華人組織領導者關係網絡管理__臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	華人組織領導者關係網絡管理
作者：	葉勇助
作者(外文)：	Yung-Chu Yeh
校院名稱：	元智大學
系所名稱：	管理學院博士班
指導教授：	陳家祥
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2012
主題關鍵詞：	差序式領導；圈子；派系；信任；differential leadership；circle；faction；trust
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	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:0 共同引用:0 點閱:157

　　差序式領導根據關係親疏、忠誠高低、才能大小，領導者會將組織成員加以歸類，領導者與各類員工間的互動法則，即構成華人組織領導行為的基礎。領導者對各類員工的信任程度與自己人意識是有差別的，而表現出內團體偏差與不同的領導行為。也由於領導者與自己人、外人的互動模式有極大的差異，因此，部屬的工作態度亦將有所不同：對自己人的部屬而言，基於被信賴的理由，較能滋長出感恩懷德的情感，於是不但更願意努力工作，貢獻一己之力，展現良好績效，而且其角色服從性、工作滿足感、及對組織承諾較高。除此之外，也較願意主動從事對組織有益的角色外工作，離職率也相較低；至於外人團體則反之。這種對人力資源的差異管理，使得組織內的資源分配較為合理，而有助於組織效能的提升。其中許多研究結果皆強調信任關係可以藉由降低組織內的交易成本與增進團隊合作，並且有效地協商衝突創造合理交換，進而產生組織領導效能。
　　然而在本質上，差序式領導者會將部屬區分為自己人和外人，並以不同的方式管理，將差序式領導視為對偶層次的概念，是關注在領導者與部屬個人的連結，卻忽略了自己人和外人部屬均身處於同一團體內的事實，也就是說大多數領導關係研究並沒有涉及其結構維度。而本研究認為領導者不同的關係網絡管理會產生不同的信任關係，進而影響領導效能。
　　其中藉由質化的個案分析探討何種領導者的關係網絡結構機制有利於組織信任的發展，進而建構相關命題。結果發現三大命題：
命題一：當組織領導者不能動態平衡圈子結構的關係進出，則組織整體信任關係降低。
命題二：當組織領導者不能動態平衡圈子結構內外的利益，則差序式領導易使圈外者積極反抗或消極不配合，進而降低組織信任。
命題三：當組織領導者不能動態平衡情感和工具交換的動機時，過於強調工具交換則難以形成圈子逐步擴大的組織信任，而過於強調情感交換則容易形成派系封閉的信任關係。

以文找文

Differential leadership is a specific leadership style whereby leaders would categorize members of organization based on factors such as closeness of relationship, level of loyalty, capacity of talent and so forth for the formation of various principles of interaction between the leader and his various subordinates. Differential leadership is a fundamental leadership behavior in Chinese organizations where leaders demonstrate varying degrees of trust and insider awareness for different types of subordinates, thereby resulting in discrepant and differentiated leadership behavior within the internal organization. Since leaders of differential leadership display substantial difference in their models of interaction with insiders and outsiders, their subordinates would naturally show different attitudes towards work. For subordinates deemed as insiders, due to the trust they were given, they are more likely to cultivate sentiments of gratitude and appreciation for their superior and therefore more inclined to work harder to contribute and perform well. In addition, they also exhibit higher degree of role submissiveness, work satisfaction and commitment to the organization. Not only that, these employees would be more willing to take the initiative to assume roles that benefit the organization with relatively lower likelihood of turnover. The opposite applies to employees belonging to the outsider group. Such differentiated management of human resources allows for more reasonable allocation of resources within the organization and could facilitate improvement in organizational efficacy. In fact, many researches in the past placed great emphasis on the notion that the strengthening of trust relationship between leaders and their subordinates could lower transactional costs within the organization, facilitate team cooperation and ensure effective mediation of conflicts for reasonable exchanges, thereby leading to organizational leadership efficacy.
Nonetheless, leaders who believe in differential leadership would separate their subordinates into the “insider” and “outsider” groups and manage them in distinctively different manners. The perception of differential leadership as a dyadic level concept focuses on the connection between leaders and individual subordinates and overlooks the fact that leaders, their “inside” and “outside” employees all belong to the same organization. In other words, most studies on leader relationships did not cover the dimension of organizational structure. And this research is proposing the notion that different relationship network management styles adopted by leaders would lead to varying trust relationships, which in turn will affect their leadership performance.
Three propositions on the subject have been constructed based on the analyses of qualitative case studies to determine the type of leadership relationship network that would facilitate the development of trust in organizations, namely:
Proposition I: Overall organizational trust relationship would deteriorate when the leader is unable to dynamically balance the structure of subordinate circles.
Proposition II: Differential leadership could lead to active resistance or passive non-cooperation from the outsiders, thereby leading to decreased organizational trust when the leader is unable to dynamically balance the interests of the circle structure.
Proposition III: When a leader is unable to dynamically balance the sentiments and motives of instrumental exchange, overemphasis in instrumental exchange would hamper the development of organizational trust as the circle expands. On the other hand, overemphasis in sentimental exchange could easily lead to the fostering of closed trust relationship of factions.

