臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討不當督導、上下級關係及非志願性公民行為之關係，並探究上下級關係在不當督導與非志願性公民行為之間是否具有中介效果以及權力距離、組織政治知覺在不當督導與非志願性公民行為、上下級關係與非志願性公民行為之間是否具有調節效果。
本研究採用問卷調查法，以全國507所高中職教師為樣本母群體，採分層隨機抽樣，抽出600位受試者邀請填寫網路問卷，回收有效問卷375份，所得資料分別以描述性統計、t考驗、單因子變異數分析及迴歸分析等統計方法進行資料的分析與處理，以瞭解高中職教師知覺校長不當督導與上下級關係、非志願性公民行為之現況、差異情形及上下級關係、權力距離、組織政治知覺的中介、調節效果，研究結論如下：
一、高中職教師對校長不當督導之知覺現況屬低度。
二、高中職教師上下級關係之表現程度屬中低程度。
三、高中職教師非志願性公民行為之表現程度屬中低程度。
四、學校規模等背景變項在不當督導有顯著差異，24班以下高於50班以上。
五、性別、年齡、職務及學校公私立屬性等背景變項在上下級關係上有顯著差異，男性、兼任主任的教師情感型關係顯著較高；男性、35歲以下、私立學校教師的工具型關係顯著較高。
六、本校服務年資、職務在非志願性公民行為有顯著差異，組長高於專任、服務年資6-15年高於5年以下。此外，服務總年資、學歷等二個背景變項在不當督導、上下級關係、非志願性公民行為上皆無顯著差異。
七、上下級關係在不當督導與非志願性公民行為間有部分中介效果。
八、權力距離在「不當督導」、「工具型關係」與非志願性公民行為間具有調節效果。
九、組織政治知覺只在工具型關係與非志願性公民行為間具有調節效果。
最後依據研究結果與結論，提出具體建議，以作為高中職校長以及未來研究的參考。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship among principal’s Abusive Supervision (AS) and Supervisor-Subordinate GuanXi (SSG) and Compulsory Citizenship Behavior (CCB) of senior high school teachers. Furthermore, the mediating effect of SSG between AS and CCB is analyzed, And the moderating effects of Power Distance (PD) and Organizational Politics (OP) between AS and CCB, between SSG and CCB are explored in the study.
A survey research was conducted using a sample of senior high school teachers in Taiwan, excluding the complete schools. 600 teachers from 570 schools were selected by stratified random sampling. 375 valid sample data collected was analyzed and processed with the methods of descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA, multiple-regression analysis. Based on 6-point Likert Scale, the major findings of this study are as follows:
1. Teachers’ perception of principal’s abusive supervision is below average.
2. Teachers’ perception of Supervisor-Subordinate GuanXi is below average.
3. Teachers’ Compulsory Citizenship Behavior is below average.
4. One demographic variable, school size, show significant differences in AS. Teachers who work at schools with less than 24 classes show higher perceptions of AS.
5. Four demographic variables, including gender, age, position, school type, show significant differences in SSG. Teachers who are male, younger than 35, work as the director of the department, or work in private schools show higher perceptions of SSG, especially instrumental ties.
6. Two demographic variables, tenure at the present school and position, show significant differences in CCB. Teachers whose tenure at the present school is longer, who work as the chief, show higher perceptions of CCB. Furthermore, two demographic variables, tenure and education, show no significant differences in AS, SSG and CCB.
7. AS is positively related to SSG and CCB. In addition, AS has a positive direct effect on CCB, SSG has a positive direct effect on CCB. AS has a positive direct effect on SSG. SSG does have mediating effects between AS and CCB.
