(3.235.139.152) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/11 05:21
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:彭錦靖
研究生(外文):Ching-Ching Peng
論文名稱:不當督導對部屬組織認同與離職傾向之影響
論文名稱(外文):Implication of Abusive Supervision on Employee Organizational Identification and Turnover Intention
指導教授:余坤東余坤東引用關係
指導教授(外文):Kung-Don Ye
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣海洋大學
系所名稱:航運管理學系
學門:運輸服務學門
學類:運輸管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:66
中文關鍵詞:主管不當督導組織認同離職傾向
外文關鍵詞:supervisor’s improper supervisionorganization recognitionresignation intention
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:10
  • 點閱點閱:295
  • 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:3
在組織管理中,領導行為會對組織效能帶來重大的影響。尤其是,主管對待員工的方式,會影響員工對於企業的情感、態度和行為。本研究旨在探討主管不當督導對於員工組織認同與離職傾向之影響,進而探討組織認同在不當督導與離職傾向間具有中介效果之關聯。
研究方法上,主要以大台北地區公務機關及中小企業各部門的管理職及業務職人員、一般職員工為對象,進行不當督導、組織認同與離職傾向間的關係影響,以瞭解變項間的關聯性研究;採問卷調查方式,總計回收有效樣本194份。
研究結果顯示:第一、不當督導與組織認同有顯著負向關係:亦即主管不當督導而產生職場暴力行為時,員工在組織的偏差行為會相對提高,對組織的認同度會相對遞減。第二、組織認同與離職傾向有顯著負向關係:員工對於組織認同強度愈高,離職傾向將會相對減少。第三、組織認同中介主管不當督導與離職傾向關係,換言之,主管不當督導不會直接影響員工離職傾向,但會透過降低組織認同,間接影響員工的離職傾向。
因此,本文最後建議:良好的企業管理,除了要引導主管發揮適當的督導功能外,同時要強化員工的組織認同,才能降低離職傾向,提升企業的營運目標。


關鍵字:主管不當督導、組織認同、離職傾向

In organizational management, leadership may crucially influence an organization’s efficiency. In particular, the way a supervisor treats his or her subordinates may affect those subordinates’ feelings, attitude and behavior towards the enterprise they work for. The purpose of this study is to explore the influence of a supervisor’s improper supervision on employees’ organization recognition and their resignation intention, as well as to investigate the correlation of the mediating effect of organization recognition between improper supervision and resignation intention.
This study mainly selected the management, business personnel and general employees of respective divisions in the government sector, as well as in small and medium enterprises in the greater Taipei area as subjects. This study investigated the influence of the relationships among improper supervision, organization recognition and resignation intention, in order to better understand the correlations between the variables. A questionnaire survey was conducted in this study, for which a total of 194 valid responses were received.
The study results indicated: 1. Improper supervision and organization recognition have a significant negative relationship: i.e., when a supervisor turns improper supervision into violence at work, employees may be more likely to exhibit deviant behavior, and their organization recognition will decrease relatively. 2. Organization recognition and resignation intention have a significant negative relationship: when employees have higher organization recognition, their resignation intention will be reduced relatively. 3. Organization recognition serves as a medium between a supervisor’s improper supervision and employees’ resignation intention; in other words, while a supervisor’s improper supervision does not directly influence employees’ resignation intention, by lowering their organization recognition, employees’ resignation intention will be indirectly affected.
With the aforesaid results, the study offers the following recommendation: Besides helping supervisors to give proper and efficient supervision, good corporate management should also reinforce employees’ organization recognition to lower their resignation intention and, subsequently, elevate corporate operating performance.

Keywords: supervisor’s improper supervision, organization recognition, resignation intention

