近十幾年來有別於西方領導理論，華人文化中獨特的家長式領導風格逐漸受到西方學者的重視與注目，其在特有人治主義下，領導者除了展現出公私分明、以身作則的德行領導之外，時而展現出強悍威嚴的威權作風、時而又以慈愛關懷照顧的仁慈領導方式帶領著團隊，而身為下位者的部屬隨著領導作風的切換而以認同效法、敬畏順從、感恩圖報的方式進行回應，在此種三元領導的方式之下，部屬所展現的效忠程度是否有所差異及透過部屬上下關係認定是否會影響對主管之效忠程度，實為本研究想進一步瞭解之動機與目的。
經由研究結果顯示，在認同內化方面除了在威權領導下無顯著關係外，其餘皆有正向關係；在業務輔佐方面，皆有顯著正向關係。
而在上下關係認定調節部分，當部屬認定與主管為工具性關係時，在威權領導下效忠主管-認同內化具有正向調節作用，另在仁慈領導與威權領導下部屬效忠主管-業務輔佐也有顯著正向調節作用。最後，根據本研究之結果提出理論貢獻與內涵。

In the past decade or so, different from the Western leadership theory, the unique paternalistic leadership style in Chinese culture has gradually been paid attention to and paid attention to by Western scholars, and under the rule of the special people, the leaders have shown the leaders in addition to the public-private division and leading by example. Strong and majestic style of authority, and at times with loving care and care of the benevolent leadership of the leadership, and as the subordinate's subordinates with the change of leadership style and to identify with the example, awe of obedience, gratitude to the way to respond, In this three-way leadership way, whether the degree of loyalty shown by the subordinate is different and whether the determination through the relationship between the subordinate and the subordinate will affect the degree of allegiance to the supervisor, is really the motivation and purpose of this study to further understand. The results show that there is a positive relationship in the internalization of identity, except that there is no significant relationship under the authority of the leadership; There are significant positive relationships in terms of business support. And in the upper and lower relationship identification adjustment part, when the subordinate identified and the supervisor as a instrumental relationship, under the authority of the head of loyalty - identity internalization has a positive adjustment role, and under the leadership of merciful leadership and authority of the ministry of loyalty director - business support also has a significant positive adjustment role. Finally, according to the results of this study, the theoretical contribution and connotation are put forward.

論文審定書 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
目 錄 iii
圖 次 vi
第一章緒論 1
第一節、 研究背景與動機 1
第二節、 研究目的 3
第三節、 研究流程 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節、 家長式領導理論 5
第二節、 華人效忠主管 12
第三節、 上下關係認定 15
第三章 研究方法 17
第一節、 研究架構與假說 17
第二節、 研究對象與施測程序 18
第三節、 研究工具 19
第四節、 共同方法變異(CMV)事前避免處理 21
第五節、 資料分析方法 22
第四章 研究結果 24
第一節、 敘述統計分析結果 24
第二節、 信度分析 27
第三節、 因素分析 28
第四節、 相關分析 32
第五節、 迴歸分析 34
第六節、 上下關係認定的調節效果 37
第五章 討論與建議 42
第一節、 研究發現與理論貢獻 42
第二節、 研究限制與建議 44
第三節、 管理意涵 45
參考文獻 47
附錄 55

