跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.9.171) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/12/10 14:01
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:許以萱
研究生(外文):Yi-Hsuan Hsu
論文名稱:雙向度威權領導的剖面模型:不同類型的效果比較
論文名稱(外文):The Profile Model of Authoritarian Leadership:The Effects of Different Types
指導教授:鄭伯壎鄭伯壎引用關係
指導教授(外文):Bor-Shiuan Cheng
口試委員:周婉茹林姿葶吳宗祐
口試委員(外文):Wan-Ju ChouZi-Ting LinTsung-yu Wu
口試日期:2021-01-07
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:心理學研究所
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:心理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2021
畢業學年度:109
語文別:中文
論文頁數:132
中文關鍵詞:專權領導尚嚴領導潛在剖面分析工作績效沈默行為
外文關鍵詞:dominance-focused and discipline-focused authoritarian leadershipLatent Profile Analysisjob performancesilence behavior
DOI:10.6342/NTU202100808
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:243
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
威權領導包含專權與尚嚴兩種成分,專權領導的核心為權謀性支配,主要在引發部屬的畏懼與服從反應;尚嚴領導則強調嚴明的紀律,目的是引發部屬敬業不懈的自我要求。兩者的概念內涵與運作機制截然不同,且相關偏低,顯示專權與尚嚴領導為獨立的分立概念。此外,真實生活中確實能夠發現不同類型的威權領導者,支持了「剖面模型」的觀點不僅符合學理,也與現象更為貼合。因此,研究一先以潛在剖面分析,分別以239與286兩筆樣本,探討在實際生活中各類威權領導剖面的出現狀況。兩筆資料均顯示只有強人型(高專權-高尚嚴)、紀律型(低專權-高尚嚴)及非典型(低專權-低尚嚴)三類,且近半數主管為紀律型。研究二收集了華人企業組織中102位主管與272位部屬之對偶樣本,確認了潛在剖面分析結果同研究一,並對三類剖面進行效果比較。整體而言,紀律型對任務性績效、默從性沈默及防衛性沈默效果最強,強人型與非典型的效果則各有其利弊。在前兩個研究的基礎上,研究三根據專權與尚嚴領導文獻建構三類剖面之概念內涵,並收集264筆網路問卷樣本,進行效果複驗。結果顯示,非典型對展現創造性績效意願的效果最強。最後,本研究對三項研究結果進行綜合討論,並提出研究限制與未來研究方向。
Authoritarian Leadership (AL) can be divided into two dimensions, dominance-focused AL and discipline-focused AL. The core of dominance-focused AL is tactical control, with the purpose of triggering the fear and obedience of subordinates. Discipline-focused AL emphasize discipline, with the purpose of triggering a dedicated work attitude of subordinates. Considering that the operating mechanisms of dominance-focused AL and discipline-focused AL are completely different, and the correlation between the two types of leadership is low, indicating that dominance-focused AL and discipline-focused AL should be mutually independent concepts. In addition, in real life, it is true that you can find different types of AL, which support that AL is a profile model. Study 1 conducted latent profile analysis (LPA) and used two samples of 239 and 286 to explore the appearance of various types of AL in real life. Both data showed that there were three types of AL, included “strongman type” (high dominance-focused al and high discipline-focused al), “discipline type” (low dominance-focused al and high discipline-focused al) and “atypical type” (low dominance-focused al and low discipline-focused al), and nearly half of the supervisors were discipline type. Study 2 collected paired samples from 102 supervisors and 272 subordinates from Taiwanese enterprise organizations, confirmed that the LPA typology results were the same as Study 1. Compared the effects of the three types of profiles, the results showed that discipline type performed the strongest effect on subordinates’ task performance, acquiescent silence and defensive silence, while strongman type and atypical type had their own advantages and disadvantages. On the basis of the first two studies, study 3 constructed the conceptual connotation of the three types of profiles based on the dominance-focused AL and discipline-focused AL literature, and collected 264 samples of online questionnaires to re-examine the effects. The results show that atypical type had the strongest effect on showing creative performance willingness. In the end, this study conducted a comprehensive discussion of the three study results, and proposes the implications of the research finding, research limitation and future research directions.
