請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/42373
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 鄭伯壎(Bor-Shiuan Cheng) | |
dc.contributor.author | Jui-Hsiang Huang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃瑞祥 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T01:12:47Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-08-19 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2009-08-19 | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2009-07-30 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 王耀德(1995)。評差序格局與華人組織行為:兼論組織行為理論本土化問題及策略。「本土心理學研究」,3,238-249。
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」,11,93-125。 安瑟姆與茱麗葉(Anselm S. & Juliet C., 1998/2001)。「質性研究入門:紮根理論研究方法」(吳芝儀、廖梅花譯)。台北:濤石文化事業有限公司。 周麗芳、鄭伯壎、樊景立、任金剛、黃敏萍(2006)。家長式領導。見鄭伯壎、姜定宇(主編):「華人組織行為:議題、作法與出版」,頁46-75。台北:華泰圖書公司。 胡幼慧(1996)。多元方法:三角交叉檢視法。胡幼慧(主編):「質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例」,頁271-285。台北:巨流圖書公司。 胡幼慧、姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考。胡幼慧(主編):「質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例」,頁141-158。台北:巨流圖書公司。 徐富珍(1998)。「社會比較的效果:對個人情感、認知、及行為之影響研究」(未發表之博士論文)。台北:國立政治大學心理學研究所。 徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎、黃敏萍(2002)。華人企業領導領導人的員工歸類與管理行為。「本土心理學研究」,18,51-94。 徐瑋伶(2004)。「海峽兩岸企業主管之差序式領導:一項歷程性的分析」(未發表之博士論文)。台北:國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎、郭建志、胡秀華(2006)。差序式領導。見鄭伯壎、姜定宇(主編):「華人組織行為:議題、作法與出版」,頁84-111。台北:華泰圖書公司。 馬汀與喬治(Martin W. & George G., 2000/2008)。「質性資料分析:文本、影像與聲音」(羅世宏、蔡欣怡、薛丹琦譯)。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 麥可(Michael Q., 1990/1995)。「質的評鑑與研究」(吳芝儀、李奉儒譯)。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 強那生(Jonathan A., 2003/2006)。「質性心理學:研究方法的實務指南」(丁興祥、張慈宜、曾寶瑩譯)。台北:遠流圖書公司。 張國義(2004)。「員工歸類模式對甄選、晉升之影響:差序格局觀點」(未發表之博士論文)。高雄:國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所。 黃光國(1988a)。人情與面子:中國人的權力遊戲。見黃光國(主編):「中國人的權力遊戲」,頁7-56。台北:巨流圖書公司。 黃光國(1988b)。中國式家族企業的現代化。見黃光國(主編):「中國人的權力遊戲」,頁233-272。台北:巨流圖書公司。 黃光國(2005a)。華人關係主義的理論建構。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編):「華人本土心理學」,頁215-248。台北:遠流圖書公司。 黃光國(2005b)。心理學本土化的理論基礎。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編):「華人本土心理學」,頁57-80。台北:遠流圖書公司。 黃囇莉(1996)。「中國人的人際和諧與衝突:理論建構與實徵研究」(未發表之博士論文)。台北:國立台灣大學心理學研究所。 黃囇莉(1999)。「人際和諧與衝突:本土化的理論與研究」。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 黃囇莉(2005)。人際和諧與人際衝突。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編):「華人本土心理學」,頁521-566。台北:遠流圖書公司。 黃囇莉(2008)。科學渴望創意、創意需要科學:紮根理論在本土心理學中的運用與轉化。見楊中芳(主編):「本土心理研究取徑論叢」,頁233-272。台北:遠流圖書公司。 費孝通(1948)。鄉土中國與鄉土重建。上海:觀察社。 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─理論與方法篇(一九九二)」,頁87-142。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 楊國樞(1995)。家族化歷程、泛家族主義、及組織管理。見鄭伯壎(主編):「台灣與大陸的企業文化及人力資源管理研討會論文集」,頁20-59。台北:信義文化基金會。 楊國樞(1997)。心理學研究的本土契合性及其相關問題。「本土心理學研究」,8,75-120。 楊國樞、葉明華(2002)。中國人的家族主義:概念與衡鑑。見楊國樞(主編):「華人心理的本土化研究」,頁119-175。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 楊國樞(2005a)。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」,頁173-214。台北:遠流圖書公司。 楊國樞、葉明華(2005b)。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」,頁249-292。台北:遠流圖書公司。 瑪莉亞與奈林(Maria P. & Noreen B., 1999/2008)。「質性研究論文撰寫」(郭俊偉譯)。台北:五南圖書公司。 葉重新(2001)。「教育研究法」。台北市:心理出版社。 潘淑滿(2003)。「質性研究:理論與應用」。台北:心理出版社。 鍾昆原、彭台光、黃囇莉(2006)。上下關係與衝突管理。見鄭伯壎、姜定宇(主編):「華人組織行為:議題、作法與出版」,頁234-265。台北:華泰圖書公司。 鄭伯壎(1995)。差序格局與華人組織行為。「本土心理學研究」,3,142-219。 鄭伯壎、姜定宇、鄭弘岳(主編)(2003)。「組織行為研究在台灣:三十年回顧與展望」。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 鄭伯壎、黃敏萍(2005)。(華人企業組織中的領導)。見楊國樞、黃光國、楊中芳(主編):「華人本土心理學」,頁749-788。台北:遠流圖書公司。 鄭伯壎(2005)。「華人領導:理論與實際」。台北:桂冠圖書公司。 鄭伯壎(2006)。「家長式領導:模式與證據」。台北:華泰圖書公司。 簡春安、鄒平儀(1998)。「社會工作研究法」。台北:巨流圖書公司。 Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422-436. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology(pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press. Adams, J. S., & Freedman, S. (1976).In Equity theory revisited: comments and notated bibliography.In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Socia lPsychology(pp. 43-90). New York: Academic Press. Alavi, M., & Carlson, P. (1992). A review of MIS research and disciplinary development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 8(4), 45-62. Aron, A., & Aron, E. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241-253. Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self: Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17, 140-160. Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1993). Effect of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 708-722. Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in information systems development, MIS Quarterly, 25, 217-250. Berg, B.L. (1998). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Science. Boston: Allyn &Bacon. Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional in justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior (pp. 89-118). San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The social psychology of Chinese people(pp.166-213).Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. L. (1996). Who is this 'we'? