:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:領導行為、追隨行為與領導效能關係之研究—領導者與追隨者對偶心理定位之觀點
作者:卓明德
作者(外文):Ming-Te Chuo
校院名稱:中原大學
系所名稱:企業管理研究所
指導教授:嚴奇峰
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2012
主題關鍵詞:對偶心理定位領導者定位追隨者定位領導行為追隨行為領導效能Dyadic psychological positioningLeader-positioningFollower-positioning
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
I
摘要
本文以情境理論為發想點,從三個方向進行討論。首先,本文以心理定位理論觀點
為基礎,提出領導者對部屬的定位過程,以領導者本身為中心,同時考量對部屬的信任
關係以及部屬的專業能力後,形成四種不同的領導導向(重用、培植、支配以及隔絕),
依此決定領導行為(授權、栽培、威權以及防衛),形成H1。再者,目前研究趨勢強調部
屬觀點在領導歷程中扮演著重要角色,在既有文獻基礎上,提出追隨者定位,即部屬以
自己為中心,同時考量對主管的信任關係以及主管的專業能力後,形成四種追隨導向(輔
佐、誠服、屈從以及自利),依此決定追隨行為(模範、學習、消極以及疏離),形成H2。
最後,提出領導行為與追隨行為間之交互作用影響領導效能,形成H3。總結本文,理
論發展須同時考量領導者以及追隨者之觀點,分別以領導者以及部屬為中心,透過領導
者定位與追隨者定位後,決定領導行為以及追隨行為,且此二者間之交互效果對領導效
能產生影響。
本文藉由準實驗設計以及對偶問卷調查進行蒐集資料,準實驗設計的主管腳本以及
部屬腳本各回收398 份以及385 份有效樣本,對偶問卷回收185 份有效樣本。資料分析
以變異數分析以及階層迴歸驗證相關假設。準實驗設計研究結果顯示,(1)主管定位部屬
為高能力及高信任時,有最高的授權領導行為;(2) 主管定位部屬為高信任時,有較高
程度的栽培領導行為;(3) 不論主管如何定位部屬,不影響威權領導行為展現的程度;
(4) 主管定位部屬為低信任時,有較高程度的防衛領導行為;(5) 部屬定位主管為高信
任時,會展現高度的模範追隨行為;(6) 部屬定位主管為高能力及高信任時,會有最高
程度的學習追隨行為;(7) 部屬定位主管為低信任時,會傾向展現消極追隨行為;(8) 部
屬定位主管為低能力及低信任時,會有最高程度的疏離追隨行為。
對偶問卷資料研究結果顯示,(1) 部屬專業能力以及主管對部屬信任程度的交互作
用會分別影響主管的授權、栽培以及防衛領導行為;(2) 主管專業能力以及部屬對主管
信任程度的交互作用會影響部屬的消極行為;(3) 授權領導行為分別會與學習追隨行為
以及疏離行為產生交互作用,影響對主管滿意度;(4) 威權領導行為分別與模範追隨行
為以及疏離追隨行為產生交互作用,影響對主管滿意度;(5) 防衛領導行為與模範追隨
行為產生交互作用影響對主管滿意度;(6) 授權領導行為與模範追隨行為產生交互作用
影響部屬績效;(7) 栽培行為分別與模範、學習以消極追隨行為產生交互作用,影響部
屬績效;(8) 防衛領導行為分別與模範以及疏離追隨行為產生交互作用,影響部屬績效。
II
依據研究結果,本文提出以下幾點管理意涵,(1) 主管與部屬可預判追隨行為以及
領導行為;(2) 主管以定位基礎判斷部屬的追隨行為,避免誤判部屬追隨行為的表象;
(3) 部屬績效與部屬對主管滿意度的優先順序;(4) 模範追隨類型的部屬最易與領導者
搭配,較易獲得正面的領導效能;學習追隨類型的部屬仍需小心引導;面對消極追隨類
型的部屬,主管也毋須預設立場;疏離追隨類型的部屬將帶給管理者最大的考驗。本文
期望對藉由提出之理論架構與驗證結果,對學術與實務提出具體貢獻;最後提出研究限
制與未來研究方向。
關鍵字:對偶心理定位、領導者定位、追隨者定位、領導行為、追隨行為、領導效能
III
Abstract
The present study was inspired by Situational Leadership Theory which spotted on the
combination of leader behavior and follower readiness. Since the prescriptions of SLT were
not fully verified in extant researches, the main points were proposed. First of all, according
to the perspective of psychological positioning theory, this study argued that leader behavior
was determined through leader-positioning process. Specifically, four leadership orientations
(e.g., preferment, cultivation, domination, and segregation) were identified by considering
follower’s professional competence and personal trust in follower simultaneously under
leader centric viewpoint, and then transformed into corresponding leader behaviors (e.g.,
delegation, mentor, authoritarian, and precaution). Second, the role of follower is a
fundamental element within leading process, though it has generated relatively little
discussion in the considerable amount of literature on leadership theory. The concept of
follower-positioning was addressed, in which follower established four followership
orientations (e.g., assisting, learning, compliant, and selfish) through evaluating two critical
dimensions-the competence posed by leader and trust in leader from follower centric
perspective. And follower’s corresponding behaviors (e.g., exemplariness, apprentice,
