and feedback seeking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(2), 146.
Smith, A. (1976). The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. DD Raphael and AL Macfie.
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., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1992). 27 Conceptual/integrative complexity.
Tadmor, C. T., Galinsky, A. D., & Maddux, W. W. (2012). Getting the most out of living abroad:biculturalism and integrative complexity as key drivers of creative and professional success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 520.
Tendayi Viki, G., & Williams, M. L. J. (2014). The role of identity integration in enhancing creativity among mixed‐race individuals. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(3), 198-208.
Titus, R. G. (2000). The immunomodulatory factors of bloodfeeding arthropod saliva. Parasite immunology, 22(7), 319-331.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The leadership quarterly, 25(1), 83-104.
Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 316-327.
Wang, C. J., Tsai, H. T., & Tsai, M. T. (2014). Linking transformational leadership and employee creativity in the hospitality industry: The influences of creative role identity, creative self-efficacy, and job complexity. Tourism management, 40, 79-89.
Yang, Y., Li, Z., Liang, L., & Zhang, X. (2021). Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Current Psychology, 40(4), 1911-1922.
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, Y., Zhang, Y., Law, K. S., & Zhou, J. (2022). Paradoxical leadership, subjective ambivalence, and employee creativity: effects of employee holistic thinking. Journal of Management Studies, 59(3), 695-723.
Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 333-359.

中文參考文獻
[1] 林文政：「矛盾拿捏新時代領導思維」。2017 年 8 月 9 日取自 https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20170809000165-260210?chdtv.
[2] 林文政：『未來在等待的人才：唯有「學習者」生存』。2014年9月19日取自 https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/45999。
[3] 林文政：領導者思維：「能否承受變動，主管需要培養三大關鍵思考力」。 2017年9月14日取自 https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article_content_AR0008639.html。 [4] 林真余，「矛盾領導行為與目標導向的關係：檢視團隊成員關係品質的中介效果」，國立中山大學，碩士論文，民國一零五年。
[5] 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探討」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零七年。
[6] 張明智，「不確定性規避對創新行為與工作績效之影響：以主管的矛盾領導行為作為調節變項」國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零八年。
[7] 陳慶源，「矛盾領導行為與部屬工作行為表現關聯性之探討：以部屬思維層面變數與矛盾追隨行為為中介變項」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零八年。
[8] 王怡婷，「主管的矛盾領導行為與員工的創新行為之關聯性－以員工的模糊容忍度、經驗開放性、矛盾思維為中介變項」，國立中央大學，高階主管企管碩士班碩士論文，民國 108 年。
[9]蘇品真，「矛盾領導行為、矛盾追隨行為與部屬適應性行為之關聯性探討-不確定性規避的調節式中介效果的檢驗」，國立中央大學高階主管企管碩士班碩士論文，民國 108 年。

指導教授

林文政

審核日期

2023-7-8

推文