Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0124120-104311 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0124120-104311
論文名稱
Title
威權領導與部屬之不同類型的績效:畏懼感受與努力信念之雙路徑中介效果
Authoritarian leadership and subordinates' different kinds of performance: The dual-route mediating effect of fear of feeling and belief of effort
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
184
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
鄭伯壎
Cheng, Bor-Shiuan
口試委員
Advisory Committee
鍾昆原, 張滿玲, 張國義, 彭台光
Jone, Kuen-Yung; Chang, Maanling; Chang, Kuo-I; Peng, Tai-Kuang
口試日期
Date of Exam
2020-01-21
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2020-02-24
關鍵字
Keywords
主管利組織歸因、任務績效、職場偏差行為、努力信念、畏懼感受、尚嚴領導、專權領導、威權領導
Supervisor-attributed organization benefit, Task performance, belief of effort, Workplace deviant behavior, Shang-Yan leadership, Fear, Juan-Chiuan leadership, Authoritarian leadership
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5650 次,被下載 0
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5650 times, has been downloaded 0 times.
中文摘要
威權領導是華人社會組織常見的領導行為,但實徵研究結果卻顯示威權領導對任務績效是負面影響。為此有學者將威權領導之概念重新釐清,區分為控制部屬的專權領導與控制任務的尚嚴領導,但研究結果顯示,尚嚴領導雖可激發正向影響,但專權領導仍是產生負向影響。本論文推論,專權領導與尚嚴領導分別透過畏懼感受與他人取向努力信念兩路徑,抑制部屬展現職場偏差行為與增進部屬的任務績效。而主管利組織歸因對專權領導透過畏懼感受影響職場偏差行為的中介歷程,有負向的調節效果。
本論文進行了兩個研究,均採問卷收集對偶資料,並以回歸分析進行驗證;其中研究一是以軍事組織(n=306對)為對象,驗證畏懼感受與他人取向努力信念的雙路徑模式,在專權/尚嚴領導與職場偏差行為/任務績效間的中介效果。研究二是以一般組織為研究對象(n=204對),驗證主管利組織歸因在畏懼感受對職場偏差行為的影響之調節效果,且進一步探討雙路徑模式對組織結果變項的影響。
結果顯示(1)主管利組織歸因會負向調節畏懼感受與濫用資源之職場偏差行為間的關係(2)尚嚴領導會透過他人取向努力信念而抑制部屬違反制度與不當對待之職場偏差行為,且會增加部屬的任務績效(3)尚嚴領導會透過他人取向積極努力信念抑制部屬違反制度與不當對待之職場偏差行為;他人取向消極努力信念僅抑制部屬違反制度之職場偏差行為(4)尚嚴領導會透過他人取向積極/消極努力信念增進部屬達成標準之任務績效。由研究結果來看,畏懼感受與努力信念雙路徑模式似乎更能說明威權領導對部屬績效表現的影響。
Abstract
Authoritarian leadership(AL) is a common leadership behavior of Chinese social organizations, but the results of empirical studies show that AL has a negative impact on task performance(TP). In order to clarify the phenomenon, scholars reconcept the AL by dividing it into Juan-Chiuan leadership(JCL), which focus on controlling the subor-dinates, and Shang-Yan leadership(SYL), which focus on controlling the task. However, the subsequent studies show that SYL has positive impact on TP, but JCL still has nega-tive impact on TP. We proposed that the JCL aim to inhibit the subordinates from dis-playing workplace deviant behavior(WDB) by making them fear, while the SYL aim to suppress the WDB and improve the TP of subordinate by inspiring the oth-er-Orientation belief of effort(OOBE). In addition, supervisor-attributed organization benefit(SAOB) has a negative moderating effects on the mediation process of JCL to influence WDB through fear.
