臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著環境的變動，員工常常需要在高度壓力與時間壓迫的情境下，接受許多新增的任務、學習的課題與陌生的人際關係。有鑑於此，學者紛紛提出企業應增加關注員工應對變化的適應性績效，以因應現今的職場。而領導者形塑出的領導氛圍對成員的行為或狀態具有調節的效果；又個人會藉由自我調節機制進行多種面向的管理與調適。因此，本研究欲探討家長式領導與適應性績效間的關係，及自我調節在其中扮演的中介角色；同時以部屬對主管的意圖歸因作為干擾角色，討論這其中的關係。
為此，本研究以便利抽樣的方式，針對餐飲業服務人員及其主管進行實證研究，採配對方式發放，一共發出630組，回收417組，扣除無效樣本後，有效問卷為307組。接著以驗證性因素分析檢視各量表之品質，並以階層多元迴歸驗證各研究假設內容。
根據實證分析結果，本研究獲致以下結論：（1）仁慈領導與自我調節有正向關係、（2）自我調節與應變面、關係面及學習面適應性績效有正向關係、（3）自我調節在仁慈領導與應變面適應性績效關係中，具有完全中介之效果、（4）自我調節在仁慈領導與學習面適應性績效關係中，具有部份中介之效果。
最後，根據本研究之結果，提出具體管理意涵如下；（1）胡蘿蔔比棍子好用、（2）先找對的人上車、（3）培養軟實力，提升競爭力。並提供後續研究者未來研究的參考方向。

With the continuously changing environment, employees often have to face many task, lessons, and new interpersonal relationships under time pressure and deadlines. Many scholars suggest that organizations should pay more attention to adaptive performance. Extant literature indicates that leadership can enhance employee adaptive behavior, and the employee can use their self-regulatory mechanism to manage knowledge access as well as multidimensional adaptation. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the mediating role self regulation plays in the relationship between paternalistic leadership and adaptive performance. In addition, whether intentional attribution moderates the relationship between paternalistic leadership and adaptive performance was also examined.
The participants of the present study were waiters and waitresses in the catering industry. We use staff-manager pair participants. 630 questionnaires were sent, and then 417 were responded. There were 307 valid paired questionnaires. We employed confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and hierarchical multiple regressions to analyze the data to test our hypotheses.
Results were as follows:
1.Benevolence leadership was positively related to self regulation.
2.Self regulation was positively related to all aspects of the adaptive performance.
3.Self-regulation mediated the relationship between benevolence leadership and adaptive performance.
Finally, according to the result, implications for practice and further research are discussed.

目錄
摘要 I
Abstract II
目錄 III
表目次 V
圖目次 VII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 5
第三節 研究流程 5
第四節 名詞釋義 7
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 適應性績效及其相關研究 9
第二節 家長式領導及其相關研究 11
第三節 自我調節及其中介效果 13
第四節 部屬歸因之干擾效果 24
第三章 研究方法 28
第一節 研究架構與假設 28
第二節 研究對象 30
第三節 研究工具 30
第四節 調查實施 51
第五節 資料分析 52
第四章 研究結果與討論 54
第一節 樣本描述 54
第二節 家長式領導與自我調節之關係 59
第三節 自我調節與適應性績效之關係 63
第四節 自我調節對家長式領導與適應性績效之中介角色 67
第五節 部屬歸因干擾自我調節中介家長式領導與適應性績效之關係 72
第五章 結論與建議 77
第一節 研究發現與結論 77
第二節 研究建議 82
第三節 研究限制 85
參考文獻 87
附錄A 95
附錄B 98