第一章 前言 1
第二章 研究ㄧ:威權領導類型的潛在剖面分析 5
第一節 文獻回顧 5
第二節 研究方法 13
第三節 研究結果 17
第四節 結果討論 23
第三章 研究二:潛在威權領導的類型分析與效果檢驗 25
第ㄧ節 文獻回顧 25
第二節 研究方法 38
第三節 研究結果 48
第四節 結果討論 63
第四章 研究三 潛在威權領導類型概念建構與效果複驗 65
第一節 文獻回顧 66
第二節 研究方法 69
第三節 研究結果 80
第四節 結果討論 88
第五章 綜合討論與建議 91
第一節 威權領導剖面實際出現情形 91
第二節 威權領導剖面之效果比較 91
第三節 研究貢獻 94
第四節 研究限制與未來研究方向 97
參考文獻 103
附錄 115
附錄ㄧ 部屬意見調查 115
附錄二 主管意見調查 119
附錄三 網路問卷—操弄檢核 123
附錄四 網路問卷—強人型剖面 125
附錄五 潛在剖面分析語法 131
任金剛、樊景立、鄭伯壎、周麗芳(2003):《高階主管之家長式領導與組織效能》。教育部華人本土心理學研究追求卓越計劃研究報告。台北:教育部。
吳宗祐(2008):〈主管威權領導與部屬的工作滿意度與組織承諾:信任的中介歷程與情緒智力的調節效果〉。《本土心理學研究》,30,3-63。
吳宗祐、周麗芳、鄭伯壎(2008):〈主管的權威取 向及其對部屬順從與畏懼的知覺對威權領導的預測效果〉。《本土心理學研究》,30,65-115。
吳宗祐、徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎(2002):〈怒不可遏或忍氣吞聲?華人企業中主管威權領導行為與部屬憤怒情緒反應的關係〉。《本土心理學研究》,18,13-50。
吳宗祐、廖紘億(2013):〈華人威權領導總是導致部屬負面結果嗎?由『不確定管理理論』探討威權領導對分配不公平與程序不公平之交互作用與部屬工作滿意度之關係的調節效果〉。《中華心理學刊》,55(1),1-22。
周婉茹(2009)。〈專權與威嚴領導的效果:心理賦能的中介與仁慈領導的調節〉(未發表碩士論文)。國立台灣大學心理學研究所,台北。
周婉茹、周麗芳、鄭伯壎、任金剛(2010):〈專權與尚嚴之辨:再探威權領導的內涵與恩威並濟的效果〉。《本土心理學研究》,34,223-284。
周婉茹、鄭伯壎、連玉輝(2014):〈威權領導:概念源起、現況檢討及未來方向〉。《中華心理學刊》,56(2),165-189。
林孟君(2015):〈威權領導真的令人服從嗎?雙向度威權領導的效能與仁慈領導的調節作用〉(未發表碩士論文)。國立台灣大學心理學研究所,台北。
林容璿(2015):〈主管發怒有用嗎?主管績效期待、主管-部屬社會關係因子及工作豐富化的角色〉(未發表碩士論文)。國立台灣大學心理學研究所,台北。
林毓生(1989)。《政治秩序與多元社會》。台北:聯經。
胡秀華(2004):〈主管與部屬之交換關係對獎籌決策的影響:台灣與美國之比較〉(未發表之博士論文)。台北:國立台灣大學商學研究所,台北。
徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎、及黃敏萍(2003):〈華人企業領導人的員工歸類與管理行為〉。 《本土心理學研究》,18,51-94。
湯慧娟、宋一夫(2010):〈教練領導行為、情緒感 受與運動員領導信任〉。《台大體育學報》,18,45-55。
黃囇莉、朱瑞玲(2012):〈是亂流?還是潮起、潮落?-尋找台灣的「核心價值」及其變遷〉。《高雄行為科學學刊》,3, 119-145。
楊美娟(2014):〈威權領導對情感性承諾與建言行為之影響-工作不安全感的中介與調節作用〉(未發表碩士論文)。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所,高雄。
樊景立、鄭伯壎(2000):〈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》,13,127-180。
樊景立、鄭伯壎(2000b):〈家長式領導:再一次思考〉。《本土心理學研究》,13,219-226。
鄭伯壎(1993):〈家長權威價值與領導行為之關係探討〉。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告,計畫編號:NSC82-0301-H002-029。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
鄭伯壎(1995a):〈家長權威與領導行為之關係:一個台灣民營企業主持人的個案研究〉。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》,79,119-173。
鄭伯壎(2005):〈華人組織行為研究的方向與策略:由西化到本土化〉。《本土心理學研究》,24,191-245。
鄭伯壎(2005):〈華人領導:理論與實際〉。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳(2005):〈家長式領導三元模式:現代轉化及其影響機制—威權領導:法家概念的現代轉化〉。行政院國家委員會追求卓越延續計畫專題研究報告,報告編號NSC94-2413-H-002-003-PAE。台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳、黃敏萍、樊景立、彭泗清(2003):〈家長式領導的三元模式:中國大陸企業組織的證據〉。《本土心理學研究》,20,209-250 。
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。
鄭伯壎、樊景立、周麗芳(2006):《家長式領導: 模式與證據》。台北:華泰。
鄭昱宏、周婉茹、周德賢、鄭伯壎(2019):〈教練威權領導一定不好嗎?一項權變概念的提出與驗證〉。《中華心理學刊》,61(2),97-130。
鍾珮珊、林文政(2015):〈以動態觀點探討適應性績效對員工晉升力的影響〉。《輔仁管理評論》,22(3),93-114。
簡晉龍、黃囇莉(2015):〈華人威權取向之內涵與行程歷程〉。《本土心理學研究》,43,55-123 。
簡博浩、韓志翔(2008):〈任務性、脈絡性及適應性績效表現對主管獎酬決策的影響:調查法及實驗法〉。《臺大管理論叢》,18(2),27-62。
Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakely, J. L. (2006). Informational privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 221-232.
Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related and contextually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7 (2), 97-111.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1987). Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T. M. (Eds.). (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.
Amabile, T. M., Goldlarb, P., & Brackfield, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6-21.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to included elements of contextual performance. N. Schmitt, & W.C. Borman
