博碩士論文 etd-0611116-215634 詳細資訊


[回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]

姓名 莊宜家(Yi-chia Chuang) 電子郵件信箱 E-mail 資料不公開
畢業系所 企業管理學系研究所(Business Management)
畢業學位 碩士(Master) 畢業時期 104學年第2學期
論文名稱(中) 金融業分行主管之矛盾領導行為對部屬之領導者信任的影響:檢視主管與部屬關係品質的中介效果
論文名稱(英) The effects of paradoxical leader behaviors on subordinates' trust in leader in the financial industry: Exploring the mediating roles of leader-member exchange
檔案
  • etd-0611116-215634.pdf
  • 本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
    請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
    論文使用權限

    紙本論文:立即公開

    電子論文:校內校外完全公開

    論文語文/頁數 中文/78
    統計 本論文已被瀏覽 5612 次,被下載 567 次
    摘要(中) 本研究運用文化雙融觀點(ambicultural perspective)探討矛盾領導行為對部屬之領導者信任的影響,同時也運用社會交換理論檢視主管與部屬關係品質所扮演的中介角色。研究對象為金融業分行主管與員工,透過二階段問卷調查法,蒐集了45家分行的262份問卷進行統計分析。研究結果顯示,矛盾領導行為對主管與部屬關係品質有顯著正向影響,同時,主管與部屬關係品質對於部屬對領導者的情感信任或認知信任,也具有顯著正向影響。此外,主管與部屬關係品質在矛盾領導行為及部屬對領導者情感信任間扮演完全中介效果,在矛盾領導行為及部屬對領導者認知信任間則扮演部分中介效果。
    本研究檢視金融機構分行主管之矛盾領導行為、主管與部屬關係品質與部屬之領導者信任之關聯性,研究結果對理論與實務均具有積極貢獻。第一、本研究所檢視的矛盾領導行為乃是一基於雙融觀點產生的新領導型態,目前,國內尚未有研究探討此一領導行為,國際上的研究也寥寥可數,本研究可填補領導文獻的缺口。第二,本研究同時檢視影響主管與部屬關係品質的前因與後果,填補了過去多數研究將其視為前因變項的缺口。第三,本研究檢視部屬對領導者信任的前因變項,也填補了過去多將其視為前因變項的缺口。第四,本研究以領導者的行為為主體,探討其對主管-部屬互動及部屬對上認知的影響,有效回應了社會認知與社會交換理論背後的理論邏輯。研究結果對企業實務與未來研究也提供了顯著的實務與學術意涵。
    摘要(英) This study employs the ambicultural perspective to explore the effects of paradoxical leader behaviors on subordinates' trust in leader. The research also addresses the social exchange theory to examine the mediating roles of leader-member exchange (LMX) quality. The research sample was collected from managers and employees in the braches of the banking industry. Based on a two-stage survey approach, 262 employees from 45 branches responded to the survey. Analytical findings show that paradoxical leader behaviors produce a positive effect of leader-member exchange quality, which in turn positively affects both subordinates’ affective trust and cognitive trust in their leaders. Moreover, leader-member exchange quality shows a full mediating effect on the relationship between paradoxical leader behaviors and cognitive trust in the leader while a partial mediating effect on the effect of paradoxical leader behaviors on subordinate’s affective trust in leader.
    By examining the associations between paradoxical leadership behaviors, leader-member exchange quality and two types of trust in leader, the study makes several contributions to the literature. First, the concept of paradoxical leader behaviors has been seldom explored not only in Taiwan but also in the global academia, and thus the current study fills an important research gap. Second, the research examines both the antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange, and identify the antecedents of subordinates' trust in leader. These two issues remain largely unexplored in the literature and thus our study expands the studies of both LMX and trust theories. Moreover, the study brings value to business practices by introducing the new style of paradoxical leadership, which reminds of managers the significance of balancing two extreme needs. Implications for future research are also discussed.
    關鍵字(中)
  • 認知信任
  • 主管與部屬關係品質
  • 矛盾領導行為
  • 情感信任
  • 關鍵字(英)
  • cognitive trust
  • affective trust
  • paradoxical leader behaviors
  • leader-member exchange
  • 論文目次 論文審定書+ i
    誌 謝+ ii
    摘要 + iii
    Abstract+ iv
    目錄 + v
    圖 次+ vii
    表 次+ viii
    第一章 緒論 + 1
    第一節 研究動機 + 1
    第二節 研究目的 + 4
    第三節 研究貢獻與意涵 +8
    第二章 文獻探討 +9
    第一節 文化雙融+ 9
    第二節 領導與矛盾領導行為(paradoxical leader behaviors) + 12
    第三節 主管與部屬關係品質(Leader-member exchange,簡稱LMX) + 17
    第四節 部屬對領導者信任(trust-in-leader) + 23
    第五節 研究假說 + 28
    第三章 研究設計 +33
    第一節 研究架構 + 34
    第二節 假說彙整 + 35
    第三節 研究樣本介紹 + 36
    第四節 研究變項衡量 + 39
    第五節 統計分析 + 44
    第四章 研究結果 + 45
    第一節 相關分析 + 45
    第二節 迴歸分析與假說檢定 + 47
    第三節 中介效果 + 52
    第五章 討論與結論 + 55
    第一節 研究結果討論 + 56
    第二節 研究意涵 + 57
    第三節 研究限制與未來研究方向 + 60
    參考文獻 + 62
    參考文獻 一、中文部分:
    (一)期刊、雜誌:
    朱浩民,2016,想打亞洲盃整併壯大才能乘風破浪,台灣銀行家,76:84-85。
    呂思齊、黃 智、周式瀅、林淑慧,2015,領導者與部屬關係之後果分析:主管信任之中介分析,勞資關係論叢,17(2):1-13。
    陳明哲,2014,文化雙融:一位管理學者的反思與行踐,管理學報,31(4):263-282。