表目次
表 3 1家長式量表分析決斷值 32
表 3 2仁慈領導驗證性因素分析 33
表 3 3威權領導驗證性因素分析（模式一） 34
表 3 4威權領導驗證性因素分析（模式二） 34
表 3 5適應性績效量表分析決斷值 36
表 3 6適應性績效驗證性因素分析 37
表 3 7應變面適應性績效驗證性因素分析（模式一） 38
表 3 8應變面適應性績效驗證性因素分析（模式二） 39
表 3 9關係面適應性績效驗證性因素分析 40
表 3 10學習面適應性績效驗證性因素分析 40
表 3 11自我調節量表分析決斷值 42
表 3 12自我調節驗證性因素分析 43
表 3 13認知面自我調節驗證性因素分析 44
表 3 14情意面自我調節驗證性因素分析 45
表 3 15功能面自我調節驗證性因素分析（模式一） 46
表 3 16功能面自我調節驗證性因素分析（模式二） 46
表 3 17意圖歸因量表分析決斷值 48
表 3 18正向領導真誠歸因因素分析 49
表 3 19 正向領導真誠歸因因素分析 49
表 3 20負向領導真誠歸因因素分析 50
表 3 21負向領導操弄歸因因素分析 50
表 4 1樣本特性描述統計（員工） 55
表 4 2 樣本特性描述統計（主管） 56
表 4 3本研究各變項之平均數、標準差 57
表 4 4本研究各變項之相關係數 58
表 4 5仁慈領導與自我調節之階層迴歸分析 60
表 4 6威權領導與自我調節之階層迴歸分析 62
表 4 7自我調節與適應性績效之階層迴歸分析 63
表 4 8自我調節與應變面適應性績效之階層迴歸分析 64
表 4 9自我調節與關係面適應性績效之階層迴歸分析 65
表 4 10自我調節與學習面適應性績效之階層迴歸分析 66
表 4 11自我調節中介效果之階層迴歸分析 68
表 4 12自我調節中介效果之階層迴歸分析（應變面） 69
表 4 13自我調節中介效果之階層迴歸分析（關係面） 70
表 4 14自我調節中介效果之階層迴歸分析（學習面） 71
表 4 15正向領導行為操弄歸因干擾效果之階層迴歸分析 73
表 4 16正向領導行為真誠歸因干擾效果之階層迴歸分析 74
表 4 17負向領導行為真誠歸因干擾效果之階層迴歸分析 75
表 4 18負向領導行為操弄歸因干擾效果之階層迴歸分析 76
表 5 1共同方法變異分析結果 86


圖目次
圖3 1　研究架構 28

一、中文部份
王筱蘋（2009）。師父利益、知覺組織支持及對徒弟期待與徒弟適應性績效之關係─以師徒功能為中介變項。東吳大學碩士論文，未出版。
史家瑄（2008）。國中生的自我調節、壓力因應策略與學校生活適應之關係研究。國立臺北教育大學碩士論文，未出版。
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、徐瑋伶與鄭伯壎（2002）。怒不可遏或忍氣吞聲：華人企業主管威權領導與部屬憤怒反應。本土心理學研究，18，3-49。
林瑞欽、黃秀瑄與蔡崇振（2002）。青少年自我調控與其相關因素研究。李連文教基金會研究專案報告。
周婉茹、周麗芳、鄭伯壎與任金剛（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。
莊如松（2006）。適應性績效量表之發展及其與目標導向、前瞻人格之關係。國立政治大學博士論文，未出版。
陳皓怡、高尚仁與吳治富（2007）。家長式領導對多國籍部屬身心健康之影響：以華人外派主管為例。應用心理研究，36，223-244。
郭建志（2009）。領導行為與員工反應：主管意圖歸因的調節效果。國立中正大學碩士論文，未出版。
簡博浩與韓志翔（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），17-62。
鄭伯壎（1995）。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（台北），79，119-173。
鄭伯壎（1995）。差序格局與華人組織行為。本土心理學研究，3， 142-219。
鄭伯壎、林姿葶、鄭弘岳、周麗芳、任金剛與樊景立（2010）。家長式領導與部屬效能：多層次分析觀點。中華心理學刊，52（1），1-23。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳與樊景立（2000）。家長式領導：三元模式的建構與測量。本土心理學研究，14，3-62。
鄭伯壎、謝佩鴛與周麗芳（2002）。校長領導作風、上下關係品質及教師角色外行為：轉型式與家長式領導的效果。本土心理學研究期刊，17， 105-161。
鄭伯壎、樊景立與周麗芳（2006）。家長式領導：模式與證據。台北。
樊景立與鄭伯壎（2000）。家長式領導：再一次思考。本土心理學研究，13，219-227。

