摘要
目的
在日常生活中，威脅、勇氣這個詞令人難以捉摸，卻隱藏在你我生活中的周邊，使命感則是指一個人是否能透過工作或任務來實踐自己所追求的價值。本研究將使命感、威脅、勇氣與量化研究做連結，除探究三者間的關係，也填補先前研究對於此三者在量化研究之不足。

研究方法
本研究採用問卷調查法，運用使命感 (LCS), 威脅 (Control-based scale), 與勇氣的WPCS進行調查，以全台灣學生與上班族為樣本，共進行兩波問卷調查，有效問卷為271份，並以信賴分析、相關分析、哈門市單因子法、Baron & Kenny、Sobel test來驗證本研究假設。

研究結果
研究結果顯示「使命感對威脅」、「威脅對勇氣」，以及「使命感對勇氣」皆有顯著之正向預測效果；其中，威脅可作為使命感與勇氣的中介變項，且為完全中介。此外，使命感越高，會使人容易遇到威脅：當威脅愈高，更能使人有勇氣在困境中面對問題，並解決一切難題。在主要效果中，使命感與勇氣具有顯著正向影響。

結論與建議
使命感、威脅、勇氣具有顯著正向影響。意即在生活或工作場域中，可以將威脅視為正向的、具有發展機會的，而非負向關係的。同時，在管理領域中，選擇具有高度使命感的員工，也顯得相對重要。此類員工所具有之使命感，能面對高度威脅，並有勇氣解決一切的問題。

關鍵字：使命感、威脅、勇氣、領導替代理論

Abstract
Objectives
Threat and courage is hard to detect in our daily life, but they do really exist around us; calling is how individual can pursue his or her value by their job or task. This study link calling, threat, and courage together for quantitative research to not only explore the relationships between them, but also mitigate the quantitative research on this field.

Methods
This study adopted the questionnaire method, and using calling (LCS), threat (Control-based scale), and courage (WPCS) to do the research. The sample is collected from students and employees in various universities and industries in Taiwan, and for two waves data in total. The valid response questionnaires are 271, and this study conducted reliability test, correlation, Harman’s single factor test, Baron & Kenny approach, and Sobel test to examine the hypothesis.

Results
The results demonstrated that “calling to threat”, “threat to courage”, and “calling to courage” have significant positive relationships among them. Besides, threat can be the mediator from calling to courage, and it’s fully mediated. Moreover, the higher the calling is, the higher the threat is, and it makes people have more courage to facing problems, and deal with those difficulties. Calling and courage has significant positive relationship in the main effect.

Conclusion
Calling, threat, courage all have significant positive relationship. It means that threat can be seen as positive factors and developmental opportunities instead of negative way no matter in daily life or in the workplace. Meanwhile, on the management level, the mission for choosing employees who have high calling is considerably important. This kind of employees have higher calling to face threat, and higher courage to dealing problems as well.

Keywords: calling, threat, courage, leadership substitute theory

Table of contents
Thesis validation letter..................................................................... i
Abstract (Chinese) ......................................................................... ii
Abstract (English) ......................................................................... iii
Table of contents ...........................................................................v

1. Introduction ...........................................................................P.1
1.1 Research Background.............................................................P.1
1.2 research Purpose ..................................................................P.4

2. Literature Review .....................................................................P.6
2.1 The leadership substitutes theory............................................... P.6
2.2 Calling ..............................................................................P.9
2.3 the mediator effect of threat on calling to courage………………………... P.11
2.4 Threat ............................................................................P.13
2.5 Courage ..........................................................................P.17
2.6 The definition of brave, valiant, and valour ....................................P.20
2.7 The relationship between threat and courage ................................P.21

3. Method ...............................................................................P.23
3.1 Sample and Procedures .........................................................P.24
3.2 Measures .........................................................................P.25
3.2.1 Calling ..........................................................................P.25
3.2.2 Threat ..........................................................................P.25
3.2.3 Courage........................................................................ P.25
3.3 Data analysis .....................................................................P.26

4. Results ...............................................................................P.27
4.1 Samples, descriptive statistics and Reliability ..................................P.27
4.2 Hypothesis testing ...............................................................P.32

5. Discussion ..........................................................................P38
5.1 Theoretical Implications .......................................................P.39
5.2 Practical Managerial Implications .............................................P.41
5.3 Limitations, and Future Directions.............................................P.42
5.4 Conclusions .....................................................................P.44

References ............................................................................P46

Survey questions .....................................................................P51

Table of figures
1. Figure 1: The proposed model
2. Figure 2. Sobel test

Table of tables
1. Table 1: Age (N=271)
2. Table 2: Education Level (N=271)
3. Table 3: Income (N=271)
4. Table 4: Mean, Standard Deviation and correlations
5. Table 5 CFA results of one-factor, two-factor, and three-factor model
6. Table 6: Baron & Kenny, Threat
7. Table 7: Sobel test

References
Allison, S. T., Goethals, G. R., & Kramer, R. M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of heroism and heroic leadership. Taylor & Francis.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421-449.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational research methods, 1(1), 45-87.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self‐esteem. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(1), 35-67.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit In: Bollen KA, Long JS, eds. Testing Structural Equation Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 136-162.

Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative science quarterly, 54(1), 32-57.

Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds). Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, Vol. 2: Organizational psychology (pp. 166 –187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Detert, J. R., & Bruno, E. A. (2017). Workplace courage: Review, synthesis, and future agenda for a complex construct. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 593-639.
Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The counseling psychologist, 37(3), 424-450.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal–performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(2), 667-682.

Duffy, R. D., Bott, E. M., Allan, B. A., & Autin, K. L. (2015). Calling among the unemployed: Examining prevalence and links to coping with job loss. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(4), 332-345.

Duffy, R. D., Dik, B. J., Douglass, R. P., England, J. W., & Velez, B. L. (2018). Work as a calling: A theoretical model. Journal of counseling psychology, 65(4), 423.

Easterby-Smith, M., & Malina, D. (1999). Cross-cultural collaborative research: Toward reflexivity. Academy of management journal, 42(1), 76-86.

Glazer, M. P. (1999). On the trail of courageous behavior. Sociological Inquiry, 69(2), 276-295.

Goud, N. H. (2005). Courage: Its nature and development. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 44(1), 102-116.

Hannah, S. T., Sweeney, P. J., & Lester, P. B. (2007). Toward a courageous mindset: The subjective act and experience of courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2), 129-135.

Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Moral potency: Building the capacity for character-based leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 291.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Kendall, S. (2006). Admiring courage: Nurses’ perceptions of caring for patients with cancer. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 10(5), 324-334.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational behavior and human performance, 22(3), 375-403.

Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12(1), 62-82.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of applied psychology, 86(1), 114.

Osswald, S., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2010). What is moral courage? Definition, explication, and classification of a complex construct.
Park, J., Sohn, Y. W., & Ha, Y. J. (2016). South Korean salespersons’ calling, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 415-428.
Peng, T. K., Kao, Y. T., & Lin, C. C. (2006). Common method variance in management research: Its nature, effects, detection, and remedies. Journal of Management, 23(1), 77-98.
Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brannen, S. J. (2002). Exposure, threat appraisal, and lost confidence as predictors of PTSD symptoms following September 11, 2001. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(4), 476-785.

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, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 885(879), 10-1037.
Ohnishi, K., Hayama, Y., Asai, A., & Kosugi, S. (2008). The process of whistleblowing in a Japanese psychiatric hospital. Nursing ethics, 15(5), 631-642.

Saleh, U. S., & Brockopp, D. Y. (2001). Hope among patients with cancer hospitalized for bone marrow transplantation: a phenomenologic study. Cancer Nursing, 24(4), 308-314.
Schilpzand, P., Hekman, D. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (2015). An inductively generated typology and process model of workplace courage. Organization Science, 26(1), 52-77.
Sekerka, L. E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). Moral courage in the workplace: Moving to and from the desire and decision to act.
Shepela, S. T., Cook, J., Horlitz, E., Leal, R., Luciano, S., Lutfy, E., ... & Worden, E. (1999). Courageous resistance: A special case of altruism. Theory & Psychology, 9(6), 787-805.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological methodology, 13, 290-312.
Sosik, J. J., Gentry, W. A., & Chun, J. U. (2012). The value of virtue in the upper echelons: A multisource examination of executive character strengths and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 367-382.
Stemmler, G., Aue, T., & Wacker, J. (2007). Anger and fear: Separable effects of emotion and motivational direction on somatovisceral responses. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 66(2), 141-153.
Thompson, S. C., Schlehofer, M. M., & Bovin, M. J. (2006). The measurement of threat orientations. American Journal of Health Behavior, 30(2), 147-157.

Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2019). Research on work as a calling… and how to make it matter. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 421-443.

Woodard, C. R. (2004). Hardiness and the Concept of Courage. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 173.

Woodard, C. R., & Pury, C. L. (2007). The construct of courage: Categorization and measurement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(2), 135.

Zeelenberg, M. (1999). Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making. Journal of behavioral decision making, 12(2), 93-106.

Bill George, Courage: The Defining Characteristic of Great Leaders, 2017
Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/04/24/courage-the-defining-characteristic-of-great-leaders/?sh=3ee4763011ca

Valant & valour: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-chinese-traditional/calling