博碩士論文 110450055 詳細資訊




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:13 、訪客IP:18.226.163.8
姓名 陳雅沂(Ya-Yi Chen)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 高階主管企管碩士班
論文名稱 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
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]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 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。
  3. 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) 現今企業正經歷多變、不確定、複雜和不穩的經營環境,團隊成員對在現代組織中以團隊為導向的工作模式中,當個員工面對工作環境中的突發事件,可以經由採取觀點獲得對其創新行為的評價。本研究關注部屬觀點採取,為組織帶來的創新行為且相互矛盾之緊張局勢,團隊成員面臨著變化快速、不確定的工作情境,這可能會影響他們在工作中的觀點採取,進而對個人與組織創新行為所產生的影響。本研究探討矛盾領導行為、觀點採取、複雜整合力行為與創新行為間的關聯性,以瞭解矛盾領導行為對組織創新行為更為全面性的影響,並同時找尋因應改善的方法。

根據本次研究結果,我們發現在觀點採矛盾的工作環境中,主管的矛盾領導行為可以同時滿足組織的結構需求和部屬的個人要求。主管能夠適應內外部環境的多元複雜性和快速變化,有效應對各種矛盾問題,並協助部屬增加觀點採取,從而促進創新行為。這些結果顯示我們需要尋找其他解決途徑,以解決可能出現的矛盾領導行為對觀點採取和創新行為可能產生的負面影響,更進而矛盾領導行為對觀點採取和創新行為可以產生的正向影響。同時,本研究還驗證了部屬的複雜整合能力,在有限時間壓力下,能夠整合大量且複雜的資訊,評估各種解決方案的可能結果,並提出具體可行的方案。具備複雜整合能力的人能夠理解事物的多元組成,並將這些複雜元素有結構地整合在一起。過去組織內部的領導者依賴職位權限來獲取更多資訊,並用這些資訊來管理和指導下屬。然而,由於新一代的下屬熟練運用新興技術,他們可能比領導者更快速地獲取和處理資訊,因此雙方資訊不對稱的情況逐漸減少,從而提升了部屬的創新行為。因此,企業希望能夠靈活應對環境變化,並通過主管展現策略敏捷和矛盾領導行為,引領團隊尋求兼容找出方法且具創造性的解決方案,並鼓勵部屬多個新穎的想法轉化為具體實施的成果,組織成員需要以無偏見的態度整合不同的觀點,以有效降低部屬專注於自身的想法,而不是尋求其他成員的反饋或評論,進對創新行為直接的影響。

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)部屬觀點採取在主管矛盾領導行為與部屬創新行為之間具有中介效果。
(2)部屬複雜整合力為在主管矛盾領導行為與部屬觀點採取間具有調節效果。
當部屬複雜整合力行為越強,主管矛盾領導行為與部屬觀點採取間的正向關係會越強。
(3)部屬複雜整合力為會調節主管矛盾領導行為透過部屬觀點採取影響部屬創新行為的中介效果。當部屬複雜整合力行為越強,主管矛盾領導行為透過部屬觀點採取影響部屬創新行為的間接效果會比較強;當部屬複雜整合力行為越弱,主管矛盾領導行為透過部屬觀點採取影響部屬創新行為的間接效果會比較弱。理論與實務的管理意涵亦將在本研究中討論。
摘要(英) This study examines the impact of contradictory leadership behavior on organizational innovative behavior. It focuses on team members′ perspective adoption and explores the relationship between perspective adoption, complex integration behavior, and innovative behavior. The study acknowledges the challenges posed by rapidly changing and uncertain work situations, which may influence team members′ perspective adoption and subsequently impact their innovative behavior. By understanding the comprehensive impact of paradoxical leadership behavior and seeking ways to cope with and improve this situation, the study aims to enhance organizational innovative behavior.