目錄
謝辭 i
中文摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 vi
表目錄 ix
圖目錄 x
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景 1
1.1.1 主管部屬關係是企業重要的工作氣氛 1
1.1.2 塑造良好的主管部屬關係是主管的重要職責 1
1.1.3 不當督導影響人力資源的績效 1
1.1.4 霸凌問題仍普遍存在於職場中 2
1.2 研究動機 5
1.2.1 瞭解不當督導在組織場域的嚴重性 5
1.2.2 有助於瞭解負面組織行為 5
1.2.3 驗證組織認同與離職傾向之關聯 6
1.3 研究目的 6
1.4 研究流程 7
第二章 文獻探討 8
2.1 主管不當督導 8
2.1.1 不當督導的意涵 8
2.1.2 不當督導之相關研究 8
2.2 組織認同 10
2.2.1 組織認同之意涵 10
2.2.2 組織認同的相關研究 11
2.3 離職傾向 11
2.3.1 離職傾向之意涵 11
2.3.2 離職傾向的相關研究 13
第三章 研究方法 15
3.1 研究架構 15
3.2 研究假設 16
3.2.1 主管不當督導與組織認同之關係 16
3.2.2 組織認同與離職傾向之關係 16
3.2.3 組織認同的中介效果 17
3.3 研究變項之定義與衡量 17
3.3.1 不當督導 17
3.3.2 組織認同 19
3.3.3 離職傾向 21
3.4 控制變項 22
3.5 研究對象與抽樣方法 23
3.5.1 研究對象 23
3.5.2 抽樣方法 23
3.6 問卷設計與研究方法 24
3.6.1 問卷設計 24
3.6.2 研究方法 25
第四章 研究結果 27
4.1 樣本結構分析 27
4.2 研究假設驗證 29
4.2.1 不當督導行為與組織認同之關係驗證 30
4.2.2 組織認同與離職傾向之關係驗證 34
4.2.3 組織認同中介效果之關係驗證 35
第五章 結論與建議 40
5.1 研究結論 40
5.1.1 不當督導與組織認同影響因素之關係驗證 40
5.1.2 組織認同與離職傾向影響因素之關係驗證 40
5.1.3 組織認同之中介效果驗證 41
5.2 研究建議 41
5.2.1 管理實務之建議 41
5.2.2 對員工的建議 43
5.3 研究限制與後續研究建議 43
5.3.1 研究限制 43
5.3.2 後續研究建議 44
參考文獻 45
一、中文部分 45
二、英文部分 47
附錄 研究問卷 51

表目錄
表 3.1「不當督導」各構面與及其包含之題項 18
表 3.2「組織認同」各構面與及其包含之題項 20
表 3.3「離職傾向」各構面與及其包含之題項 22
表 3.4「研究變項及其衡量構面、題號與相關文獻」之彙總 23
表 3.5問卷發放與回收統計表 24
表 3.6研究變項及構面與Cronbach’s  值之彙總 26
表 4.1本研究樣本基本資料分析 28
表 4.2構面平均數、標準差、相關係數 30
表 4.3言語侵犯、人身誣蔑、創造敵對的工作環境對忠誠度之迴歸分析 31
表 4.4言語侵犯、人身誣蔑、創造敵對的工作環境對成員關係之迴歸分析 33
表 4.5言語侵犯、人身誣蔑、創造敵對的工作環境對相似性知覺之迴歸分析 34
表 4.6忠誠度、成員關係知覺、相似性知覺對離離傾向之迴歸分析 35
表 4.7主管之言行侵犯透過組織認同之中介,影響員工之離職傾向之迴歸分析 36
表 4.8主管之人身誣蔑透過組織認同之中介,影響員工之離職傾向之迴歸分析 37
表 4.9創造敵對工作環境透過組織認同之中介,影響員工之離職傾向之迴歸分析 38
表 4.10假設檢定結果總覽 39

圖目錄
圖 1.1職場霸凌行為 3
圖 1.2職場霸凌頻率 3
圖 1.3職場霸凌大魔王 4
圖 1.4職場霸凌處理方式 4
圖 1.5研究流程圖 7
圖 3.1研究架構 15


