(3.236.6.6) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/22 18:24
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
: 
twitterline
研究生:陳瑞忠
研究生(外文):Jui-Chung Chen
論文名稱:主管領導型態與組織文化對軍事機構人員承諾行為影響之研究:以國軍某部隊為例
論文名稱(外文):The Research of "The Leadership Styles of the Person in Charge and the Organizational Culture to the Influence of Military Institute Personnel Commitment Behavior " -the Case of Military Institute
指導教授:黃新福黃新福引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shin-Fu Hwang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:銘傳大學
系所名稱:管理科學研究所碩士在職專班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:中文
論文頁數:138
中文關鍵詞:領導型態組織文化組織承諾
外文關鍵詞:Leadership StylesOrganizational CultureOrganizational Commitment
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:90
  • 點閱點閱:479
  • 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:142
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究旨在探討軍事機構中不同的組織個體其組織承諾感受主官領導型態及充塞於組織中之組織文化影響程度與呈現樣態。研究之過程,首先經由對國內外學者及軍事專家論著的蒐整分析以描繪出主題輪廓及問題之所在,再以問卷調查法蒐集研究對象之樣本資料進行統計分析,最後提出結論與建議供政策擬訂與實務操作參用。
組織因其架構及任務之差別,所面對之工作情境亦各有所異;一般而言,軍事單位多具有強烈的組織文化,且領導功能的行使亦偏向命令方式。但隨著社會價值體系的改變及國防組織的調整,長期任職其中的成員對所處組織之組織承諾態度與彰顯於外的行為是否產生變化,或因個體不同而存在顯著差異,係本研究探究的主軸。經以國軍某單位之基層營連為對象,蒐集問卷818份進行統計分析後,研究發現摘述如下:
一、人口屬性方面:
(1) 性別不同對研究各構面均無相關性存在。已婚者在努力承諾的認同上較未婚者低,意謂著已婚者對工作的努力與投入不如未婚者。年齡差異僅與官僚型文化呈現顯著正相關,其中又以20歲以下人員對官僚型文化認同程度最高。
(2) 教育程度對交易型領導、官僚型文化以及組織承諾三個子構面均呈顯著正相關,餘各構面則關聯性不高,其中專科以上教育程度者其認同程度明顯高於高中以下人員。服務年資僅與官僚型文化呈現顯著正相關,其餘則無明顯相關,尤其服務年資2年以下之人員,其對官僚型文化之認同程度明顯高於年資6-9年者。而職務上以任職主管職者其對領導型態、組織文化以及對組織之承諾感明顯高於非主管人員。
(3) 階級不同對組織承諾之價值、努力承諾等子構面有正向關係,唯各階 間差異並不顯著。服務單位差別對價值承諾與留職承諾等構面有顯著正相關,其中穩定的幕僚部門之組織承諾感遠高於經常調動的基層部隊。服務地區差別對於主管領導型態、組織文化及組織承諾之認同除轉換型領導無相關外,餘均呈現顯著相關,顯示成員對任職地區相當在意。
二、領導型態與組織文化關係方面:
轉換型領導對營造創新、支持等型文化最具解釋力,意謂上述兩類組織文化當中,採行轉換型領導較容易獲得組織成員認同支持。而家長型領導與官僚型文化是最佳組合;整體而言,轉換型領導最能符合各類型組織文化的運作。
三、組織文化與組織承諾關係方面:
創新型、支持持型文化對組織承諾各構面均具有顯著正相關;而其中又以支持型文化對價值承諾及留職承諾最為顯著。官僚型文化對努力承諾構面呈現顯著正向關係,然而對留職承諾卻出現負向關係。綜合而言,創新型文化對組織承諾整體構面最具影響效果,其次是支持型文化,而官僚型文化最不顯著。
四、領導型態與組織承諾關係方面:
換換型領導對價值、留職承諾最具影響力,而家長型領導對努力職承諾有顯著正相關;整體而言,以轉換型領導對成員之組織承諾影響程度最高。
The purpose of this research is to discuss the different organizational individuals, in military institute, whose organizational recognition is guided by the leadership of the person in charge and the culture in the organization. Firstly, we outline the title and find where the problems are by collecting and analyzing the writings of domestic or foreign scholars and military affairs experts. And then we analyze the data sample; we get by questionnaire, with statistical way. Finally, we propose the conclusion and suggestion for manipulation.