passiveness, and alienation) then were performed based on these four orientations. Finally,
this research explored the leader effectiveness was affected by the mixed combinations of
leader and follower behaviors. In summary, the concept claimed in current research
emphasized the two-way dyadic psychological positioning of both leader- and
follower-centric viewpoints as well. It determined the specific leader and follower behavior
consequently. Eventually, the interacting effects of leader behaviors and follower behaviors on
leadership effectiveness were investigated.
The data was collected from quasi-experimental design (supervisor’s manuscript N =
398; subordinate’s manuscript N = 385) and paired-sample survey (N = 185), and ANOVA
and multiple-regression were conducted for testing hypotheses. The results of
quasi-experimental design show that 1) delegation behavior was determined when both
follower’s professional competence and personal trust in follower were high; 2) leader
behaved in mentoring way because of the positive trust in follower; 3) authoritarian occurred
in any leadership orientation; 4) negative trust in follower caused high level of precautious; 5)
positive trust in leader resulted in exemplary behavior; 6) apprenticed behavior was resulted
from high level of leader ’s professional competence and positive trust in leader; 7) follower
behaved in passive way when trusting leader negatively; 8) the highest level of alienated
behaviors was going to take place under the condition of low level of leader’s professional
IV
competence and negative trust in leader. The findings of paired-sample survey presented that
1) delegation, mentor and precaution were affected by the interacting effect of follower ’s
competence and trust in follower respectively; 2) only passiveness was influenced by leader ’s
competence and personal trust in leader; 3) subordinate’s satisfaction toward supervisor was
affected by the following interacting effects: delegation and apprentice, delegation and
alienation, authoritarian and exemplariness, authoritarian and alienation, and precaution and
exemplariness; 4) the interacting effects of delegation and exemplariness, mentor and
exemplariness, mentor and apprentice, mentor and passiveness, precaution and exemplariness,
and precaution and alienation influenced follower performance respectively.
The current study goes on to discuss managerial implications based on the findings.
Firstly, subordinates could predict leader behaviors, and supervisors could also foresee
follower behaviors. Secondly, it is difficult for supervisor to pursue high level of subordinate’s
performance and subordinate’s satisfaction toward leader simultaneously. Finally, supervisors
could lead different followers effectively by adjusting the corresponding leader behaviors. At
final section, limitations and future directions for further research were suggested.
Keywords: Dyadic psychological positioning; Leader-positioning; Follower-positioning;
Leader behavior; Follower behavior; Leadership effectiveness.