There are two studies in this paper, both using questionnaires to collect dual data, and test hypothesis by regression analysis. In the first study, we investigated the influ-ence of JCL and SYL on WDB and TP through a dual-path model of subordinate’ fear and OOBE in a military organization(n= 306 pairs). In the second study, we investigat-ed the moderating effects of fear that caused from JCL on WDB by SAOB, and ex-plored the impact of the dual-route model on organizational outcome variables in a gen-eral organization(n= 204 pairs).
The results show that (1) SAOB has negative moderating effect the relationship between Fear and WDB-Abuse of Resources. (2) SYL will inhibit WDB-Violation of The Rules and WDB-Improper Treatment through OOBE, and will increase the TP of subordinates. (3) SYL will increase OOBE-Active and OOBE-Passive, respectively. OOBE-Active will inhibit WDB-Violation of The Rules and WDB-Improper Treatment, but OOBE-Passive will only inhibit WDB-Violation of The Rules; and (4) OOBE-Active and OOBE-Passive will increase TP-Standard and TP-Advanced. Judg-ing from those results of the studies, the dual-path model of Fear and OOBE seems to better explain the impact of authoritarian leadership on the performance of subordinates.
目次 Table of Contents
學位論文審定書 i
誌謝 ii
摘要 iv
Abstract v
目錄 vii
圖次 ix
表次 x
第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景 1
第二節 研究目的 8
第貳章 文獻探討 9
第一節 威權領導 9
第二節 畏懼感受 17
第三節 職場偏差行為 21
第四節 努力信念 25
第五節 任務績效 30
第六節 主管利組織歸因 33
第七節 消極與積極的他人取向努力信念 35
第八節 達成標準與超越標準之任務績效 39
第九節 研究架構與研究假設 41
第參章 研究一:威權領導雙構面模式之影響路徑 47
第一節 研究對象 47
第二節 研究工具 50
第三節 研究程序 58
第四節 研究結果 62
第肆章 研究二:威權領導雙構面模式之影響路徑再探討 79
第一節 研究對象 79
第二節 研究工具 82
第三節 研究程序 86
第四節 研究結果 90
第伍章 討論與建議 124
第一節 研究結論 124
第二節 結果討論 131
第三節 研究限制 138
第四節 研究建議 140
第五節 研究意涵 142
參考文獻 145
附錄一 部屬問卷 157
附錄二 主管問卷 165
附錄三 職場偏差行為常見度調查結果 172
參考文獻 References
中文部分
王譯霆、鄭志富 (2017)。嚴師出高徒-家長式領導對競技啦啦隊團隊效能之影響。東海體育學報(1)、21-28。
甘懷真 (2004)。皇權、禮儀與經典詮釋: 中國古代政治史硏究 (Vol。7): 國立臺灣大學出版中心.
任金剛、樊景立、鄭伯壎、周麗芳 (2003)。高階主管之家長式領導與組織效能: 一項個人與組織層次的分析。教育部華人本土心理學研究追求卓越計畫研究報告。台北: 國立台灣大學。