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93. Butler, R. (1992). Origins of self-perception in infancy. Psychology Inquiry, 3, 103-111. Buunk, B. P. (1995).Comparison direction and comparison dimension among disabled individuals: Toward refined conceptualization of social comparison under stress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 316-330. Buunk, B. P., Van Yperen, N. W., Taylor, S. E., & Collins, R. L. (1991). Social comparison and the drive upward revisited: Affiliation as a response to marital stress. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 529-546. Buunk, B. P., Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., Van Yperen, N. W., & Dakof, G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1238-1249. Chen, Y., Brockner, J., Katz, T. (1998). Toward an explanation of cultural differences in in-group favoritism: The role of individual versus collective primacy, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1490-1593. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage app.roach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78. Davis, J. A. (1966). The campus as a frog pond: An app.lication of the theory of relative deprivation to career decisions of college men. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 17-31. Dienesch, R. M. & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618-634. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). 'I' value freedom but 'we' value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321-326. Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are 'we,' you are no longer threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 239-251. Goethals, G., R. (1986). Social comparison theory: Psychology from the lost and found. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 261-278. Gibbons, F. S., Benbow, C. P., Gerrard, M. (1994). From top dog to bottom half: Social comparison strategies in response to poor performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 638-652. Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 227-236. Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A development approach. In J. G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontier(pp.146-165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Graen, G. B., (1976). Role making process within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Orgnizational Psychology(pp. 1201-1245). Chicago: Rand Mcnally. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. research in organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208. Graen, G. B., Wakabayashi, M., Graen, M. R., & Graen, M. G. (1990). International generalizability of American hypotheses about Japanese management progress: A strong inference investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 1(1), 1-23. Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based app.roach to leadership: development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794. Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of the leadership process. Psychology Bulletin, 71, 387-397. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s Consequence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of The Mind. McGraw-Hill: N. Y.. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E.W. (1985). Test for individual perceptions of job equity: Some preliminary findings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1055-1064. Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E.W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222-234. Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and Favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944-974. Khatri, N. & Tseng, E. W. K. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of cronyism in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(4), 289-300. Kuzel, A.J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In Carbtree, B.F. & Miller (Eds. ), Doing Qualitative Research(pp. 31-44). Newbury Park CA: Sage. Latham, G.P. (2006). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice. Sage Publications. Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122-1134. Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(1), 248-266. Liden, R. C., & Green, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451-465. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of laeder-member exchanges. Journal of App.lied Psychology, 78, 662-674. Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J.M (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72. Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum. Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg, & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior(pp. 43-76). New York:Academic Press. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and emotion. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. Marsh, H.W. (1987). The big frog little pond effect on academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 280-295. Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: effects of self effort and other's effort on relationship quality. Journal of App.lied Psychology, 86(4), 697-708. McFarland, C., & Buehler, R. (1995). Collective self-esteem as a moderator of the frog-pond effect in reactions to performance feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1055-1070. McKelvey, B. 1982. Organizational Systematics: Taxonomy, Evolution and Classification. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Miyake, K.(1993). Social Comparison and Level and Stability of Self-esteem: Self-esteem Management Through Social Comparison. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. New York: The University of Rochester. Mussweiler, T., Gabriel, S., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000). Shifting social identities as a strategy for deflecting threatening social comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 398-409. Platt, J. (1992). “Case study” in American methodological thought. Current Sociology, 40(1), 17-48. Robbins, S. P. (1974). Managing Organization Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rosch, E. H. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization(pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates. Singh, S. (1988). Power Relationship in Between Managerial and Non-managerial Personnel in Banking Organizations. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Panta University, Patna, India. Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapp.ing mental representations of self, in-group, and partner: Further response time evidence and a connectionist model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 873-882. Sparrowe, R. T. & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 522-552. Taylor, S. E., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96, 569-575. Tesser, A. (1980). Self-esteem maintenance in family dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 77-91. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology(pp. 181-227). New York: Academic Press. Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1982). Self-evaluation maintenance and the perception of friends and strangers. Journal of Personality, 50, 261-279. Tesser, A., & Smith, J. (1980). Some effects of task relevance and friendship on helping: You don’t always help the one you like. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,16, 582-590. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190. Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 197-215. Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the interdependent self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655. Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520 Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: relationship as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management(pp. 137-185). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wheeler, L., & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 760-773. Wills, T. A. (1983). Downward comparison as a coping mechanism. In C. R. Snyder & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Coping with Negative Life Events(pp. 243-268). New York: Plenum. Wills, T. A. (1991). Similarity and self-esteem in downward comparison. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research(pp. 51-78). Hillsdale, N. J.: LEA. Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychology Bulletin, 106, 231-248. Wood, J. V. (1996). What is social comparison and how should we study it? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 520-537. Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and method. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (1993). App.lications of case study research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd Ed.) Newbury Park: Sage. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/42373 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 一提起「爭寵」二字,每個華人心中都會浮現出某種相對應的樣貌與畫面,表示爭寵並不罕見。但是「爭寵」往往與一些負面行為連結;例如,部屬對主管逢迎或者同儕彼此內鬥,而這些行為都可能對組織造成負面影響。研究者認為,釐清爭寵現象才能提供主管在面對部屬爭寵時的建議。然而過去卻無相關研究,因此研究者先以前導研究界定爭寵現象。研究者發現,上下關係中,部屬會對主管投其所好,並試圖透過提升自我在主管心中的「地位」,進而增加現實性與精神性的資源;「寵」即是「資源」,同時也是主管心中的「地位」。水平關係中,部屬會對部分同儕展現出競爭行為、同時試圖拉攏其他同儕,以形成同盟關係。因此,爭寵可定義成:部屬為了獲得主管寵愛,因此產生上下關係的「奉承討好」與水平關係的「內鬥」與「合作」。前導研究引導出三個主題。主題一證實,當主管採取差序領導時,部屬會透過資源分配與互動,判斷同儕間的差序地位,並歸因主管偏好;依照主管偏好,部屬會「拉近關係」、「表示忠誠」、「展現才能」。主題二指出,部屬會以「不公平知覺」與「自我擴張」兩個標準歸類同儕;前者代表部屬對主管資源分配的認知,後者代表部屬與同儕的關係品質。兩個歸類標準交錯出四種同儕組型,「互助合作」、「君子之交」、「糾葛矛盾」、「爭權奪利」。主題三指出,「不公平知覺」與「自我擴張」改變,同儕組型會發生「組型移轉」。研究者最後將根據研究結果,討論理論貢獻以及實務應用。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | When it comes to the word Zheng Chong in Chinese, which means competing for appreciation, a certain corresponding scenario comes to Chinese people’s mind. This suggests that the phenomenon “Zheng Chong” might occur in all kinds of contexts and relationships in Chinese culture. However, the word Zheng Chong tends to be associated with negative behavior. For example, subordinates flatter supervisors, or subordinates attack each other. These actions are likely to have negative effects on organizations, which means that the phenomenon “Zheng Chong” may hinder the operation of organizations. This thesis aims to provide useful suggestions for supervisors facing the phenomenon “Zheng Chong” by defining Zheng Chong and identifying key factors that trigger subordinates’ competition for supervisors’ appreciation. However, there has been little research on related topics, so the present study conducts a pilot study with a view to defining the phenomenon Zheng Chong.
