(54.161.45.156) 您好!臺灣時間:2018/04/23 16:24
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
本論文永久網址: 
line
研究生:林本原
研究生(外文):LIN, BEN-YUAN
論文名稱:LMX關係品質2x2配對評分類型於差序式領導行為差異之研究
論文名稱(外文):The differences among Two by Two Matrix Juxtaposing Ratings of LMX Quality on Differential Leadership behavior Research
指導教授:陳必碩陳必碩引用關係
指導教授(外文):CHEN, PI-SO
口試委員:李俊賢李昭蓉吳思達陳必碩
口試委員(外文):LI, CHUN HSIENLI, JAO-RONGWU, SZU-TACHEN, PI-SO
口試日期:2017-06-26
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄應用科技大學
系所名稱:人力資源發展系碩士班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文出版年:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:92
中文關鍵詞:領導成員交換關係(LMX)LMX關係品質2x2配對類型差序式領導
外文關鍵詞:Leader-Member ExchangeTow-by-Two Matrix Juxtaposing Ratings of LMX QualityDifferential Leadership
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:48
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
  LMX理論由1975年起發展至今,雖已有相當大量之研究,但在研究發展上有僅只有8-13%是以配對(雙向)方式進行施測。近年有關LMX發展則是在探討有關雙方認同差異(同意與不同意評分高與低),因此發展出了「LMX關係品質2x2配對類型」,使LMX關係品質差異與其結果影響有了更多之發展可行性。
  由於LMX理論定義領導者會與不同部屬間建立不同關係,與華人差序式領導理論「華人企業領導人會與每位部屬依親疏遠近,而有不同之偏私對待行為」有一定程度之相關性。因此有必要進一步理解企業領導人依照LMX關係品質2x2配對類型於差序式領導偏私行為上之差異。另外,亦有學者發現LMX影響結果變項,可能存在著領導與部屬雙方認知不同之問題,故此本研究更進一步探討領導者與部屬對於知覺差序式領導行為之差異。
  本研究以方便取樣方式,以VDL配對方式對主管與其直屬部屬發放配對問卷,共計發放303組。結果顯示LMX關係品質2x2配對類型確實於主管知覺照顧溝通、提拔獎勵、與寬容犯錯上有顯著影響;LMX關係品質2x2配對類型確實於部屬知覺照顧溝通、提拔獎勵、與寬容犯錯上有顯著影響。

  Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) has been developing since 1975. Although there are a quite abundant number of LMX thesis have been published, the method of testing LMX only have 8 to 13% was tested from Two-Side. Recently, LMX thory started to explore Leader – Member’s differences (agreement and disagreement/ high and low), and that’s the reason why “Tow-by-Two Matrix Juxtaposing Ratings of LMX Quality” have been established and leads to more possibility of its development.
  LMX thory posits that leader develop differentialted relationships with their subordinates. Differential Leadership also defines that Chinese Leader will builds different “Guanxi” and treatment with their follower s. Therefore, reaserch infers that it is worth to understand what or how the difference is among Tow-by-Two Matrix Juxtaposing Ratings of LMX Quality on leader and member percept Differential Leadership.
  This Study was paied with leader and their follower, using in convenience sampling totally 303 sets. The results shows that Tow-by-Two Matrix Juxtaposing Ratings of LMX Quality is exactely affect leader percepts “care and communication”, “promotion and reward”, and “forgiveness”. This consequence also has the same reults on supervisor’s perceptions.