任金剛、鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立 (2003)。高階主管之家長式領導與組織效能: 一項個人與組織層次的分析。教育部華人本土心理學研究追求卓越計畫研究報告。台北: 國立台灣大學。
朱瑞玲 (1989)。面子与成就——社会取向动机之探讨。中华心理学刊、31(2)、79-90。
余安邦 (2005)。成就動機與成就觀念。華人本土心理學 (665-712 頁)。台北: 遠流。
余安邦、楊國樞 (1989)。社會取向成就動機與個我取向成就動機: 概念分析與實徵研究。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊(64)、51-98。
吳宗祐 (2008)。主管威權領導與部屬的工作滿意度與組織承諾: 信任的中介歷程與情緒智力的調節效果。本土心理學研究》(台北)、30、3-63。
吳宗祐 (2014)。除了助長,還需深耕:論「家長式領導」的研究進展。本土心理學研究(42)、125-145。
吳宗祐、徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎 (2002)。怒不可遏或忍氣吞聲:華人企業主管威權領導與部屬憤怒反應。本土心理學研究(18)、3-49。
吳宗祐、廖紘億 (2013)。華人威權領導總是導致部屬負面結果嗎? 由 [不確定管理理論] 探討威權領導對分配不公平與程序不公平之交互作用與部屬工作滿意度之關係的調節效果。中華心理學刊、55(1)、1-22。
吳稼祥 (2014)。權威落差與政治穩定。取自 http://www。cuhk。edu。hk/ics/21c/supplem/essay/0512069。htm。
李雪禎 (1996)。青少年的情緒經驗與父母教養方式之分析研究。未出版之碩士論文、國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所碩士論文、高雄。
周婉茹、周麗芳、鄭伯壎、任金剛 (2010)。專權與尚嚴之辨: 再探威權領導的內涵與恩威並濟的效果。本土心理學研究(34)、223-284。
周婉茹、鄭伯壎、連玉輝 (2014)。威權領導: 概念源起、現況檢討及未來方向。Chinese Journal of Psychology、56(2)、165-189。
周麗芳、周婉茹、嚴珮瑜 (2011)。威權領導的前因與後果: 主管與部屬間的壓力移轉。第七屆華人心理學家學術研討會、Taipei、Taiwan。
林子群、高三福 (2012)。教練家長式領導與選手同儕互動關係。嘉大體育健康休閒期刊、11(2)、25-33。
林文瑛、王震武 (1995)。中國父母的教養觀: 嚴教觀或打罵觀? 本土心理學研究(3)、2-92。
林夙豐、蘇秦玉 (2008)。教練領導風格對高中排球選手團隊承諾及滿意度影響之研究。運動與遊憩研究、2(3)、37-49。
林姿葶、鄭伯壎 (2007)。性別與領導角色孰先孰後? 主管-部屬性別配對、共事時間及家長式領導。中華心理學刊、49(4)、433-450。
林姿葶、鄭伯壎 (2012)。華人領導者的噓寒問暖與提攜教育:仁慈領導之雙構面模式。本土心理學研究(37)、253-302。
林祐禾 (2014)。對人與對事:再探威權領導與仁慈領導。
林靜怡 (2015)。威權領導、工作績效與組織認同之關聯性研究-以賦權行為為調節變數。成功大學。
邱黃海(2007)。從 [任勢為治] 說的形成論韓非思想的蛻變。中央大學哲學研究所學位論文、1-170。
徐瑋伶 (2003)。工作動機研究之回顧與前瞻。應用心理研究(19)、89-113。
高三福、莊仲仁 (2009)。家長式領導、團隊社會化與團隊文化關係: 以運動團隊爲例。應用心理研究(42)、187-213。
許金田、胡秀華、淩孝綦、鄭伯壎、周麗芳 (2004)。家長式領導與組織公民行爲的關係: 上下關係品質之中介效果。交大管理學報、24(2)、119-149。
陳冠政、羅仁鴻。電子產業家長式領導之轉化-個案分析。
陳嵩、李佩芬、陳光偉 (2008)。上司家長式領導對銷售人員目標取向及績效之影響--以銀行理財專員為例。企業管理學報 (新北)、77、1-46。
曾建興、林彥伯 (2008)。家長式領導行為對大學棒球運動員運動倦怠之影響。北體學報(16)、26-37。
曾秋美、王俊明 (2011)。家長式領導對大專體育科系運動代表隊團隊氣氛及競技倦怠的影響。長榮運動休閒學刊(5)、93-112。
湯慧娟、宋一夫 (2004)。教練家長式領導、團隊文化價值觀對團隊承諾之影響研究。體育學報(36)、119-130。
湯慧娟、宋一夫 (2010)。教練領導行為、情緒感受與運動員領導信任。臺大體育學報(18)、45-55。
黃光國 (2009)。從 [儒家關係主義] 評< 華人孝道雙元模型。本土心理學研究(32)、163-185。
黃囇莉 (1999)。人際和諧與衝突: 本土化的理論與研究: 臺北市: 桂冠圖書公司.
