分憂解勞還是功高震主： 從主管角色界定觀點探討部屬垂直主動行為

Abstract

員工的主動行為不僅有助於組織適應大環境的變動並快速發展，也有益於員工自身的職涯及福祉，因此過去多會鼓勵員工進行主動行為。然而，由於主動行為擁有角色外行為的特性，可能會造成角色重疊的現象。當這些行為涉及主管職責範圍時（即垂直主動行為），主管未必會樂於接受，端視主管對於角色界線的看法而定。因此，員工未必能能先預估進行垂直主動行為的後果好壞。面對可能被主管負面評價的潛在風險，員工在進行垂直主動行為時會有所顧慮，甚至可能為了避開風險而停止展現垂直主動行為，進而使組織損失員工進行垂直主動行為所帶來的益處。為深入探討主管看待部屬垂直主動行為的機制，使員工能夠以更適當的方法進行垂直主動行為。本研究進行了兩項子研究，研究一旨在深入探討垂直主動行為的構念並發展相關量表。研究二旨在透過主管角色界定觀點，探討主管評價部屬垂直主動行為背後的機制。研究一提出垂直主動行為的構念，經由研究者系統性收集過去知名期刊所發展的20個主動行為構念及其題項，並透過三項原則進行題項篩選，發展出初版垂直主動行為量表。量表共分為三個向度：影響部門內同事（7題），影響整體部門（7題）以及影響整體組織（8題）的垂直主動行為，共計22題。研究一進一步透過180名臺灣在學的大學生及碩博士生樣本，針對初版垂直主動行為量表進行內容效度檢測。研究結果顯示絕大多數題項皆有通過ANOVA檢定。研究者者再藉由檢視統計結果未通過的題項，以及比對量表中題意相近的題項進行刪題，最終保留三個向度各5題的垂直主動行為量表，共計15題。研究二則透過兩種不同的角色界定觀點：社會相依觀點與角色一致性觀點，來檢驗員工垂直主動行為的影響後果。基於社會相依理論，研究者預測當主管認為自身與部屬的角色相互依賴時，會採取彈性的角色界定，主管會知覺部屬的垂直主動行為能夠降低主管的角色負荷，進而提升部屬的可升遷性。基於角色一致性理論，研究者預測若主管採取僵固的角色界定，主管會認為部屬的垂直主動行為違反部屬「安分守己」的角色期待，帶來角色威脅，進而對其展現職場無禮行為以遏止部屬再度展現該行為。研究二透過152對主管與部屬配對的兩階段問卷調查來收集資料。研究結果發現垂直主動行為會透過部屬角色擴大的中介作用，進一步降低主管的角色負荷，最終提升部屬的可升遷性。此外，研究結果也顯示當主管對部屬的信任程度較高時，其對角色威脅的感知會降低。綜合以上兩項研究結果，本研究共提出三點理論貢獻，首先為提出垂直主動行為的構念並發展其量表。第二是從主管角色界定觀點切入，重新檢視主動行為所帶來的角色重疊現象，並進一步探討主管會如何評價部屬的垂直主動行為。最後是發現主管對部屬的信任程度會影響到主管的角色界定，擴充了對角色邊界認知的理解。本研究針對部屬及主管提出相關的實務建議。針對部屬，由於研究結果發現大多數主管的角色界定具有彈性，因此本研究認為部屬可以積極展現垂直主動行為。此外，部屬亦可以主動培養與主管的關係，促進主管對部屬的信任程度，更全面地避免垂直主動行為可能帶來的風險。針對主管，本研究建議主管在採取彈性角色觀點的狀態下，可以多多鼓勵部屬展現垂直主動行為，來降低自身的角色負荷。最後，本研究依據研究結果，提出相關的研究限制以及未來研究方向。

Employees’ proactive behaviors often benefit organizations and themselves. However, because proactive behavior often entails actions beyond one's formal role responsibilities, it may lead to role overlap. When such behaviors encroach on managerial roles—referred to as vertical proactive behaviors (VPBs)—they may not always be welcomed by supervisors. The result depends on how supervisors define role boundaries. As a result, employees may be uncertain about whether engaging in VPBs will lead to positive or negative outcomes. Given the potential risk of being negatively evaluated by supervisors, employees may hesitate to exhibit VPBs, or even refrain from doing so altogether to avoid potential backlash. This, in turn, may deprive the organization of the potential benefits that VPBs can bring. This research conducted two studies to probe into supervisors’ perceptions of employees’ vertical proactive behaviors. In Study 1, we brought up the construct of VPBs and developed a scale to measure VPBs. Through a systematic review of 20 proactive behavior constructs and their associated scales from well-known journals, this study developed an initial version of the VPB scale by selecting items based on three guiding principles. The preliminary scale consisted of 22 items. The items are divided into three dimensions: proactive behaviors influencing colleagues within the department (7 items), influencing the overall department (7 items), and influencing the entire organization (8 items). We further examined the content validity of the initial VPB scale using a sample of 180 university and graduate students in Taiwan. The results showed that the majority of the items passed the ANOVA test. Based on the statistical results and the review of item meanings, we removed items that failed the test and those with overlapping meanings. The final version of the VPB scale retained 5 items per dimension, resulting in a 15-item scale. In Study 2, we tested a theoretical model contrasting two perspectives on role boundaries. Based on Social Interdependence Theory, we hypothesized that supervisors perceiving role interdependence with subordinates would respond positively to VPBs. Conversely, Role Congruity Theory suggests that perceived role threat would make supervisors adopt negative responses to VPBs. A two-wave survey from 152 supervisor-subordinate pairs revealed that VPBs indirectly enhanced employees’ promotability through the serial mediation of employees’ role enlargement and supervisors’ reduction of role overload. Additionally, high supervisor trust in employee mitigated perceptions of role threat. On the basis of the findings from both studies, this research offers three theoretical contributions. First, we introduced the construct of vertical proactive behavior and developed a corresponding measurement scale. Second, by adopting the supervisor’s role-boundary perspective, this study examined the phenomenon of role overlap resulting from proactive behaviors and further explored how supervisors evaluate subordinates’ VPBs. Third, it demonstrated that supervisors’ trust in subordinates influences their definitions of role boundaries, thereby extending the understanding of role-boundary cognitions. This research also provides practical implications for both subordinates and supervisors. For subordinates, given that most supervisors tend to hold a flexible view of role boundaries, employees are encouraged to actively engage in VPBs. Moreover, subordinates can proactively cultivate their relationships with supervisors to foster trust, thereby reducing the potential risks associated with VPBs. For supervisors, the findings suggest that adopting a flexible role-boundary perspective and encouraging subordinates’ VPBs may help alleviate their own role overload. Finally, this research discusses its limitations and proposes directions for future research.