目錄
致謝------------------------------------------------------------------I
摘要-----------------------------------------------------------------II
Abstract-------------------------------------------------------------III
目錄----------------------------------------------------------------IV
表目錄--------------------------------------------------------------VI
圖目錄--------------------------------------------------------------VII
第一章 緒論---------------------------------------------------------1
第二章 文獻探討-----------------------------------------------------3
第一節 領導部屬交換理論(Leader-Member Exchange Theory)----------3
一、  LMX文獻回顧-------------------------------------------4
二、  LMX關係品質類型文獻回顧------------------------------10
三、 LMX關係品質類型研究結果文獻回顧----------------------20
四、  LMX關係品質施測方法----------------------------------24
五、 LMX量表發展------------------------------------------26
第二節 差序式領導理論(Differential Leadership Theory)---------------29
一、  華人差序式領導理論文獻回顧----------------------------29
二、  西方LMX理論與華人差序式領導-------------------------34
第三節 假設推論------------------------------------------------37
第三章 研究方法----------------------------------------------------40
第一節 研究架設與架構------------------------------------------40
一、  研究架構----------------------------------------------40
二、  研究假設----------------------------------------------41
第二節 研究樣本與程序------------------------------------------43
第三節 研究測量------------------------------------------------44
一、  LMX量表----------------------------------------------44
二、  差序式領導量表----------------------------------------45
第四節 分析方法------------------------------------------------46
一、  敘述性統計--------------------------------------------46
二、  因素分析--------------------------------------------46
三、  信度分析----------------------------------------------46
四、  變數歸類--------------------------------------------47
五、  ANOVA分析-------------------------------------------47
六、  配對樣本T檢定分析-------------------------------------48
第四章 研究結果--------------------------------------------------49
第一節 敘述性統計--------------------------------------------49
一、  樣本結構次數分配--------------------------------------49
二、  研究變數描述性統計分析--------------------------------53
第二節 因素分析與信度檢定--------------------------------------55
一、  LMX與SLMX因素分析----------------------------------55
二、  差序式領導因素分析------------------------------------57
三、  各構面信度檢驗----------------------------------------61
第三節 ANOVA分析與假設驗證-----------------------------------62
一、  LMX關係品質2x2配對評分類型對照顧溝通驗證結果--------62
二、  LMX關係品質2x2配對評分類型對提拔獎勵驗證結果--------63
三、  LMX關係品質2x2配對評分類型對寬容犯錯驗證結果--------64
四、  主管與部屬知覺LMX評分與知覺差序式領導行為評分差異---65
五、  假設驗證----------------------------------------------66
第五章 討論與建議--------------------------------------------------68
第一節 研究結論------------------------------------------------68
第二節 理論與實務意義------------------------------------------72
一、  理論意義 ---------------------------------------------72
二、  實務意義----------------------------------------------73
第三節 研究限制與未來發展--------------------------------------75
一、  研究限制----------------------------------------------75
二、  未來發展----------------------------------------------75
參考文獻------------------------------------------------------------76

36氪(2017年5月)。中國最狂的火鍋店「海底撈」為何會成功?老闆說他的秘訣是:忘掉KPI。T客邦。取自:http://www.techbang.com/posts/50840-revenue-target-of-10-billion-yuan-this-year-sea-secret-is-to-forget-about-the-kpi
任金剛、林明村、陳以亨(2002)。華人員工歸類之標準與實徵研究。載於楊國樞(主編),第四屆華人心理學家學術研討會論文。臺北:中央研究院。
李美枝(1993)。從有關公平判斷的研究結果看中國人之人己關係的界限。本土心理學研究,1,267-300。
林明村(2001)。直屬主管之差序格局對領導行為與領導效能影響之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中山大學,高雄市。
周逸衡(1984)。國人價值觀體系與台灣大型企業管理行為關係之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。
姜定宇(2005)。華人部屬與主管關係、主管忠誠、及其後續結果:一項兩階段研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立台灣大學,臺北市。
姜定宇、鄭伯壎、鄭紀瑩、周麗芳(2007)。華人效忠主管的概念分析與量表建構。中華心理學刊,49,407-432。
姜定宇(2009)。華人企業主管知覺部屬效忠。中華心理學刊,51,101-120。
姜定宇、張菀真(2010)。華人差序式領導與部屬效能。本土心理學研究,33,109-177。
姜定宇、鄭伯壎(2014)。華人差序式領導的本質與影響歷程。本土心理學研究,42,285-357。
徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎、黃敏萍(2002)。華人企業領導人的員工歸類與管理行為。本土心理學研究,18,51-94。
徐瑋伶(2004)。海峽兩岸企業主管之差序式領導:一項歷程性的分析(未出版之博士論文)。國立台灣大學,臺北市。
張德勝(1989)。儒家倫理與秩序情結:中國思想的社會學詮釋。臺北:巨流圖書公司。
費孝通(1948)。鄉土中國。上海:上海觀察社。
黃光國(1985)。人情與面子:中國人的權力遊戲。載於李亦園、楊國樞、文崇一(主編),現代化與中國畫論集。臺北:桂冠圖書公司。
黃囇莉(1999)。人際和諧與衝突──本土化的理論與研究。臺北:桂冠圖書公司。
楊國樞(1993)。中國人的社會取向:社會互動的觀點。載於楊國樞、余安邦(主編),中國人的心理與行為──理念及方法篇。臺北:桂冠圖書公司。
楊國樞(1998)。家族化歷程、泛家族主義及組織管理。載於鄭伯壎、黃國隆、郭建志(主編),海峽兩岸之組織與管理。臺北:遠流出版公司。
楊中芳(1999)。人際關係與人際情感的構念化。本土心理學研究,12,105-179。
葉光輝(2002)。關係主義:論華人人際互動關係的要素、來源、及變化歷程。載於葉啟政(主編),從現代化到本土-慶賀楊國樞教授七秩華誕論文集。臺北:遠流出版公司。
蔡松純、鄭伯壎、周麗芳、姜定宇、鄭弘岳(2009)。領導者上下關係認定與部屬利社會行為:權力距離之調節效果。中華心理學刊,51,121-138。
蔡松純、鄭伯壎、周麗芳(2015)。領導者上下關係認定之理論模式建構。中華心理學刊,57,121-144。