白崇亮. (1979). 國立政治大學企業管理學研究所未發表之碩士論文.
任金剛, 陳以亨, & 林明村. (2002). 華人員工歸類之標準與實證研究. 中央研究院主辦 [第四屆華人心理學學家學術研討會](台北) 宣讀之論文.
李慕華. (1992). 組織忠誠的內涵意義, 影響因素與行為結果之探討: 以台灣中小企業為例. 輔仁大學應用心理學研究所, 碩士論文.
周婉茹, 周麗芳, 鄭伯壎, & 任金剛. (2010). 專權與尚嚴之辨: 再探威權領導的內涵與恩威並濟的效果. 本土心理學研究(34), 223-284.
周逸衡. (1984). 國人價值觀體系與台灣大型企業管理行為關係之研究. 國立政治大學企業管理學研究所, 博士論文.
林姿葶, 姜定宇, 蕭景鴻, & 鄭伯壎. (2014). 家長式領導效能：後設分析研究. [Paternalistic Leadership and Subordinates' Effectiveness: A Meta-analytic Studies]. 本土心理學研究(42), 181-249. doi:10.6254/2014.42.181
林姿葶, 鄭伯壎, & 周麗芳. (2014). 家長式領導：回顧與前瞻. [Paternalistic Leadership Theory: A Critical Review]. 本土心理學研究(42), 3-82. doi:10.6254/2014.42.3
姜定宇. (2005). 華人部屬與主管關係、主管忠誠、及其後續結果：一項兩階段研究. 國立臺灣大學, Available from Airiti AiritiLibrary database. (2005年)
姜定宇, 鄭伯壎, 鄭紀塋, & 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, 49(4), 407-432.
陳嵩, 陳光偉, & 李佩芬. (2011). 垂直人際信任對部屬工作績效之影響: 上司家長式領導的角色. 管理學報》(台北), 28(1), 1-29.
陳嵩, 陳光偉, 林伶瑾, & 李佩芬. (2012). 再探銷售人員目標導向對行為績效之影響: 銷售經驗及上司家長式領導的干擾角色. 輔仁管理評論, 19(2), 117-170.
黃光國. (1988). 人情與面子: 中國人的權力遊戲, 台北: 巨流圖書公司.
黃懿慧. (2002). <“關係取向”理論模式初探：組織與利益關係人關係之探.pdf>. 本土心理學研究, 95-172. doi:10.6254/2002.18.95
楊國樞. (1993a). 中國人的社會取向: 社會互動的觀點. 中國人的心理與行為: 理念及方法篇』, 桂冠圖書公司.
楊國樞. (1993b). 我們為什么要建立中國人的本土心理學? 本土心理學研究(1), 6-88.
楊國樞. (1993c). 傳統價值觀與現代價值觀能否同時並存? 中國人的價值觀: 社會科學觀點》, 頁, 65-119.
樊景立, & 鄭伯壎. (2000a). 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(13), 126-180.
樊景立, & 鄭伯壎. (2000b). 華人組織的家長式領導：一項文化觀點的分析. [A Cultural Analysis of Paternalistic Leadership in Chinese Organization]. 本土心理學研究(13), 126-180.
蔡松純. (2012). 領導者與部屬上下關係認定之模式建構及其影響效果. 國立臺灣大學, Available from Airiti AiritiLibrary database. (2012年)
蔡松純, 鄭伯壎, & 周麗芳. (2015). 領導者與部屬上下關係認定之理論模式建構. [The Model of Leader-Subordinate Relational Identity]. 中華心理學刊, 57(2), 121-144. doi:10.6129/cjp.20140924
蔡松純, 鄭伯壎, 周麗芳, 姜定宇, & 鄭弘岳. (2009). 領導者上下關係認定與部屬利社會行爲：權力距離之調節效果. [Leader's Vertical-Relational Identity and Subordinate Prosocial Behavior: The Moderating Effects of Power Distance]. 中華心理學刊, 51(1), 121-138. doi:10.6129/cjp.2009.5101.07
鄭伯壎. (1991). 中國人‧ 中國心-人格與社會篇, 高尚仁, 楊中芳主編, 366-407. In: 台北: 遠流出版社.
鄭伯壎. (1995a). 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.
鄭伯壎. (1995b). 差序格局與華人組織行為. 本土心理學研究(3), 142-219. doi:10.6254/1995.3.142
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). 華人組織行為: 議題, 作法及出版: 發行所華泰文化事業股份有限公司.
鄭伯壎, & 周麗芳. (2006). 家長式領導: 模式與證據.
鄭伯壎, 周麗芳, 黃敏萍, 樊景立, & 彭泗清. (2003). 家長式領導的三元模式: 中國大陸企業組織的證據. 本土心理學研究(20), 209-250.
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. [A Triad Model of Paternalistic Leadership: Constructs and Measurement]. 本土心理學研究(14), 3-64.
鄭伯壎, & 姜定宇. (2005). 華人企業組織中的忠誠. 華人本土心理學], 頁, 789-831.
鄭伯壎, 郭建志, 徐瑋伶, & 胡秀華. (2003). 人治主義, 家長式領導及部屬效能: 中介模式的驗證. 教育部資助華人本土心理學研究追求卓越計畫之研究報告, 報告編號.
鄭伯壎, 黃敏萍, & 周麗芳. (2002). 家長式領導及其效能: 華人企業團隊的證據. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies.(出版中).
鄭伯壎, 謝佩鴛, & 周麗芳. (2002). 校長領導作風, 上下關係品質及教師角色外行為: 轉型式與家長式領導的效果. 本土心理學研究(17), 105-161.
謝佩儒. (2015). 雙構面差序式領導與部屬效能：上下關係認定之調節效果. 國立臺灣大學, Available from Airiti AiritiLibrary database.

Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of management journal, 39, 464-482.
Benkhoff, B. (1997). Ignoring commitment is costly: New approaches establish the missing link between commitment and performance. . Human Relations, 50, 701-726.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader-member exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 276-286.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this" We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(1), 83.
Cashman, J., Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1976). Organizational understructure and leadership: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 278-296.
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2011). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of management, 40, 796-819.
Cheng, Huang, B. S., Chou, M. P., & F., L. (2002). Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from Chinese organizational teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies（Hong Kong）, 3（1）, 85-112

Cheng, S., B., Jiang, Y., D., & Riley, H. J. (2003). Organi za t iona l commi tment, supervi sory commitment, and employee outcomes in Chinese context: Proximal hypothesis or global hypothesis? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 313-334.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89-117.
Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader–member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 452-465.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Farh, J.-L., & Cheng, B.-S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84-127): Springer.
Farh, J.-L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S.-C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative science quarterly, 421-444.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of management Review, 30(4), 737-750.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of applied psychology, 82(6), 827.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership frontiers, 143, 165.
Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader—member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 109-131.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology.
Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of applied psychology, 67(6), 868.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in organizational behavior.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributors: Toward a theory of leadership-making.
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.
Gregersen, B. (1993). Multiple commitments at work and extrarole behavior during three stages of organizational tenure. Journal of Business Research, 26, 31-47.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of management Review, 18(4), 657-693.
Li, J. T., & Tsui, A. S. (2000). Management and organizations in the Chinese context: An overview. In Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 9-32): Springer.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. Research in personnel and human resources management, 15, 47-120.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of applied psychology, 78(4), 662.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Davis, H., Raffan, J., Rooney, K. Trans.), Wiley, Chichester, UK, 208.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98(2), 224-253.
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of management, 34(3), 566-593.
Peng, M. W., Lu, Y., Shenkar, O., & Wang, D. Y. (2001). Treasures in the China house: A review of management and organizational research on Greater China. Journal of Business Research, 52(2), 95-110.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. M., & 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.
Redding, S. G., & Hsiao, M. (1990). An empirical study of overseas Chinese managerial ideology. International Journal of Psychology, 25(3-6), 629-641.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Human relations and the informal organization. Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy, 62-71.
Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 25-40.
Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and values: The organization of large-scale Taiwanese enterprises: Harvard Univ Asia Center.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of management Review, 22(2), 522-552.
Stinglhambe r, F., & Vandenbe rghe, C. (2003). Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 251-270.
Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “Generation Me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976-2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 58-75.
Tsui, A. S., Farh, J.-L., & Xin, K. R. (2000). Guanxi in the Chinese context. In Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 225-244): Springer.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856.
Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for'paternalistic headship'among the overseas Chinese. Organization studies, 18(3), 445-480.
Yukl, G., Falbe, C. M., & Youn, J. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group & Organization Management, 18(1), 5-28.