仁慈領導的多重樣貌與部屬效能之差異：以潛在剖面模型探討雙向度仁慈領導

Abstract

近年來，仁慈領導普遍被視為工作照顧與生活照顧的雙向度研究。過往研究多採變項中心取向，難以呈現兩種照顧行為在個體層次上的組合樣貌。因此，本研究改以個體中心取向探討雙向度仁慈領導的剖面組合，並檢驗不同仁慈領導剖面的效果差異。研究一蒐集350位部屬樣本，採取潛在剖面分析探討仁慈領導剖面的組型。結果顯示，華人組織存有三種仁慈領導剖面：全面型剖面（高工作照顧－高關懷照護－高濟困解危）、叮囑型剖面（中工作照顧－中關懷照護－中濟困解危）及非典型剖面（低工作照顧－低關懷照護－低濟困解危），並以叮囑型剖面出現的比例最高。研究二則蒐集140位主管與部屬之對偶樣本，並再次進行潛在剖面分析及變異數分析。結果同樣發現了全面型剖面、叮囑型剖面及非典型剖面，驗證了仁慈領剖面的可重複性。為了驗證仁慈領導剖面的有效性，本研究分別依據社會交換理論與工作/家庭邊界理論挑選結果變項進行探討。結果顯示，在社會交換理論的觀點下，全面型剖面在貼心關懷、犧牲奉獻與利主管不道德行為的效果最強；在工作/家庭邊界理論的觀點下，全面型剖面在工作-生活增益的效果最強。此外，補充分析發現部屬個人傳統性與部屬照顧回報關係認定，在全面型剖面與犧牲奉獻與工作-生活干擾間分別具有調節效果。在理論貢獻上，本研究透過兩份獨立樣本穩定辨識出三種仁慈領導剖面，並透過不同的理論視角皆發現仁慈領導剖面間的效果差異。在實務貢獻上，本研究將可作為人力資源管理團隊在培訓領導者時的課程參考；亦有助於領導者辨識自身所屬的仁慈領導剖面，並據此調整自身的仁慈領導行為。最後，本研究提出研究限制與未來研究方向。

Benevolent leadership (BL) can be divided into two dimensions, work-related BL and life-related BL. Prior studies have adopted a variable-centered approach that analyzes the effects of each dimension at different levels; however this approach is limited in its ability to capture how leaders simultaneously enact work-related BL and life-related BL and tends to neglect the strength of these behaviors. To addresses these gaps, this study adopts a person-centered approach to identify latent profiles of dual-dimensional benevolent leadership and examine how these profiles differ in their associated outcomes. Study 1 collected data from 350 subordinates and use latent profile analysis to identify benevolent leadership profiles. The results showed three stable profiles: the all-round profile (high work-related BL, high emotional support, high problem-solving), the guidance-focused profile (moderate work-related BL, moderate emotional support, moderate problem-solving), and the atypical profile (low work-related, low emotional support, low problem-solving). Among these profiles, the guidance-focused profile was the most prevalent. Study 2 further collected 140 supervisor–subordinate dyads and conducted latent profile analysis to cross-validate the profile structure. The same three profiles, all-round, guidance-focused, and atypical were consistently identified, supporting the replicability of benevolent leadership profiles. To examine profile validity, outcome variables were selected based on social exchange theory and work/family border theory. In social exchange perspective, the all-round profile exhibited the strongest effects on taking care of supervisor’s personal affairs, sacrifice for supervisor, and pro-supervisor unethical behavior. In work/family border theory perspective, the all-round profile demonstrated the strongest effect on work-life enrichment. Across theoretical perspectives, significant differences were observed among benevolent leadership profiles on outcome variables, providing support for their validity. In addition, supplementary analyses indicated that subordinate traditionality and subordinate’s relational identity of care-repay moderated the relationships between all-round profile and sacrifice for the supervisor, as well as work-life interference, respectively. In terms of theoretical contributions, this study identifies three stable benevolent leadership profiles across two independent samples and demonstrates meaningful differences in their effects from multiple theoretical perspectives, thereby extending prior variable-centered research on benevolent leadership. In terms of practical implications, the findings provide guidance for human resource management teams in designing leadership development and training programs; the findings also .help leaders identify their own benevolent leadership profile and adjust their leadership behaviors accordingly. Finally, the limitations of the present study and directions for future research are discussed.