請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67352完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 吳宗祐(Tsung-Yu Wu) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Shih-Ming Wang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 王世明 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T01:28:54Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-08-20 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2017-08-20 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2017-08-04 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 王安智（2004）。《從轉型式領導到創造性績效產出的心理歷程》。國立臺灣大學心理學研究，碩士論文。
李怡璇（2003）。《公共投資對製造業、生產者服務業發展之關聯性研究》。國立政治大學地政研究所，博士論文。 林姿葶、鄭伯壎（2012）。〈華人領導者的噓寒問暖與提攜教育: 仁慈領導之雙構面模式〉。《本土心理學研究》，37，253-302。 林新沛（2005）。〈標準化迴歸係數的正確解釋〉。《中山管理評論》，13，533-548。林家五、王悅縈、胡宛仙（2012）。〈真誠領導與仁慈領導對組織公民行為及主管忠誠之差異效果〉。《本土心理學研究》，38，205-256。 姜定宇、鄭伯壎、鄭紀瑩、周麗芳（2007）。〈華人效忠主管的概念分析與量表建構〉。《中華心理學刊》，49407-432。 陳明璋（1984）。〈家族文化與企業管理〉，見楊國樞、黃光國、莊仲仁（主編）：《中國式管理研討會論文集》，台北：國立臺灣大學。 楊中芳(1999)。〈人際關係與人際情感的構念化〉。《本土心理學研究》，12， 105-179。 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》，13，126-180。 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》（台北），79，119-173。 鄭伯壎（1995b）。〈差序格局與華人組織行為〉。《本土心理學研究》（台北），3，142-219。 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: 三元模式的建構與測量〉。 《本土心理學研究》，14，3-64。 Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-377. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-88. Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231-253. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184. Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfleld, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity: Evaluation, coaction, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6-21. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297-1333. Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87. Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self‐esteem. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 35-67. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schmacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling ( pp. 269 – 296). Mahwah, NJ: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359-373. 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, 1173. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476. Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 41-70. Bentler, P. M. (1988). Causal modeling via structural equation systems. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 317–335). New York: Plenum. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2, 349-444. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136-136. Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380-400. Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35-48. Chan, S. C., & Mak, W. M. (2012). Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leader–member exchange (LMX). Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 285-301. Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40, 796-819. Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89-117. Cheng, B. S., Huang, M. P., & Chou, L. F. (2002), Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from Chinese organizational teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 3, 85-112. Coelho, F., & Augusto, M. (2010). Job characteristics and the creativity of frontline service employees. Journal of Service Research, 13, 426-438. Davis, G. A., & Subkoviak, M. J. (1975). Multidimensional analysis of a personality‐based test of creative potential. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 37-43. De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739-756. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037. Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580. Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884. Drazin, R., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Community, population, and organization effects on innovation: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1065-1083. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383. Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 5-28. Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In R. M. Kramer, & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general path analytic framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. 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. London UK: Macmillan. 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.), Business leadership in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices (pp. 171–205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. 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. Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. Staw & L.L. Cumming (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175-208). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. (1984). Varieties of divergent production. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 1-10. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from http:// www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349-366. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago IL: National Education Resources Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724. Kanter, R. M. (1988). Three tiers for innovation research. Communication Research, 15, 509-523. Kim, T. Y., Hon, A. H., & Lee, D. R. (2010). Proactive personality and employee creativity: The effects of job creativity requirement and supervisor support for creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 37-45. Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465. Lin, W. P., Ma, J. J., Zhang, Q., Li, J. C., & Jiang, F. (2016). How is benevolent leadership linked to employee creativity? The mediating role of leader-member exchange and the moderating role of power distance orientation. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3314-4. Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1187-1212. Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K., & Hemingway, M. A. (2005). The importance of job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 399-406. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634. Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 925-939. Proudfoot, D., Kay, A. C., & Koval, C. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attribution of creativity: Archival and experimental evidence for the perceived association between masculinity and creative thinking. Psychological Science, 26, 1751-1761. Redding, G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483-503. Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33-53. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933-958. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703-714. Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and values: The organization of large-scale Taiwanese enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Simon, H. A. (1967). Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review, 74, 29-39. Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005-1016. 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., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-620. Troster, C., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Leader openness, nationality dissimilarity, and voice in multinational management teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 591-613. Volmer, J., Spurk, D., Niessen, C. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 456-465. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt. Wang, A. C., & Cheng, B. S. (2010). When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 106-121. Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for'paternalistic headship'among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18, 445-480. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321. Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261-276. Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 261-276. Zhou, J. (2006). A model of paternalistic organizational control and group creativity. National Culture and Groups, 9, 75-94. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682-696. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/67352 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 過去文獻指出仁慈領導可能透過心理安全與服從不貳對部屬創造力績效產生正向與負向兩種影響路徑，然而，尚無實徵研究同時檢驗這兩種路徑，特別是仁慈領導如何與何時對創造力績效產生正向與負向影響。為了補足上述缺口，本研究回應過去文獻，以心理安全與服從不貳分別作為正向與負向路徑的中介，並探討工作自主性在這兩個中介效果上扮演的調節作用。本研究選取跨產業樣本，採用主管與部屬配對問卷，總計回收203筆對偶資料。結果顯示：在雙路徑模型中，心理安全在仁慈領導與創造力績效之間具有正向中介效果，但仁慈領導並不會透過服從不貳的中介，對創造力績效產生負向的預測效果；另外，工作自主性能夠調節（弱化）服從不貳的負向中介效果，卻不會調節心理安全之正向中介效果。本研究進一步探討所得結果在理論與實務上的貢獻、限制及意涵。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Past literature suggests that benevolent leadership (BL) might have positive and negative effect on employee creative performance (CP). However, research has only found the positive relationship between BL and CP under certain situation. It is not clear regarding how and when does BL influence CP negatively. In order to fill up the research gap, the present study investigated the mediation effect of psychological safety (PS) and subordinate loyalty (SL) as well as identified job autonomy (JA) as moderator that influence the mediation effect of PS and SL. Using 203 dyad of supervisors and subordinates as samples, the present study found that BL influences CP positively through PS, however, BL does not have negative impact on CP via SL. Also, JA has significant moderating effect on the mediation effect of SL. When JA is high, the negative mediation effect of SL is weaker; when the moderator is low, the negative mediation effect is stronger. This study extends the creativity literature by establishing the mediation process between BL and CP. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T01:28:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R03227123-1.pdf: 1779200 bytes, checksum: 16391ba311a2b264b662275bc6e7cf05 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節 創造力績效 5 第二節 仁慈領導與創造力績效 11 第三節 工作自主性在雙路徑中的角色 18 第四節 研究架構 22 第三章 研究方法 23 第一節 施測程序 23 第二節 研究樣本 23 第三節 測量工具 24 第四節 資料分析 31 第四章 研究結果 34 第一節 測量模式比較 34 第二節 相關係數矩陣 35 第三節 中介效果檢驗 37 第四節 調節式中介模式驗證 40 第五章 討論與建議 42 第一節 結果討論與貢獻 42 第二節 研究限制 48 第三節 未來研究方向 50 第四節 實務意涵 52 參考文獻 53 附錄一 問卷施測說明 62 附錄二 主管問卷 63 附錄三 部屬問卷 68 附錄四 調節式中介原始完整報表 75 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 心理安全 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 仁慈領導 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 工作自主性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 創造力績效 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 服從不貳 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | creative performance | en |
| dc.subject | benevolent leadership | en |
| dc.subject | subordinate loyalty | en |
| dc.subject | psychological safety | en |
| dc.subject | job autonomy | en |
| dc.title | 仁慈的雙面刃：仁慈領導對創造力績效的雙路徑模式 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Double-edged Sword of Benevolence: The Two Path Model between Benevolent Leadership and Creativity | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 鄭伯壎(Bor-Shiuan Cheng) | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 郭建志(Chien-Chih Kuo),王叢桂(Chung-kwei Wang) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 仁慈領導,心理安全,服從不貳,創造力績效,工作自主性, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | benevolent leadership,creative performance,psychological safety,subordinate loyalty,job autonomy, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 77 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201702619 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2017-08-07 | |
| 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-106-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.74 MB | 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。