臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：我國普通型高中校長關係領導、組織變革、行政效能與競爭優勢關係之研究
作者：陳金龍
作者(外文)：CHEN,CHIN-LUNG
校院名稱：國立暨南國際大學
系所名稱：教育政策與行政學系
指導教授：楊振昇
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2018
主題關鍵詞：普通型高中；校長關係領導；組織變革；行政效能；競爭優勢；senior high school；principals’ relational leadership；organizational change；administrative effectiveness；competitive advantage
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(1) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:5
摘要
本研究旨在瞭解我國普通型高中校長關係領導、組織變革、行政效能與學校競爭優勢之現況及差異情形，探討校長關係領導、組織變革、行政效能與學校競爭優勢的相關情形，以及校長關係領導、組織變革、行政效能對學校競爭優勢之影響。研究方法為文獻分析與問卷調查法。研究對象為我國普通型高中教育人員，共發出900份問卷，回收率96.22%，有效樣本共866份。問卷回收後分別以描述性統計、t考驗、單因子變異數分析、皮爾遜積差相關及逐步多元迴歸等統計方法進行資料分析。
根據研究結果與分析歸納之研究結論如下：
一、 普通型高中教育人員對校長關係領導有高度之知覺，其中又以「增權賦能」有最高知覺。
二、 普通型高中教育人員對學校組織變革之知覺屬於高程度，其中以「組織文化」感受最深刻。
三、 普通型高中教育人員在行政效能之知覺屬於高程度，其中以「組織氣氛」知覺最高。
四、 普通型高中教育人員在競爭優勢之知覺屬於高程度，其中以「形象優勢」知覺最高。
五、 男性、年紀長、學歷高、兼任行政職務、年資深、北部地區、大型學校之教育人員知覺到較高的校長關係領導。
六、 男性、年紀長、學歷高、兼任行政職務、年資深、北部地區、大型學校之教育人員知覺到較高的學校組織變革。
七、 男性、年紀長、學歷高、兼任行政職務、年資深、北部地區、大型學校之教育人員知覺到較高的學校行政效能。
八、 男性、年紀長、兼行政工作、北部地區、大型學校之教育人員知覺到較高的學校競爭優勢。
九、 我國普通型高中校長關係領導、學校組織變革、學校行政效能與學校競爭優勢，彼此之間均存在高度相關。
十、 我國普通型高中校長關係領導、學校組織變革、學校行政效能對學校競爭優勢具有顯著預測作用。
　　本研究根據以上結論，提出幾點建議提供教育行政機關、普通型高中校長以及未來相關研究作參考。
Abstract
This thesis aimed to explore the current situations and the differences of senior high school principals’ relational leadership, organizational change, administrative effectiveness, and competitive advantage. Next, the interrelationships among senior high school principals’ relational leadership, organizational change, administrative effectiveness, and competitive advantage were discussed. Finally, it further explores the impact of senior high school principals’ relational leadership, organizational change, and administrative effectiveness on competitive advantage.
　　The research methods included literature review and questionnaire survey. The survey subjects were senior high school education staff in Taiwan. The research handed out 900 questionnaires, among which there were 866 questionnaires valid with the availability rate of 96.22%. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson's product correlation, and multiple regression analysis. The findings based on the results of the research were as follows:
1. The education staff achieved the higher scores on the principals’ relational leadership, which “empowerment” was the highest score.
2. The education staff achieved the higher scores on the organizational change, which “organizational culture” was the highest score.
3. The education staff achieved the higher scores on the administrative effectiveness, which “organizational atmosphere” was the highest score.
4. The education staff achieved the higher scores on the competitive advantage, which “image advantage” was the highest score.
5. The education staff who achieved the higher scores on the principals’ relational leadership were those who were male, senior, with the hightest academic qualification above the institure, as a executive, more than 21years of sevice, North area, and large scale school.
6. The education staff who achieved the higher scores on the organizational change were those who were male, senior, with the hightest academic qualification above the institure, as an executive, and more than 21years of sevice, North area, and large scale school.