(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp.71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. W. (Eds.). (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology, 2, 389-444.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burn-out: Comparing two perspectives of “people work.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(1), 17-39.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 57-67.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (Eds.). (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campbell, J. P. (1999). The definition and measurement of performance in the new age. In D. R. Ilgen, & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp.399-429). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128.
Charbonnier-Voirin, A., Roussel, P. (2012). Adaptive performance: A new scale to measure individual performance in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 29(3), 280-293.
Chen, C. C., & Farh, J. L. (2010). Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: Paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 599-622). New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2007, June). Does globalization matter? The change of power distance and its effects on authoritative leadership in business and military organizations in Taiwan. Paper presented at the International Conference on Globalization and Development in Chinese Economic Region, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chou, L. F., Cheng, B. S., & Farh, J. L. (2006 , June). Does employee’s authoritarian values matter: The effectiveness of people-related and task-related authoritarian leadership in China and Taiwan’s private business. Paper presented at the Biannual Conference of International Association for Chinese Management Research (IACMR). Biannual Conference, Nanjing, China.
Chou, W. J., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Opening the black box: A two-dimensional model of authoritarian leadership and task performance. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 397-414.
Chou, W. J., Sibley, C., Liu, J., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S., (2015). Paternalistic leadership profiles: A person-centered approach. Group & Organization Management, 40(5), 685-710.
Collins, B. J., Mossholder, K. W., & Taylor, S. G. (2012). Does process fairness affect job performance? It only matters if they plan to stay. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 1007-1026.
Craig, S., & Smith, J. (2000, April). Integrity and personality: A person-oriented investigation. In D. Norris (Chair), Patterns, patterns every-where! Application of person-oriented methodology to problems in industrial-organizational psychology. Paper presented at the 15th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Farh, J. L., Liang, J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: Research progress and future research directions. In C. C. Chen & Y. T. Lee (Eds.), Leadership and management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices (pp.171-205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gabriel, A. S., Daniels, M. A., Diefendorff, J. M., & Greguras, G. J. (2014). Emotional labor actors: A latent profile analysis of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 863-879.
George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human
Performance, 10(2), 153-171.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal
organizations - a developmental approach. Organization and Administrative
Sciences, 6(2/3), 143-165.
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86-96.
Graves, L. M., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Weber, T. J. (2012). Driven to work and enjoyment of work: Effects on managers’ outcomes. Journal of Management, 38(5), 1655-1680.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Hammond (1954). Representative vs. systematic design in clinical psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 51(1), 150-159.