    劉書甯,2016,勞資雙贏提高金融整併成功率,台灣銀行家,76:82。
    鄭伯壎,1999,企業組織中上下屬的信任關係,社會學研究(中國),80(2):22-37。
    (二)書籍:
    台灣金融研訓院編輯委員會,2016,金融數位力,台北市:台灣金融研訓院,頁次: 3-46。
    約翰‧麥斯威爾,2008,領導的黃金法則,章世佳譯,台北市:天下文化,頁次:183-195 。
    趙月華,2009,左手胡雪巖右手曾國藩,台北市:文經社。
    衛斯特曼、波奈特、麥克費,2015,新數位力:解密數位時代脫穎而出的關鍵,孫一仕、施祖琪、蕭俊傑譯,台北市:台灣金融研訓院。
    (三)研討會文章:
    吳蕙萍與黃家齊,2010,員工沉默行為之信任前因探討:部屬與主管二元信任之中介效果,第 13 屆科際整合管理研討會,6月26日,台北市:東吳大學城中校區。
    (四)碩博士論文:
    李東畝,2006,金融業合併之存續公司企業文化與智慧資本對經營績效影響之研究,中國文化大學國際企業管理研究所碩士論文。
    李婕宇,2014,主管與部屬間信任對部屬效能的影響:信任一致性的重要,國立成功大學心理學系認知科學碩士班碩士論文。
    林毅強,2005,合併對員工衝擊與因應之研究~以金融業合併個案為例,國立臺北大學企業管理學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
    柯金貴,2012,轉換型領導與交易型領導對Y世代員工離職傾向之影響—以知覺主管支持為中介、組織認同為調節變項,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
    黃怡姿,1998,員工之組織信任的形成與影響,國立臺灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
    (五)網路資源:
    吳升皓,2010,選擇領導,讓自己成為領導人,經理人月刊,網址:http://www.managertoday.com.tw/articles/view/2433,檢索日期:2016年4月17日。
    王孟倫、高嘉和,2015,公公併搞不定 拿什麼打亞洲盃?自由時報,網址:http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/business/paper/875053,檢索日期:2016年5月1日。
    蔡心怡,2015,曾銘宗親帶團跑東南亞衝業績,新新聞周刊第1483期,網址:http://www.new7.com.tw/NewsView.aspx?t=&i=TXT20150805170502II3
    ,檢索日期:2016年5月10日。
    二、英文部分:
    Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader member exchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future. Los Angeles: SAGE Handbook of Leadership, 311–325.
    Arnold, K. A., Barling, J. & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership or the iron cage: which predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(7), 315-320.
    Astrachan, J. H. (1995).Organizational Departures: The Impact of Separation Anxiety as studied in a Mergers and Acquisitions Simulation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(1), 31-50.
    Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538–1567.
    Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. 94–99.
    Boyle, R., & Bonacich, P. (1970). The development of trust and mistrust in mixedmotive games. Sociomtry, 33(2), 123-139.
    Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: the integration of trust and leader-member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227-250.
    Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 1–15.
    Cameron, K.S. (1986). Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539–553.
    Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
    Cappelli, P., Singh, H., Singh, J., & Useem, M. (2010). The India way: Lessons for the U.S. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 6–24.
    Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese middle way perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 179–199.
    Chen, M.-J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition– cooperation relationship: A trans-paradox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17, 288–304.
    Chen, M.-J. , Miller D. (2010). West Meets East: Toward an Ambicultural Approach to Management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17-24.
    Cogliser, C. C., Schiriesheim, 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. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 452–465.
    Dansereau, F., Graen, G., &; Haga, W. J. (1975). Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL), 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.
    Dienesch, R. M., &; Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of management review, 11(3), 618-634.
    Dirks, K. T. and Ferrin, D. L. (2002), Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 4, 611-628.
    Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233–274.
    Duarte, N.T., Goodson, J.R., & Klich, N.R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management journal, 37(3), 499-521.
    Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., &; Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759.
    Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Visionary communication qualities as mediators of the relationship between narcissism and attributions of leader charisma. Personnel Psychology, 63, 509– 537.
    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), 827–844.
    Graen G., Cashman CJ. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In: H J G, L LL. Ed. Leadership frontiers. Kent State University Press, 143-66.
    Graen, G., (1976). Role-making processes within complex organisations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. 1201–1245.
    Graen, G., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 9, 175–208.
    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., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributors: Toward a theory of leadership-making. Journal of Management Systems, 3(3), 49-54.