This study found that supervisors′ paradoxical leadership behavior in a contradictory work environment can simultaneously meet organizational structural requirements and individual demands of subordinates. It enables supervisors to adapt to complexity and rapid changes, effectively address conflicts, and enhance subordinates′ creative self-efficacy, thereby promoting innovation. We should explore ways to mitigate potential negative effects and harness the positive impact of paradoxical leadership behavior on creative self-efficacy and innovative behavior. Moreover, the study highlights the complex integration capabilities of subordinates, who can handle large amounts of information, evaluate potential outcomes, and propose feasible approaches. Such capabilities enable individuals to systematically integrate diverse components and understand complex matters.

In the past, leaders relied on their authority to access and manage information within organizations. However, with technologically savvy subordinates in the new generation, they can now access and process information faster than their leaders. This reduces the information gap between leaders and subordinates, leading to more innovation among subordinates. Businesses aim to adapt flexibly to environmental changes by demonstrating strategic agility and paradoxical leadership behavior. This helps guide teams towards compatible and creative solutions while encouraging subordinates to turn multiple novel ideas into tangible outcomes.
To achieve this, organizational members need to integrate different perspectives with an unbiased attitude, effectively reducing subordinates′ focus on their own ideas and instead seeking feedback or comments from other members. This has a direct impact on fostering innovative behavior.

After verifying the hypotheses of this study, we obtained the following results:
(1) The subordinate perspective acts as a mediator between supervisor paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinate innovative behavior.
(2) Subordinate integrative complexity moderates the relationship between supervisor paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinate creative self-efficacy The stronger the subordinate′s integrative complexity, the stronger the positive relationship between supervisor paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinate creative self-efficacy.
(3) Subordinate integrative complexity moderates the indirect effect of supervisor paradoxical leadership behavior on subordinate innovative behavior through subordinate creative self-efficacy. The stronger the subordinate′s integrative complexity, the stronger the indirect effect of supervisor paradoxical leadership behavior on subordinate innovative behavior through subordinate creative self-efficacy. Conversely, the weaker the subordinate′s integrative complexity, the weaker the indirect effect. The theoretical and practical implications for management will also be discussed in this study.
關鍵字(中) ★ 矛盾領導行為
★ 複雜整合力
★ 觀點採取
★ 創新行為
關鍵字(英) ★ Paradoxical leadership behavior