楊國樞 (1995)。家族化歷程、泛家族主義及組織管理。台灣與大陸的企業文化及人力資源管理研討會論文集。台北: 信義文化基金會。
楊國樞 (2005)。華人社會取向的理論分析。華人本土弖理學 (上冊)、173-214。
楊國樞、葉明華 (2005)。家族主義與泛家族主義。華人本土心理學-上、頁、249-292。
葉光輝 (2005)。華人孝道的心理與行為。華人本土心理學、頁、293-330。
管力吾 (2010)。韓非政治思想探析。
劉娜婷、蔡秉毅、徐雅惠、吳肇展 (2014)。權威領導與職場偏差行為之關係:主管與部屬交換關係差異與個人文化價值觀所扮演的角色。組織與管理、7(2)、1-50。
樊景立、鄭伯壎 (1997)。華人自評式績效考核中的自謙偏差: 題意、謙虛價值及自尊之影響。中華心理學刊、39(2)、103-118。
樊景立、鄭伯壎 (2000)。華人組織的家長式領導:一項文化觀點的分析。本土心理學研究(13)、126-180。
蔡宜妙 (2003)。成就動機的文化特徵: 台灣地區靑少年的努力信念。
蔡英美 (2005a)。家長式領導、情緒感受與團隊凝聚力之關係研究。國立體育學院論叢、16(2)、347-358。
蔡英美 (2005b)。家長式領導三元模式的主要效果與互涉作用對運動團隊滿意度的預測。輔仁大學體育學刊(4)、99-108。
鄭伯壎 (1995)。差序格局與華人組織行為。本土心理學研究(3)、142-219。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳 (2005)。家長式領導三元模式: 現代轉化及其影響機制── 威權領導: 法家概念的現代轉化。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃成果報告、報告編號 NSC94-2413-H-002-003-APE。台北: 行政院國家科學委員會。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳、黃敏萍、樊景立、彭泗清 (2003)。家長式領導的三元模式: 中國大陸企業組織的證據。本土心理學研究(20)、209-250。
鄭伯壎、樊景立、周麗芳 (2006)。家長式領導: 模式與證據。
鄭伯壎、謝佩鴛、周麗芳 (2002)。校長領導作風、上下關係品質及教師角色外行為: 轉型式與家長式領導的效果。本土心理學研究(17)、105-161。
鄭琬蓉 (2006)。邁向發聲之路: 華人上下關係中忍的歷程與自我之轉化。臺灣大學心理學研究所學位論文、1-113。
駱月絹 (2015)。[盡人事/知天命]─ 華人努力階層模式之研究。臺灣大學心理學研究所學位論文、1-176。


英文部分
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191-201.
Baker, J. P., & Berenbaum, H. (2007). Emotional approach and problem-focused coping: A comparison of potentially adaptive strategies. Cognition and Emotion, 21(1), 95-118.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1), 92-113.
Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Suicide as escape from self. Psychological Review, 97(1), 90.
Bonner, S. E., & Sprinkle, G. B. (2002). The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(4-5), 303-345.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: JOSSEY-BASS.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.
Bracha, H. S., Ralston, T. C., Matsukawa, J. M., Williams, A. E., & Bracha, A. S. (2004). Does “fight or flight” need updating? Psychosomatics, 45(5), 448-449.
Brosch, T., Pourtois, G., & Sander, D. (2010). The perception and categorisation of emotional stimuli: A review. Cognition and Emotion, 24(3), 377-400.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing, 70-80.
Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization‐based self‐esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128.

Chen, C. C., & Farh, J. L. (2010). Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: Paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 599-622).
Chen, H. Y., & Kao, H. S. R. (2009). Chinese paternalistic leadership and non-Chinese subordinates' psychological health. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 2533-2546.
