跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.38.248) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/11/30 22:27
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:賴培倫
研究生(外文):LAI,PEI-LUN
論文名稱:上司與部屬交換關係與角色期望差異性對假性出席之影響-以中部消防局外勤人員為例
論文名稱(外文):The Influences of Leader-Member Exchange and Difference of Role Expectation on Presenteeism: A Case of Field Firefighters
指導教授:張曼玲張曼玲引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chang,Man-Ling
口試委員:張曼玲林宜欣李家瑩
口試委員(外文):Chang, Man-LingLin, Yi-HsinLI, CHIA-YING
口試日期:2017-07-12
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:亞洲大學
系所名稱:休閒與遊憩管理學系碩士在職專班
學門:民生學門
學類:觀光休閒學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:42
中文關鍵詞:上司部屬交換關係角色期望差異性假性出席
外文關鍵詞:Leader-member exchangerole expectationpresenteeism
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:197
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:41
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
本研究旨在探討上司與部屬交換關係 (Leader-Member Exchange, LMX)、角色期望差異性對於假性出席的影響,得以探究如何降低假性出席之狀況,進而降低因假性出席而造成之工作態度低落及員工心理不健康情形。本研究以中部地區40個消防分隊進行抽樣,每分隊各邀請五位消防人員及一位主管為施測對象,共計回收40份主管問卷,199份部屬問卷。本研究採用模糊集合質性比較分析(fs/QCA)方法來確認造成低度假性出席之LMX及角色期望之條件組合,結果顯示LMX的情感、貢獻度、專業尊重等構面為造成部屬較低假性出席的充分條件之一,其中,僅忠誠無法成為低的假性出席的充份條件;角色期望差異性為造成部屬較低假性出席的充分條件之一,另工作表現角色期望差異性亦可單獨造成部屬低假性出席,本研究期望帶給消防局激勵人材、教育訓練及制度研擬之建議參考。
This study attempts to explore the influences of leader-member exchange (LMX) and role expectation difference on presenteeism. By doing so, we can learn how to lower employee likelihood of being presenteeism, which further reduces employees’ depressed working attitude and psychological issues. This study drew sample from 40 fire service units in the middle zone of Taiwan. Five firefighters and their immediate supervisor were invited to participate in the survey. Total sample includes 40 supervisor questionnaires and 199 subordinate questionnaires. This study employs fuzzy-set quantitative comparative analysis (fs/QCA) to confirm the causal configurations of LMX and role expectation leading to low presenteeism. The findings indicate that LMX’s affect, contribution, and professional respect dimensions, rather than loyalty, are one of sufficient conditions leading to low presenteeism. Role expectation congruence is also one of sufficient conditions leading to low presenteeism. Moreover, performance type of role expectation difference can solely cause employees to have lower levels of presenteeism. This study expects to provide suggestions relevant to motivating and training employees as well as establishing regulations for fire department.
第一章 緒論......................................................................1
第一節 研究背景與動機.............................................................1
第二節 研究目的...................................................................2
第二章 文獻探討...................................................................3
第一節上司與部屬關係之理論.........................................................3
第二節 角色期望...................................................................6
第三節 假性出席...................................................................8
第四節 假設推導..................................................................10
第三章 研究方法..................................................................11
第一節 研究目的..................................................................12
第二節 問卷設計..................................................................13
第三節 抽樣設計..................................................................15
第四節 統計資料方法..............................................................16
第四章 研究結果分析及討論.........................................................17
第一節 樣本特性之敘述性統計分析....................................................17
第二節 變數描述性統計............................................................19
第三節 因素分析..................................................................22
第四節 變數的敘述性統計及相關分析..................................................24
第五節 fs/QCA分析結果............................................................27
第五章 結論與建議…..............................................................29
