近年來，由於亞洲國家的興起，華人領導者逐漸成為重要的研究課題，領導者的發展取向是華人領導中能使其恩與威行為展現高度整合，並產生良好的後續部屬反應的領導作風，然而因為目前尚未發展出良好的領導者發展取向量表來作為此一構念的測量指標，因此，本文採取演繹式的量表編制取徑，根據先前的研究成果來發展量表，並透過兩個獨立樣本檢驗量表是否具備穩定的因素結構。
為深入討論，本研究取得212對主管與部屬的對偶問卷（包含大陸地區），以及175份主管自我知覺填答的問卷，試圖反覆驗證研究架構，透過信度分析、驗證性分析，再以收斂效度和區辨效度進行檢測，檢定結果均支持本研究的量表。因此透過本研究，從整體研究結果中證實了以下兩點：(1)領導者發展取向包含承擔責任、優先培育、長期栽培三個主要面向、(2)編制領導者發展取向在量化研究中穩定且具備信效度的量表，最後，討論研究成果及其可提供後續進行領導者的發展取向之研究。

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the rapid growth of Asian economies coupled with the increasing popularity of global workplaces has led to increased attention being paid to the management philosophy and practice of Chinese leadership. The development orientation of the leader was found to be of vital importance. But currently, a good scale does not exist that can be used as an indicator to measure the development orientation of the leader. This study will use the deductive method to develop scales based on previous research results and examine whether such a scale structure is suitable for use in actual organizations.
To increase the diversity of Chinese leadership research and ensure the sample’s model fit, this study collected two different types of questionnaires from different sources, which included 212 pairs of supervisory and subordinate questionnaires, and 175 self-awareness questionnaires of leaders. The result shows good reliability, validity, and model fit, the verification results of leaders’ development orientation indicate that (1) The development orientation of leaders includes three main aspects: development as a duty, development as the first priority, and development as a long-term process. (2) Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments to measure the leaders’ development orientation. In the final part, the study addresses theoretical contribution, practical implications and the research gap that can provide follow-up leadership development.

論文審訂書 ⅰ
致謝 ⅱ
摘要 ⅳ
Abstract ⅴ
Table of contents ⅵ
List of Figures ⅶ
List of Tables ⅷ
1. Introduction 1
2. Theory and Hypotheses 4
2.1 Theory introduction 4
2.2 Hypotheses 8
3. Research Method 21
3.1 Participants 22
3.2 Procedure 25
3.3 Measurement 27
3.4 Data analysis 29
4. Results 38
4.1 Scale of leaders’ development orientation 39
4.2 Hypothesis testing 46
5. Discussion 51
5.1 Theoretical contribution 51
5.2 Practical implications 54
5.3 Limitations and future suggestion 55
Reference 57
AppendixⅠ Sample 1_questionnaire(English) 59
AppendixⅡ Sample 2_ questionnaire (English) 66
AppendixⅢ Sample 1& 2_ questionnaire (In Taiwan) 73
AppendixⅣ Sample 2_ questionnaire(In China) 87

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81.

Chemers, M. M., & Ayman, R. E. (1993). Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. Academic Press.

Cheng, B. S., Boer, D., Chou, L. F., Huang, M. P., Yoneyama, S., Shim, D., ... & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). Paternalistic leadership in four East Asian societies: Generalizability and cultural differences of the triad model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 82-90.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

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). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

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. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). An empirical study of leader ethical values, transformational and transactional leadership, and follower attitudes toward corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4), 511-528.

Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1), 100-120.

House, R. J., Wright, N. S., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). Cross-cultural research on organizational leadership: A critical analysis and a proposed theory.

Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2005). Measuring values with the short Schwartz's value survey. Journal of personality assessment, 85(2), 170-178.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?. Journal of social issues, 50(4), 19-45.

Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592-1623.

South, S. C., Krueger, R. F., & Iacono, W. G. (2009). Factorial invariance of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale across gender. Psychological assessment, 21(4), 622.

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.

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.