Because of the difference between structure and mission, the work situations we face are different. Frankly speaking, military units have stronger organizational culture, and the way of leading tends to order way. But as the system of the social value and the organization of national defense change, we are not sure that the organizational recognition and outward behaviors of the employees who serve the military very long time would change not. And this is our subject we focus on. Take a certain R.O.C military unit as a simple, after we analyzed 818 questionnaires, we found something as follows:
1.The aspect of population:
(1) Organizational recognition to different sex has no affect. Married people have lower recognition than unmarried people, when it comes to promising hard, unmarried people are more working hard. The age differential is merely correlated with bureaucratism, but others are not. But among these people, we find that less than 20 years old have the most highly recognition of bureaucratism.
(2) The educational level is correlated with bureaucratism, dealing leadership and organizational recognition, but others not. As the educational background, we found that the recognition of people who graduate from college is higher than senior high school. The serving time is correlated with bureaucratism, others not.
(3) Different classes to the value of organization, promising have correlated, the difference between classes are not very obvious. The difference of service unit to the value and stay in job promising has correlated, the stable staff divisions’ organization promising is higher than the troops redeploys often. The difference of service zone to organizational culture, the leadership and the organizational recognition has correlated, but transformational leadership not. It shows that members are quietly care about the location where serve.
2.The aspect of leadership to organizational culture:
The transformational leadership to creating and supporting cultures has obvious exposition. This means in these two types culture the transformational leadership is easier to get recognition from organization members. The paternalism and bureaucratic culture are the best combination. In conclusion, the transformational leadership is the best way to tally with different kinds organizational culture.
3.The aspect of organizational culture to recognition of organization:
Creating, supporting culture to organization recognition have obvious positive relation, and we can find that supporting culture to value recognition is most obvious. Bureaucratic culture to promising shows positive relation, however, it shows negative relation to promise that you won’t lose your job. In conclusion, creating culture affects organizational mostly, supporting culture then, but to bureaucratic culture in vain.
4.The aspect of leadership to organization recognition:
Transformational leadership affects value recognition and the promise you wont’ lose you job, and the Head of the family leadership to the working hard recognition shows positive relation. In all, transformational leadership affects the organizational recognition of members mostly.
頁次
目錄 …………………………………………………………………………….I
圖目錄 …………………………………………………………………………V
表目錄 ………………………………………………………………………...VI
第一章 緒論 …………………………………………………………………...1
1.1 研究背景與動機 ………………………………………………………..1
1.2 研究問題與目的 ………………………………………………………..3
1.3 研究方法與流程 ………………………………………………………..4
1.3.1 研究方法 …………………………………………………………….4
1.3.2 研究流程 …………………………………………………………….4
1.4 研究限制 ………………………………………………………………..6
1.5 重要名詞界定 …………………………………………………………..7
第二章 文獻探討 ……………………………………………………………...8
2.1 領導型態 ………………………………………………………………..8
2.1.1 領導的本質與定義 ………………………………………………….8