第一節 研究結果與討論............................................................29
第二節 理論及實務意涵............................................................30
第三節 研究限制與未來研究方向.....................................................31
參考文獻........................................................................32
附錄...........................................................................39
圖表目錄
圖 3-1 研究架構圖.........................................11
表 4-1 樣本基本資料.......................................18
表 4-2 描述性統計.........................................20
表 4-3 因素分析..........................................23
表 4-4 變數的敘述性統計及相關分析表..........................25
表 4-5 變數轉換表.........................................26
表 4-6 fs/QCA分析結果...................................28

王淑貞(1999)。新進人員角色期望對其工作行為之影響--並檢驗「與主管關係」及「與同事關係」之干擾效果。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所,未出版,桃園市。
司徒達賢,1999,非營利組織的經營管理,台北:天下遠見。
何信輝(2016)。探討領隊、導遊勉強出勤、工作價值觀與工作滿意度之關聯性研究。中國文化大學觀光事業學系觀光休閒事業管理碩士在職專班,未出版,臺北市。
阮志偉(2015)國小組長兼任行政動機、主管部屬交換關係、工作滿意與辭卸意圖關係研究。未出版,國立嘉義大學教育學系研究所,嘉義市。
林行宜 (1993)。企業高階主管之親信關係暨親信角色之研究。國立臺灣大學商學研究所碩士論文。未出版,台北市。
林婉渝(2016)。領導者與成員交換關係對角色績效的影響:組織公平的效果。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所,未出版,高雄市。
林惠彥、陸洛 (2013)。鞠躬盡瘁?勉強出勤之跨文化理論模式建構。人力資源管理學報,13 (3), 29-55。
林勤芳(2016)。勉強出勤與工作滿意及情緒耗竭之關聯—以主管支持與職場友誼為調節變項,國立臺灣大學商學研究所,未出版,臺北市。
張文馨(2014)。微型文創品牌風格構成與創新模式探討。國立臺灣科技大學設計研究所,未出版,臺北市。
張曉春(1984)。社會學概要。臺北:三民。
張錫鏞 (2004)。國民小學總務主任角色期望與角色踐行之研究-以臺北縣市為例。臺北市立教育大學,未出版,臺北市。
陳同揚 (2006),「領導—成員交換理論研究探析」,江海學刊,第2期,頁222-226。
陳奎熹(2002)。教育社會學研究。台北市:師大書苑。
陳琮文、劉峯銘、許雅晴、黃建皓(2016)。消防機關領導風格對組織承諾影響之研究─以領導成員交換關係 (LMX)為中介變項。全國商業經營管理學報,8,149-159。
陳筱蕾(2010)。增進職場之身心靈健康。國家衛生研究院電子報,386。民國101年12月30日,取自:http://enews.nhri.org.tw/enews_list_new2_more.php?volume_indx=386&showx=showarticle&article_indx=8217
彭堅、王霄(2016)。與上司“心有靈犀”會讓你的工作更出色嗎?—追隨原型一致性、工作投入與工作績效。心理學報,48(9), 1151-1162。
黃姿瑋(2013)。 職場員工疲勞、病假、離職與假性出席之相關性研究。國立臺灣大學職業醫學與工業衛生研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
黃建達(2000)。主管與部屬人際交換關係之決定要素及其對部屬工作態度影響之研究。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所,未出版,桃園市。
黃國隆 (1986):中學教師的組織承諾與專業承諾。政治大學學報,53期,55-84。
葉錦瑩(2012)。中小企業聚落之「全方位職業安全衛生促進」試辦計畫。勞工保險局補助職業災害預防計畫期末報告(序號1),未出版。
臧文倩(2015)。組織支持與組織認同對員工工作滿意度及假性出席關係之探討,國立中央大學企業管理學系在職專班碩士論文,未出版,桃園市。
蔡啟通,2006。領導者部屬交換與員工創新行為:組織正義之中介效果及組織特性之干擾效果,管理學報,第二十三卷第二期,頁171-193。
謝瑞雅(2012)。組織公平、領導-成員交換關係對工作投入之影響-以營造業為例。真理大學企業管理學系碩士班,未出版,新北市。
蘇容萱(2005)。國營事業民營化後人力資源發展人員角色與職責之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育學系,未出版,臺北市。
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1961). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study.Psychological Monographs , 47(211).
Ansari, M. A., Lee, B. B., & Aafaqi, R. (2007). LMX and work Outcomes: The mediating role delegation in Malaysian business context. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.
Asgari A., Silong A. D., Ahmad A., & Samah, B. A. (2008). The relationship between leader-member exchange, organizational inflexibility, perceived organizational support, interactional justice and organizational citizenship behavior. African Journal of Business Management, 2 (8), 138-145.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 177-199.
Biesanz, J. B., & Biesanz, M. (1973). Introduction to sociology (2nd ed.).Englewood Cliff, N. Y.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Lift. New York:John Wilwy & Sons.
Caverley, N., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2007). Sickness presenteeism, sickness absenteeism, and health following restructuring in a public service organization. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), 304-319.
Cooper, C.( 1996). Hot under the collar. Times Higher Education Supplement, 21.
Coyle, P. T., & Foti, R. (2015). If you’re not with me you’re...? Examining prototypes and cooperation in leader–followerrelationships. Journal of Leadership & OrganizationalStudies, 22(2), 161–174.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B.,&Haga, W. (1975). Averticaldyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of management review, 11(3), 618-634.