8. Power Distance has moderating effects between AS and CCB, between SSG and CCB.
9. Organizational Politics has moderating effects only between SSG and CCB.
Based on the results of the research, suggestions for principals and future related study are proposed.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 待答問題 7
第三節 名詞釋義 8
第四節 研究範圍與限制 10
第二章 文獻探討 13
第一節 不當督導意涵及相關研究 13
第二節 非志願性公民行為意涵及相關研究 19
第三節 上下級關係的意涵及相關研究 22
第四節 權力距離的意涵及相關研究 29
第五節 組織政治知覺的意涵及相關研究 33
第三章 研究設計與實施 37
第一節 研究架構與變項 37
第二節 研究假設 39
第三節 研究對象 43
第四節 研究方法與工具 47
第五節 資料處理與分析 75
第六節 研究程序 78
第四章 研究結果分析與討論 81
第一節 各變項之現況分析 81
第二節 不同背景變項之差異分析 86
第三節 各變項之相關分析 101
第四節 上下級關係之中介效果驗證 103
第五節 權力距離與組織政治知覺之調節效果驗證 112
第五章 結論與建議 119
第一節 研究發現與討論 120
第二節 結論 129
第三節 建議 132
參考文獻 138
附錄一學校組織行為問卷【預試問卷】 147
附錄二學校組織行為問卷【正式問卷】 150

壹、中文部份
王文科、王智弘（2007）。教育研究法。臺北市：五南。
余民寧（2008）。心理與教育統計學。臺北市：三民。
吳宗祐（2008）。由不當督導到情緒耗竭：部屬正義知覺與情緒勞動的中介效果。中華心理學刊，50(2)，201-221。
吳政達、湯家偉、羅清水（2007）。心理契約、組織公平、組織信任與非志願性公民行為結構關係之驗證：以臺北地區國民中學學校組織為例。教育政策論壇，10(1)，133-159。
李德治、童惠玲（2009）。多變量分析：專題及論文常用的統計方法。臺北市：雙葉書廊。
林曉芳（2008）。統計學-SPSS之應用。臺北市：鼎茂。
胡昌亞、鄭瑩妮（2014）。不當督導研究回顧與前瞻。中華心理學刊，56(2)，191- 214。
徐宗盛（2010）。校長真誠領導與教師組織承諾、組織公民行為關係之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立政治大學，臺北。
徐宗盛、吳政達（2016）。不當督導與工作滿意度的關係：組織公平與政治知覺的中介調節效果分析。教育與心理研究，39（4），1-27。DOI 10.3966/102498852016123904001
秦夢群（2010）。教育領導理論與應用。臺北市：五南。
張偉豪（2011）。SEM 論文不求人。高雄市：三星統計。
教育部統計處（2017）。高級中等學校校別資料(不含進修學校)，取自http://depart.moe.edu.tw
彭台光、高月慈、林鉦棽（2006）。管理研究中的共同方法變異：問題本質、影響、測試和補救。管理學報，23(1)，77-98。
黃光國（2001）。儒家關係主義的理論建構及其方法論基礎。教育與社會研究，2，1-34。
黃光國（2003）。中國人的權力遊戲。臺北市：巨流。
黃光國（2009）。儒家關係主義-哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究。臺北市：心理。
楊中芳（2001）。中國人的人際關係、情感與信任。臺北市：遠流。
楊國樞（2005）。本土化心理學的意義與發展。載於楊國樞、黃光國與楊中芳（主編）， 華人本土心理學(上)（頁 4）。臺北市：遠流。
蔡松純、鄭伯壎、周麗芳（2015）。領導者與部屬上下關係認定之理論模式建構。中華心理學刊，57(2)，121-144。doi:10.6129/CJP.20140924
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爲：權力距離之調節效果。中華心理學刊，51(1)，121-138。doi:10.6129/CJP.2009.5101.07
蔡舒如（2015）。探討國小教師之不當督導、教師專業發展與工作滿意之研究-以逆境商數為干擾效果（碩士論文）。取自臺灣博碩士論文系統http://hdl.handle.net/11296/ndltd/85626152266992738969。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立（2000）。家長式領導量表：三元模式的建構與測量。本土心理學研究，14，3-64。

貳、西文部份
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191-201.
Aryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. (2008). Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review, 4, 393-411.
Ashforth, B. E., & Lee, R. T., 1997. Burnout as a process: Commentary on Cordes, Dougherty and Blum. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 703-708.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in Social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., & Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692-711.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542-559.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14(2), 229-246.
Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates’ responses to abusive supervision. Work and Stress, 25, 309-320.
Chen, Y., Friedman, R., Yu, E., Fang, W. & Lu, X. (2009), Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi: Developing a Three-Dimensional Model and Scale. Management and Organization Review, 5, 375–399. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00153.x
Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 226–238.
Chiu, C., & Yang C. F. (1987). Chinese subjects’ dilemmas: Humility and cognitive laziness as problems in using rating scales. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society, 18, 39-50.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26(1), 5-30.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127-150.
Drory, A. & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A review. Human Relations, 43(11), 1133-1154. doi: 10.1177/001872679004301106
Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of the perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715-729.
Farmer, S. M., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Accounting for subordinate perceptions of supervisor power: An identity-dependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1069-1083.
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18(1), 93-116.
Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues, Volume 1: The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179-254). Oxford: UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.
Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfield (Eds.). Impression management in the organization, 143-170. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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(1), 109-131.
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship conflict. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 1010-1023.
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., Harris, R. B., & Cast, M. (2013). An investigation of abusive supervision, vicarious abusive supervision, and their joint impacts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(1), 38-50.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252-263.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1995). Selfhood and identity in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism: Constructs with the west. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 25, 115-139.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1998). Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: An analysis based on methodological relationalism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 1-16.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequence: International Differences in Work- related Values. CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations. CA: SAGE.
Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G.J. & Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software for the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York: NY.
Hon, A. H., & Lu, L. (2016). When will the trickle-down effect of abusive supervision be alleviated? The moderating roles of power distance and traditional cultures. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 57(4), 421-433.
Hornstein, H. A. (1996), Brutal bosses and their prey, New York: Riverhead Books
Hu, C., Wu, T. Y., & Wang, Y. H. (2011). Measurement equivalence/invariance of the abusive supervision measure across workers from Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Psychology, 145, 111-131.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23, 627-658.
