臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

在現今工作環境與技術要求劇烈改變的情況下，主管可能同時面臨到不同的工作需求與多元的角色定位，因此主管很可能在工作中展現矛盾的情感狀態。「情緒表達矛盾」的定義為個人在短時間內展現兩種對立與衝突的情緒，而在過往工作情感文獻中較少關注主管表達情緒矛盾對部屬工作行為造成的影響。本研究基於情緒即社會訊息理論(emotions-as-social information, EASI; Van Kleef, 2009) 的觀點，探討主管表達情緒矛盾如何透過情緒反應與認知推論路徑影響部屬的創造力或迴避主管行為，並納入領導者成員交換關係做為核心的調節變數。本研究以兩個子研究驗證理論模式（研究一：事件回想法，研究二：244份主管-部屬配對，不同時間點之問卷調查法），結果發現：主管表達情緒矛盾如同雙刃劍一般，一方面會透過增強部屬經歷情緒矛盾和資訊搜尋與編碼，進而提升部屬創造力。此外，當主管和部屬擁有較高品質的交換關係時，主管表達情緒矛盾則會導致部屬更到知覺主管不可預測，進而導致部屬產生認知反芻、最終出現迴避主管的行為。本研究亦針對研究貢獻與管理意涵加以討論。

In today''s rapidly changing work environment and technological demands, supervisors often face diverse work requirements and multiple role expectations, which can lead to conflicting emotional states. The definition of "emotional ambivalence expression" refers to the display of two opposing and conflicting emotions within a short period. Previous literature on workplace emotions has rarely focused on the impact of supervisors'' expression of emotional ambivalence on subordinates'' work behaviors. Based on the emotions-as-social-information (EASI) theory (Van Kleef, 2009), this study investigates how supervisors'' expression of emotional ambivalence influences subordinates'' creativity or avoidance behavior through emotional response and cognitive inference pathways, with leader-member exchange (LMX) as a core moderating variable.
This study validates the theoretical model through two sub-studies (Study 1: event recall method, Study 2: survey method involving 244 supervisor-subordinate pairs at different time points). The results reveal that supervisors'' expression of emotional ambivalence acts like a double-edged sword. On one hand, it enhances subordinates'' experience of emotional ambivalence, information searching and encoding, thereby boosting their creativity. Furthermore, when supervisors and subordinates share a high-quality exchange relationship, the supervisors'' expression of emotional ambivalence leads to subordinates perceiving the supervisors as unpredictable. This perception, in turn, induces cognitive rumination in subordinates, ultimately resulting in avoidance behavior towards the supervisors. This study also discusses the research contributions and managerial implications.

論文審定書 i
中文摘要 ii
英文摘要 iii
圖次 v
表次 vi
第 一 章 緒 論 1
第 二 章 文 獻 探 討 與 研 究 假 設 5
第一節 情緒表達矛盾的定義與相關研究 5
第二節 主管表達情緒矛盾與部屬經歷情緒矛盾 6
第三節 部屬經歷情緒矛盾與創造力 7
第四節 主管表達情緒矛盾與知覺不可預測性 9
第五節 知覺不可預測性與迴避主管 9
第六節 領導者成員交換關係的調節式中介效果 11
第 三 章 研 究 一 之 方 法 與 結 果 15
第一節 研究總覽 15
第二節 研究樣本與程序 15
第三節 研究工具 16
第四節 研究結果 18
第 四 章 研 究 二 之 方 法 與 結 果 21
第一節 研究樣本與程序 21
第二節 研究工具 22
第三節 資料分析方式 24
第四節 研究結果 25
第 五 章 討 論 與 建 議 33
第一節 研究貢獻與理論意涵 33
第二節 管理實務建議 34
第三節 研究限制與未來研究方向 35

