不當督導的管理方式普遍存在於職場環境中，不當督導會對員工造成工作不滿、績效下滑、身心壓力、甚至採取報復組織等的偏差行為，是企業與管理者所必須注意的管理課題。過去文獻研究指出不當督導會對員工職場偏差行為造成影響，為能更進一步探討哪些變項能調節彼此間的關係，本研究以不當督導為自變項，以職場偏差行為為依變項，進一步以權力距離與關係修補為調節變項，來檢驗權力距離與關係修補是否對不當督導與職場偏差行為間具有調節效果。

本研究採用問卷調查法，回收259份有效問卷，研究結果顯示
1. 不當督導對部屬的人際偏差行為與組織偏差行為有正向影響。
2. 主管與部屬之間的權力距離越高，越能減低部屬的人際偏差行為；但權力距離的高低，對於部屬的組織偏差行為無顯著調節效果。
3. 主管對部屬的關係修補程度越高，越能減低部屬的人際偏差行為；但關係修補的高低，對部屬的組織偏差行為無顯著調節效果。

Abusive supervision is common management style in the workplace environment. Abusive supervision of staff would result in job dissatisfaction, performance decline, physical and psychological pressure, and even take revenge and other deviance behavior on organization. It is the management issues that the enterprise and manager must pay attention.
Past literature and research indicate that abusive supervision will affect employees’ deviance behavior in the workplace. For to understand what more variables to be able to adjust the relationship between them, abusive behavior of this study as the independent variable, the workplace deviance behavior as dependent variable, we explore the moderating effects on power distance and relationship repair to research.
This study uses questionnaires methods, 259 valid questionnaires were received. The results are summarized as follows:
1. Abusive supervision has a positive impact on subordinates’ interpersonal deviant behavior and organizational deviant behavior.
2. The higher power distance between supervisor and subordinates, the more reduce interpersonal deviant behavior; however, the level of power distance, to the subordinates’ organizational deviant behavior no significant moderating effect.
3. The higher relationship repair between supervisor and subordinates, the more reduce interpersonal deviant behavior; however, the level of power distance, to the subordinates’ organizational deviant behavior no significant moderating effect.

目錄
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
第二章 文獻探討 4
第一節 不當督導 4
第二節 職場偏差行為 5
第三節 權力距離 5
第四節 關係修補 6
第五節 不當督導與職場偏差行為間之關係 7
第六節 不當督導、職場偏差行為與權力距離之相關研究 8
第七節 不當督導、職場偏差行為與關係修補之相關研究 9
第三章 研究方法 10
第一節 研究架構與假設 10
第二節 研究變項定義與測量工具 11
第三節 研究樣本與資料蒐集 14
第四章 研究結果 15
第一節 描述性統計分析 15
第二節 因素分析 18
第三節 信度分析 23
第四節 相關係數分析 23
第五節 迴歸分析 26
第五章 結論與建議 33
第一節 研究結論 33
第二節 管理意涵 35
第三節 研究限制與建議 37

參考文獻 38
附錄 研究問卷 42

參考文獻
一、 中文部份
吳宗祐 (2008)。由不當督導到情緒耗竭:部屬正義知覺與情緒勞動的中介效果。中華心理學刊，50(2)，201-221。
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為:權力距離之調節效果。中華心理學刊，51，121-138。
麥立心(2012)。Cheers雜誌，79期。取自http://www.cheers.com.tw/article/
article.action?id=5045570/
齋藤直美 (2012)。好主管得學會罵人。商業周刊，1448期。取自http://www.businessweekly.com.tw/KBlogArticle.aspx?id=1951

二、 英文部份
Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., & Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692-711.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present and future of workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd edn, pp. 247–281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless: Coping with tyranny. In R. M. Kramer & M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and Influence in Organizations (pp. 203–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 25(2), 233-257.
Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13(5), 497-513.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26(1), 5-30.
De Venanzi, A. (2008). Social representations and the labeling of non-compliant youths: the case of Victorian and Edwardian hooligans. Deviant Behavior, 29(3), 193-224.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of National Culture & Effective Leadership Patterns: Hofstede revisited In E.G. McGoun (Ed.), Advances in International Comparative Management: A research annual (vol. 3, pp. 127-149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331-351.
Farh, J.-L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of management journal, 50(3), 715-729.
Harper, D. (1990). Spotlight abuse-save profits. Industrial Distribution, 79(3), 47-51.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 252-263.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organizations,10(4): 15–41.
Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees: Lexington Books Lexington, MA.
Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9(4), 341-357.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 557-569.
Lewick, R., & Bunker, B. B. C. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Reach, 114-139.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24(3), 391-419.
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 225-253.
Pamela, L. S., “Take This Job and . . . : Quitting and Other Forms of Resistance to Workplace Bullying”, Communication Monographs, 73(4), (2006): 406-433
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289.
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. (2006). How self-goals moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation: A model of self-defeating behaviors. Unpublished manuscript.
Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(4), 1138.
Xie, Y., & Peng, S. (2009). How to repair customer trust after negative publicity: The roles of competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 26(7), 572-589.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068.