以文找文

參考文獻

任金剛、林明村、陳以亨(2002)。員工歸類模式之驗證—華人專業經理人之實徵研究。中央研究院民族學研究所主辦「第四屆華人心理學家學術研討會」(台北)宣讀之論文。王紹光與劉欣(2003)《華人社會中的信任》，北京：華人城市出版社。
何友暉、陳淑娟、趙志欲(1991)。關係取向：為華人社會心理方法論求答案。楊國樞、黃光國(主編)，華人的心理與行為。臺北：桂冠圖書公司。 new window

余英時(1987)《從價值系統看華人文化的現代意義》，引自《文化：華人與世界》, 第一輯, 北京：三聯書店。
金耀基(1980)。人際關係中的人際分析。第一屆國際漢學會議研討會論文集。臺北市：中研院。又見楊國樞(主編)(1988)：華人的心理，75-104。臺北：桂冠圖書公司。
林南(2001)。社會資本：爭鳴的範式和實證的檢驗。香港社會學學報，2，1-38。
林明村(2001)。直屬主管之差序格局對領導行為與領導效能影響之研究。(未發表之碩士論文)。高雄：國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所。
林彥綸(2010)。華人組織中派系行為之研究。台中：逢甲大學企業管理學系碩士論文。 new window

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卷，頁175-228。 new window

許烺光(1983)。《文化人類學新論》, 臺北:臺北聯經出版事業公司。
戚樹誠(1996)。探討企業主管的親信關係，《中山管理評論》，Issue 4，Vol 1: 1-15。 new window

費孝通(1948)。鄉土華人與鄉土重建。上海：觀察社。
楊宜音(1999)。《自已人：信任建構過程的個案研究》，北京：《社會學研究》2：38-52。
姜定宇，張菀真(2010)。華人差序式領導與部屬效能。「本土心理學研究」，33，109-177。 new window

黃光國(1985)：〈人情與面子：中國人的權力遊戲〉。見李亦園、楊國樞、文崇一(主編)：《現代化與中國化論集》，頁125-153。台北：桂冠。 new window

黃光國(1988)：〈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》，233-272。台北：巨流。 new window

黃光國(2001)：〈儒家關係主義的理論建構及其方法論基礎〉。《教育與社會研究》第二期，頁1-34。 new window

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。 new window

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」，18，51-94。 new window

鐘筱涵(2011)。「差序式領導與團隊效能－激勵或分化？」。嘉義：國立中正大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
陳介玄(1994)。《協力網路與生活結構－臺灣中小企業的社會經濟分析》，臺北：聯經出版社。 new window