This thesis finds that as regards the leader-member relationship, the latter may cater to the former’s needs, trying to obtain material and spiritual resources by reaching a privileged status. Supervisor’s appreciation is a kind of resources and reflects a subordinate’s status in the eyes of his or her supervisor. As far as the parallel relationship between subordinates is concerned, subordinates may compete with some of their peers. Meanwhile, subordinates may try to ally with other peers. Therefore, Zheng Chong can be defined as subordinates’ behavior to flatter their supervisors, and meantime compete and cooperate with peers so as to win the supervisors’ appreciation. The results of the pilot study bring about three follow-up studies. The first study proves that when a supervisor exerts differential leadership, his or her subordinates may judge their differentiated statuses and identify the supervisor’s preferences according to resource distribution and interactions between supervisors and subordinates. Considering the supervisor’s preferences, the subordinates try to display their loyalty and abilities to strengthen the relationship with the supervisor. The second study indicates that subordinates may classify peers in terms of their perception of fairness and self-expansion. The former refers to subordinates’ perception of supervisors’ resource distribution, and the latter refers to the quality of the peer relationship. With the two criteria, four peer categories are thus yielded, each one with distinct relationship patterns. The harmonious group includes two categories: (i) cooperation and (ii) nodding acquaintance. The category of complexity is a transitional group. The category of competition for power falls in the competing group. The third study further points out that when there are changes in a subordinate’s perception of fairness and self-expansion, category shifts occur accordingly. Finally, based on the results, the thesis discusses its theoretical contribution and applications in management. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T01:12:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-R96227110-1.pdf: 1071334 bytes, checksum: d8e07519030b9fb840033617b0cda478 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………001
第二章 前導研究……………………………………………………005 第一節 前言…………………………………………………………………006 第二節 研究方法……………………………………………………………008 第三節 研究結果……………………………………………………………025 第四節 結論…………………………………………………………………046 第三章 主題一………………………………………………………047 第一節 前言…………………………………………………………………047 第二節 文獻回顧……………………………………………………………049 第三節 研究方法……………………………………………………………053 第四節 研究結果……………………………………………………………054 第五節 結論…………………………………………………………………069 第四章 主題二………………………………………………………073 第一節 前言…………………………………………………………………073 第二節 文獻回顧……………………………………………………………074 第三節 研究方法……………………………………………………………085 第四節 研究結果……………………………………………………………088 第五節 結論…………………………………………………………………109 第五章 主題三………………………………………………………113 第一節 前言…………………………………………………………………113 第二節 文獻回顧……………………………………………………………115 第三節 研究方法……………………………………………………………117 第四節 研究結果……………………………………………………………118 第五節 結論…………………………………………………………………129 第六章 討論…………………………………………………………131 第一節 研究結果討論………………………………………………………131 第二節 爭寵真正的結束?…………………………………………………133 第三節 爭寵現象對組織績效與組織管理的意義…………………………136 第四節 研究限制與未來研究方向…………………………………………139 參考文獻………………………………………………………………147 附錄一:訪談大綱……………………………………………………159 附錄二:訪談日記範本………………………………………………163 附錄三:訪談同意書範本……………………………………………165 附錄四:正式訪談稿登錄表…………………………………………167 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 爭寵:華人部屬的權力遊戲 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Power Game of Chinese Subordinates | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃敏萍(Ming-Ping Huang),林以正(I-Cheng Lin),吳宗祐(Tsung-Yo Wu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 爭寵,差序領導,不公平知覺,自我擴張,競爭,衝突, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Zheng Chong(compete for appreciation),Cha xu ge ju(差序格局),Differential Leadership,inequity,self-expansion,competition,conflict., | en |
dc.relation.page | 178 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2009-07-30 | |
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-98-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.05 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。