7. The education staff who achieved the higher scores on the administrative effectiveness were those who were male, senior, with the hightest academic qualification above the institure, as an executive, and more than 21years of sevice, North area, and large scale school.
8. The education staff who achieved the higher scores on the competitive advantage were those who were male, senior, as an executive, North area, and large scale school.
9. There were significantly positive correlations between principals’ relational leadership and organizational change, between principals’ relational leadership and administrative effectiveness, between principals’ relational leadership and competitive advantage, between organizational change and administrative effectiveness, and between organizational change and competitive advantage.
10. The principals’ relational leadership, organizational change, and administrative effectiveness showed a high explanatory power on competitive advantage.
參考文獻
一、中文部分
王志剛（1994）。如何應用企業管理觀念加強行政效能。人事管理，31（6），23-34。
吳定（1984）。組織發展理論與技術。台北：天一。
吳定、張潤書、陳德禹等人編著（1994）。行政學。台北：國立空中大學。
吳秉恩（1993）。組織行為學。台北：華泰。
吳金香（2000）。學校組織行為與管理。台北：五南。
吳康（1984）。西洋古代哲學史。台北：台灣商務印書館。
吳清山（2002）。提升學校競爭力的理念與策略。臺灣教育，613，5。
吳清山（2003）。學校效能研究：理念與應用。臺灣教育，619，2-13。
吳清山（2004）。學校效能研究。台北：五南。
吳清山（2017）。校長專業標準的理念與實踐。教育研究月刊，276，12-26。new window
吳清基（1990）。精緻教育的理念。台北：師大書苑。
李明堂（2006）。學校競爭優勢歷程及管理策略之研究。國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所博士論文，未出版，屏東。
李芳茹、顏國樑、謝傳崇（2011）。尊重在校長領導實踐之探討。學校行政，71，52 -72。
周祝瑛（2003）。臺灣教育面面觀。臺南：世一。
林志成（2004）。教師專業發展、評鑑與進階制度之省思與前瞻。海峽兩岸中小學教師進階制度與教師專業發展評鑑學術研討會，嘉義市。new window
林明地（2003）。校長學—工作分析與角色研究取向。台北。五南。
洪于琁（2011）。華人領導者關係表現策略之研究。國立成功大學企業管理研究所博士論文，臺南市。
孫志麟（2001）。政策開放後的省思：提升教師素質的機制。教育研究月刊，89，43-49。new window
泰夢群（2011）。教育領導理論與應用。台北：五南。
秦夢群（1998）。教育行政：理論部分。台北：五南。
張明輝（2008）。領導新議題在學校經營的應用。教師天地，152（2），9-17。new window
張金鑑（1979）。行政學典範。台北：中國行政學會。
張潤書（2001）。行政學。台北：三民。
教育部統計處（2016）。教育統計簡訊，49，2016年4月20日。
許士軍（1995）。管理學。台北：東華書局。
陳日春（2010）。臺北市縣市國民小學總務主任專業能力與其行政效能關係之研究。國立臺北教育大學教育政策與管理研究碩士論文，台北。
陳木金（1999a）。從學校組織文化塑造談如何增進學校領導效能。學校行政雙月刊，3，14-29。
陳木金（1999b）。學校競爭優勢壓力與抗力對學校行政之啟示。學校行政，2，14-27。
陳木金、楊念湘（2008）。優質學校行政管理對校長領導與學校經營的啟示。論文發表於國立屏東教育大學舉辦之「教育經營與產學策略聯盟」國際學術研討會，屏東市。
陳金龍、楊振昇（2014）。私校公共性之反思：以私立高中職為例。教育理論與實踐學刊，30，57-74。new window
黃宏傑（2008）。臺北縣國民小學創新經營與學校競爭優勢之研究。國立臺北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所碩士論文，台北。
黃國柱（2008）。國民小學校長服務領導行為與行政團隊利他行為及行政效能關係之研究。輔仁大學教育領導與發展研究所碩士論文，台北。
楊振昇（2006）。教育組織變革與學校發展研究。台北：五南。new window
楊振昇（2018）。我國中小學校長推動學校發展之挑戰與策略。學校行政，113，1-10。
楊國信（2005）。國民小學團隊管理策略之運用與行政效能關係之研究－以高高屏三縣市為例。國立高雄師範大學教育學碩士論文，高雄。
葉志傑、謝傳崇（2013）。國民中學校長關係領導、協力治理與關係績效之研究。新竹教育大學教育學報，32（2），101-131。new window
葉志傑、謝傳崇（2013）。國民中學校長關係領導、協力治理與關係績效之研究。新竹教育大學教育學報，32（2），101-131。new window
劉彥廷（譯）（1995）。Schermerhon、Hunt&Osborn 原著。管理組織行為。台北：台灣西書。
鄭偉修、黃鴻程（2003）。預測變革：21世紀企業變革之道。台北：水星文化事業有限公司。