梁鈞平(1998)。企業組織中的圈子文化——關於組織文化的一種假說。經濟科學，1998年第6期。
邊燕傑(1999)。社會網絡與求職過程。塗兆慶、林益民(主編)，改革開放與華人社會，110-138。香港：Oxford University Press(China)。
楊中芳(1993)。試論如何深化本土心理學研究：兼談現階段之研究成果。本土心理學研究，1，122-183。 new window

楊國樞(1993)。華人的社會取向：社會互動的觀點。見楊國樞、余安邦(主編)：華人的心理與社會行為—理念及方法篇。臺北：桂冠圖書公司。
鄭伯壎(1995a)：〈差序格局與華人組織行為〉。《本土心理學研究》(台北)，3，142-219。 new window

鄭伯壎(1995b)：〈家長權威與領導行為之關係：一個台灣民營企業主持人的個案研究〉。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》，(台北)，79，119-173。 new window

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」，22，195-254。 new window

鄭伯壎(2005)《華人領導：理論與實際》。台北：桂冠出版公司。 new window

鄭伯壎，林家五(1998)。差序格局與華人組織行為：台灣大型企業的初步研究。「中央研究院民族研究所集刊」，86，29-72。 new window

羅家德，2008，「社會網路與社會資本」，收錄於社會學與華人經驗，李培林、李強與馬戎主編，北京:社會科學文獻出版社，pp.341-372。
羅家德，2010，「自組織—市場與層級之外的第三種治理模式」，比較管理1(4)：1-11。
羅家德與王競，2010，「圈子理論──以社會網的視角分析華人的組織行為」，戰略管理 2(1)：12-24。
羅家德、鄭孟育、葉勇助與高翔，2011, 「關係與圈子—華人工作場域中的圈子現象」，兩岸清華學術研討會流動議題與兩岸社會研討會，臺灣清華大學主辦，9月2日--9月3日。
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〉。《本土心理學研究》(台北)，13，127-180。 new window

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In H. L. Tosi &; W. C. Hamner (Eds.), Organizational behavior and management: A contingency approach (3rd ed., pp. 209-225). New York: Wiley
Alston, J(1989). Wa, Guanxik, and Inwa: Managerial principle in Japan, China, and Korea. Business Horizon(March),26-31
Bales, R. F., &; Slater, P. E. (1955). Role Differentiation in Small Decision-Making Groups. In T. Parsons &; R. F. Bales (Eds), Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. New York: Free Press.
Barnes, J.A. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Human Relation, 39-58.
Bauer T. N., &; Green S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538-1567. new window

