請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27117
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭伯壎 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yi-Li Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃亦莉 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-12T17:55:47Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-02-18 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-02-18 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-01-31 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 王叢桂(2005)。華人價值研究。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編)。「華人本土心理學」,633-664。台北:遠流出版社。
白崇亮(1986)。組織承諾研究 --- 理論與實證。「管理評論」,2卷,5期,30-51。 朱瑞玲(1988)。中國人的社會互動:論面子的問題。見楊國樞(主編):「中國人的心理」。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 危芷芬、黃光國(1998)。積極義務與消極義務:台美大學生道德判斷的文化比較研究。「中華心理學刊」,40卷,2期,137-153。 李亦園(1985)。中國家族及其儀式 --- 若干觀念的探討。「中央研究院民族學研究所集刊」(台北),23期,167-193。 李聿旻(2006)。「積極與消極德行領導:一項區辨效度的初步分析」(未發表之碩士論文)。台北:國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 李柏英(2002)。評價歷程的理論與測量:探討價值觀與情境關聯的新取向。「應用心理學研究」,14期,79-115。 李樹青(1982)。「蛻變中的中國社會」。台北:里仁書局。 李慕華(1992)。「組織忠誠的內涵意義、影響因素與行為結果之探討-以台灣中小企業為例」(未發表之碩士論文)。台北:私立輔仁大學應用心理學研究所。 佐斌(2002)。中國人的關係取向:概念及其測量。「華中師範大學學報(人文社會科學版)」,1期。 周逸衡(1984)。「國人價值觀體系與台灣大型企業管理行為關係之研究」(未發表之博士論文)。台北:國立政治大學企業管理研究所。 周麗芳(2002)。華人組織中的關係與社會網絡。「本土心理學研究」,18期,175-228。 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:國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 林以正(1999)。華人的社會比較:比較什麼?與誰比較?為何比較?「本土心理學研究」,93-125。 金耀基(1988)。面、恥與中國人行為分析。見楊國樞(主編):「中國人的心理」。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 姜定宇(2005)。「華人部屬與主管關係、主管忠誠、及其後續結果:一項兩階段研究」(未發表之博士論文)。台北:國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 姜定宇(2007)。華人效忠主管的概念分析與量表建構。「中華心理學刊」,49卷,4期,407-432。 姜定宇、鄭伯壎(2003)。組織忠誠、組織承諾、及組織公民行為研究之回顧與前瞻。「應用心理研究」,19期,175-210。 姜定宇、鄭伯壎、任金剛、及謝宜君(2005)。主管忠誠:華人本土構念的美國驗證。「中華心理學刊」,2卷,47期,139-156。 徐瑋玲(2003)。工作動機研究之回顧與前瞻。「應用心理研究」,19期,89-113。 張慧芳(1995)。「領導者與部屬間信任格局的決定要素與行為效果之探討」(未 發表之碩士論文)。台北:國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 費孝通(1948)。「鄉土中國」。香港:鳳凰出版社。 黃光國(1988)。中國人的權力遊戲。台北:巨流出版社。 黃光國(2005)。華人社會中的臉面觀。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編)。「華人本土心理學」,633-664。台北:遠流出版社。 黃懿慧(2002)。「關係取向」理論模式初探:組織與利益關係人關係之探討。「本土心理學研究」,18期,95-174。 雷海宗(1984)。「中國文化與中國的兵」(台灣版)。台北:里仁書局。 楊中芳、趙志裕(1987)。中國受測者所面臨的矛盾困境:對過份依賴西方評定量表的反省。「中華心理學刊」(台灣),29卷,2期,113-132。 楊中芳(1991)。中國人真的具有「集體主義」傾向嗎?見漢學研究中心(主編):「中國人的價值觀國際研討會論文集」。台北:漢學研究中心。 楊中芳(1994)。中國人真是『集體主義』的嗎﹖。載楊國樞主編:「中國人的價值觀-社會科學觀點」,321-434。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 楊宜音(2000)。自己人:一項有關中國人關係分類的個案研究。「本土心理學研究」,13期,277-316。 楊國樞(1981)。心理學研究的中國化:層次與方向。見楊國樞、文崇一(主編):「社會及行為科學研究的中國化」。台北:中央研究院民族學研究所。 楊國樞(1982)。心理學研究的中國化:層次與方向。見楊國樞、文崇一(主編)「社會及行為科學研究的中國化」。台北:中央研究院民族學研究所。 楊國樞(1985)。現代社會的新孝道。見中華文化復興運動推行委員會(主編):「現代生活態度研討會論文集」。台北:中華文化復興運動推行委員會。亦見「中華文化復興月刊」(台北),19卷,1期,56-67。又以中國人之孝道觀念的分析為題收入楊國樞(1988):「中國人的蛻變」。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 楊國樞(1988):中國人之孝道觀念。「中國人的蛻變」。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 楊國樞(1993)。中國人的社會取向:社會互動的觀點。見楊國樞、余安邦(主編):「中國人的心理與行為:理念與方法篇(一九九二)」。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 楊國樞(1998)。家族化歷程、泛家族主義及組織管理。收錄於「海峽兩岸之組織與管理」,19-59,台北:遠流圖書公司。 楊國樞(2004)。華人自我的理論分析與實徵研究:社會取向與個人取向的觀點。「本土心理學研究」,22期,11-80。 楊國樞(2005)。華人社會取向的理論分析。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編):「華人本土心理學」,173-213。台北,遠流出版社。 楊國樞、葉明華(2005)。家族主義與泛家族主義。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編):「 華人本土心理學(上)」,249-292。台北:遠流出版社。 楊懋春(1972)。中國人的家族主義與民族性。見李亦園、楊國樞(主編):「中國人的性格」。台北:中央研究院民族學研究所。又見李亦園、楊國樞(主編)(1988):「中國人的性格」。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 葉明華(1990)。