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen, & D. E. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implication for staffing, motivation, and development (pp.21-55). 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, 6(1), 1-55.
Hülsheger, U. R., & Schewe, A. F. (2011). On the costs and benefits of emotional labor: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 361-389.
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. 1999. Employee performance in today's organization. In D. R. Ilgen, & D. E. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implication for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 1-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 984-996.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), 692-724.
Kaiser, R., Woodruff, B. A., Bilukha, O., Spiegel, P. B., & Salama, P. (2006). Using design effects from previous cluster surveys to guide sample size calculation in emergency settings. Disasters, 30(2), 199-211.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246.
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990). Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Kinicki, A. J. & Latack, J. C. (1990). Explication of the construct of coping with involuntary job loss. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36(3), 339-360.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3(2), 186-207.
Law, K. S. & Wong, C. S. (1999). Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: An illustration using the job perception and job satisfaction constructs. Journal of Management, 25(2), 143-160.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 741-755.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Henry, N. W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.
Liu, S. (2003). Cultures within culture: Unity and diversity of two generations of employees in state-owned enterprises. Human Relations, 56(4), 387-417.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 3(2), 157–189.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
London, M. & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D. R. Ilgen, & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 119-153). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marsh, H. W., Lu ̈dtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. S. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 191-225.
McCrae. R. R., & Costa. P. T. (1989). The structure of inter-personal traits: Wiggin's circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586-595.
Morin, A. J. S., Morizot, J., Boudrias, J. -S., & Madore, I. (2011). A multifoci person-centered perspective on workplace affective commitment: A latent profile/factor mixture analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 58-90.
Morin, A. J., Bujacz, A., & Gagné, M. (2018). Person‐centered methodologies in the organizational sciences: Introduction to the feature topic. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 803-813.
Morrison, E. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of understanding the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567.
Murphy, K. R., & Jackson, S. E. (1999). Managing work role performance: Challenges for twenty-first century organizations and their Employees. In D. R. Ilgen, & D. E. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implication for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 325-365). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Noe, R., & Ford, K. J. (1992). Emerging issues and new directions for training research. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 10, 345-384.
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535-569.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Pickles, A., Bolton, P., Bailey, A., Le Couteur, A., Sim, C. H., & Rutter, M. (1995). Latent-class analysis of recurrence risks for complex phenotypes with selection and measurement error: A twin study and family history study of autism. American Journal of Human Genetics, 57(3), 717-726.
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.
Riantoputra, C. D., Maharisa, W., & Faridhal, T. (2016). Acquiescent and defensive silence in an Indonesian Context. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia, 20(2), 121-129.
Rosenberg, J., Beymer, P., Anderson, D., van Lissa, C. J., & Schmidt, J. (2018). Tidy LPA: An R package to easily carry out latent profile analysis (LPA) using open-source or commercial software. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 978.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483-503.
Spearman, C. 1927. The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137-1148.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Grean, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591-620.
Trempe, J., Rigny, A. J., & Haccoun, R. R. (1985). Subordinate satisfaction with male and female managers: Role of perceived supervisory influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 44-47.
Tsui, A. S., Wang, H., Xin, K., Zhang, L. H., & Fu, P. P. (2004). Let a thousand flow- ers bloom: Variation of leadership styles among Chinese CEOs. Organizational Dynamics, 33(1), 5-20.
Ukoumunne, O. C., Gulliford, M. C., Chinn, S., Sterne, J. A., & Burney, P. G. (1999). Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based interventions in health and health care: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess, 3(5), iii-92.
Van Scotter, J. R. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedicationas separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 525-531.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.
Vermunt, J. K., & Magdison, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp.89-106). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Y. D., & Hsieh, H. H. (2013). Organizational ethical climate, perceived organizational support, and employee silence: A cross-level investigation. Human Relations, 66(6), 783-802.
Yang, X., Shaftel, J., Glasnapp, D., & Poggio, J. (2005). Qualitative or quantitative differences? Latent class analysis of mathematical ability for special education students. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 194-207.
Zhou, J. & Martocchio, J. J. (2001). Chinese and American managers' compensation award decisions: A comparative policy-capturing study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 115-145.
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
無相關期刊