賴協志、吳清山（2017）。高級中等學校校長正向領導模式建構之研究。市北教育學刊，57，33-60。new window
謝小苓（1988）。好學校必備條件。教育資料文摘，126，4-13。
謝文全（2003）。教育行政學。台北：高等教育。
謝月香、范熾文（2017）。析論校長創新領導對教師知識管理能力之影響。學校行政，110，195-210。
謝安田（1992）。企業管理。台北：五南。
謝傳崇（譯）（2009）。變革時代卓越的校長領導：國際觀點,。台北: 心理。
謝傳崇、朱陳國智（2013）。校長關係領導對教師關係學習之研究。屏東教育大學學報，40，273-308。
謝傳崇、楊絮捷（2013）。國民小學校長情緒智慧領導能力、教師組織公民行為 與組織創新氣氛關係之研究。教育政策論壇，16（4），99-133。new window
謝傳崇、蕭輝勳（2011）。國民中小學校長知識領導與學校創新經營效能關係之研究。中等教育，62（1），50-70。new window
鍾志長（2005）。校長之變革領導與教師革新關注之研究。國立花蓮師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，花蓮。
顏朱吟（2008）。大學校院行政人員工作價值觀、自我效能、經驗學習與工作競爭關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所碩士論文，高雄。new window
蘇奕娟（2018）。校長正向領導與教師情緒距離。臺灣教育評論月刊，7（1），236-242。new window


 
二、英文部分
Alston, J. P. (1989). Wa, guanxi, and inhwa: Managerial principle in Japan, China, Korea. Business Horizons, 32(2), 26-31.
Bell, D. (2000). Guanxi: A nesting of groups. Current Anthropology, 41(1), 132-138.new window
Bowers, J. A., & White, R. B. (2014). Do principal preparation and teacher qualifications influence different types of school growth trajectories in Illinois? A growth mixture model analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 705-736.
Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Relationality in organizational research: Exploring the space between, Organization Science, 11(5), 551–564.
Brower, Schoorman, & Tan (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227–250.
Bruce, H. K., & Scott, D. (2000). Forces driving organizational change: A business school perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 75(3), 133-137.
Bullock, R. J., & Batten, D. (1985). It’s just a phase we’re going through: A review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Group and Organization Studies, 10(4), 383-412.
Butterfield, F. (1983). China: Aliver in Bitter Sea. New York: Coronet Book.
Cameron, K.S. (1984). The Effectiveness of Ineffectiveness. Reseachin Organizational Benavior, 6, 235-285.
Carifio, J. (2010). Development and validation of a measure of relational leadership: Implications for leadership theory and policies. Current Research in Psychology, 1 (1), 16-28.new window
Carnall, C. A. (1990). Managing Change in Organisation. London: Prentice Hall.
Certo, S. T. (2003). Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 432-446.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471-482.
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C. G. (1997). Organizational development and change. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing.
Daft, R. L., & Steers, R. M. (1986). Organization: A micro/ macro approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2), 184-200.
Dessler, G. (1980). Human behavior improving performance at Work. N.J.: Englewood Cliffs.
Dienesch, R. M., & R. C. Liden. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618 - 634.