「中國人的家族主義與變遷」(未發表之論文)。台北:台灣大學心理學研究所。 葉明華、楊國樞(1998)。中國人的家族主義:概念分析與實徵衡鑑。「中央研究院民族學研究所集刊」(台北),83 期,169-225。 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」,13期,127-180。 鄭伯壎(1991)。家族主義與領導行為。見高尚仁、楊中芳(主編):「中國人、中國心—人格與社會篇」,365-408。台北:遠流出版社。 鄭伯壎(1993)。權威家長的領導行為。見楊國樞、余安邦(主編):「中國人的心理與行為:理念及方法篇(一九九二)」。255-291。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 鄭伯壎(1995)。差序格局與華人組織行為。「本土心理學研究」,3期,142-219。 鄭伯壎(2003)。台灣組織行為研究:過去、現在及未來。見鄭伯壎、姜定宇、鄭弘岳(主編):「組織行為研究在台灣:三十年的回顧與展望」。台北:桂 冠圖書公司。 鄭伯壎(2005)。「華人領導---理論與實際」。 台北:桂冠圖書公司。 鄭伯壎、吳宗祐、及姜定宇(2004)。「情感性與義務性忠誠:區辨效度的分析」。華人本土心理學追求卓越計畫第三年結案報告。台北。 鄭伯壎、周麗芳、黃敏萍、樊景立、及彭泗清(2003)。家長是領導的三元模式:中國大陸企業組織的證據。「本土心理學研究」,20期,209-250。 鄭伯壎、周麗芳、及黃敏萍(2002)。家長式領導與部屬反應:華人組織有效領導模式的建立。「華人本土心理學追求卓越計畫學術研討會宣讀論文」。台北:國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 鄭伯壎、周麗芳、及樊景立(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期,3-64。 鄭伯壎、姜定宇(2005)。華人企業組織中的忠誠。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編)。「華人本土心理學」,633-664。台北:遠流出版社。 鄭伯壎、姜定宇(2000)。華人組織中的主管忠誠:主位與客位概念對員工效能的效果。「本土心理學研究」,14期,65-114。 鄭伯壎、黃敏萍(2000)。華人企業組織中的主管忠誠:一項文化價值的分析。「中山管理評論」,8卷,4期,583-617。 鄭伯壎、樊景立 (2001)。初探華人社會的社會取向:台灣與大陸之比較研究。「中華心理學刊」,2卷,43期,207-221。 鄭伯壎、鄭紀瑩、及周麗芳(1999)。「效忠主管:概念構念、測量、及相關因素的探討」。第三屆華人心理學家學術研討會(北京)的口頭發表論文。 鄭伯壎、謝佩鴛、及周麗芳(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期,105-161。 鄭紀瑩(1996)。「華人企業的組織忠誠:結構與歷程」(未發表之碩士論文)。台北:國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 劉兆明(1993)。「報」的概念及其在組織研究上的意義。載於楊國樞、余安邦(主編)「中國人的心理與行為—理念及方法篇」。台北,桂冠圖書公司。 劉紀曜(1982)。公與私—忠的倫理內涵。見黃俊傑(主編):「中國文化新論-思想篇二:天道與人道」。台北:聯經出版社。 謝繼昌(1982)。中國家族研究的探討。見楊國樞、文崇一(主編):「社會及行為科學研究的中國化」。台北:中央研究院民族學研究所。 Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude structure and behavior. In A. Pratkanis, S. Breckler, & A. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 241-274). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 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, 1173-1182. Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1986). Four selves, two motives, and a substitute process self-regulation model. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self. New York: Springer-Verlag. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 232-244. Becker, T. E. & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 177-190. Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 464-482. Benkhoff, B. (1997). Ignoring commitment is costly: New approaches establish the missing link between commitment and performance. Human Relations, 50, 701-726. Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119-28. Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organization, Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-549. Chen, Z. X. (1997). Loyalty to supervisor, organizational commitment, and employee outcomes: The Chinese case. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong. Chen, Z. X. (2001). Further investigation of the outcomes of loyalty to supervisor: Job satisfaction and intention to stay. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 650-660. Chen, X. C., Tsui, A. S., Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationship to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 75, 339-356. Cheng, C. K. (1944). Familism: The foundation of Chinese social organization. Social Forces, 23, 50-59. Cheng, B. S., Farh, J. L., Chang, H. F., & Hsu, W. L. (2002). Guanxi, zhongcheng, competence and managerial behavior in Chinese context. Journal of Chinese Psychology, 44(2), 151-166. Cheng, B. S., Jiang, D. Y., & Riley, H. J. (2003). Organizational commitment, supervisory commitment, and employee outcomes in Chinese context: Proximal hypothesis or global hypothesis? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 313-334. 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. 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 (Hong Kong), 3(1), 85-112 Chu, T. S. (1961). Law and society in traditional China. Paris: Mouton. Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26(1), 5-30. Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78. Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. (2006). Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In Anne S. Tsui, Yanjie Bian, and Leonard Cheng (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance (pp.230-260). New York, M.E Sharpe. Festinger, L., (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relation, 7, 117-140. Goffman, E., (1955). On face work. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231. Goffman, E., (1959). The presentation of self in every day life. Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh Press. New York: Doubleday Anchor. 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. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. Gregersen, B. (1993). Multiple commitments at work and extra-role behavior during three stages of organizational tenure. Journal of Business Research, 26, 31-47. Hamilton, G. G. (1990). Patriarchy, patrimonialism, and filial piety: A comparison of China and Western Europe. British Journal of Sociology, 41(1), 77-104. Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 657-693. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organization Dynamics, 9, 42-63. Hofstede, G. H., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independence validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural psychology, 15, 417-33. Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33(4), 499-517. Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Westport, CT: Green-wood Press. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implication for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. March, R. M., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover: A Predictive study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 57-75. Mischel, W. (1984). Convergences and challenges in the search for consistency. American Psychologist, 39, 351-364. Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integration emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781-796. Morrow, P. C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 486-500. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover, San Diego, CA: Academic Press. O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609. Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 465-476. Rousseau, D. M. (1990). Assessing organizational climate and culture (pp.153-192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individual / collectivism: new culture dimension of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon(Eds.) Individualism and collectivism: theory, method, and applications(pp. 85-119). London: Sage. Silin, R.H. (1976). Leadership and value: The organization of large-scale Taiwan enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 251-270. Taylor, S. E. & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman and M. p. