發展式領導取向在華人發展式領導型態中扮演一個革新的關鍵角色。本研究的目的是使用多項式迴歸和反應曲面分析探討主管發展式領導取向的自評、部屬對於主管的發展式領導取向的他評，在相互配對一致與不一致的分數組合情況下，對主管部屬關係交換品質的影響。本研究分析在台灣與中國的212對主管與部屬組合，以檢驗主管的發展式領導取向與其配對的下屬對其認知一致、不一致時的主管部屬關係交換品質之間的變化。

研究結果發現，主管自評的發展式領導取向與部屬評級一致時的主管與部屬關係交換品質，優於不一致時的關係交換品質。而且，當主管自評的發展式領導取向與部屬他評分數一致時，發展取向越高，主管部屬關係交換品質亦越高。而在主管自評的發展式領導取向與部屬他評分數不一致時，部屬他評分數較高情況的主管部屬關係交換品質，優於自評分數較高情況的關係交換品質。最後章節，此研究的理論與實務的貢獻也加以討論。

The development orientation of leaders (DOL) plays a key role in the revolutionary Chinese-style developmental leadership. The aim of this quantitative study is to explore the effect of congruence or incongruence between self- and other-rated DOL on the dyadic leader–member exchange (LMX) quality using polynomial regression analysis and the response surface methodology. We analyze 212 leader–subordinate pairs from Taiwan and China to further investigate the DOL and its relationship with empirical LMX quality from both leaders’ and subordinates’ perceptions.
The findings demonstrate that the scores of congruence between self- and other-rated DOL have a higher effect on LMX quality than does incongruence. When the self- and other-rated DOL are congruent, the higher DOL stimulates higher LMX quality. In incongruent circumstances, it is discovered that higher other-rated DOL with lower self-rated DOL results in greater LMX quality than higher self-rated DOL with lower other-rated DOL. Finally, the implications are discussed.

Thesis Validation Letter__________________________________________________i
Acknowledgements______________________________________________________ii
Abstract (in Chinese)____________________________________________________iii
Abstract (in English)_____________________________________________________iv
Table of Contents_____________________________________________________v- vi
List of The Figures______________________________________________________vii
List of The Tables______________________________________________________viii
Chapter 1: Introduction_________________________________________________1-2
Chapter 2: Theoretical Development and Hypotheses____________________3-8
2-1. Development Orientation of Leaders________________________________3-4
2-2. Leader-member Exchange Quality__________________________________ 5-8
Chapter 3: Methodology_______________________________________________9-19
3-1. Research Sample_________________________________________________9-11
3-2. Procedures______________________________________________________12-13
3-3. Measures _______________________________________________________13-15
3-4. Data analysis____________________________________________________16-19
Chapter 4: Results___________________________________________________20-28
4-1. Descriptive statistic and correlations_____________________________20-21
4-2. Polynomial Regression Analysis and Response Surface Methodology_ 22-23
4-3. Hypothesis Testing______________________________________________23-28
Chapter 5: Discussion_______________________________________________ 29-32
5-1. Theoretical Implications_________________________________________29-30
5-2. Practical Implications___________________________________________30-31
5-3. Limitations and Future Research_________________________________31-32
Chapter 6: Conclusion________________________________________________33
References__________________________________________________________34-35
Appendix I: Questionnaire of English Version__________________________36-42
Appendix II: Questionnaire in Taiwan__________________________________43-49
Appendix III: Questionnaire in China___________________________________50-56

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?

Blau, P. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge.

Brislin, R. (1973). Questionnaire wording and translation. Cross-cultural research methods, 32-58.

Chiu, C. Y., & Yang, C. F. (1987). Chinese subjects' dilemmas: Humility and cognitive laziness as problems in using rating scales. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society.

Dansereau Jr, 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(1), 46-78.

Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 58(1), 51-100.

Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577-1613.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1998). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in organizational behavior.
Johns, G. (1981). Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(3), 443-463.

Liden, R. C. (2012). Leadership research in Asia: A brief assessment and suggestions for the future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(2), 205-212.

Liden, R. C., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2004). The role of leader-member exchange in the dynamic relationship between employer and employee: Implications for employee socialization, leaders, and organizations. The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives, 226-250.

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.

Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543-554.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of management Review, 22(2), 522-552.

Tsai, C. Y., Dionne, S. D., Wang, A. C., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., & Cheng, B. S. (2017). Effects of relational schema congruence on leader-member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 268-284.

Pritschet, L., Powell, D., & Horne, Z. (2016). Marginally significant effects as evidence for hypotheses: Changing attitudes over four decades. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1036-1042.

Wang, A. C. (2017). Developmental leadership: How Chinese leaders integrate control and care to cultivate subordinates. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 11731). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

Wei, S.Y (2018). Leaders’ development orientation: Scale development and validation.