一、中文部分
1. 王傑明(2004),主管領導行為、工作特性、工作滿意度與離職傾向之關係研究-以高科技產業員工為例,國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
2. 王惠群(2010),同事霸凌與偏差行為關聯性研究:以職內工作嵌入為中介效果,國防大學資源管理及決策研究所碩士論文。
3. 朱建平(2003),組織成員的政治知覺對離職傾向之影響:工作滿足的中介效果,中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
4. 吳明榮(2007),SPSS統計應用實務,文魁資訊股份有限公司。
5. 吳榮彬譯(2006),商用統計學入門與應用,台北:美商麥格羅‧希爾國際股份有限公司台灣分公司。
6. 吳宗佑、徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎(2000)。〈怒不可遏或忍氣吞聲:華人企業主管威權領導與部屬憤怒反應〉。《本土心理學研究》,18:3-49。
7. 李崇漢(2009),企業內部行銷機制對離職傾向之影響:工作滿足中介效果之檢定,國立臺北商業技術學院商學研究所碩士論文。
8. 林孟蓉(2006),領導型態、激勵措施認知、工作滿意度與離職傾向之研究,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
9. 林育葦(2009),影響組織員工對組織忠誠度因素之研究-以台中縣轄下農會75為例,東海大學公共事務碩士學程在職進修專班碩士論文。
10. 邱皓政(2008),量化研究與統計分析-SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析,台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
11. 洪紹榮(2003),組織認同、領導風格與海外派遣員工工作投入關係之研究,大葉大學國際企業管理研究所博士論文。
12. 徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎(2002),「組織認同:理論與本質之初步探討分析」,中山管理評論,10(1):45-64。
13. 梁雙蓮(1984),中央行政機關公務員組織認同之研究,國立台灣大學政治所碩士論文。
14. 許士軍(1998),管理學,台北東華書局股份有限公司。
15. 陳志全(2008),職場暴力知覺與員工偏差行為的關聯性:員工傳統性的調節效果,國防大學管理學院運籌管理研究所碩士論文。
16. 陳其鋒(1994),警察認同之研究─以高雄市警察局屏東縣警察局為例,中央警官學校警政研究所碩士論文。
17. 陳福來(1990),台灣省鄉鎮市公所公務人員組織認同之研究,東海大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。
18. 黃英忠(1989),現代人力資源管理,台北:華泰書局。
19. 黃國隆(1986),「中學教師的組織承諾與專業承諾」,國立政治大學學報,53:55-84。
20. 劉莉蘭(1994),員工分紅入股滿意度、組織投注與離職意向關係之研究,國立中正大學勞工研究所碩士論文。
21. 劉秀慧(2010),「工作組織中的不當督導」,國立屏東科技大學企業管理系碩士在職專班碩士學位論文。
22. 樊景立(1978),紡織廠女作業員離職行為之研究,國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
23. 歐陽玲(1994),工作生活品質與臨床護理人員離職意願之研討,東海大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
24. 蔡依倫(2001),宗教醫院志工組織認同與組織承諾之研究--與非宗教醫院志工作比較,國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
25. 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,14:1-65。
26. 謝幸君(2008),主管工作壓力與員工偏差行為的關聯性:員工職場暴力知覺的中介效果,國防大學後勤管理研究所碩士論文。