Dobbin, F., & Boychuk T. (1999). National employment systems and job autonomy: Why autonomy is high in the Nordic countries and low in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. Organization Studies, 20(2), 257-291.
Edgeman, R., & Dahlgaard, J. (1998). A paradigm for leadership excellence. Total QualityManagement, 9 (4/5), 75-79.
Fan (2002). Guanxi’s consequences: Personal gains at social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(4), 371-380.
Fidler, B. (1996). Strategic planning for school improvement. London: British Educational Management and Administration Society.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.
George, J. M., & Jones, G.. R. (2002). Understanding and managing organizational behavior. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Goodnow,F. J.(1990). Politics and administration: Astudy in government. New York: Macmillan.
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 multilevel multidomain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Grundy, T. (1993). Managing strategi change. London: Kogan Page.
Hackley, C. A., & Dong, Q. (2001). America public relations and China's guanxi. Public Relations Quarterly, 46(2), 16-19.
Handy (1994). The empty raincoat. London: Hutchinson.
Hanson, E, M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hanson, M. J. (2003). National legislation for early intervention: United States of America. In S. L. Odom, M. J. Hanson, J. A. Blackman & S. Kaul (Eds.), Early Intervention Practices Around the World (pp. 253-279). Baltimore: Brookes.
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J. W., & Woodman, R. W. (1986). Organizational behavior. St. Paul: West.
Hosking, D. M., Dachler, H. P., & Gergen, K. J.(Eds.).(1995). Management and organization: Relational alternatives ot individualism. Brookfield, USA: Avebury.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: theory, research, and practice. New York: Random House, Inc.
Keung, E. K., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2013). The relationship between transformational leadership and cultural intelligence: A study of international school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(6), 836-854.
Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (1998). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Korukonda, A.R., Watson, J.G., & Rajkumar, T.M. (1999). Beyond teams and empowerment: a counterpoint to two common precepts in TQM. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 64 (1), 29-36.new window
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. D. Cartwright (ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multi-dimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development, Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.new window
Lumpkin, A. (2014). The role of organizational culture on and career stages of faculty. The Educational Forum, 78(2), 196-205.
Luo, Y. D. (1997). Guanxi: Principles, philosophies, and implications. Human Systems Management, 16(1): 43-52.new window
Madaus, G., Airasian, P., & Kelllaghan, T. (1980). School effectiveness: a reassessment of the evidence. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Michael, S. R. (1982). Techniques of organizational change. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Moolenaar, N. M., & Sleegers, P. J. (2015). The networked principal: Examining principals’ social relationships and transformational leadership in school and district networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 8-39.new window
Owens, R. G. (1987). Organizational behavior in education. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Owens, R. G., & Steinhoff, C. R. (1976). Administering change in schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Regan, H. B., & Brooks, G. W. (1995). Out of women’s experience: Creating relational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ricardo, R. J. (1991). The What,Why and How of Change Management. Manufacturing Systems, 9(5), 52-58.
Richmon, M. J., & Allison, D. J. (2003). Toward a conceptual framework for leadership inquiry. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 31(1), 31-50.new window
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behavior. Englewood Cliff. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Coglister, C. C. (1999). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Research: A Comprehensive Review of Theory, Measurement and Data-Analytic Practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63–113.new window
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367-392.
Steers, R.M., & Black, J.S (1994). Organizational Behavior. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Stogdill & Coons(1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of business research, The Ohio State University.
Vanhonacker, W. R. (2004). Guanxi Networks in China: How to be the spider, not the fly. The China Business Review, May-June, 48-53.
Walter, C. W. (2006). Relational Leadership: A biblical model for leadership service. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Webber, R. A. (1979). Management: basic elements of managing organization. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin Inc.
William, R. K. (1997). Organizational transformation. information system mamagement, 14(2), 63-65.
Yan, Y. (1996). The culture of guanxi in a north China village. The China Journal, 35(1), 1-25.new window
Zhu, C. (2013). How innovative are schools in teaching and learning? A case study in Beijing and Hong Kong. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 137-145.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：342（臺灣：327，外國：15） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2516201 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68315008
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上