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1, pp.89-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tedeschi, J. T. (1986). Private and public experiences and the self. In R. F. Baumeister (Eds.). Public self and private self. New York: Springer-Verlag. Triandis, H. C. (1986) Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In C. Bagley and G. Berma (Eds.). Personality, cognition, and values: Cross-cultural perspectives of childhood and adolescence (pp.2-42). Vinken, H., Soeters, J., & Ester, P. (2004). Cultures and dimensions. Classic perspectives and new opportunities in ‘dimensionalist’ cross-cultural studies. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Weiner, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A behavior approach to job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 47-52. Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for ‘paternalistic headship’ among the Overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18(3), 445-480. Wilson, R. W. (1974) The Moral State: A Study of the Political Socialization of Chinese and American. New York: Free Press. Yang, C. F. (1988). Familism and development: An examination of the role of family in contemporary China Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In D. Sinha & H. S. R. Kao (Eds.), Social values and development: Asian perspectives. New Delhi: Sage. Yang, K. S. (1981). Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan. Journal of social psychology, 113,159-170. Yang, K. S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In T. Y. Lin, W. S. Tseng, & Y. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Yang, K. S. (1999). Towards an indigenous Chinese psychology: A selective review of methodological, theoretical, and empirical accomplishments. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 41(2):181-211. Yang, K. S. (2004) Toward a theory of the Chinese self: Conceptual analysis in terms of social orientation and individual orientation. 見楊國樞、許功餘(主編):「華人的自我歷程、自我概念、及自我評價論文集」。宜蘭縣礁溪:佛光人文社會學院心理學研究所。 Yang, L. S. (1957). The concept of pao as a basis for social relations in China. In J. K., Fairband (Ed.), Chinese thought and institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27117 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 主管忠誠為現今華人組織中相當重要的議題,但多數研究並未重視部屬的傳統華人文化(社會取向)對其所造成的影響。為釐清華人主管忠誠的本土性意涵,本研究認為部屬的華人行為傾向(家族取向及他人取向)為主管忠誠(分為人際忠誠:包含認同內化與犧牲順從;以及任務忠誠:包含主動配合與業務輔佐)的重要前置變項。且更進一步探討主管家長式領導對於部屬華人行為傾向與主管忠誠關係的調節效果。研究樣本來自服務業、觀光旅遊業、及傳統製造業等台灣企業在職員工共281名。研究結果顯示:(1)除了他人取向與犧牲順從沒有顯著關連,兩種華人行為傾向皆與人際及任務忠誠具有顯著的正向關連性;(2)相較於他人取向,家族取向與人際忠誠具有顯著的關連性;並且相較於家族取向,他人取向與任務忠誠具有顯著的關連性;(3)主管的威權領導對於部屬他人取向與業務輔佐的關係具有顯著的調節效果,仁慈領導對於部屬家族取向與人際忠誠、他人取向與主動配合之間的關係具有顯著的調節效果,德行領導對於家族取向與人際忠誠、他人取向與業務輔佐間的關係具有顯著的調節效果。最後,也討論了本研究的貢獻與限制,並且提供未來研究與華人組織管理實務上的建議。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Supervisory loyalty (SL) is a critical issue in modern Chinese organizations. However, most studies do not consider the effect of subordinate’s traditional Chinese culture (social orientation) to supervisory loyalty. To clarify the indigenous meaning of Chinese SL, this study proposed that subordinate’s Chinese behavioral tendencies (familistic orientation and other orientation) are important antecedents of SL (person-related SL: “identification and internalization” and “sacrifice and compliance”; and task-related SL: “initiative supportiveness” and “task assistance”). Furthermore, this study investigated the moderation effect of supervisor’s paternalistic leadership on the relationship between Chinese behavioral tendencies and Chinese SL. In this survey-designed study, the participants were 281 Taiwanese employees from service industry, tourism and leisure industry, and traditional manufacturing industry. Result findings are as follows: (a) both types of Chinese behavioral