★ Integrative complexity
★ Creative self-efficacy
★ Innovative behavior
論文目次 第一章 緒論 1
1-1 研究背景 1
1-2 研究動機 2
1-3 研究目的 3
第二章 文獻探討 4
2-1 矛盾領導行為 4
2-2 觀點採取理論 7
2-3 複雜整合力理論 9
2-4 創新行為理論 10
2-5 矛盾領導行為對創新行為影響 11
2-6 部屬觀點採取的中介效果 13
2-7 複雜整合力對矛盾領導行為與觀點採取間之的調節效果 14
2-8 複雜整合力對矛盾領導行為、觀點採取與創新行為間調節中介效果 16
第三章 研究方法 18
3-1 研究架構 18
3-2 研究樣本與資料蒐集程序 19
3-3 研究工具 20
3-4 資料分析與統計方法 22
第四章 研究與分析結果 24
4-1 研究樣本來源與特性 24
4-2 信度分析 27
4-3 驗證性因素分析 27
4-4 相關分析 30
4-5 迴歸分析與驗證假設 31
第五章 結論與建議 36
5-1 研究結論 36
5-2 學術貢獻與管理意涵 38
5-3 實務建議 39
5-4 研究限制與建議 40
參考文獻 中文部份
林文政 (2006)。矛盾領導理論研究。管理評論,18(1),1-8。
林文政、劉育新 (2009)。基於矛盾領導的員工創新行為研究。科學管理研究,27(1),71-79。
林文政、林正雄、林川杰 (2013)。複雜度整合力:基礎、方法與實例。經濟科學出版社。
林文政、林川杰、陳翠蓮 (2015)。矛盾領導對員工創新行為的影響:調節作用及其機制分析。管理科學,28(2),105-118。
林文政、林川杰 (2016)。矛盾領導與創新管理:理論基礎與實踐應用。南開管理評論,19(3),1-9。
林文政 (2006)。矛盾領導理論研究。管理評論,18(1),1-8。
林文政、劉育新 (2009)。基於矛盾領導的員工創新行為研究。科學管理研究,27(1),71-79。
林文政、林正雄、林川杰 (2013)。複雜度整合力:基礎、方法與實例。經濟科學出版社。
林文政、林川杰、陳翠蓮 (2015)。矛盾領導對員工創新行為的影響:調節作用及其機制分析。管理科學,28(2),105-118。
林文政、林川杰 (2016)。矛盾領導與創新管理:理論基礎與實踐應用。南開管理評論,19(3),1-9。
林文政、李小兵 (2017)。矛盾領導對團隊知識分享的影響:基於調節的中介效應分析。管理評論,29(7),118-129。
林文政、王瑞、陳紫瑤 (2018)。基於矛盾領導的團隊知識創造行為研究:以情境因素為調節變量。中國工業經濟,5,119-132。
林文政、王瑞、陳紫瑤 (2019)。基於矛盾領導的多元文化團隊知識分享行為研究:以團隊共性情緒為調節變量。管理學報,16(2),221-229。
林文政、李小兵、陳紫瑤 (2019)。矛盾領導與員工創新行為的關係:基於調節的中介效應分析。心理與行為研究,17(2),257-263。
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,國立中央大學。
劉芷伶 (2022)探索和開發的個人雙元性與創新行為之關聯探討—以矛盾領導行為為調節變項,國立中央大學。
陳婉如 (2020)矛盾領導行為對創新行為與工作績效之影響,國立中央大學。
李麗琪、謝東潔(2017)。上司領導行為對部屬工作態度之影響:部屬觀點採取之中介效果。人力資源管理學報,17(2),109-134
林思妤、吳欣強(2019)。領導、部屬、客戶關係品質與部屬表現:部屬觀點採取的中介效果。企業管理學報,123,1-26
張雅雯、張麗芬(2018)。探討領導行為、工作特性與工作滿意度的關聯:部屬觀點採取的中介效果。勞工安全衛生研究季刊,13(3),167-186
許惠芬、李宛潔、吳宜臻(2020)。領導者能力對部屬態度與行為之影響:探討部屬觀點採取的中介效果。管理學報,37(2),143-164
蔡佳穎、徐秉鈞(2020)。上司工作支持、部屬工作特性與工作滿意度之關係:部屬觀點採取的中介效果。職涯發展與人力資源管理學報,12(1),33-6
林明德、黃莉君(2019)。組織支持、領導行為與工作態度關係之研究:部屬觀點採取的中介效果。公共行政學報,69,57-86
陳珮雯、林明德(2018)。上司支持、工作特性與工作滿意度關係之研究:部屬觀點採取的中介效果。人力資源管理學報,18(1),45-72
黃秋萍、胡婷琳(2018)。情緒勞動、工作壓力與離職意願之關聯:部屬觀點採取的中介效果。人力資源管理學報,18(3),59-80
潘維婷、張吉勇(2017)。上司支持、情緒耗竭、工作投入與離職意願之關係:部屬觀點採取的中介效果。管理評論,36(4),105-126
林文政 (2007)。複雜性研究的新思維:複雜度整合力。科學發》,(2),8-12。
林文政 (2011)。複雜度整合力:理論與實踐。科學出版社。
林文政、陳林正雄、林川杰 (2013)。複雜度整合力:基礎、方法與實例。經濟科學出版社。
周倩涵、張忠謀(2015)。複雜度整合力量表的開發與驗證。商業研究學報,68(3),694-698。
周倩涵、陳林正雄、張忠謀(2016)。複雜組織中的領導力。商業研究學報,69(4),1261-1264。
張忠謀、周倩涵(2017)。複雜度整合力與知識創造:吸收能力的調節作用。創新管理學報,21(01),1-23。
周倩涵、張忠謀、陳林正雄(2018)。複雜度整合力與創新:知識整合的調節作用。商業研究學報,85,282-292。

英文部份
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2015). A self-determination theory approach to understanding the impact of supervisors′ perceptions and behaviors on employees′ intrinsic motivation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(3), 400-412.
Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & d′Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of management Studies, 45(8), 1424-1447.
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 803-829.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational Leadership, Innovative Behavior, and Task Performance: Test of Mediation and Moderation Processes. Human Performance, 25(1), 1-25.