2.2.2 領導的相關理論 …………………………………………………...11
2.2 組織文化 ………………………………………………………………26
2.2.1 組織文化的定義 ……. …………………………………………….26
2.2.2 組織文化的構成要素 …………………………………………….28
2.2.3 組織文化的功能 ………………………………………………….30
2.2.4 組織文化的形成 …………………………………………………...32
2.2.5 組織文化的分類 …………………………………………………...33
2.3 組織承諾 ………………………………………………………………36
2.3.1 組織承諾的定義 …………………………………………………...36
2.3.2 組織承諾的分類 …………………………………………………...38
2.3.3 組織承諾的相關理論模式 ………………………………………...41
2.4 人口屬性、領導型態、組織文化與組織承諾之關係 ………………46
2.4.1 人口屬性與組織承諾之關係 ……………………………………...46
2.4.2 組織文化與組織承諾之關係 ……………………………………...50
2.4.3 領導型態與組織文化之關係 ……………………………………...51
2.4.4 領導型態與組織承諾之關係 ……………………………………...51
第三章 研究方法 …………………………………………………………...47
3.1 研究架構與假設 …………………………………………………… .47
3.1.1 研究架構 …………………………………………………………...53
3.1.2 研究假設 …………………………………………………………...54
3.2 研究變項之操作性定義………………………………………………..55
3.2.1 人口屬性 …………………………………………………………...55
3.2.2 領導型態 …………………………………………………………...55
3.3.3 組織文化 …………………………………………………………...56
3.2.4 組織承諾 …………………………………………………………...57
3.3 問卷設計 ………………………………………………………………57
3.3.1 量表來源與結構 …………………………………………………...57
3.3.2 計分方式 …………………………………………………………...57
3.4 研究對象與抽樣方式 …………………………………………………59
3.4.1 研究對象 …………………………………………………………...59
3.4.2 抽樣方式 …………………………………………………………...60
3.5 資料分析方法 ………………………………………………………..61
3.6 樣本特性分析 ………………………………………………………..62
第四章 研究結果分析 ……………………………………………………...66
4.1 信度分析 ...………….…………………………………………………66
4.2 人口屬性與領導型態、組織文化及組織承諾間之關係分析 …..…..70
4.2.1 性別差異 …………………………………………………………...70
4.2.2 婚姻狀況的差異 …………………………………………………...74
4.2.3 年齡差異 …………………………………………………………...77
4.2.4 教育程度差異 ……………………………………………………...80
4.2.5 服務年資差異 ……………………………………………………...83
4.2.6 職務差異 …………………………………………………………...86
4.2.7 階級差異 …………………………………………………………...89
4.2.8 服務單位差異 ……………………………………………………...94
4.2.9 服務地區差異 ……………………………………………………...96
4.3 領導型態、組織文化與組織承諾各構面間之關係分析 ……………100
4.3.1 共線性問題檢定 ………………………………………………….100
4.3.2 領導型態與組織文化之相關分析 ……………………………….101
4.3.3 領導型態與組織承諾之相關分析 ……………………………….103
4.3.4 組織文化與組織承諾之相關分析 ……………………………….105
4.3.5 中介效果檢定 …………………………………………………….106
4.4 徑路模式分析 …..………………...………………………………….108
4.5 研究假設之驗證 ……………………………………………………..114
第五章 結論與建議 ……………………………………………………….117
5.1 研究發現與結論 ……………………………………………………117
5.1.1 研究發現 ………………………………………………………...117
5.1.2 結論 ……………………………………………………………...120
5.2 建議 …………………………………………………………………123
5.2.1 對決策與管理單位之建議 ……………………………………...123
5.2.2 對基層實務執行單位之建議 …………………………………….123
5.2.3 對後續研究之建議 ……………………………………………….124
參考文獻 …………………………………………………………………….125
附錄 (問卷) …………………………………………………………….….134
一、英文部份
1. Avolio, J. ; Bass, M., “E-examining the Components of Transformational and Transformational Leadership Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Dec., Vol. 72, Issue 4, 1999, pp. 441-442.
2. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J., Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire —Rater Form, Palo Alto, C. A. : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1989.
3. Bass, B. M., “Form Transformational to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision,” Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 1990, Vol. 19, pp. 19-27.
4. Bass, B. M., “Transformational Leadership,” Journal of Management Inquiry, Nol. 4, Issue 3, 1995, pp. 293-298.
5. Bass, B. M., Handbook of Leadership:Theory Research and Managerial Application, NY : The Free Press, 1990.
6. Bass, B. M., Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, New York : Free Press, 1985.
7. Bass, B. M., Bass and Stogdill., Handbook of Leadership : Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, New York : Free Press, 1990.
8. Bass, M. and Avolio, B. J., Transformational Leadership Development: Munual for The Multifactor Leadership Questionnire, Palo Alto, C. A. : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1990.