樊景立、鄭伯壎(1997)。華人自評式績效考核中的自謙偏差:題意、謙虛價值及自尊之影響。中華心理學刊,39,103-118。
鄭伯壎(1991)。家族主義及領導行為。載於楊中芳、高尚仁(合編),中國人、中國心──人格與社會篇。臺北:遠流圖書公司。
鄭伯壎(1995)。差序格局與華人組織行為。本土心理學研究,3,142-219。
鄭伯壎、林家五(1998)。差序格局與華人組織行為:台灣大型民營企業的初步研究。中央研究院民族研究所集刊,86,29-72。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立(2000)。家長式領導:三元模式的建構與測量。本土心理學研究,14,3-53。
鄭伯壎(2004)。本土文化與組織領導:由現象描述到理論驗證。本土心理學研究,22,195-254。
鄭伯壎、姜定宇(2005)。華人企業組織中的忠誠。載於楊中芳、楊國樞(主編),華人本土心理學。臺北:桂冠圖書公司。
鄭伯壎(2005)。關係與領導:探索概念。載於鄭伯壎(主編),華人領導:理論與實際。臺北:桂冠圖書公司。
鄭伯壎、姜定宇(2006)。華人文化與組織行為研究。見鄭伯壎、姜定宇(主編),華組織行為:議題、做法及出版。臺北:華泰文化。

Bakar, H. A., Jian, G. & Fairhurst, G. (2014). Where do I stand? The interaction of leader-member exchange and performance ratings. Asia Business and Management, 13, 143-170.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.
Bernerth, J. B., & Armenakis, A. A., Field, H. S., Giles, W. F. & Walker, H. J. (2007). Leader-member social exchange (LMSX) development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 979-1003.
Biron, M. (2010). Negative reciprocity and the association between perceived organizational ethical values and organizational deviance. Human Relations, 63, 875-897.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
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, 246-257.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 92, 202-212.
Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader-member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 452-465.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-Member Exhcnage Model of Leadership: Critique and Further Development. The Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715-1759.
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2002). Social exchanges in the workplace: A Review of Recent Developments and future Research Directions in Leader-Member exchange Theory. In J. S. Thibaut, J. Spence, & R. Carson (Eds.), Leadership (65-114). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2014). Leader-member exchange(LMX) theory: The relational approach to leadership. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations ( 407-433). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley M. R. (2009). Relationships at Work: Toward a Multidimensional Conceptualizaiotn of Dyadic Work Relationships. Journal of Management, 35, 1379-1403.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1976). Resource theory of social exchange. In J. S. Thibaut, J. Spence, & R. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Hand book of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally Press.
Graen, G. B., & Schiemann, W. A. (1978). Leader-Member Agreement: A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 206-212.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Organizational Behavior (175-208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B., Wakabayashi, M., Graen, M. R., & Graen, M. G. (1990). International generalizability of American hypotheses about Japanese management progress: A strong inference investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 1-23.
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. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Greguras G. J., & Ford, J. M. (2006). An examination of the multidimensional of supervisor and subordinate perceptions of leader-member exchange. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 433-465.
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, 517-534.
Hu, H. H., Hsu, W. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2004). The reward allocation decision of the Chinese manager: Influences of employee categorization and allocation situation. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 221-232.
Hu, J. & Liden, R. C. (2013). Relative Leader-Member Exchange within team contexts: How and when social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66, 127-172.
Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-Member Exchange and Its Dimensions Effects of Self-Effort and Other's Effort on Relationship Quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 697-708.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Kerliger, F. N. (1973). Fundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: examination of neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 546-553.
Krasikova, D. V., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 739-757.
Liao, C., Wayne, S. J., Liden R. C., & Meuser, J. D. (2016). Idiosyncratic deals and individual effectiveness: The moderating role of leader-member exchange differentiation. The Leadership Quarterly.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. B. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723-746.