tendencies are significantly positive-associated with person-related and task-related SL, with an exception that other orientation is not associated with “sacrifice and compliance”; (b) familistic orientation has a stronger association to person-related SL, and other orientation has a stronger association to task-related SL; (c) authoritarian leadership of supervisor moderates the relationship between other orientation and task assistance; benevolent leadership moderates the relationship between familistic orientation and person-related SL, and between other orientation and “initiative supportiveness”; and moral leadership moderates the relationship between familistic orientation and person-related SL, and between other orientation and “task assistance”. Contributions and limitations are discussed, and suggestions are provided for future studies and managerial practices in Chinese organizations. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-12T17:55:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R91227030-1.pdf: 1389662 bytes, checksum: 582f777e72ced213e599c8a31f63e6ae (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review 7 2.1 Familistic Orientation and Other Orientation 7 2.1.1 Social Orientation 7 2.1.2 Definition of Familistic Orientation 9 2.1.3 Definition of Other Orientation 11 2.1.4 Familistic-oriented Self vs. Other-oriented Self 14 2.2 Behavioral Tendency and Loyalty-to-Supervisors 19 2.2.1 Western Concept of Supervisory Commitment 19 2.2.2 Researches of Chinese Supervisory Loyalty 22 2.2.3 Definition and Concepts of Chinese Supervisory Loyalty 27 2.2.4 Relationship between Familistic Orientation and Chinese Supervisory Loyalty 36 2.2.5 Relationship between Other Orientation and Chinese Supervisory Loyalty 38 2.2.6 Comparative Effects of Familistic Orientation and Other Orientation 40 2.3 Moderation Effect of Paternalistic Leadership 41 2.3.1 Definitions and Concept of Paternalistic Leadership 41 2.3.2 Moderation of Paternalistic Leadership on Familistic Orientation and Supervisory Loyalty 43 2.3.3 Moderation of Paternalistic Leadership on Other Orientation and Supervisory Loyalty 46 2.4 Research Framework 47 Chapter 3 Research Methodology 49 3.1 Research Sample 49 3.2 Research Instruments 51 3.3 Research Procedures 55 3.4 Data Analysis 57 Chapter 4 Research Results 60 4.1 Correlations Analysis 60 4.2 Hierarchical Regressions of Familistic Orientation, Other Orientation and Supervisory Loyalty 65 4.3 Hierarchical Regressions of Familistic Orientation, Other Orientation, Supervisory Loyalty and Paternalistic Leadership 69 Chapter 5 Discussion and Suggestion 76 5.1 Discussion of Research Results 76 5.2 Research Limitations and Future Research Directions82 5.3 Theoretical and Practical Implications 84 Reference 86 Appendix I Subordinate Questionnaire 98 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 部屬家族取向、他人取向、與主管忠誠:家長式領導的調節效果 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Familistic Orientation, Other Orientation, and Supervisory Loyalty: A Moderation Effect of Paternalistic Leadership | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 葉光輝,王叢桂,黃敏萍,姜定宇 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 主管忠誠,家族取向,他人取向,家長式領導, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Supervisory Loyalty,Familistic Orientation,Other Orientation,Paternalistic Leadership, | en |
dc.relation.page | 104 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-02-02 | |
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 | 1.36 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。