9. Bateman, T. S. and D.W. Organ, “Job Satisfaction and The Good Soldier : The Relationship Between Affect and Employee Citizenship,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1983, pp. 587-595.
10. Bennis, W. C. and Nanus, B., Leaders : The Strategies for Taking Change, New York : Harper and Row, 1985.
11. Boeker, W. and J. Goodstein, “Organizational Performance and Adaptation: Effects of Environment and Performance on Changes in Board Composition,” Academy of Management Journal Vol. 34, No. 2, 1991, pp. 805-826.
12. Dansereau, F. Jr., Graen, G., and Haga, W. J., “A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach Leadership within Formal Organizations : A Longitudinal Investigation of The Role-Making Process,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13, 1975, pp. 46-78.
13. Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A., Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Reading, MA : Addision-Welsey, 1982.
14. Ettlie, J. E. and Reza, E. M, “Organizational Integration and Process Innovation,” Academy Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1992, pp. 795-827.
15. Farh, J. L. and Cheng, B. S., “Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese Organizations : Acritical Analysis,” In A. S. Tsui and J. T. Li(ed.), Management and Organizationas in China, 1999, pp. 125-140.
16. Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., and Lin, S. C., “Impetus for Action: A Culture Analysis of Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Chinese Society,” Adminastrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42, 1997, pp. 421-444.
17. Fiedler, F. E., “The Contingency Model-New Directions for Leadership Utilization,” Journal of Contingency Business, Autumn, Vol. 71, 1974, pp. 19-30.
18. Fiedler, F. E., A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, NY : McGraw-Hill, 1967.
19. Gordon, G. and N. A. Rosen, “Critical Factors in Leader Succession,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1981, pp. 227-254.
20. Graham, J. W., “Leadership, Moral Development and Citizenship Behavior,” Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan., 1995, pp. 43-54.
21. Hartog, N. Den ; Van Muijen, J., “Transactional Versus Transformational Leadership : An Analysis of The MLQ,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, Issue 1, 1997, p. 19-23.
22. Hofstede, G. H. and Bond, M. H., “The Confucius Connection : Form Cultural Roots to Economic Growth,” Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1988, pp. 4-21.
23. House, R. J., “A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1971, pp. 321-338.
24. Jung, Dong I., Avolio, Bruce J., “Effects of Leadership Style and Followers’ Cultural Orientation on Performance in Group and Individual Task Conditions,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, Issue 2, 1999, pp. 208-221.
25. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L., The Social Pyschology of Organization(2ed ed.), New York : Wiley, 1978.
26. Katz, D., “The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior,” Behavioral Science, Vol. 9, 1964, pp. 131-146.
27. Markowich, M., “HR’s Leadership Role in The Third Ware,” HR Magazine, Vol. 40, Issue 9, Sep.1995, pp. 92-110.
28. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. M. and Schoolman, F. D., “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust,” The Academy of Management Review,Vol. 20, No. 3, 1995, pp. 709-734.
29. Organ, D. W., Organization Citizenship Behavior : The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington MA : Lerington Books, 1988.
30. Pillai, R. Schriesheim, C. A. Williams, S., “Fairness Perceptions and Trust as Mediators for Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Two-Sample Study,” Journal of Management, Vol. 25, Issue 6, 1999, pp. 897-908.
31. Podsakoff, P. M. Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R., “Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Follows’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,” Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1990, pp. 107-142.
32. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B. and Bommer, W. H., “Transformational Leader Behaviors and Substitite for Leadership as Determinants of Emplyee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors,” Journal of Management, Vol. 22, 1996, pp. 259-298.
33. Popper, Micha., “Leadership in Military Combat Units and Business Organizations,” Journal of Management Psychology, 1996, Vol. 11, Issue 1, pp. 15-30.
34. Pye, L. W., Dynamics of Chinese Politics, MA : OG and H, 1981.
35. Rajnandini Pillai., “Fairness Perception and Trust as Mediators for Transformational and Transactional Leadership : A Two-Sample Study,” Journal of Management, Vol. 25, No. 6, 1999, pp. 897-933.