Chen, T., Li, F., & Leung, K. (2017). Whipping into shape: Construct definition, measurement, and validation of directive-achieving leadership in Chinese culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(3), 537-563.
Chen, T. T. (2011). Structuring versus autocraticness: Exploring a comprehensive model of authoritarian leadership.
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40, 796-819.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. In (Vol. 7, pp. 89-117).
Cheng, B. S., Huang, M. P., & Chou, L. F. (2002). Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from Chinese organizational teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 3, 85-112. Retrieved from
Chiang, T. J., Wang, A. C., Chen, X. P., & Cheng, B. S. (2009). CEO authoritarian leadership in China: Exploring its effects on employee and organizational performance.
Chou, L., Cheng, B., & Farh, J. (2006). Does Employee’s Authoritarian Value Matter: The Effectiveness of People-related and Task-related Authoritarian Leadership in China and Taiwan’s Private Business. Paper presented at the International Association for Chinese Management Research (IACMR), Nanjing, China.
Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2007). Does globalization matter? The change of power distance and its effects on authoritative leadership in business and military organizations in Taiwan.
Chou, L. F., Cheng, B. S., & Jen, C. K. (2005). The contingent model of paternalistic leadership: Subordinate dependence and leader competence.
Chou, W.-J., & Cheng, B.-S. (2014). Opening the Black Box: A Two-Dimensional Model of Authoritarian Leadership and Task Performance. 中華心理學刊.
Chou, W. J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2010). Authoritarian leadership and subordinate well-being: How and when does leadership function?
Chou, W. J., Chou, L. F., Cheng, B. S., & Jen, C. K. (2010). Juan-chiuan and shang-yan: The components of authoritarian leadership and their interaction effects with benevolence on psychological empowerment. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 34, 223-284.
De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Jegers, M., & Van Acker, F. (2009). Development and validation of the work effort scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 266-273.
De Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 128-138.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research: University Rochester Press.
Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E., & Oh, I.-S. (2009). Understanding managerial development: Integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to developmental opportunities in predicting managerial competencies. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 731-743.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256.
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2011). Intrinsic motivation as a moderator on the relationship between perceived job autonomy and work performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(3), 367-387.
Farh, J., Liang, J., Chou, L., & Cheng, B. (2008). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: Research progress and future research directions.
Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. (2006a). Authority and benevolence: Employees' responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In China's domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance B2 - China's domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance (pp. 230-260). New York: Sharpe.
Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. (2006b). Authority and benevolence: Employees'responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In A. S. Tsui, Y.Bian, & L.Cheng (Eds.), China's Domestic Private Firms: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Management and Performance (pp. 230-260).
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(5), 992.
Fwu, B.-J., Wang, H.-H., Chen, S.-W., & Wei, C.-F. (2016). Effort counts and goals matter: the effects of effort and achievement goals on moral image, approval, and disapproval in a Chinese cultural context. In The Psychology of Asian Learners (pp. 337-353): Springer.
Fwu, B.-J., Wang, H.-H., Chen, S.-W., & Wei, C.-F. (2017). ‘Feeling bad’or ‘being bad?’The trapping effect of effort in academic failure in a Confucian cultural context. Educational Psychology, 37(4), 506-519.
Fwu, B.-j., Wei, C.-F., Chen, S.-W., & Wang, H.-h. (2014). Effort counts: The moral significance of effort in the patterns of credit assignment on math learning in the Confucian cultural context. International Journal of Educational Development, 39, 157-162.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2001). Cross-cultural response to failure: Considering outcome attributions with different goals. In Student Motivation (pp. 203-219): Springer.
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.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96-107.
Heider, F. (2013). The psychology of interpersonal relations: Psychology Press.
Hitt, M. A., Middlemist, R. D., & Mathis, R. L. (1989). Management; Concepts and Effective Practice Saint Paul MN. In: West Publishing Company Concepts and Effective Practice. Saint Paul, MN ….
