請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/37301完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭伯壎 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Po-Ying Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林伯穎 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T15:23:48Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2011-07-30 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2008-07-30 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2008-07-22 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 王榮春、陳彰儀（2003）。部屬觀點之領導互動論：部屬主管領導行為的知覺因素與互動內涵。「應用心理學研究」，20，181-215。
任金剛、樊景立、鄭伯壎、周麗芳（2003）。「家長式領導與其效能：情境因素之調節效果」。教育部華人本土心理學研究追求卓越計畫研究報告，台北。 周麗芳（2006）。「華人工作團隊之社會關係與成員效能：多元向度、多重網絡的探討」（未發表之博士論文）。台北：台灣大學心理學研究所。 周麗芳、鄭伯壎、林伯穎（2008）。「組織層次與家長式領導：上層家長式領導的骨牌效應與效能」。教育部華人本土心理學研究追求卓越計畫研討會宣讀論文。 林姿葶（2006）。「部屬與主管的性別配對與部屬效能：家長式領導與共事時間的調節效果」（未發表之碩士論文）。台北：台灣大學心理學研究所。 孫常德（2006）。「海軍紀律指標建構之研究」。台北：國立政治大學社科院行政管理碩士學程。 陳美伶（2002）。「組織中的直屬主管信任與組織信任：一項區辨效度的分析」（未發表之碩士論文）。台北：台灣大學心理學研究所。 楊國樞（1995）。「家族化歷程、泛家族主義、及組織管理」。海峽兩岸組織文化暨人力資源管理研討會宣讀論文。台北：信義文化基金會。 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。 鄭伯壎（1992）。家長權威與領導行為關係初探。「中央研究院民族學研究所：中國人的心理與行為科際學術研討會論文集」。台北：中央研究院民族研究所。 鄭伯壎（1995a）。差序格局與華人組織行為。「本土心理學研究期刊」，3，142-219。 鄭伯壎（1995b）。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（1995c）。「不同家長權威價值與領導作風的關係：台灣民營企業的實徵研究」。國科會專題研究報告，台北。 鄭伯壎（1997a）。「威權領導與領導效能：初步探討」。國科會專題計畫成果報告。 鄭伯壎（2000）。「華人組織的家長式領導：概念再建構、測量及模式的建立」。國科會專題計畫成果報告。 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、周麗芳（2008）。家長式領導：一項全方位研究取徑。楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳（主編）：「華人本土心理學研究的進展」。台北：遠流出版公司。 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」，20，209-252。 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、莊仲仁（1981）。基層軍事幹部有效領導行為之因素分析：領導績效、領導角色與領導行為之關係。「中華心理學刊」，23，97-196。 鄭伯壎、樊景立、周麗芳（2006）。「家長式領導：模式與證據」。台北：華泰文化事業公司。 鄭伯壎、謝佩鴛、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」，17，105-161。 Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretinginteractions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Albrecht, P. (2005) : Die Kapitalanlageperformance der Lebensversicherer 1985 – 2004, Versicherungswirtschaft 18/2005, 1370 – 1374. Antonakis, J.., & Atwater, L. E. (2002). Leader distance: a review and proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673–704. Barnard, C. I. ( 1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barron, 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, 1173–1182. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Bogardus, E. S. (1927). Leadership and social distance. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 173–178. Brockner, J., Seigal, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effectsof outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558-583. Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549–556. Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Huang, M. P., & Jen, C. K. （2002）. Shared team value and team effectiveness: Assessing the mediating effect of intrateam process. Manuscript submitted for publication. Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Huang, M. P., & Wu, T. Y., Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate reverence: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89-117。 Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2007). What Happens to Power Distance in Chinese Business and Military Organizations? Paper accepted to present at 2007 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Philadelphia, U.S.A. Chou, L. F., Cheng, B. S., & Jen, C. K. (2005). The Contingent model of paternalistic leadership: Subordinate dependence and leader competence. Paper Presented at 2005 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Hawaii, U.S.A. Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. (2006). Power and organizations. London: Sage. Cox, T. J. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Davies, P. W. (1997). Current issues in business ethics. London, New York : Routledge. Dubin, R. (1979). Metaphors of leadership: An overview. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in leadership (pp. 225-238). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573. Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. （2000）. A Cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J.T. Li., Tsui, A.S., & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese Context. London: Macmillan. Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. (2006). Authority and Benevolence: Employees’ Responses to Paternalistic Leadership in China. In Tsui, A. S., Bian, Y., & Cheng, Leonard (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance, (pp.230-260). New York: M.E Sharpe, Inc. Farh, J. L., Dobbins, O., & Cheng, B. S. (1991). Culture relativity in action: A comparision of self-ratings made by Chinese and U.S. workers. Personnel Psychology, 44, 129-147. Farh, J. L., Liang, J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese Organizations: Research progress and future research direction. In Chen, C. C. & Y. T. Lee (Eds). Business Leadership in China: Philosophies, Theories & Practices. London: Cambridge University Press ( in press ). Fiedler, F. E. (1967)., A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness., McGraw-Hill, New York. Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. （2007）. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479-514. George, J. M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107-116. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513-524. Griffin, M. A., & Mathieu, J. E., (1997). Modeling organfizational process across hierarchical levels : Climate, leadership, and group process in work group. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 731-744. Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (1974). Organiaztional Climate: Measures, Research and Contingencies . Academy of Management Journal, 17, 255-280. Hersey, P., &and Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership: is there a best style of leadership?. Training and Development Journal, 33(, 6), pp. 26-34. Holden, P.E., Fish, L.S., Smith, H.L. (1941), Top Management Organization and Control, A Research Study of the Management Policies and Practices of Thirty Leading Industrial Corporations, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA/London, . House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. Larson （Eds.）, Leadership: The cutting edge(: pp.189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71–114. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680– 694. Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hunt, J. G., & Ropo, A. (1995). Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream theory applied to the case of General Motors. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 379–412. Hunt, J. G., Osborn, R. N., &and Larson, L. L. (1975). Upper level technical orientation and first level leadership within a noncontingency framework. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 475-488. Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity enhancement. New York: Praeger. Jaques, E. (1978). General theory of bureaucracy. Exter, NH: Heinemann Books. Jaques, E. (1986). A discussion of stratified systems theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 361-384. Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, 2,( pp.67–91). Amsterdam: JA1 Press. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3 (3), 211-236. Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195–229. Klein, K., Bliese, B., Kozlowski, S., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M., Griffin M.,et al., (2000). Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions. In K. J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations (pp. 512-556). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass. Larsson, G., Sjöberg, M., Vrbanjac, A., & Björkman, T. (2005). Indirect leadership in a military context: a qualitative study on how to do it. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 215-227. Lee, K., Carswell, J., & Allen, N. (2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment: Relations with person and work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 799–811. Lewin, K. (1951), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers, In D.Cartwright (Ed.), New York: Harper & Row. Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 459-514. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. Mann, H. (1965). Horace mann on the crisis in education. Yellow Springs, Ohio:Antioch Press. Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., and& Hinnings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal ,36 , 1175–1195. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper and Row. Mumnford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). The leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 154-166. Napier, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 3(4), 321–357. O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499. Oshagbemi, T., & Gill, R. (2004). Differences in leadership styles and behaviour across hierarchical levels in UK organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 93-116. Pfiffner, J. M., & Sherwood, F. P. (1960). Administrative behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Podsakoff et al., (1996). Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, S. B. & and W.H. Bommer, W. H. (1996). , Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology ,81 (1996), pp. 380–399. Popper, M. (1996). Leadership in military combat units and business organizations: a comparative psychological analysis. Journal of Management Psychology, 11, 15-23. Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-113. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), 19–47. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387-409. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification in military units: Direct and indirect effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 612-640. Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and value: The organization of large-scale Taiwan enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the ”causes” of performance: A general Alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414-432. Treviño, L., & Brown, M. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring ethical leadership: Development of an instrument. Academy of Management Proceedings. Retrieved December 7, 2005 from Business Source Premier Database. Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: levels-of-management and levels-ofanalysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 266–285. Weaver, S., & Weston, J. (2003). A unifying theory of value based management. eScholar Repository (University of California, Anderson School of Management). Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=anderson/fin Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for 'paternalistic headship' among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18, 445-480. Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C., (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77– 140. Yagil, D. (1998). Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: attribution of charisma to close and distant leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 161–176. Yammarino, F. J. (1994). Indirect Leadership: transformational leadership at a distance. In B. M. Bass, & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 26–47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/37301 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 過去組織行為中有關領導效能的研究，幾乎都集中在直屬主管的領導現象，少部分探討組織最高管理者(例如CEO)的領導對組織文化、整體績效的影響，明顯忽略了間接主管（直屬主管之直屬主管）對員工行為的影響，使得組織中有關領導的研究產生了甚大的缺口。不僅西方領導研究如此，將組織結構層次帶入考量，同時瞭解直屬主管與間接主管之領導效能，在華人領導理論，家長式領導的相關實徵研究中，亦付之闕如。故研究者以軍事營隊之473位排長為研究樣本，用問卷研究法來探討直接家長式領導與間接家長式領導對部屬效能（工作績效、營隊認同及軍人承諾）的影響。研究結果發現：(1)相較於間接領導者，直接家長式領導對部屬的工作績效有較強的影響作用；反之，間接家長式領導對部屬的態度效能(營隊認同與軍人承諾)則有較大的淨解釋力；(2)間接領導者的仁慈領導對直接領導者的德行領導與營隊認同之關係具正向調節效果；(3)在間接領導者的威權領導部分，其在直接領導者的威權領導與工作績效間關係具有正向調節效果；在直接領導者的仁慈領導與軍人承諾的關係則呈負向調節效果；最後，在直接威權領導與營隊認同、直接德行領導與軍人承諾之關係中，產生正向調節效果；(4)至於間接領導者的德行領導，其對直接領導者的仁慈領導與營隊認同間的關係呈負向調節效果；對直接威權領導與軍人承諾的關係呈正向調節效果。最後，進一步論述本研究的研究限制、未來研究方向及管理意涵。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | In the past leadership researches, over 90% papers were focus on direct supervisors’ leadership, but neglected the effects of the higher leaders(ex.CEO). It makes leadership theories incomplete. Not only the western leadership research but Paternalistic leadership theory that is also called the indigenous approach leadership theory is in the same situation. This study took 473 platoon leaders in military companies with different task types. Here are the findings：(1) Compare with indirect leaders, direct leaders are more powerful on work performance; whereas compare with direct leaders, indirect leaders are more powerful on unit identification and occupational commitment. (2) The influence of the direct moral leadership on unit identification is moderated positively by indirect benevolent leadership. (3) In authoritarian leadership of indirect leaders, the influence of the direct authoritarian leadership on work performance are moderated positively by indirect authoritarian leadership; and indirect benevolent leadership moderates negatively the relationships between the direct authoritarian leadership and career commitment ; indirect authoritarian leadership moderates positively the relationships between the direct authoritarian leadership and unit identification, the direct moral leadership and career commitment. (4) The influence of the direct benevolent leadership on unit identification is moderated positively by the indirect moral leadership; the influence of the direct authoritarian leadership on career commitment is moderated positively by indirect moral leadership. Finally, it is also discussed in this study for the main findings and limitations as well as future study directions and management implications. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T15:23:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R94227117-1.pdf: 679630 bytes, checksum: 2dfe57ce713c19a66204e2f494b893dc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 ……………………………………………………… 1
第二章 理論與研究假設 ………………………………………… 5 第一節 家長式領導三元模式 …………………………………… 5 第二節 領導與層次 ……………………………………………… 7 第三節 家長式領導、結構距離與部屬效能 ……………………22 第三章 研究方法………………………………………………… 36 第一節 研究樣本………………………………………………… 36 第二節 研究程序………………………………………………… 38 第三節 研究工具與變項操作…………………………………… 39 第四節 統計分析………………………………………………… 45 第四章 研究結果………………………………………………… 47 第一節 研究變項之相關分析…………………………………… 47 第二節 直接領導與間接領導對部屬效能之分析……………… 50 第三節 間接領導對直接領導與部屬效能的調節效果………… 53 第五章 討論與建議……………………………………………… 61 第一節 研究結果與討論………………………………………… 61 第二節 研究限制與未來研究方向……………………………… 66 第三節 管理實務上的意涵……………………………………… 68 參考文獻………………………………………………………… 70 附錄一 排長研究問卷……………………………………………78 附錄二 連長研究問卷……………………………………………83 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 多組織層級家長式領導效能之探討：以軍事組織為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Study of Multi-structural level Paternalistic Leadership Effectiveness：Military organization as an Example | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 周麗芳 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 郭建志,吳宗祐,黃敏萍 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 家長式領導,組織層次,多層次分析,直接領導與間接領導,領導者距離, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | paternalistic leadership,structural level,analysis of multilevel,direct and indirect leadership,leader distance, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 84 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2008-07-22 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 心理學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-97-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 663.7 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。