Blau, G. (2011). Testing the relationship between transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 1-12
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
Bass, B. M.,Riggio, R. E.(2006).Transformational leadership.London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual (Vol. 6). Multivariate software Encino, CA.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building an ambidextrous organization. MIT Sloan management review, 45(4), 47-55.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305-337.
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. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Bresman, H. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21(1), 81-96.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality 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.
Brusoni, S., & Rosenkranz, N. A. (2014). Reading between the lines: Learning as a process between organizational context and individuals’ proclivities. European Management Journal, 32(1), 147-154.
Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 836- 849.
Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock, London, 120-122.
Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(3), 52-66.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. Personnel selection in organizations, 3570, 35-70.
Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending Paradox: The Chinese “Middle Way” Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2), 179-199.
Chen, X.-P., Xie, X., & Chang, S. (2011). Cooperative and Competitive Orientation among Chinese People: Scale Development and Validation. Management and Organization Review, 7(2), 353-379.
Chen, J., & Hou, J. (2016). The effect of paradoxical leadership on employee innovative behavior: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3388-3396.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435- 462.
Chen, J., & Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, C. (2016). Resource scarcity and environmental sustainability of global supply chains: A review and future research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 961-972.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111-135.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926.
Dobrow, S. R., Smith, W. K., & Posner, M. A. (2011)”Managing the grading paradox: Leveraging the power of choice in the classroom”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 261-276, 2011.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford University Press.
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.
Dashuai, R., & Bin, Z. J. H. S. M. (2020). How does paradoxical leadership affect innovation in teams: An integrated multilevel dual process model. 39(1), 11-26.
De Spiegelaere, S., HIVA–KU, Guy Van, G., HIVA–KU, & Geert Van, H., CESO–KU. (2014). The Innovative Work Behaviour concept: definition and orientation.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly,18(4), 453-461.
Drazin, R., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Community, population, and organization effects on innovation: A multilevel perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 691-710.
Dler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43-68.Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Earley, P. C., Northcraft, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1990). Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to complex task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 258-267.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22.Eisenbeiss, S. A., Knippenberg, D. V., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446
Fairhurst, G. T., Smith, W. K., Banghart, S. G., Lewis, M. W., Putnam, L. L., Raisch, S., & Schad, J. (2016). Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a paradox meta- perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 173-182.
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.Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 25-50.
Fang, T. (2015). From "Onion" to "Ocean": Paradox and Change in National Cultures. International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(4), 71-90.
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.
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of management review, 25(1), 154-177.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37-63.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: why is it important to combine opposing action strategies Organization Science, 21(3), 593-608.
Getz, I., & Robinson, A. G. (2003). Innovate or die: is that a fact Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(3), 130-136.
Good, D., & Michel, E. J. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of psychology, 147(5), 435-453.
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.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 924-936.
Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). How ethical leadership affects employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological safety. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297-311.
Huang, J., Liu, D., & Gong, Y. (2010). When and how leader′s affective states influence employee upward voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 366-376
Hmieleski, K. M., Cole, M. S., & Baron, R. A. (2012). Shared authentic leadership and new venture performance. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1476-1499
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5). Prentice hall, Upper Saddle River.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. In: University of Kansas, KS.
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 517-534.
Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 273-285.
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.
Heslin, P. A. (2003). Self- and other-referent criteria of personal and task-oriented leadership effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 56(4), 835-864
Lu, L., & Chen, J. (2020). The relationship between paradoxical leadership behavior and employee innovative behavior: The mediating role of subordinate cognitive complexity and perspective taking. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 422.
Li, Y., Liang, X., & Li, D. (2018). Paradoxical leadership, psychological safety and innovative behavior: a moderated mediation analysis. Chinese Management Studies, 12(3), 585-601.
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). Job design and roles. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2, 165-207.
Ishaq, E., Bashir, S., & Khan, A. K. (2021). Paradoxical leader behaviors: Leader personality and follower outcomes. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 342-357.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302.
Jiang, J., & Chen, J. (2018). The influence of paradoxical leadership on employee innovative behavior: The mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of task complexity. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 985.