Butterfiled, F. (1983). China: alive in bitter sea.(Coronet books. NY).
Bian, Y. (1994). Guanxi and the allocationa of Urban jobs in China. The China Quarterly, 140. 971-999.
Bian, Y. (1997). Bring strong ties back in: Indirect connection, bridges, and job search in China. American Sociological Review, 62:366-385.
Blaug. M., (1980). The Methodology of Economics: or How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Boies, K., &; Howell, J. M. (2006). Leader-member exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 246-257.
Bolino, M., &; Turnley, W. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740-748.
Bond, M. H., &; Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people: 213-266. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Buunk, B., Zurriaga, R., Gonzalez-Roma, V., &; Subirats, M. (2003). Engaging in upward and downward comparisons as a determinant of relative deprivation at work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 370-388.
Chai, Sun-Ki and Mooweon Rhee. (2010). Confucian capitalism and the paradox of closure and structural holes in East Asian firms. Management and Organization Review, 6(1): 5–29.
Chemers, M. M. (1993). An integrative theory of leadership. In M. Chemers &; R. Ayman(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. New York: Academic Press.
Chen, Chieh-Hsuan. 1995. Financial Networks and Social Life. Taipei: Linkingbooks. (In Chinese)
Chen, M. J. 2002. Transcending paradox: The Chinese “Middle Way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 179–199.
Chen, Y., &; Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative leadership by American and Chinese managers in China: The role of relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8): 1727-1752.
Chen, X.-P., &; Chen, C. C. (2004). On the intricacies of the chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3): 305-324.
Chen, M. J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition--cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17: 288-304.
Chen, X.-P. &; Peng, S. (2008). Guanxi dynamics: Shifts in the closeness of ties between Chinese coworkers. Management and Organization Review, 4(1): 63-80.
Chi, S. C. (1996). The empirical study in roles of leader’s confidant. Management Review, 15(1): 37-59.
Chua, R., Ingram, P., &; Morris, M. (2008). From the head and the heart: Locating cognition and affect-based trust in managers‘ professional networks. Academy of Management Journal, 51:436-452.
Chua, R., Morris, M., &; Ingram, P. (2009). Guanxi vs networking: Distinctive configurations of affect- and cognition-based trust in the networks of Chinese vs American managers. Journal of International Business Studies,40: 490-508.
Crosby, F. (1984). Relative deprivation in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw &; L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 6 (pp. 51−93). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cook, K. S., Eric R. R., &; Alexndra, G. 2004. The emergence of trust networks under uncertainty: The case of transitional economies--Insight from social psychological research. In S. R. Ackerman, B. Rothstein &; J. Kornai (Eds.), Creating Social Trust in Post Socialist Transition: 193-212. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crosby, F., Muehrer, P., &; Loewenstein, G. (1986). Relative deprivation and explanation: Models and concepts. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman &; M. P. Zanna (Eds), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 17-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., &; Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Dasgupta, P. (2000). Trust as a commodity. In Diego Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, electronic edition: 49-72. Department of Sociology, University of Oxford.
Dienesch, R. M., &; Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., &; Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: a longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 56 – 60.
Emirbayer, M. &; Goodwin, J.(1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1411-1454.
Fan, Y.(2002). Guanxi’s consequences: personal gains at social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 38,371-380.
Farh, J.L., Tsui, A.S., Xin, K. &; Cheng, B.S. (1998). The influence of relational demography and guanxi: The Chinese case. Organizational Science, 9(4), 471-488.
Farh, J.L. &; Cheng, B.S. (2000). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: A cultural analysis. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 13:127-180. (In Chinese)
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Fu, P.P., Tsui, A.S. and Dess, G... (2006). The dynamics of guanxi in Chinese high-tech organizations: Implications for knowledge management and decision-making. Management International Review, 46(3): 1-29.
George, J. M. (1995). Asymmetrical effects of rewards and punishments: The case of social loafing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 327-338.
Gerstner, C. R., &; Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,827−844.
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. 143-166). OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G. B., Hui, C., &; Taylor, E. A. (2006). Experience-based learning about LMX leadership and fairness in project teams: a dyadic directional approach. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5, 448−460.
Graen, G. B., &; Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In B. M. Staw &; L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 175-208). CT: JAI Press.
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(2), 219-247.
Granovetter, Mark. (1973). The strength of weak tie. American Journal of Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
Granovetter, Mark. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481-510.
Granovetter, Mark. (2002). A theoretical agenda for economic sociology. In Mauro Guillen, Randall Collins, Paula England and Marshall Meyer (Eds.), The New Economic Sociology:Developments in an Emerging Field, 35-59. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gu, F. F., Hung, K., &; Tse, D. K. (2008). When does guanxi matter? issues of capitalization and its dark sides. Journal of Marketing, 72(4): 12-28.Heider, F.(1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Heinicke, C., &; Bales, R. F. (1953). Developmental Trends in the Structure of Small Groups. Sociometry, 16, 7-38.
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Glibkowski, B. G., &; Chaudhry, A. (2009). Within-group LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its construct definition, antecedents and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 4, 517-534.
Ho, D. Y. F., (1993). Relational orientation in Asian social psychology. In Kim, U. and Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Indigenous Psychologies: Research and Experience in Cultural Context, 240-259. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage
Hofstede, Geert. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe.
House, R. J., Wright, N. S, &; Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory. In P. C., Earley &; M. Erez(Ed.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology(pp. 535-625). San Francisco: New Lexington.
Hsu, F. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to differences. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Hsu, F. L. K. 1983. The Study of Literate Civilizations. Taipei: Linkingbooks. (in Chinese)
Hwang, K.K.. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92:944-974.
Hwang, K. K. (1988). The Chinese Power Game. Taipei: Linkingbooks. (In Chinese)
Jacobs, J.B. (1979). The concept of guanxi and local politics in a rural Chinese cultural setting. In S.L. Greenblatt, R.W. Wilson, &; A.A. Wilson (Eds.), Social interaction in Chinese Society. New York: Praeger, 209-236.
Jiang, D. Y. (姜定宇), &; Cheng, B. S. (鄭伯壎) (2008). Affect- and role-based loyalty to supervisors in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 214-221.
