跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.211.31.134) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/21 05:13
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:李仁豪
研究生(外文):LEE, JEN-HAO
論文名稱:目標焦點型領導對工作表現之影響效果:成就目標導向的中介效果
論文名稱(外文):The Influence of Goal-focused Leadership on Job Performance: The Mediating Effect of Achievement Goal Orientation
指導教授:夏侯欣鵬夏侯欣鵬引用關係蔡秦倫蔡秦倫引用關係
指導教授(外文):SHIAHHOU, HSIN-PENGTSAI, CHIN-LUN
口試委員:邱雅萍張朝清
口試委員(外文):CHIU, YA-PINGCHANG, CHAO-CHING
口試日期:2022-06-08
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:輔仁大學
系所名稱:企業管理學系管理學碩士在職專班
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:企業管理學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2022
畢業學年度:110
語文別:中文
論文頁數:111
中文關鍵詞:目標焦點型領導工作表現成就目標導向領導者-成員交換關係風險偏好
外文關鍵詞:Goal-focused LeadershipJob PerformanceAchievement Goal OrientationLeader-member ExchangeRisk Preference
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:125
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:2
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
近年受到新冠肺炎 (COVID-19)疫情影響,使工作者作息有所改變,較難以過去近端管理或督導為核心的管理方法,促使成員在工作表現有較高水準。其次,亞洲華人圈受到經濟不穩定影響,造成斜槓型工作型態日益增加,也影響工作者對工作的全心投入程度;其三,對於薪資水準的緩步提升,難以促進個體以單一薪水思考未來發展。種種環境因素,促使個體層面的工作投入有所下降,造成工作表現僅以達標為自我期許,更可能因這樣的環境結構,使團隊績效與合作效能受到限制而有所影響。
本研究在領導立場選擇以最基礎的社會交換為領導型態,以目標焦點型領導並輔以途徑目標論、目標設定論等促進動機為核心的領導型態,為複合領導理論選用。對於領導效能是否影響個體對於困難任務的知覺型態,以成就目標導向之四類型目標導向:精熟趨向目標導向、精熟避免目標導向、表現趨向目標導向、表現避免目標導向為觀察重點。在領導者與工作者的關係型態,則以領導者-成員交換 (Leader-Member Exchange, LMX)關係所區分的組織內、外成員,以及個體風險偏好的風險規避、風險趨向,構成不同群體,觀察領導行為效能對成就目標導向的影響,進而對於工作表現影響有何種差異。因此,本研究主要目的為驗證:
第一,目標焦點領導行為影響個體成就目標導向行為,進而影響工作表現。
第二,目標焦點領導行為影響個體成就目標導向行為之程度,其會受到個體對於領導者-成員交換關係與個體風險偏好而有所差異。
研究樣本為台灣中小企業374位工作者,並以多元迴歸模式進行分析。研究結果顯示,目標焦點型領導正向影響工作表現,並受到成就目標導向的中介影響;又,目標焦點型領導對成就目標導向的影響效果,具有不同領導者-成員交換關係與個體風險偏好的調節效果。
本研究於理論貢獻,將目標焦點型領導以目標設定論及途徑目標論擴充,發展出主動結構、動機促發、關注成果三構面,使目標焦點型領導在衡量與施行時更為具體;其次,領導者-成員交換關係 (LMX)僅關注權力距離,未關注個體工作時是否因其他關係影響領導效能,本研究以LMX與個體風險偏好作為變項設計,亦可視為對LMX之補充。
於實務貢獻,受到疫情影響與社會變遷,造成工作型態改變,領導者應關注領導行為效能對個體成就目標導向的影響效果,以期促進工作表現,並應特別關注領導者-成員交換關係,以及個體對風險偏好之態度。本研究以被動轉主動的賦能立場,為當前領導思維提供應用參考。
Affected by the COVID-19 epidemic, the work pattern has changed, and it is more difficult for the past supervisory management to make employees have a higher-level job performance. In addition, more workers preparing for multiple careers due to the economic instability, and employees no longer consider a single salary when thinking about future, which in turn that reduces the individual work involved and even limits team performance and cooperation effectiveness.
This reserach selects goal-focused leadership, goal setting theory and path-goal theory as a compound theoretical application. Regarding whether leadership effectiveness affects employees' perception patterns, we focus on four types of achievement goal orientation, and observe the impact of leadership behavior on goal orientation and job performance based on leader-member exchange (LMX) and individual risk preferences. The research sample is 374 workers of small and medium-sized enterprises in Taiwan. This study used multiple regression for analysis.
The research results show that the goal-focused leadership will positively affect the job performance, and influenced by the mediating effect of achievement goal orientation. The inpact of goal-focused leadership on achievement goal orientation will be moderated by the type of LMX and individual risk preferences.