參考文獻 38
附錄 46

王豫萱、紀乃文、郭馥甄、陳怡君（2023）。鑲嵌於組織內的員工為何建言？探討組織鑲嵌與挑戰性及支持性建言行為之雙重能量路徑，及LMX 的調節式中介效果。管理評論。
紀乃文、蔡宜衿（2018）。主管下班別LINE 我：探討下班後用通訊軟體交辦困難工作對員工後續負向心情，壓力狀態及任務績效的影響：領導成員交換關係與員工親和性特質的調節效果。Journal of Management & Business Research (2521-4306)，35(3)。
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。https://doi.org/10.6504%2fJOM.2006.23.01.05

Aaker, J. L., Drolet, A., & Griffin, D. W. (2004). Recalling mixed emotions. Working paper, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Palo Alto, CA.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications Ltd.
Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 357–376.
Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human relations, 48(2), 97-125.
Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25: 1453-1478.
Banks, S. P., Altendorf, D. M., Greene, J. O., & Cody, M. J. (1987). An examination of relationship disengagement: Perceptions, breakup strategies and outcomes. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 51(1), 19-41.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.792.
Bezuijen, X. M., van Dam, K., van den Berg, P. T., & Thierry, H. (2010). How leaders stimulate employee learning: A leader–member exchange approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 673-693.
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1357-1367. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Kenneth A. Bollen & J. Scott Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (136–162). Sage.
Cheung, G. W. (2021) mccimm: An R package Monte Carlo simulated confidence intervals for moderated mediating effects. Department of Management and International Business, University of Auckland.
Chi, N. W., & Ho, T. R. (2014). Understanding when leader negative emotional expression enhances follower performance: The moderating roles of follower personality traits and perceived leader power. Human relations, 67(9), 1051-1072.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G.B., & 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, 46-78.
De Cremer, D. (2003). Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair: the importance of social self-esteem concerns. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 33, 535–550.
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.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 331-352.
Fiedler, K. (2012). Affective influences on social information processing. In Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. 165-187). Psychology Press.
Filipowicz, A., Barsade, S., & Melwani, S. (2011). Understanding emotional transitions: The interpersonal consequences of changing emotions in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3): 541-556.
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1016-1030.
Friedman, R., Anderson, C., Brett, J., Olekalns, M., Goates, N., & Lisco, C. (2004). The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: Evidence from electronically mediated disputes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 369−376
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 687–697.
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.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2009). Abusive supervision in advising relationships: Investigating the role of social support. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(2): 233-256.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306242
Johansson, F. (2004). Create the Medici effect. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, September 20.
Johnson, R. E., Muraven, M., Donaldson, T., & Lin, S.-H. (2018). Self-control in work organizations. The self at work: Fundamental theory and research (119-144). New York: Routledge.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 505–521.
Koning, L. F., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2015). How leaders'' emotional displays shape followers'' organizational citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(4), 489-501.
Lanka, E., Topakas, A., & Patterson, M. (2020). Becoming a leader: Catalysts and barriers to leader identity construction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(3), 377-390.
Larsen, J. T., Hemenover, S. H., Norris, C. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2003). Turning adversity to advantage: On the virtues of the coactivation of positive and negative emotions.
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4): 684-696.
Larsen, J. T., McGraw, A. P., Cacioppo, J., & Mellers, B. (2004). The agony of victory and the thrill of defeat: Mixed emotional reactions to disappointing wins and relieving losses. Psychological Science, 15: 325–330.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London: Free Association Books.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S., (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Lee, H. E., Park, H. S., Lee, T. S., & Lee, D. W. (2007). Relationships between LMX and subordinates’ feedback-seeking behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(5), 659-674.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. 2015. Authentic leadership, authentic followship, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross level study. Journal of Management, 41(6):1677-1697.
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and LMX Interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1): 41-52.
Lim, J. H., Tai, K., & Kouchaki, M. (2021). Ambivalent bosses: An examination of supervisor expressed emotional ambivalence on subordinate task engagement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 139-152.
Liu, W., Song, Z., Li, X., & Liao, Z. (2017). Why and when leaders’ affective states influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 236–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1082
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 757–767.
Marsh, J., & Rothman, N. (2013). The ambivalence of expert categorizers. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 35, No. 35).