106
參考文獻
王榮春、陳彰儀,2003,部屬觀點之領導互動論:部屬對主管領導行為的知覺因素與互
動內涵初探。應用心理研究,第20 期,頁181-215。
江明修,1995,非營利組織領導行為之研究。問題與研究,第34 卷,第10 期,頁77-98。
吳宗祐,2008,主管威權領導與部屬的工作滿意度與組織承諾:信任的中介歷程與情緒
智利的調節效果。本土心理學研究,第30 期,頁:3-63。
吳明隆、涂金堂,2007,SPSS 與統計應用分析。台北:五南。
李亦園,1990,中國家庭與其儀式–若干觀念的檢討。楊國樞(主編):中國人的心理,
頁:1-24。台北:桂冠圖書。
李再長,黃麗鴦,2007,在職人士進修之學習動機、學習滿意度及學習績效之相關研究
-以成大碩士在職專班為例。人力資源管理學報,第7 卷,第4 期,頁1-24。
李宗吾, 2009,厚黑全本。台北:風雲時代。
李敏龍、楊國樞,1998,「中國人的忍:概念分析與實證研究」,本土心理學研究,第10
期,3-68 頁。
邱皓政,2005,量化研究與統計分析。台北:五南。
林孟偉,2008,印象管理、規避衝突、權力距離及非真誠效忠主管。國立中正大學心理
學研究所碩士論文。
林義又,2007,信任關係及權力關係對家族企業主評估經理人績效之影響研究。中原大
學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
林鉦棽,2007,跨層次觀點下印象管理動機與主管導向之組織公民行為的關係:社會互
動與組織政治氣候的調節角色。管理學報,第24 卷,第1 期,頁93-111。
姜定宇,2009,華人企業主管知覺部屬效忠。中華心理學刊,第51 卷,第1 期,頁:
101-120。
姜定宇、鄭伯壎、任金剛、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,第47 卷,第2 期,頁:139-156。
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,第49 卷,第4 期,頁:407-432。
徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎、黃敏萍,2002,華人企業領導人的員工歸類與管理行為。本土心理學
研究,第18 期,頁:51-94。
陳介玄、高承恕,1991,台灣企業運作的社會秩序-人情關係與法律。東海學報,第32
期,頁:219-232。
費孝通,1948,鄉土中國與鄉土重建。上海:觀察社。
黃光國,1990,人情與面子:中國人的權力遊戲。楊國樞(主編):中國人的心理,頁:
289-318。台北:桂冠圖書。
黃光國,1995,知識與行動:中華文化傳統的社會心理詮釋。台北:心理。
楊書毓、連廷嘉,2009,受督導者依附行為量表之編製研究。新竹教育大學學報,第26
卷,第2 期,頁:23-56。
107
楊國樞,1993,中國人的社會取向:社會互動的觀點。楊國樞、余安邦(主編):中國人
的心理與行為-理念及方法篇。頁87-142。台北,桂冠。
廖國峰、吳華春,2003,從正義知覺與關係品質的觀點探討領導者權力對員工工作投入
影響之實證研究。人力資源管理學報,第3卷,第2期,頁:1-25。
蔡坤靜,2007,人際互動行為中權力、情感與面子間關係之研究。中原大學企業管理研
究所碩士論文。
諸承明,2000,親信關係與員工績效評估之關聯性研究-從差序格局探討主管對部屬的
評估偏差。管理評論,第3 期,頁:125-147。
鄭伯壎,1995,差序格局與華人組織行為。本土心理學研究,第3 期,頁:142-219。
鄭伯壎,2004,本土文化與組織領導:由現象描述到理論驗證。本土心理學研究,第22
期,頁:195-254。
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,第14 期,頁:3-64。
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,第14 期,頁:65-113。
鄭伯壎、黃敏萍,2000,華人企業組織中的領導:一項文化價值的分析。中山管理評論,
第8 卷,第4 期,頁:583-617。
閻書昌,2002,先秦法家之「勢」論的心理學詮釋。第18 期,頁:267-295。
魏俊坦,1992,人際關係類型對個人行為導向影響之研究。中原大學企業管理研究所碩
士論文。
羅新興、梁成明、余永章,2006,領導者-成員交換關係品質與追隨者對領導者態度的
關聯性—探討追隨者類型的干擾作用。清雲學報,第26 眷,第1 期,頁:1-11。
羅新興、陳忠虎、陳秀清,2004,領導者類型、追隨者類型與領導效能關係之研究-以
國軍組織成員為實證對象。國防管理學報,第25 卷,第2 期,頁:51-60。
嚴奇峰,1991,儒家意識型態對中國人性格的影響-命題系統及其在管理上的涵義。第
一屆管理與哲學研討會論文集。
嚴奇峰,1992,心理定位理論-國民性格探討及其在管理上的涵義。國科會專題補助計
畫。NSC-81-0301-H-033-502。
嚴奇峰,1993,互動平衡理論-從儒家倫範與正義觀點探討本文和諧之人際互動關係。
中原學報,第22 卷,頁:154-164。
嚴奇峰,1996,台灣家族企業之文化與結構關係研究-雙元系統模型及相關管理問題。
中原學報-人文及社會科學系列, 第24 期,頁:1-9。
嚴奇峰,1998,專業能力與倫理規範之階段理論-家族企業企業主對專業經理人的評估
觀點。國科會專題補助計畫。NSC-85-2416-H033-005.