36. Redding, S. G., The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism, Berlin : Walter De Gruyter, 1990.
37. Robbins, S. P., Organizational Behavior, N. J. Prentice-Hall Inc., 1993, pp. 670-673.
38. Robbins, Stephen, P., Organizational Theory : Structure Design and Applications, N. J. : Prentice-Hall Inc., 1989, p176-201.
39. Sankar, C. S. and Wee, Y. Y., “Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction of Technical Personnel in the U.S., Singapore and India,” Engineering Management Joural, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, 1997, pp. 15-21.
40. Sillin, R. F., Leadership and Values, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.
41. Singer, Ming, S.; Singer, Alan, E., “Situational Constraints on Transformational Verus Transformational Leadership Behavior, Subordinates’ Leadership Preference and Satisfaction,” Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 130, Issue 3, Jun., 1990, p. 385-397.
42. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. and Near, J. P. “Organization Citizenship Behavior : It’s Nature and Antecedents,” Journal of Appled Psychology, Vol. 68, 1983, pp. 653-663.
43. Steers, R. M., “Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1977, pp. 46-56.
44. Stogdill, R. M. and Coons, A. E. eds., Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Columbus, The Ohio State University, 1957.
45. Stogill, R. M., Handbook of Leadership : A Survey of Literature, New York : Free Press, 1974.
46. Tsui, A. S. and Farh, J. L., “Where Guanxi Matters : Relational Demography and Guanix in The Chinese Context,” Work and Occupations, 24, 1997, pp. 56-79.
47. Van Dyne, L., J. W. Graham and R. M. Dienesch, “Organizational Citizenship Behavior : Construct Redefinition, Measurement, and Validation,” Academy of Magagement Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4, Aug., 1994,pp. 765-802.
48. Wallach, E. J., “Individuals and Organizations : The Culture Match,” Training and Development Journal, 1983, pp. 29-36.
49. Westwood, R., “Harmony and Patriarchy: The Cultural Basis for Paternalistic Headship Among the Overseas Chinese,” Organization Studies, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1997, pp. 445-480.
50. Westwood, R. I. and Chan, A., “Headship and Leadership.” In R. I. Westwood(ed.), Organizational Behavior : A Southeast Asian Perspective, Hong Kong : Longman Group, 1992, pp. 123-139.
51. Whitley, R., Business System in East Asia Firms, Markets, and Societies, London : Sage, 1992.
52. Wiener, Y., “Commitment in Organization : A Normative View,” Academy of Management Review.Vol. 7, No. 3, 1982, pp. 421-429.
53. Wofford, J. C. and Goodwin, Vicki L. “A Field Study of A Cognitive Approach to Understanding Transformational and Transformational Leadership,” Leadership Quarterly, Spring 1998, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 55-67.
54. Yang, L. S., “The Concept of ‘Pao’ as A Basis for Social Relations in China,” In J. K. Fairbank(ed.), Chinese Thought and Institutions, Chicago, IL University of Chicago Press, 1957, pp. 291-309.
55. Yukl, G. A., Leadership in Organizations,(4th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, N.J. prentice-hall, 1998.
56. Zenger, T. R. and Lawrence, B. S., “Organizational Demography : The Differential Effects of Age Tenure Distributions on Technical Communication,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, 1989, pp. 353-376.
57. Zucker, L. G., “Production of Trust : Institutional Sources of Economic Structure”. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.8, 1986, pp. 53-111.
58. Steven L. McShane, Mary Ann Van Glinow, Organizational Behavior, McGrow-Hill Inc., 2003.
59. Irwin M. Rubin, Organizational Behavior : An Experiential Approach, (7th ed.), N. J., Prentice-Hall Inc., 2004.
60. Jennifer M. Gearge, Goureth R. Jones, Organizational Behavior, N. J., Pearson Prentice-Hall. Inc., 2002.
二、中文部份
1. 方明標,「領導風格、工作特性與工作滿足、組織承諾關係之研究-以中國大陸外資企業為例」,大葉大學工業關係學系碩士論文,民國91年。
2. 白立範,「組織變革知覺與國際化知覺對組織公民行為之研究-以後備司令部軍官為例」,大葉大學國際企業管理學系碩士論文,民91。
3. 吳明隆,SPSS統計應用學習實務:問卷分析與應用統計,台北,知城數位科技公司,民92。
4. 吳容輝,「高階領導者更迭下員工認知及領導型態與組織承諾士氣關聯性之研究」,中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民91。
5. 吳惠民,空軍領導統御之理念,台北,國防部空軍總司令部,民92。(原著:Richard I. Lester, Concepts for Air Force Leadership, 美國空軍大學, 1997.)