Dressler, D., & Wills, W. M. (1976). Social: The study of human interaction (3nd ed.). New York: Knopf.
Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klick, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 499-521.
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56-60
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L. and Ferris, G. R.(2011). A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of Leader-Member Exchange: Integrating the Past with an Eye toward the Future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759.
Durkheim, E. (1893/2013). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Digireads.
Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophesy as a management tool: Harnessing pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 91, 64-73.
Erdogan, B., & Enders, J. (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors’ perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 321-330.
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 conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management, 35,1379-1403.
Fisk, G. M., & Friesen, J. P. (2012). Perceptions of leader' emotion regulation and LMX as predictors of followers' job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 1–12.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic Review of Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Correlates and Construct Issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
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.
Grinyer, A. & Singleton, V. (2000). Sickness absence as risk-taking behavior: A study of organizational and cultural factors in the public sector, Health, Risk & Society, (2), 7-21.
Gross, N., Mason, W.S, & McEachern, A. W. (1958), Exploratioos in role analysis Studies of the school superintendejcy role, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Harris, J.H., Harris, R.B., &Eplion, D.M.(2007). Personality, leader-member exchanges, and work outcomes.Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 8(2), 92-107.
Harris, J.H., Harris, R.B., &Eplion, D.M.(2007). Personality, leader-member exchanges, and work outcomes.Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 8(2), 92-107.
Harris, K. & Brouer, R. (2007). Dispositional and situational moderators of the relationship between leader-member exchange and work tension. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1418-1441.
Hemp, P. (2004). Presenteeism: At work-but out of it. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 49-58.
Hemp, P. Harvard Business Review, October, 2004
Hoy,W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (1982).Educational Administration. (2ed.).
Hsiung, H. H. & Tsai, W. C. (2009). Job definition discrepancy between supervisors and subordinates: The antecedent role of LMX and outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 89-112.
Janssens, H., Clays, E., De Clercq, B., De Bacquer, D., Casini, A., Kittel, F., & Braeckman, L. (2016). Association between psychosocial characteristics of work and presenteeism: a cross-sectional study. International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health, 29.
Johansen, V., Aronsson, G., & Marklund, S. (2014). Positive and negative reasons for sickness presenteeism in Norway and Sweden: A cross-sectional survey. BMJ open, 4(2), e004123.
Latack, J. C. (1981). Career role transition within organizations: A study of role stress and coping strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Libham, J., &; Hoeh, J. A. (1974). The principalship: Foundation and function. New York:Harper &; Row.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of Leader -Member Exchange:An Empirical Assessmemt Through Scale Development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J. & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of applied psychology, 78(4), 662-674.
Liden, R., & Graen, G. (1980).Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465.
Livingston, J. S. (1969). Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review, 47, 81-89
Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (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(6), 1686–1708.
McKevitt, C., Morgan, M., Dundas, D., & Holland, W.W. (1998). Sickness absence and working through illness: A comparison of two professional groups, Journal of Public Health Medicine, 19, 295-300.
Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American business managers. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 296-312.
Parsons, T. (1961). An outline of the social system. In Parsons, T. (Ed.), Theories of society-foundation of modern sociological theory (pp.41-43). New York Free Press.
Ragin, C. (2000a), Fuzzy-Set Social Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roe, R. (2003), Gezondheid en prestaties (Health and performance), in Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and De Jonge, J. (Eds), De Psychologie van Arbeid en Gezondheid (Psychology of Work and Health), Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum, Houten/Mechelen, pp. 375‐388.
Sarbin, T. R., & Allen, V. L. (1968). Allen: Role theory. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed p.490). Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
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, 579-585.
Schriesheim, C.A., & Gardiner, C.C. (1992). An exploration of the discriminant validity of the leader-member exchange scale (LMX 7) commonly used in organizational research. Paper presented at the Southern Management Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Secord, P. F., & Backman, C. W. (1974). Social psychology. (2nd ed.). Tokyo:Mcgraw-Hill.
Snodgrass, S. E., Hecht, M. A., & Ploutz-Snyder, R. (1998). Interpersonal sensitivity: Expressivity or perceptivity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 238-249.
Tosi, H. L. (1966), “The Effects of Expectation Levels and Role Consensus on the Buyer-Seller Dyad.”The Journal of Business, 39, No.4, pp.516-529.
Vecchio, R. P., & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.
Vecchio, R. P., & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 5-20.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G., Graen, M., & Graen, M. (1988). Japanese management progress: Mobility into middle management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 217-227.
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.
Widera, E., Chang, A., & Chen, H. L. (2010). Presenteeism: A public health hazard. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(11), 1244-1247.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top