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039-1050.
Jung, D. I., & Choi, S. B. (2009). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: mediating role of creative self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 787-804.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 24-42.
Kim, W. G., & Brymer, R. A. (2011). The effects of ethical leadership on manager job satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 1020-1026
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2). Wiley New York.
Kotter (1990) emphasized the interplay between good management and effective leadership in achieving sustainable business goals.
Keller, T., & Weibler, J. (2015). What it takes and costs to be an ambidextrous manager: Linking leadership and cognitive strain to balancing exploration and exploitation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 54-71.
Kobarg, S., Wollersheim, J., Welpe, I. M., & Spoerrle, M. (2017). Individual ambidexterity and performance in the public sector: A multilevel analysis. International Public Management Journal, 20(2), 226-260.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where is the “Me” Among the “We” Identity Work and the Search for Optimal Balance. 49(5), 1031-1057.
Le, H., Oh, I. S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 113-133
Laureiro‐Martínez, D., Brusoni, S., Canessa, N., & Zollo, M. (2015). Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision‐ making performance. Strategic management journal, 36(3), 319-338.
Leong, C. T., & Rasli, A. (2013). Differences in innovative work behaviour and everyday work role performance of employees: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Economics, 3(5C), 94-99.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. 25(4), 760- 776.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model of Leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465.
Liu, D., Chen, X.-P., & Yao, X. (2011). From autonomy to creativity: a multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 294.
L. Shilpa & S. K. Srivatsa. (2017)The Impact of Leadership on Employees′ Innovation: A Study With Reference to IT Companies in Bengaluru
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852-863.
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.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.
McCarthy, J. M., Trougakos, J. P., & Cheng, B. H. (2016). Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 279.
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240.
Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith & Lewis (2017) emphasized the important role that paradoxical leadership plays in resolving the conflicts and dilemmas faced by organizations and leaders.
Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers′ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812- 828.
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.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological bulletin, 105(3), 430.
Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The Dynamics of Intense Work Groups: A Study of British String Quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 165-186.
Myers, C. G. (2020). Performance benefits of reciprocal vicarious learning in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 64(3).
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.
Neal, A., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Technology and performance (D. I. a. D. Pulakos, Ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education.
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator′s dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185-206.
Oeser, O. A., & Harary, F. (1964). A mathematical model for structural role theory, II. Human Relations, 17(1), 3-17.
Offermann, L. R., & Coats, M. R. (2018). Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), 513-522.
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.
Olchi, W. G. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 173-192. 49
Pfefferbaum, B., & North, C. S. (2020). Mental Health and the Covid-19 Pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(6), 510-512.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self‐efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 447-469.
Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual review of psychology, 65, 661-691.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.
American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 194-208.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612.
Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press.
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of Innovative Work Behaviour: Development and Test of an Integrated Model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142-150.
Robinson, A. G., & Schroeder, D. M. (2004). Ideas are free: How the idea revolution is liberating people and transforming organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership- innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
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(5), 694-709.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
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.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1998). Following the leader in R&D: The joint effect of subordinate problem-solving style and leader-member relations on innovative behavior. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 45(1), 3-10.
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.
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.
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.
Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of management review, 28(3), 397-415.
Tse, H. H., Huang, X., & Lam, W. (2014). When and why does ethical leadership affect follower′s helping behavior A social identity perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 402-419.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management science, 32(5), 590-607.
Van der Borgh, M., de Jong, A., & Nijssen, E. J. (2017). Alternative mechanisms guiding salespersons’ ambidextrous product selling. British Journal of Management, 28(2), 331-353.
Vihari, N. S., Yadav, M., & Panda, T. K. (2021). Impact of soft TQM practices on employee work role performance: role of innovative work behaviour and initiative climate. The TQM Journal.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24.
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-Based Measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555.
Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 118-154.
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.
Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees′ self‐reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24-46.
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, Waldman, Han, Li (2015) found that a leader′s paradoxical leadership behavior has a positive impact on subordinates′ performance, adaptability, and motivation.
指導教授 林文政 審核日期 2023-7-8
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   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明