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale(POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 193-205.
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Politics at work: Sharpening the focus of political behavior in organizations. Business Horizons, 36, 70-74.
Kernan, M. C., Watson, S., Fang Chen, F., & Gyu, K. T. (2011). How cultural values affect the impact of abusive supervision on worker attitudes. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(4), 464-484.
Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of power distance orientation in organizations. Vision, 13(1), 1-9
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744-764.
Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. (1999). Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 594-601.
Law, K.S., Wong, C., Wang, D., & Wang, L. (2000). Effect of supervisor subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 4, 751-765.
Lian, H., Lance Ferris, D., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 41-52.
Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2012). Abusive supervision and employee well‐being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology, 62(2), 308-329.
Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Wu, L., & Wu, W. (2010). Abusive supervision and subordinate supervisor-directed deviance: The moderating role of traditional values and the mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 835-856.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1187-1212.
Liu, X.Y. & Wang, J. (2013). Abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour: Is supervisor-subordinate guanxi a mediator? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1471-1489.
Loh, J., Restubog, S. & Zagenczyk, T.J. (2010). Consequences of workplace bullying on employee identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(2), 36-52.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 120-137.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’ attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 751-764.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432.
Ng, S. B. C., Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2012). Abusive supervision in Chinese work settings. In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research and practice (pp. 164-183). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Ofshe, R.J., & Singer, M.T. (1986). Attacks on peripheral versus central elements of self and the impact of thought reforming techniques. Cultic Studies Journal, 3, 3-24.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 48(4), 775-802.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good solider syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexing Books.
Peters, L.H., O'Connor, E.J., & Wise, S.L. (1984). The specification and testing of useful moderator variable hypotheses. In T.S. Bateman and G.R. Ferris (Eds.), Method and analysis in organizational research (pp.128-139). Reston, Virginia: Reston Publishing Company.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3), 513-563.
Priesemuth, M. (2013). Stand up and speak out: Employee’s prosocial reaction to observed abusive supervision. Business & Society, 52, 649-665.
Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Folger, R. (2014). Abusive supervision climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1513-1534.
Qian, J., Song, B., & Wang, B. (2017). Abusive supervision and job dissatisfaction: The moderating effects of feedback avoidance and critical thinking. Front Psychol, 496. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00496
Ralston, D. A., (1985). Employee ingratiation: The role of management. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 477-487.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schein, E. H. (1991). Organizational culture and leadership. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., Kelley, K., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Understanding cycles of abuse: A multimotive approach. Journal of applied psychology, 100(6), 1798.
Somech, A., & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools: The impact of individual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 38-66.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees' workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156–167.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Breaux-Soignet, D. M. (2012). Abusive supervision as political activity: Distinguishing impulsive and strategic expressions of downward hostility. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway (Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations (pp. 191-212). New York: Routledge.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974–983.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101-123.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. (2004). Moderators of the relationships between coworkers' organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees' attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455−465.
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721–732.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 279-294. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263085
Tsui, A. S., S. Nifadkar, & Y. Ou. (2007). Cross-national cross- cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33, 426-78.
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2000). Internal politics in public administration systems: An empirical examination of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior and in-role performances. Public Personnel Management, 29(2) 185-210.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior in organizations: theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 36(1),77-93.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 377-405.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Kapun, D. (2005). Perceptions of politics and performance in public and private organizations: A test of one model across two sectors. Policy and Politics, 33, 251-276.
Vogel, R.M., Mitchell, M.S., Tepper, B.J., Restubog, S.L., Hu, C., Hua, W. & Huang, J.C. (2014), A cross-cultural examination of subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 720-745.
Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Holmes, O. (2014). Abusive supervision and feedback avoidance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 38-53.
Witt, L. A., Andrews, C. A., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). The role of participation in decision–making in the organizational politics- job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 53 (3), 341-358.
Wu, L., Liu, J., & Liu, G. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee performance: Mechanisms of traditionality and trust. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(6), 510-518.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 531-543.
Yg, C.A.B.O., & Huo, Y.P. (1993). Conceptions of employee responsibilities and rights in the United States and the People Republic of China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(1), 85-111.
Yildiz, H., & Yildiz, B. (2016). The effects of ethical leadership, servant leadership and leader-member exchange on compulsory citizenship behaviors. International Business Research, 9(2), 19.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068-1076.
Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., & Wu, L. Z. (2014). High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1151-1174.
Zhao, H., Peng, Z., & Chen, H. (2014). Compulsory citizenship behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of organizational identification and perceived interactional justice. Journal of Psychology, 148(2), 177-196. doi:10.1080/00223980.2013.768591
Zhao, H., Peng, Z., Han, Y., Sheard, G., & Hudson, A. (2013). Psychological mechanism linking abusive supervision and compulsory citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation study. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 147, 177-195.
Zhou, J., & Ferris, G. R. (1995). The dimensions and consequences of organizational politics: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(19), 1747-1764.