Krackhardt, David. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In Nohria, Nitin and Eccles, Robert G.. (Eds.), Networks and Organizations, 216-240. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Krackhard, D &; Brass, D.(1994). Intraorganizational Networks- The micro side. In S. Waserman &; J. Galaskewicx(Eds.), Advances in Social network analysis-Research in the social and behavioral sciences. pp.207-229. London: Sage Publications.
Kirk, J., &; Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Klein, K. J., &; Kozlowski, S.W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211-236
Latané , B., Williams, K. D., &; Harkins, S. G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
Law, K. S., Wong, C., Wang, D., &; Wang, L. (2000). Effect of supervisor--subordinate guanxi on supervisory decisions in China: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(4): 751-765.
Lewis, G. H. (1972). Role differentiation. American Sociological Review, 37(4), 424-434.
Liang, S. M. (1983). The Comparison between Chinese and Western cultures. Taipei: Li-Ren Publishing House. (In Chinese)
Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital: A Theory of Ssocial Structure and Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Liden, R. C., &; Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., &; Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723−746
Lincoln, Y. S., &; Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Luo, Y. (1997). Guanxi and performance of foreign-invested enterprises in China: An empirical inquiry. Management International Review, 37(1): 51-70.
Luo, Jar-Der. (2005). Particularistic Trust and General Trust—A Network Analysis in Chinese Organizations. Management and Organizational Review, 3:437-458.
Marsden, P., and Campbell, K. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63:483-501.
Martin, J. (1981). Relative deprivation: a theory of distributive injustice for an era of shrinking resources. In B. M. Staw &; L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 3 (pp. 53−107). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Maslyn, J. M., &; Uhl-Bien, M. (2005). LMX differentiation: key concepts and related empirical findings. In G. Graen &; J. A. Graen (Eds.), Global organizing designs, LMX leadership: The series, Vol. 3 (pp. 73−98). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Mayer, A. C. (1966). The significance of quasi-groups in the study of complex society. In M. Banton (Ed.), The anthropology of complex societies: 97-122. NY: Frederick A Praeger, Publishers
McGregor. (1960). The Human Side Of Enterprise. New York, McGraw-Hill .
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crises: The centrality of trust in organizations. In R. M. Kramer &; T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: 261-287. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Northhouse, P. G. (2003). Leadership Theory and practice (3nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Olson, J., Roese, N., Meen, J., &; Robertson, D. (1995). The preconditions and consequences of relative deprivation: Two field studies. Journal of social Psychology, 25(11), 944-964.
Ouchi, W.G.. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet The Japanese Challenge,Reading. Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peng, S.Q. (1998). Guanxi in trust: An indigenous study of Chinese interpersonal trust. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong.
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., &; Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behavior: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., &; Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25(4), 810-821.
Poole, M. S., &; Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14:562-578.
Pye, L.(1982). Chinese commercial negotiating style. Oelgeschlage, Gunnand Hain Inc. Cambridge.
Redding, S. G. (1993). The psychosocial legacies of China. In The spirit of Chinese capitalism (pp. 41-78). Berlin: Walter.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., &; Lawler, J. J. (2000). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 643–658.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139.
Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: an organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25−34.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., &; Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Investigating contingencies: An examination of the impact of span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader-member exchange using traditional and multivariate within- and between-entities analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 659–677.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., &; Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63-113.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. I., &; Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader-member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 298-316.
Shen, Yuan. (2007). Market, Class and Society: Critical Issues on Sociology of Transformation. Beijing: Social Science Academic Press (in Chinese).
Sherony, K. M., &; Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542−548.
Sias, P. M., &; Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communications. Human Communication Research, 22, 5−38.
Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and value: The organization of large-scale Taiwan enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differaibabon m small groups. American Sociological Revtew, 20, 300-310.
Smith, R. J. (1994). China’s cultural heritage: The Qing dynasty. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sweeney, P. D., McFarlin, D. B., &; Inderrieden, E. J. (1990). Using relative deprivation theory to explain satisfaction with income and pay level: a multistudy examination. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 423−436.
Tsui, A.S., J.L. Farh (1997). Where guanxi matters: relational demography and guanxi ing the Chinese context. Work and Occupations, 24, 56-79.
Wi1liams, K. .D., Harkins, S.G., &; Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311.
Williamson, O. 1996. The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Xin, K. K., &; Pearce, J. L. (1996). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6): 1641-1658.
Xiao, Z., &; Tsui, A. S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 1-31.
Yamagishi, T., &; Yamagishi, M. 1994. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2): 129-166.
Yammarino, F. J., &; Dansereau, S. D. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 135–141
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S.D., Chun, J.U., &; Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: a state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879-919
Yang, Guoshu. (1993). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In T. Y. Lin, W. S. Tseng, and Y. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese Societies and Mental Health. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. (In Chinese)
Yang, Y. Y. 1995. Analyzing guanxi and its categories: Discussing with Hwang, Kuan Kuo. Sociological Studies, 5: 18-23.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organization (3th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., &; Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette &; L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, (pp. 147-197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
.Zhang, Y., &; Zhang, Z. (2006). Guanxi and organizational dynamics in China: A link between individual and organizational levels. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4): 375-392.
Zhu, H., Chen, C. C., Li, X. C., &; Zhou, Y. H. (2009). Psychological Ownership and the Importance of Manager-Owner Relationship in Family Businesses. Academy of Management Meetings, Montreal, Canada.
Zhuang, G., Xi, Y., &; Tsang, A. S. L. (2010). Power, conflict, and cooperation: The impact of guanxi in Chinese marketing channels. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1): 137-149.
Zhai, Xuewei. 2001. The logics of Chinese Behaviors. Beijing: Peiking University Press. (In Chinese)