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (2006). Extending the Goal Progress Theory of Rumination: Goal Reevaluation and Growth. In L. J. Sanna & E. C. Chang (Eds.), Judgments over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp. 145–162). Oxford University Press.
Martin, L. L., Tesser, A., & Mclntosh, W. D. (1993). Wanting but not having: The effects of unattained goals on thoughts and feelings. In D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control: 552-572. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Melwani, S., & Rothman, N. B. (2022). The push-and-pull of frenemies: When and why ambivalent relationships lead to helping and harming. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(5), 707–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000811
Melwani, S., & Rothman, N. B. (2022). The push-and-pull of frenemies: When and why ambivalent relationships lead to helping and harming. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(5), 707.
Moberly, N. J., & Watkins, E. R. (2008). Ruminative self-focus and negative affect: an experience sampling study. Journal of abnormal psychology, 117(2), 314.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops [Electronic version]. The Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226-256.
Moss, S. E., Sanchez, J. I., Brumbaugh, A. M., & Borkowski, N. (2009). The mediating role of feedback avoidance behavior in the LMX—performance relationship. Group & Organization Management, 34(6), 645-664.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. 2008. Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3: 400-424. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x
Pratt, M. G., & Doucet, L. (2000). Ambivalent feelings in organizational relationships. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (2nd ed.): 204–226. London, UK: Sage.
Rees, L., Rothman, N. B., Lehavy, R., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2013). The ambivalent mind can be a wise mind: Emotional ambivalence increases judgment accuracy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3): 360-367.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. 2004. Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative problem solving perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 55–77.
Ritchie, T. D., Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (2016). Emotions experienced at event recall and the self: Implications for the regulation of self-esteem, self-continuity and meaningfulness. Memory, 24(5), 577-591.
Rothman, N. B. (2011). Steering sheep: How expressed emotional ambivalence elicits dominance in interdependent decision making contexts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 66-82.
Rothman, N. B., & Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: The social functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 259-282.
Rothman, N. B., & Northcraft, G. B. (2015). Unlocking integrative potential: Expressed emotional ambivalence and negotiation outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 65-76.
Rothman, N. B., Pratt, M. G., Rees, L., & Vogus, T. J. (2017). Understanding the dual nature of ambivalence: Why and when ambivalence leads to good and bad outcomes. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 33-72.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428–436.
Schaubroeck, J. M., Shen, Y., & Chong, S. 2017. A dual stage moderated mediation model linking stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2): 203-214.
Schyns, B. (2006). Are group consensus in leader-member exchange (LMX) and shared work values related to organizational outcomes? Small Group Research, 37(1), 20-35.
Silard, A., & Dasborough, M. T. (2021). Beyond emotion valence and arousal: A new focus on the target of leader emotion expression within leader–member dyads. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(9), 1186–1201. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2513
Sinaceur, M., Adam, H., Van Kleef, G. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The advantages of being unpredictable: How emotional inconsistency extracts concessions in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3): 498-508.
Suls, J., & Martin, R. (2005). The daily life of the garden‐variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of personality, 73(6), 1485-1510.
Suurd Ralph, C. (2019). Leader Inconsistency, Subjective Attitude Ambivalence and Follower Outcomes (Doctoral dissertation).
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, 4, 361-386.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591-620.
Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188.
Van Kleef, G. A. (2014). Understanding the positive and negative effects of emotional expressions in organizations: EASI does it. Human Relations, 67(9), 1145–1164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713510329
Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K., & Manstead, A. S. (2010). An interpersonal approach to emotion in social decision making: The emotions as social information model. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 42, pp. 45-96). Academic Press.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 562-580.
Van Kleef, G. A., Van Doorn, E. A., Heerdink, M. W., & Koning, L. F. (2011). Emotion is for influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 22(1), 114-163.
Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763-774.
Yagil, D., Ben-Zur, H., & Tamir, I. (2011). Do employees cope effectively with abusive supervision at work? An exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management, 18(1), 5.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of management journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Zhao, Q., & Zhou, W. (2021). Good or bad? The ambivalent leader-follower relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 690074.