6. 李兆香,「醫院組織文化、 領導行為與組織公民行為關之研究」,中山大學人力資源研究所碩士論文,民91。
7. 李青芬、李雅婷、趙慕芬譯,組織行為學,台北,華泰文化事業公司,民91。
8. 李建慧,「工作生活品質與組織承諾、組織公民行為關聯性之研究-以國產建設實業股份有限公司為例」,中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民91。
9. 李團益,「領導行為對工作信心相關研究」,文化大學勞工研究所碩士論文,民91。
10. 李懷德,巴頓將軍論領導,台北,麥田出版,民90。(原著:Alan Axelrod, Patton on Leadership: Strategic Lessons for Corporate Warfare, Prentice Hall Direct, 1999.)
11. 周宗德,「組織文化、領導型態、員工工作態度關係之研究─以台灣電力公司為例」,中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民91。
12. 周素玲,新好管理者:現代管理者的必備智慧,台北,實學社,民85。
13. 林光明,「領導風格對組織承諾及組織公民行為影響之研究─以桃園縣政府為例」,銘傳大學公共管理與社區發展研究所碩士論文,民91。
14. 林冠宏,「轉換型領導、組織認同、組織溝通對領導效能之研究─以台南縣政府組織變革為例」,中正大學企業研究所碩士論文,民91。
15. 林淑姬,「薪酬公平、程序公平與組織承諾、組織公民行為關係之研究」,國立政治大學企業管理研究所博士論文,民80。
16. 林楊程,「領導型態、工作滿足與學習型組織之關聯性研究─以電子報為例」,銘傳大學傳播管理研究所碩士論文,民90。
17. 邱勝林,「轉型式、家長式領導模式與效能之比較:以退輔會所屬機構人員為例」,國立中央大學人力管理研究所碩士論文,民89。
18. 姜定宇、鄭伯壎,「組織忠誠、組織承諾及組織公民行為」,組織行為研究在台灣:三十年回顧與展望第二篇第四章,鄭俾壎、姜定宇、鄭弘岳主編,台北,桂冠圖書公司,民92,頁115-152。
19. 凌文輇,「中國文化與華人組織領導」,本土心理學研究第十三期,楊國樞主編,台北,本土心理學研究室,民89,頁195-202。
20. 凌孝綦,「軍事組織中階主官的領導與效能:轉型式、交易式與家長式領導模式之比較」,國防管理學院資源管理研究所碩士論文,民90。
21. 凌孝綦,「軍事領導:轉換式、交換式及家長式領導模式之比較」,國防管理學院2000年科技與管理學術研討會論文集,民89,頁451-461。
22. 高一中,卓超領導:戰爭期間軍人與政治家的領導係,台北,國防部史政編譯室,民92。(原著:Eliot A. Cohen, Supreme Command : Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime, The Free Press, 2002.)
