(3.227.235.183) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/18 09:55
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:吳慧倫
研究生(外文):Hui-Lun Wu
論文名稱:矛盾領導行為與部屬工作角色行為關聯性及其中介機制之探討
論文名稱(外文):Exploring the Correlation Between Paradoxical Leadership Behavior and Subordinates' Work Role Behaviors and Its Mediating Mechanisms
指導教授:林文政林文政引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wen-Jeng Lin
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中央大學
系所名稱:人力資源管理研究所在職專班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:其他商業及管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:英文
論文頁數:54
中文關鍵詞:矛盾領導行為矛盾思維經驗開放性模糊容忍度部屬熟練行為部屬適應行為部屬主動行為
外文關鍵詞:Paradoxical Leadership BehaviorParadox MindsetOpenness to ExperienceTolerance for AmbiguityProficient BehaviorAdaptive BehaviorProactive Behavior
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:125
  • 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:51
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
隨著組織環境全球化、動態性且步調快速,矛盾的概念越顯加增 (Smith & Lewis, 2011),領導者必須面對許多矛盾情境,故此,越來越多關於矛盾領導行為的研究產生。本研究延伸自Zhang, Waldman, Han, and Li (2015),針對矛盾領導行為與部屬工作角色行為之關聯性,並透過探討矛盾領導行為與部屬工作角色行為關聯性及其中介機制,以補足過去研究缺口。
本研究於台灣企業展開,透過兩階段的問卷發放,共收集669份主管與部屬有效配對問卷,並以結構方程式進行驗證。
研究結果顯示,矛盾思維及模糊容忍度對矛盾領導行為與部屬適應行為及部屬主動行為關聯性,具完全中介效果。
As the organizational environment becomes global, dynamic and fast-paced, the idea of a paradox is intensified (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Leaders must face many paradoxical situations. As a result, an increasing number of research studies on paradoxical leadership behavior has been addressed. This study aims to extend the research from Zhang, Waldman, Han, and Li (2015) on the relationship between paradoxical leadership behavior and work role performance of the subordinates and to fill in the research gap by exploring the mediating mechanisms between paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinates’ work role behaviors.
Through two-phase questionnaires distributed among Taiwan enterprises, 669 paired-up valid samples from leaders and subordinates were collected and tested via the structural equation model.
The results from this research revealed that paradox mindset and tolerance for ambiguity had complete meditated effect between paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinate’s adaptive behavior and proactive behavior.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝 iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1
1-1 Research Background 1
1-2 Research Objectives 2
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2-1 Theoretical Background 4
2-2 Paradoxical Leadership Behavior 5
2-3 Paradox Mindset 7
2-4 Openness to Experience 7
2-5 Tolerance for Ambiguity 8
2-6 Work Role Behaviors of Subordinates 8
2-7 Paradoxical Leadership Behavior and Paradox Mindset 10
2-8 Paradox Mindset and Openness to Experience 11
2-9 Paradox Mindset and Tolerance for Ambiguity 11
2-10 Openness to Experience and Work Role Behaviors 12
2-11 Tolerance for Ambiguity and Work Role Behaviors 13
CHAPTER III. METHODS 14
3-1 Research Design 14
3-2 Sample and Procedure 15
3-3 Measures 16
3-4 Analysis 19
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 20
4-1 Demographic Characteristics 20
4-2 Reliability Analysis 21
4-3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 22
4-4 Correlation Analysis 25
4-5 Hypotheses Testing 28
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION 33
5-1 Conclusion 33
5-2 Contributions 34
5-3 Implications 35
5-4 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research 36
REFERENCES 38
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2 ed.). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673-704. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00155-8
Aragón-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556-567. doi:10.5465/256942
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self‐esteem. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(1), 35-67. doi:10.1080/10705519409539961
Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 78-102. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0901_5
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bartunek, J. M. (1988). The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management (pp. 137–162). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29-50. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1962.tb02303.x
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543-562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015
Cattell, R. B., & Burdsal Jr, C. A. (1975). The radial parcel double factoring design: A solution to the item-vs-parcel controversy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10(2), 165-179. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr1002_3
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & E. Quinn, R. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524-540. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.5.524
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627-647. doi:10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18(1), 108-143. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01236.x
Fu, X. Y. (2018). A study of paradoxical leadership behavior affects work performance: The mediating and moderating effects of paradoxical followership behavior. (Master's), National Central University, Taoyuan.
Furnham, A. (1994). A content, correlational and factor analytic study of four tolerance of ambiguity questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(3), 403-410. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(94)90066-3
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24634438
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7 ed.). Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited.
Hannah, S. T., Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., Jennings, P. L., & Thatcher, R. W. (2013). The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 393-411. doi:10.1037/a0032257
Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). The tolerance for ambiguity scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 58-65. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.09.004
Hmel, B. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2002). The meaning of autonomy: On and beyond the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of Personality, 70(3), 277-310. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.05006
Howard, A. (Ed.) (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Employee performance in today’s organizations. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development (pp. 21–55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 233-244. doi:10.1177/1094428105285144
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 193-212.
Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2014). The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149-1179. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0837
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321-349. doi:10.1177/001872679204500402
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (1996). Distinguishing reactive versus reflective autonomy. Journal of Personality, 64(2), 465-494. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00518.x
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707712
LÜScher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.31767217
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323-337. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.323
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In Handbook of Personality Psychology. (pp. 825-847). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
McLain, D. L. (1993). The Mstat-I: A new measure of an individual's tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 183-189. doi:10.1177/0013164493053001020
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2017). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0594
Murphy, P. R., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing work-role performance: Challenges for 21st century organizations and employees. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development (pp. 325-365). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.
Olchi, W. G. (1978). The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 173-192. doi:10.5465/255753
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612
Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Hedge, J. W., & Borman, W. C. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human Performance, 15(4), 299-324. doi:10.1207/S15327043HUP1504_01
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Organizational behavior (17 ed.). England: Pearson Education Limited.
Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 18-38. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.18
Sims, H. P., & Szilagyi, A. D. (1976). Job characteristic relationships: individual and structural moderators. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17(2), 211-230. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90063-5
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0223
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference. Organization Studies, 14(1), 37-58. doi:10.1177/017084069301400104
Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 118-154. doi:10.1177/0049124187016001005
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y.-L., & Li, X.-B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566. doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0995
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