For theoretical contributions, first, the research extends goal-focused leadership with goal setting theory and path-goal theory, and develop three dimensions: initiating structure, enhance motivation and production emphasis, enables goal-focused leadership to be measured and executed more specifically. Secondly, LMX focus on power distance and less consider other possible reasons to affect leadership effectiveness. This reaserch compound LMX and individual risk preferences as a situation of leadership. This can be considered as a complement to the LMX.
For practical contributions, the impact of the epidemic and social changes, work patterns has changed. Leaders should pay attention to the leadership effectiveness will positively affect the job performance, and influenced of achievement goal orientation and diffriend type of LMX and individual risk preferences. This study takes a passive-to-active empowerment standpoint to provide a new application reference for current leadership thinking.

目 錄
第壹章 緒論---1
第一節 研究動機---1
第二節 研究目的---4
第三節 研究流程---5
第四節 章節架構---6
第貳章 文獻探討---7
第一節 目標焦點型領導---7
第二節 工作表現---12
第三節 成就目標導向---15
第四節 領導者-成員交換關係與個體風險偏好---19
第參章 研究方法---23
第一節 研究架構與假說---23
第二節 研究變項與問卷設計---29
第三節 研究對象---37
第四節 資料分析方法---38
第肆章 研究結果與分析---41
第一節 研究樣本分析---41
第二節 變項檢驗---44
第三節 信度分析---47
第四節 相關分析---49
第五節 主效果、間接效果與全效果之分析---53
第伍章 討論與建議---73
第一節 研究結論---73
第二節 理論與實務意涵---85
第三節 研究限制與後續研究發展---89
參考文獻---91
附件一 研究調查問卷---105

表 目 錄
表2-2-1 不同智力理論與目標導向所產生之行為模式---16
表3-2-1 問卷彙總表---32
表4-1-1 問卷發放及回收統計表---41
表4-1-2 問卷基本資料分析表---42
表4-2-1 KMO及Bartlett's球型檢定分析表---44
表4-2-2 目標焦點型領導因素萃取表---45
表4-3-1 信度分析表---48
表4-4-1 相關分析摘要表---52
表4-5-1 自變項與中介變項對依變項的影響效果分析表---67
表4-5-2 自變項對中介變項的影響效果分析表---68
表4-5-3 精熟趨向目標導向(中介變項)於風險規避外成員與風險趨向內成員對自變項影響之調節效果分析表---69
表4-5-4 精熟避免目標導向(中介變項)於風險規避外成員與風險趨向內成員對自變項影響之調節效果分析表---70
表4-5-5 表現趨向目標導向(中介變項)於風險規避外成員與風險趨向內成員對自變項影響之調節效果分析表---71
表4-5-6 表現避免目標導向(中介變項)於風險規避外成員與風險趨向內成員對自變項影響之調節效果分析表---72
表5-1-1 假說驗證結果彙總表---77

圖 目 錄
圖1-3-1 研究流程圖---5
圖2-2-2 2 x 2成就目標框架---17
圖3-1-1 研究架構圖---24
圖4-5-1 動機促發對精熟趨向目標導向影響效果調節變項趨勢圖---62
圖4-5-2 關注成果對精熟避免目標導向影響效果調節變項趨勢圖---64
圖4-5-3 主動結構對表現趨向目標導向影響效果調節變項趨勢圖---65
圖4-5-4 主動結構對表現避免目標導向影響效果調節變項趨勢圖---66
圖5-1-1 Fiedler權變理論示意圖---81
圖5-1-2 主動結構於領導與風險情境及精熟趨向目標導向表現趨勢圖---82
圖5-1-3 主動結構於領導與風險情境及精熟避免目標導向表現趨勢圖---83
圖5-1-4 動機促發於領導與風險情境及表現趨向目標導向表現趨勢圖---83
圖5-1-5 關注成果於領導與風險情境及表現避免目標導向表現趨勢圖---84
參考文獻
中文部分
1. 陳書梅(2008)「台灣地區大學圖書館中階主管領導風格之實證研究」。圖書資訊學刊,6(1 & 2),29-56。https://doi.org/10.6182/jlis.2008.6(1.2).029
2. 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。
3. 黃宣揚(2019)。理性與偏見:利得與損失的轉職心理評估。〔未出版之碩士論文〕天主教輔仁大學企業管理學系管理學碩士在職專班。

英文部分
1. Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake‐Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement. Career Development International. 17(3), 208-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241063
2. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-0663.84.3.261
3. Bandura, A. (1985). Model of causality in social learning theory. In M. J. Mahoney(Ed.). Cognition and psychotherapy (pp. 81-99). Springer. Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7562-3_3
4. Barksdale, K., & Werner, J. M. (2001). Managerial ratings of in-role behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors, and overall performance: Testing different models of their relationshipp. Journal of Business Research, 51(2), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00061-2
5. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
6. Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706-722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706
7. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press. New York, NY.
8. Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Predictors of organizational commitment in India: strategic HR roles, organizational learning capability and psychological empowerment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(10), 1782-1811. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701570965
9. Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1968). Managing intergroup conflict in industry. Gulf Publishing Co. Houston, TX. https://doi.org/10.7202 /027974ar
10. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader-member exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 276-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua. 2009.03.001
11. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt and W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
12. Brouthers, K. D. (2002). Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2), 203-221. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491013
13. Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 235-255. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.235
14. Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 313-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb01561.x
15. Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological Review, 111(1), 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.183
16. Chiang, Y. H., & Hsu, C. C. (2012, June). Perceived high performance work system and individual creativity performance in work teams. Paper presented at the meeting of 2012 IEEE International conference on management of innovation & technology (ICMIT). Bali, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMIT.2012.6225862
17. Colbert, A. E., & Witt, L. A. (2009). The role of goal-focused leadership in enabling the expression of conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 790-796. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014187
18. Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.
19. Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 451-462. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.451
20. Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 940-950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.940
21. Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 674-685. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077149
22. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10. 1040
23. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
24. Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034248
25. Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “Classic” and “Contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and Achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143-179). JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
26. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
27. Elliot A. J. & Dweck, C. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. M. Heatherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social and personality development, 643-691. Wiley. New York, NY.
28. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461-475. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.70.3.461
29. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/ 0022-3514.80.3.501
30. Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613-628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613
31. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
32. Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 59-96). Academic Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60005-2
33. Fisher, B. M., & Edwards, J. E. (1988). Consideration and initiating structure and their relationships with leader effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1988(1), 201-205. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp. 1988. 4980535
34. Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056314
35. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178. https://doi.org/ 2092623
36. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
37. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
38. Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(82)90236-7
39. Halpin, A. W., and Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader behavior description. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 39-51). Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
40. Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing: The curvilinear effect of leader-member exchange on stress. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.1.65-84
41. Hemphill, J. K., and Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill and A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 1-18). Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 001316445901900326
42. Horner, M. (1997). Leadership theory: past, present and future. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 3(4), 270-287. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527599710195402
43. Hornstra, L., Majoor, M., & Peetsma, T. (2017). Achievement goal profiles and developments in effort and achievement in upper elementary school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 606-629. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjep.12167
44. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
45. House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1975). Path-goal theory of leadership. Washington Univ Seattle Dept. of Psychology, Seattle, WA. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/ j.ctvpg85tk.25
46. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
47. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
48. Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86(1), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86. 1.119
49. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). Organizations and the system concept. In J. M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott, and Y. S. Jang(Eds.), Classics of organization theory (Vol. 80, pp.347-359). Cengage, Boston, MA.
50. Kim, D., Choi, D., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Goal-focused leadership, leader-member exchange, and task performance: The moderating effects of goal orientations and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(5), 645-660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9516-7
51. Kline, T. J., & McGrath, J. L. (1998). Development and validation of five criteria for evaluating team performance. Organization Development Journal, 16(3), 19-27.
52. Kraimer, M. L., & Wayne, S. J. (2004). An examination of perceived organizational support as a multidimensional construct in the context of an expatriate assignment. Journal of Management, 30(2), 209-237. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.001
53. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781
54. Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(4), 305-312. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029692
55. Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 15, pp. 47-119). Elsevier Science, JAI Press.
56. Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3(2), 157-189. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4
57. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/258875
58. Lodahl, T. M., & Kejnar, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 24-33. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/h0021692
59. Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M. and Young, S. A. (2009), Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice and competitive advantage. Wiley‐Blackwell, New York, NY.
60. MacGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw‐Hill, New York, NY.
61. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 514-523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.514
62. Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents' theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 683-692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.6.683
63. Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1994). Organizational behavior - A management challenge (2nd). Dry-Den, Forth Worth, TX.
64. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books, Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2393071
65. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation research and applications (pp. 451-502). Academic Press, Orlando, FL. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
66. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
67. Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 943. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017327
68. Schermerhorn Jr, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (1994). Managing organizational behavior (5th ed). Wiley, New York, NY.
69. Schriesheim, C., & Glinow, M. A. V. (1977). The path-goal theory of leadership: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 398-405. https://doi.org/255413
70. Sheih, C. S. M. (1998). The effect of perceived leadership behavior on the job satisfaction of subordinates in Taiwan's university libraries. The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Ann Arbor, MI.
71. Spreitzer, G. M., Lam, C. F., & Fritz, C. (2010). Engagement and human thriving: Complementary perspectives on energy and connections to work. In A. B. Bakker and M. P. Leiter(Eds.), Work engagement: a handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 132-146). Psychology press, New York, NY.
72. Steinkamp, M. W., & Maehr, M. L. (1983). Affect, ability, and science achievement: A quantitative synthesis of correlational research. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 369-396. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053 003369
73. Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053857
74. Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description ouestionnaire-Form XII an experimental revision. Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
75. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. Free Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220612. 1975.10778712
76. Tversky, A., & Kahneman D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458
77. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1988). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In B. Karpak and S. Zionts (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making and risk analysis using microcomputers (pp. 81-126). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598951. 011
78. Zhang, X. A., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2011). Linking transformational leadership and team performance: A conflict management approach. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1586-1611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00974.x
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