23. 涂政源,「主管的領導風格、情緒能力與員工對上司承諾關係之研究」,國立中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民92。
24. 國防管理學第二篇第五章「行為科學」,台北,中華民國國防部編,民75,頁2-35-2-53。
25. 張紹勳,人力資源管理-領導與管理學觀點,台中,滄海書局,民91。
26. 張德偉,「家長式與轉換式領導風格在軍事單位的比較研究」,中山大學人力資源研究所碩士論文,民90。
27. 張鴻友,「領導風格、勞資協商與工作滿足關係之研究」,中正大學勞工研究所碩士論文,民92。
28. 張巍勳,「組織承諾與知識蘊蓄能力對技術移轉績效影響之研究」,東海大學企業管理學系碩論文,民91。
29. 梁覺、梁向芬、路琳,「因地制宜:家長式領導的演化」,本土心理學研究第十三期,楊國樞主編,台北,本土心理學研究室,民89,頁203-217。
30. 郭建志,「組織文化」,組織行為研究在台灣:三十年回顧與展望第四篇第十二章,鄭伯壎、姜定宇、鄭弘岳主編,台北,桂冠圖書公司,民92,頁361-391。
31. 陳東坡,「軍事倫理之規範與困境」,政治作戰學校政治研究所博士論文,民91。
32. 章光明、陳佳德、黃啟賓、李松樵,「海巡工作與民眾互動情形之研究」,行政院海岸巡防署委託研究報告,民91。
33. 彭恆忠、莫大華,培養各階層領導者的藝術與策略,台北,國防部史政編譯局,民88。(原著:Patrick L. Townsend and Joan E. Gebhardt, Five-Star Leadership: The Art and Strategy of Creating Leaders at Every Level, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ,1997.)
34. 黃秉德,「華人傳統價值與組織行為之關係─以台灣資訊電子業研發人員為例」本土心理學研究第十四期,楊國樞主編,台北,本土心理學研究室,民89,頁115-153。
35. 黃俊英,企業研究方法,台北,東華書局,民88。
36. 黃敏萍,「組織領導」,組織行為研究在台灣:三十年回顧與展望第三篇第七章,鄭俾壎、姜定宇、鄭弘岳主編,台北,桂冠圖書公司,民92,頁227-252。
37. 楊相中,「國防科技研發機構家長式領導與部門績效之研究」,靜宜大學企業管理學系碩士論文,民91。
38. 楊國樞、鄭伯壎,「傳統價值觀、個人現代性及組織行為:後家長的一項微觀驗證」,中央研究院民學研究所集刊,64期,民89,頁76-102。
39. 廖文志,「研發主管的人格特質、領導風格與研發團隊效能關係之研究」,國立台灣科技大學碩士論文,民91。
40. 劉信寬,「組織承諾、國際化知覺、個人特徵對組織變革態度之研究」,大葉大學國際企業管理研究所碩士論文,民92。
41. 樊景立、鄭伯壎,「華人組織的家長式領導:一項文化觀點的分析」,本土心理學研究第十三期,楊國樞主編,台北,本土心理學研究室,民89,頁127-180。
42. 潘江河,「軍官人格特質、組織文化、工作壓力與因應策略之研究」,大葉大學工業關係研究所碩士論文,民92。
43. 鄭伯壎,家族主義與領導行為,台北,遠流出版公司,民77。
44. 鄭伯壎,差序格局與華人組織行為,本土心理學研究第三期,楊國樞主編,台北,本土心理學研究室,民84,頁142-219。
45. 鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立,「家長式領導:三元模式的建構與測量」,本土心理學研究第十四期,楊國樞主編,台北,本土心理學研究室,民89, 頁3-64。
46. 鄭勝文,「空軍飛機修護基屬主管領導型態與領導效能關係之研究」,中正大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民92。
47. 盧俊榮,「公務機關員工之薪資制度、福利制度與升遷制度之知覺與其工作態度關聯性之研究-以中山科學研究院為例」,中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民91。
48. 薛亞敏,「非營利組織員工之組織文化及領導型態認知與其工作態度關聯性之研究─以財團法人製藥工業技術發中心為例」,中原大學企業管理學系碩士論文,民92。
49. 謝廷豪,「領導型態與領導效能關係之研究─以中部某連鎖零售業為例」,中正大學企業研究所碩士論文,民90。
50. 簡嘉誠,「領導風格型態、創造力人格特質搭配對組織承諾與創新績效影響之研究」,中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民89。
51. 藍偉峯,「領導風格、組織文化、工作滿足與離職傾向之關係研究─以技職院校教師為研究對象」,成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文,民91。
52. 簡明輝,組織行為,台北,新文京開發出版公司,民92。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