嚴奇峰、洪贊凱、卓明德,2010,主管知覺互動不正義、主管不當督導與部屬工作績效
關係之研究-滲滴模型與心理定位理論的觀點。2010 年海峽兩岸管理科學與應用研
討會論文,中國吉林省。
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 50, pp. 179-211.
108
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), pp.267-285.
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership:The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), pp.50-60.
Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as
servant leaders. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1/2), pp.143–151.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of
a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), pp.226-244.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital. NY:Columbia University.
Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., & Zelditch, M. (2002). Construction of status and referential
structure. Sociological Theory, 20, 157.179.
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). Fresh look at followership:
A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral and
Applied Management, 7(3), pp.304-319.
Blanchard, A. L., Welbourne, J., & Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009). Followership styles
and employee attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12,
pp.111–131.
Blanchard, K. H. (2007). Leading at a higher level. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blank, W., Weitzel, R., & Green, S. G. (1990). A test of situational leadership theory.
Personnel Psychology, 43, pp.579–597.
Bodla, M. A., & Hussain, G. (2010). Followers’ characteristics and leadership styles: An
empirical fit among employees of Pakistan. Journal of US-China Public Administration,
7(6), pp.73-81.
Bouffard, T., & Couture, N. (2003). Motivational profile and academic achievement among
students enrolled in different schooling tracks. Educational Studies, 29(1), 19-38.
Bozionelos, N., (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality,
and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), pp. 24-26.
Branch, A., Ramsay, S., & Barker, Michelle. (2007). Managers in the firing line: Contributing
factors to workplace bullying by staff–an interview study. Journal of Management and
Organizatiion, 13(3), pp.264-281.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H. & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level
review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), pp.606-632.
Cairns, T. D., Hollenback, J., Preziosi, R. C., & Snow, W. A. (1998). Technical note: A study
of Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership theory. Leadership and Organizational
Development Journal, 19, pp.113–116.
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring
social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly,
21(3), pp. 543–562
Colbert, A. E. (2004). Understanding the effects of transformational leadership: The
mediating role of leader-follower value congruence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Iowa.
Connell, J., Ferres, N., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Engendering trust in manager-subordinate
relationships: Predictors and outcomes. Personnel Review, 32(5), pp.569-587.
109
Courpasson, D., & Dany, F. (2003). Indifference or obedience? Business firms as democratic
hybrids. Organization Studies, 24(8), 1231.1260.
Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI):
development and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in
organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp.302–330). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work: Complementary
constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relation, 53(12), pp.1575-1591.
Day, R., & Allen, T. D. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy
with Protégé’s career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), pp. 72-91.
De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams?
The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management
Journal, 53(3), pp.535-549.
DeRue, S. D., &. Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will Leade and who will follow? A social
process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 35(4), pp, 627-647.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp.611.628.
Donahue, T. L., & Wong, E. H. (1997). Achievement motivation and college satisfaction in
traditional and nontraditional students. Education, 118(2), 237-243.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of
Management Journal, 14, pp.57-74.
Erdogan, B. & Enders, J., (2007). Support from the top: Supervisors’ perceived organizational
support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92( 2), pp. 321-330.
Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio. R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an
across-jobs perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), pp.67-84.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. CA: Stanford University.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37,
pp. 1-6.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust making and breaking cooperative relations. NY: Basil Blackwell.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. NY: The Overlook.
Homans, G. C., (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. NY: Harcourt Brace and World.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership
process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1),
pp.96.112.
Jiang, D. Y., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Affect- and role-based loyalty to supervisors in Chinese
organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11, pp.214–221
Jung, D., & Avolio, B. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, pp.949.964.
Jung, D., Yammarino, F. J., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Moderating role of subordinates' attitudes on
transformational leadership and effectiveness: A multi-cultural and multi-level
perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, pp.586-603.
110
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp.692–724.