    Graen, G., & 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 multidomain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
    Graen, G., & Cashman, J.F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Organization and administrative sciences, 6, 143-165.
    Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable moderation, mediation, and conditional process modeling. Manuscript submitted for publication.
    Herrera, F. (2002). Demystifying employee motivation. Employment Relations Today, 28(4), 37-52.
    Hsu, F. L. K. (1982). American and Chinese: Passage to differences. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
    Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500-507.
    Jung, D. I. and Avolio, B. J. (2000), Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964.
    Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2011). Who and what is fair matters: A multi-foci social exchange model of creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 86-106.
    Lee, Y. T., Han, A. G., Byron, T. K., & Fan, H. X. (2008). Daoist leadership, theory and application. In C. C. Chen & Y. T. Lee (Eds.), Leadership and management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices. New York Cambridge University Press. 83–107.
    Lewis, J. D. and Weigert, A., (1985), Trust as a Social Reality, Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985.
    Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 22, 110–141.
    Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review 25, 760–776.
    Liao, S. H., Chang, J. C., & Kuo, C. M. (2004). Employee relationship and knowledge sharing: A case study of a Taiwanese finance and securities firm. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2, 24-34.
    Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management journal, 23(3), 451-465.
    Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.
    McAllister, D. J., (1995), Affect-and Cognition-based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
    McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., and Kacmar, C., (2002), Developing and Validating Trust Measuresfor E-commerce: An Integrative Typology, Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359.
    Michailova, S., & Worm, V. (2003). Personal networking in Russia and China: Blat and guanxi. European Management Journal, 21(4), 509-519.
    Newman, W.H. (1995). Teaching material at Columbia Business School.
    Nunnally. (1987), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.
    O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53, 5-22.
    Paine, L. S. (2010). The China Rules: A practical guide for CEOs managing multinational corporations in the People's Republic. Harvard Business Review, 88, 103-108.
    Parayitam, S., Dooley, R. S.(2009) The interplay between cognitive- and affective conflict and cognition- And affect-based trust in influencing decision outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62(8), 789-796.
    Poole, M. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562-578.
    Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 19–47.
    Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.
    Solomon, R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J., & Gutman, E. (1985). A role theory perspective on dyadic interactions: The service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 99–111.
    Uhl-Bien, M., (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.
    Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. M. (2003). Reciprocity in manager subordinate relationship: Components, Configurations and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 511–532.
    Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.
    Xu, E. H. H., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2011). Abusive supervision and work behaviours: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 33, 531–543.
    Yagil, D. (1998). Charismatic leadership and organizational hierarchy: Attribution of charisma to close and distant leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 161–176.
    Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating value by balancing multiple challenges and choices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Yukl, G., (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Zhang Y., Waldman D. A., Han Y.L., & Li X.B., (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566.
    口試委員
  • 陳儀蓉 - 召集委員
  • 施智婷 - 委員
  • 林豪傑 - 指導教授
  • 口試日期 2016-06-27 繳交日期 2016-07-11

    [回到前頁查詢結果 | 重新搜尋]


    如有任何問題請與論文審查小組聯繫