二、英文部分
1. Ableson, M.A. (1986), “Strategic Management of Turnover: A Model for the Health Service Administrator,” Health Case Manage Review, 11(2), 61-71.
2. Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., and Debrah, Y. A. (2007), “Antecedents and Outcomes of Abusive Supervision: Test of a Trickle-down Model,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191-201.
3. Bamberger, P. A., and Bacharach, S. B. (2006), “Abusive Supervision and Subordinate Problem Drinking: Taking Resistance, Stress, and Subordinate Personality into Account,” Human Relations, 95, 1-30.
4. Bamberger, P. A., and Bacharach, S. B. (2006), “Abusive Supervision and Subordinate Problem Drinking: Taking Resistance, Stress, and Subordinate Personality Into Account,” Human Relation, 59(6), 723-756.
5. Bies, R.J. (2000), “Interactional (In)justice: The Sacred and the Profane,” In J. Greenberg, J. and Cropanzano, R. (Eds.), Advances in Organizational Justice, CA: Stanford University, 89-118.
6. Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., and Hjelt-Back, M. (1994), ”Aggression Among University Employees,” Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173-184.
7. Buchanan, B. (1974), “Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organization,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
8. Cheney, G. (1983), “On the Various and Changing Meaning of Organizational Membership: A Field Study of Organizational Identification,” Communication Monographs, 50, 342-362.
9. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., and Pagon, M. (2002), “Social Undermining in the Workplace,” Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.
10. Fox, S., and Spector, P.E. (2005), “The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work Behavior,” In Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. ( Eds.), Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, Washingtow, DC: American Psychological Association, 3-10.
11. George, J. M. (1989), “Mood and Absence,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317-324.
12. George, J. M., and Jones, G. R. (1997), “Experiencing Work: Values, Attitudes, and Moods,” Human Relations, 50, 393-416.
13. Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, NY: Bantam books
14. Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., and Boonthanum, R. (2005). “The Interrelationship between Abusive Supervision, Leader-member Exchange, and Various Outcomes,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles.
15. Herzberg, B.M (1959), The Motivation to Work, New York: John Wiley.
16. Hoobler, J., and Brass, D. (2006), “Abusive Supervision and Family Undermining as Displaced Aggression,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125-1133.
17. Keashly, L. (1998), “Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: Conceptual and Empirical Issues,” Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85-117.
18. Keashly, L., Trott, V., and MacLean, L. M. (1994), “Abusive Behavior in the Workplace: A Preliminary Investigation,” Violence and Victims, 9, 341-357.
19. Lucas, M.D., Atwood J.R., and Hagaman, R. (1993), “Replication and Validation of Anticipated Turnover Model for Urban Registered Nurses,” Nursing Research, 42(1), 29-35.
20. Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–23.
21. Mitchell, M. S., and Ambrose, M. L. (2007), “Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance and Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Bliefs,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159-1168.
22. Moberg, D. J. (1997). “On Employee Vice,” Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 41-60.
23. Mobley, W. H. (1977), “Intermediate Linkages in the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Employee Turnover,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (2), 237-240.
24. Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O., and Hollingsworth, A.T. (1978), “An Evaluation of Precursors of Hospital Employee Turnover,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (4), 408-414.
25. Mobley, W. H. Griffeth R. W., Hand, H. H. and Meglino, B.M. (1979), “Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process,” Psychological Bulletin, 86 (3), 493-522.
26. Morris, J. H. and Sherman, J. D. (1981), “Generalizability of an Organizational Commitment Model,” Academy of Management Journal, 24(3), 512-526.
27. Morrow, P. C. (1983), “Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of Work Commitment,” Academy of Management Review, 8, 486-500.
28. Patchen, M. (1970), Participation, Achievement, and Involvement on the Job, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
29. Podsakoff, P. M., and MacKenzie, S.B.(1997), “Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance : A Review and Suggestions for Future Research,” Human Performance, 10, 133-152.
30. Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., and Huber, V. L. (1984), “Situational Moderators of Leader Reward and Punishment Behaviors: Fact or Fiction?” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(1), 21-63.
31. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. and Boulian, P. V., (1974), “Organizational Commitment, Job-satisfaction, and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.
32. Price, J. L. (1977), The study of Turnover, Ames: Iowa State University Press.
33. Richard, F.G., Joseph M. L. and Billy, B. (2001), “Job Satisfaction, Life Satisfaction, and Turnover Intent: Among Food-service Managers,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 28-37.
34. Robinson, S. L. and Bennetts, R. J., (1995), “A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: Amultidimensional Scaling Study,” Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-573
35. Schat, A. C. H., Desmarais, S., and Kelloway, E. K. (2006), Exposure to Workplace Aggression from Multiple Sources: Validation of a Measure and Test of a Model, Unpublished manuscript, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
36. Scotter, J.R.(2000), “Relationships of Task Performance and Contextual Performance with Turnover, Job Satisfaction, and Affective Commitment,” Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 79–95.
37. Steers, R. M. (1977), “Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 46-56.
38. Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M. and Trice, H. M.(1978), “Assessing Personal, Role and Organizational Predictors of Managerial Commitment,” Academy of Management Journal, 21, 380-396.
39. Tepper, B. J. (2000), “Consequences of Abusive Supervision,” Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
40. Tepper, B. J., and Duffy, M. K. (2002), “Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068-1076.
41. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., and Shaw, J. D. (2001), “Personality Moderators of the Relationship between Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Resistance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974-983.
42. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., and Lambert, L. S. (2006), “Procedural Injustice, Victim Precipitation, and Abusive Supervision,” Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.
43. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J. M., and Ensley, M.D. (2004), “Moderators of the Relationships between Coworkers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Fellow Employees’ Attitudes,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (3), 455-465.
44. Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., and Giacalone, R.A.(2008), “Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Organization Deviance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 721-732.
45. Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job Satisfaction, Organization Commitment, Turnover Intention, and Turnover: Path Analyses Based on Meta-analytic Findings,” Personal psychology, 46(2), 259-291.
46. Van Fleet, D.D, and Van Fleet, E.W. (2007), “Preventing Workplace Violence: The Violence Volcano Metaphor,” Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 12, 17- 20.
47. Williams, L.J. and Hazer, J.T. (1972), “Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction and Commitment in Turnover Models: A Reanalysis Using Latent Variable Structural Equation Methods,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 219-231.
48. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., and Duffy, M. K. (2002), “Abusive Supervision and Subordinates' Organizational Citizenship Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068-1076.

連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
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