Kelley, R.E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66, pp.142-148.
King, M. F. & Bruner, G. G., (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity
testing. Psychology and Marketing, 17(2), 79-103.
Krishnan, V. R. (2002). Transformational leadership and value system congruence.
International Journal of Value-Based Management, 15(1), pp.19–33.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job fit. Personnel Psychology, 58,
pp.281–342.
Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Higgins, T. E. (2007). Regulatory mode and preferred
leadership styles: How fit increases job satisfaction. Basic and Applied social
Psychology, 29(2), pp.137–149.
Langfred, G. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and
individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3),
pp.385-399.
Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the
development and erosion of followers' trust in their leader. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(1), pp.16.34.
Latour, S. M., & Rast, V. J. (2004). Dynamic followership. Air & Space Power Journal, 18(4),
1–7.
Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self evaluation of ability: A review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 280-296.
Marks, M. A., & Panzer, F. J. (2004). The influence of team monitoring on team processes
and performance. Human Performance, 17(1), pp.25-41.
McAllister, D. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), pp.24-59.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social
constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, pp.329.341.
Mushonga, S. M., & Torrance, C. G. (2008). Assessing the relationship between followership
and the big five factor model of personality. Review of Business Research, 8(6),
pp.185-193.
Nolan, J. S., & Harty, H. F. (2001). Followership ≧ Leadership. Education, 104(3),
pp.311-312.
Norris, W. R., & Vecchio, R. P. (1992). Situational leadership theory: A replication. Group
and Organizational Management, 17, pp.331–342.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence approach. New York: Harper & Row.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P., (2003). Common method
biases in behavior research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), pp. 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
111
leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, pp.107.142.
Ragins, B.R., & McFarlin, D.B., (1990). Perceptions of mentor roles in cross-gender
mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, pp. 321-339.
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the
exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, pp. 245-259.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, pp.655–684.
Runkel, P. J., & McGrath, J. E. (1972). Research on human behavior: A systematic guide to
method. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Salanova, M., Lorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I., Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective
efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An
experimental study. Small Groups Research, 34, pp.43–73.
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. (2002). How similarity to peers and supervisor influences
organizational advancement in different cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
pp.1120–1136.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, pp.293–315.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (1988). Subtypes of managerial delegation: An extension
of the Vroom and Yetton conceptualization. Paper presented at the annual convention of
the American Psychological Association, Atlanta.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader-member
exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management
Journal, 41, pp.298–318.
Seiler, S., & Pfister, A. C. (2009). “Why did I do this?”: Understanding leadership behavior
through a dynamic five-factor model of leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies,
3(3),pp.41-52.
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers' roles in the
leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),
Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R.
Meindl. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Silverhart, T. A., (1994). It works: Mentoring drives productivity higher. Managers Magazine,
69(10), pp. 14-15.
Smith, P. C, Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work
and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and
consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 113(2), pp.73–84.
Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions.
The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), pp.837-848.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of
followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),
Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R.
Meindl (pp. 187.209). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
112
Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive theory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, pp.444–451.
Vecchio, R. P., Bullis, R. G., & Brazil, D. M. (2006). The utility of situational leadership
theory: A replication in a military setting. Small Group Research, 37, pp.407–424.
Podsakoff,N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mishra, P. (2011). Effects of
organizational citizenship behaviors on selection decisions in employment interviews.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), pp.310–326.
Walumbwa, F, O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves
its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy
beliefs. Personel Psychology, 61, pp. 793-825.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Psychological
processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly,
21, pp.901-914.
Wayne, S., Liden, R., Kraimer, M., & Graf, I. (1999). The role of human capital, motivation
and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20(5), pp. 577-595.
Xin, K.R. & Pearce, J. L. (1996). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for structural support.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, pp.1641-1658.
Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2010). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A
bases-and-foci approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), pp.50–63
Yen, G. F., & Wu. S. C. (2002). A research on BPR (Business Process Reengineering) project–
perspectives of organizational culture and change-enabling roles. Second Annual
Trans-Pacific Conference on Business and Economics, Taiwan .
Yeo, R. K. (2007). (Re)viewing problem-based learning: An exploratory study on perceptions
of its applicability to the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22 (4),
pp.369–391.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations, 6th ed. NJ: Prentice Hall.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top