Lonsdale, D. J., (2016). The effect of Leader-Member Exchange and the Feedback Environment on Organizaitonal Citizenship and Withdrawal. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 19, 41-59.
Markham, S. E., Yammarino, F. J., Murry, W. D., & Palanski, M. E. (2010). Leader-member exchange, shared values, and performance: Agreement and levels of analysis do matter. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 469-480.
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69, 67-121.
Matta, K. F., Koopman, J., & Conlon, E. D. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1686-1708.
Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Both sides now: Supervisor and subordinate perspectives on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 250-276.
Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruter.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635.
Ridolphi, J., & Seers, A. (1984). Leader behavior versus leader-member exchange: A competitive test. Paper presented at the Southeast Decision Sciences meeting, Williamsburg, VA.
Rook, K. C. (1992). Detrimental aspects of social relationship: Taking stock of an emerging literature. In H. Veil & U. Baumann (Eds.), The meaning and measurement of social support (157-169). New York: Hemisphere press.
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, 428-436.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1588-1602.
Scherbaum, C. A., Finlinson, S., Barden, K., & Tamanini, K. (2006). Applications of item response theory to measurement issues in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 366-386.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., Scandura, T. A., & Tepper, B. J. (1992). Development and Preliminary Validation of a New Scale (LMX-6) to Measure Leader-Member Exchange in Organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 135-147.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader-member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298-318.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement issues. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-113.
Schriesheim, C. A., Wu, J. B., & Cooper, C. D. (2011). A two-study investigation of item wording effects on leader-fellow convergence in descriptions of the leader-member exchgange (LMX) relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 881-892.
Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and value: The organization of large-scale Taiwan enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sin, H. P., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2009). Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye: An examination of leader-member exchange (LMX) agreement. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1048-1057.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tsai, C. Y., Dionne, S. D., Wang, A. C., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., & Cheng, B. S. (2016). Effect of relational schema congruence on leader-memebr exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 268-284.
Uhl-Bien, M., Tierney, P.S., Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Company paternalism and the hidden-investment process: Identification of the “right type” for line managers in leading Japanese organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 414-430.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management system: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Reseach in personnel and human resources management (137-185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. M. (2003). Reciprocity in manager-subordinate relationships: Components, configurations, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 29, 511-532.
Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader-member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 849-861.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1990). Generalizability of the hidden investment hypothesis among line managers in five leading Japanese corporations. Human Relations, 43, 1099-1116.
Westwood, R. I. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The culture basis for “paternalistic leadership” among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18, 445-480.
Wilson, K. S., Sin, H. P., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35, 358-372.
Zhou, X., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2009). Supervisor–subordinate convergence in descriptions of leader–member exchange (LMX) quality: Review and testable propositions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 920-932.

電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20221231)
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 李美枝(1993)。從有關公平判斷的研究結果看中國人之人己關係的界限。本土心理學研究,1,267-300。
2. 姜定宇、鄭伯壎、鄭紀瑩、周麗芳(2007)。華人效忠主管的概念分析與量表建構。中華心理學刊,49,407-432。
3. 姜定宇(2009)。華人企業主管知覺部屬效忠。中華心理學刊,51,101-120。
4. 姜定宇、張菀真(2010)。華人差序式領導與部屬效能。本土心理學研究,33,109-177。
5. 姜定宇、鄭伯壎(2014)。華人差序式領導的本質與影響歷程。本土心理學研究,42,285-357。
6. 徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎、黃敏萍(2002)。華人企業領導人的員工歸類與管理行為。本土心理學研究,18,51-94。
7. 楊中芳(1999)。人際關係與人際情感的構念化。本土心理學研究,12,105-179。
8. 蔡松純、鄭伯壎、周麗芳、姜定宇、鄭弘岳(2009)。領導者上下關係認定與部屬利社會行為:權力距離之調節效果。中華心理學刊,51,121-138。
9. 蔡松純、鄭伯壎、周麗芳(2015)。領導者上下關係認定之理論模式建構。中華心理學刊,57,121-144。
10. 樊景立、鄭伯壎(1997)。華人自評式績效考核中的自謙偏差:題意、謙虛價值及自尊之影響。中華心理學刊,39,103-118。
11. 鄭伯壎(1995)。差序格局與華人組織行為。本土心理學研究,3,142-219。
12. 鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立(2000)。家長式領導:三元模式的建構與測量。本土心理學研究,14,3-53。
13. 鄭伯壎(2004)。本土文化與組織領導:由現象描述到理論驗證。本土心理學研究,22,195-254。
 
無相關點閱論文
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