二、英文部份
Allworth, E. (1997). The criterion-related validity and generalisability of alternative biodata scaling methods. Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology, St Louis, MI.
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. doi: 10.1007/bf02723327
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory. .
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）.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (Ed.) (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior.: Handbook of psychology.
Charles S. Carver, M. F. S. (Ed.). (2001). On the Self-Regulation of Behavior: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, G., Thomas, B., & Craig Wallace, J. (2005). A multilevel examination of the relationships among training outcomes, mediating regulatory processes, and adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 827-841. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.827
Chun-Pai, N., An-Chih, W., & Bor-Shuian, C. (2009). Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent leader: Probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 32-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.01267.x
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-707. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.678
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 615-634. doi: 10.1016/s1048-9843(02)00147-9
F., H. (Ed.). (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 85-127). London: Macmillan.
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R., & Baumeister, R. (2005). Parenting behaviour and adolescent behavioural and emotional problems: The role of self-control. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(1), 58-69. doi: 10.1080/01650250444000333
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18(1), 39-50.
Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., Judge, T. A., & Martinko, M. J. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In M. Martinko Attribution theory An organizational perspective, （pp.231-252）.
Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader—Member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23(3), 429-458. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90008-4
Hair, T. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis(5th ed.).
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John W iley & Sons.
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, 21-55.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A Brief Tutorial on the Development of Measures for Use in Survey Questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods 1(1), 104-121.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T. C., Dugdale, B., & Nelson, L. (1994). Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 826-835. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.826
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457-501.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311-328. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311
Leach, M. P., Liu, A. H., & Johnston, W. J. (2005). The role of self-regulation training in developing the motivation management capabilities of salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(3), 269-281.
Lord, R. G., Diefendorff, J. M., Schmidt, A. M., & Hall, R. J. (2010). Self-Regulation at Work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 543-568. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100314
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 561-585. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.004
McCall, J. M. W. (1986). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Human Resource Management, 25(3), 481-484.
Moilanen, K. L. (2007). The adolescent self-regulatory inventory: The development and validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term self-regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(6), 835-848.
Moss, S., Ritossa, D., & Ngu, S. (2006). The effect of follower regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership behavior: The role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27(2), 93-107. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001.27.2.93
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24(3), 391-419.
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic lwadership: A review and agenda for future research.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, Scott B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133.
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., Borman, W. C., & Hedge, J. W. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human Performance, 15(4), 299-323.
Raines-Eudy, R. (2000). Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity: An empirical demonstration. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(1), 124-141. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem0701_07
Robins, G., & Boldero, J. (2003). Relational discrepancy theory: The implications of self-discrepancy theory for dyadic relationships and for the emergence of social structure. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 7(1), 56-74.
Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2007). What to do? The effects of discrepancies, incentives, and time on dynamic goal prioritization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 928-941. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.928
Schmitt, N., Cortina, J. M., Ingerick, M. J. and Wiechmann, D. (2003). Personnel selection and employee performance. . Handbook of Psychology. , 77–105. doi: 10.1002/0471264385.wei1205
Scmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of pratice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science 3(4), 207-217.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.
Stadjkovic, A. D., Luthans, F., & Slocum Jr, J. W. (1998). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond traditional motivational and behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 62-74.
Vancouver, J. B., & Day, D. V. (2005). Industrial and organisation research on self-regulation: From constructs to applications. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 155–185. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00202.x
Vancouver, J. B., & Tischner, E. C. (2004). The effect of feedback sign on task performance depends on self-concept discrepancies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1092-1098. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1092
Wendt, H., Euwema, M. C., & van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 358-370. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.005
Westwood, R. I., & Chan, A. ( 1992). Headship and leadership. In R. I. Westwood (Ed.), Organizational behaviour: A Southeast Asian perspective (pp. 123-139). Hong Kong: Longman.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4279067
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). New York: Academic.