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	家族傳承與公司績效--企業社會責任的調節作用
2.	傳承社會資本延續家族企業價值
3.	周而不比抑或比而不周？團隊差序式領導、團隊交融記憶系統與團隊績效：團隊內自己人角色的調節效果
4.	運動情境中的教誨領導：文獻評析與概念建構
5.	集體獎懲對組織認同之影響--以預先告知為調節變項
6.	求職者觀點下的臺灣家族企業組織形態
7.	差序式領導與團體效能：三元模式的驗證
8.	教練領導行為的關懷、體恤、施恩行為的比較與分析
9.	愛情，像極了投資：同志家族企業的親密關係與經濟
10.	家長式領導與部屬建言行為之關係：深層演出與表層演出之角色
11.	上市公司企業社會責任對持續性競爭優勢、組織效能之影響：WICS領導技能模式的調節效果
12.	忍一時風平浪靜，退一步海闊天空？華人組織中的人際壓力因應
13.	頂功的演藝人生：一位臺灣職業雜技演員自我實現生命歷程
14.	反思運動教練體罰為介入策略的教學實踐研究：檢視華人領導與動機氣候的改變
15.	本土心理學中的創造性「繼承」與「轉化」：以權威取向的理論發展為例

1.	領導風格對價值共創的影響－集體策略願景與組織公平感知之調節效果
2.	公務人員組織認定與關係認定契合之影響：路徑、後果及調節效果
3.	差序式領導與自己人部屬的角色：多層次分析觀點
4.	華人文化脈絡的幼兒園長課程領導之探究
5.	華人生命觀與孝順行為之相關研究：重構儒家文化之親子關係
6.	以治理機制與權力關係觀點論主管機關與民間體育組織之治理關係
7.	荷馬史詩與詩經人格教育思想之比較
8.	跨層次觀點下家長式領導、倫理氣候、組織承諾與組織公民行為關係之研究
9.	威權領導對任務績效之影響:以LMX及部屬職場偏差行為為中介因子
10.	上海地區家事調解社會工作專業知能建構之行動研究
11.	書畫藝術市場仲介機制研究——以榮寶齋為例(1911-1937)
12.	高雄市國民小學校長家長式領導、教師組織公民行為與學校效能關係之研究
13.	國民小學組織正義、組織公民行為與競爭優勢關係之研究：以領導者與部屬交換關係為調節效果
14.	學校不當督導與非志願性公民行為關係之研究-中介與調節效果的探討
15.	國民小學校長領導行為、教師專業發展與創新教學效能關係之研究－以臺灣北部四市為例

1.	尋租中國：臺商、廣東模式與全球資本主義
2.	全球生產壓力鏈 : 越南臺商、工人與國家
3.	交互比較視野下的現代性：從臺灣出發的反省
4.	有溫度的臺灣史
5.	制度變遷、社會資本、政治參與：三者之間的關係
6.	支離破碎的團結：戰後臺灣煉油廠與糖廠的勞工
7.	金門民主化的進程：五合一選舉與組織動員
8.	中國近代平等觀念的形成(1895~1915)
9.	校長的情緒領導
10.	Democracy on Trial: Social Movements and Cultural Politics in Postauthoritarian Taiwan
11.	團體動力學
12.	金融與社會 : 戰後臺灣金融體系與信用的演進
13.	家長式領導對運動團隊文化的影響：團隊內互動的中介效果及運動動機的調節效果
14.	團隊領導對團隊效能的影響：以教練效能及領導信任為中介效果
15.	追趕的極限 : 臺灣的經濟轉型與創新

無相關著作

1.	員工歸類模式對甄選、晉升之影響：差序格局觀點
2.	部屬目標導向與上司知覺部屬忠誠、關係、及能力之關聯
3.	華人「關係」品質與長期導向關係之研究--以某直銷公司為例
4.	Relationality in Business Negotiations: Evidence from China
5.	組織公平與主管承諾之結構模式研究--以信任與關係進行影響效果分析
6.	The Influence of Client Fraud Risk and Client Cooperativeness on Professional Skepticism of Chinese Entry-level Auditors
7.	公司治理與績效之關係：比較家族與非家族企業
8.	Improving Employee Job Performance through Ethical Leadership and "Guanxi": The Moderation Effects of Supervisor-Subordinate Guanxi Differentiation
9.	影響臨時人力流動率之因素研究--以臺灣中小製造業為例
10.	轉換型領導、師徒功能與組織承諾之研究--以知覺主管支持為調節變項
11.	Transferability of Chinese Human Resource Management Practices in Bangladesh: A Case Study
12.	人脈擴展好，還是深化好？臺灣資通訊產業創業家社會網絡策略之研究
13.	組織文化與氛圍對留任意願影響之研究--以責任感為中介變項
14.	探索社會網路對澳門中小企業績效的影響作用
15.	Regime-Initiated Reforms and Civic Activism: The Case of Gorbachev's Soviet Union

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