Ho, D. Y.-f. (1994). Filial piety, authoritarian moralism, and cognitive conservatism in Chinese societies. Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Hong, Y.-Y., Chiu, C.-Y., & Kung, T. M. (1997). Bringing culture out in front: Effects of cultural meaning system activation on social cognition. Progress in Asian social psychology, 1, 135-146.
Hwang, K.-K., Liu, T.-W., Han, D.-Y., & Chen, S.-H. (2003). Somatisation, emotional expression, and Confucian ethics in Chinese culture. Untangling the threads: Perspectives on mental health in Chinese communities, 10, 47-78.
Izard, C. E. (2009). Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annual review of psychology, 60, 1-25.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1(2), 75-130.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2): Wiley New York.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Paper presented at the Nebraska symposium on motivation.
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512-519.
Liang, S. K., Ling, H. C., & Hsieh, S. Y. (2007). The mediating effects of leader-member exchange quality to influence the relationships between paternalistic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Business, 10(No. 1), 127-137.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201-1205.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 364-369.
Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2013). Abusive supervision and employee well‐being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology, 62(2), 308-329.
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1‐2), 36-50.
Matsumoto, D. (2009). 15 Culture and Emotional Expression. Understanding culture: Theory, research, and application, 271.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(1), 33.
Murphy, K. R., & Kroeker, L. P. (1988). Dimensions of job performance. Retrieved from
Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmental perspective.
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483.
Paparoidamis, N. G. (2005). Learning orientation and leadership quality: Their impact on salespersons' performance. Management decision, 43(7/8), 1054-1063.
Parsons, T. (1968). TheStructureofSocialAction. NewYork: TheFreePress.
Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Progress takes work: Effects of the locomotion dimension on job involvement, effort investment, and task performance in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1723-1743.
Priesemuth, M. (2013). Stand up and speak up: Employees’ prosocial reactions to observed abusive supervision. Business & society, 52(4), 649-665.
Pritchard, R. D., & Campbell, J. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Reddin, W. J. (1970). Managerial effectiveness.
Redding, G., & Wong, G. Y. Y. (1986). The psychology of Chinese organizational behaviour. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 267-295).
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.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66-80.
Salili, F., & Hau, K. T. (1994). The effect of teachers’ evaluative feedback on Chinese students’ perception of ability: A cultural and situational analysis. Educational Studies, 20(2), 223-236.
Sheldon, K. M., Cheng, C., & Hilpert, J. (2011). Understanding well-being and optimal functioning: Applying the multilevel personality in context (MPIC) model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(1), 1-16.
Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and value: The organization of large-scale Taiwanese enterprises.
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1987). Patterns of appraisal and emotion related to taking an exam. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(3), 475.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 7(3-4), 233-269.
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 522-552.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource management review, 12(2), 269-292.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of vocational behavior, 68(3), 446-460.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504.
Stevenson, H. W., Chen, C., & Lee, S.-Y. (1993). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children: Ten years later. Science, 53-58.
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S.-Y., Chen, C., Stigler, J. W., Hsu, C.-C., Kitamura, S., & Hatano, G. (1990). Contexts of achievement: A study of American, Chinese, and Japanese children. Monographs of the society for research in child development, i-119.
Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American Educational Achievements: A Phenomenon in Search of an Explanation. American psychologist, 45(8), 913-920.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Breaux-Soignet, D. M. (2012). Abusive supervision as political activity: Distinguishing impulsive and strategic expressions of downward hostility. Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations, 191-212.
Tyler, T., & Blader, S. (2013). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement: Routledge.
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Process-Based Leadership: How Do Leaders Lead? In The psychology of leadership (pp. 179-206): Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law: Princeton University Press.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum Jr, J. W. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 249.
Vecchio, R. P., & Bullis, R. C. (2001). Moderators of the influence of supervisor–subordinate similarity on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 884.
Wang, L., Huang, J., Chu, X., & Wang, X. (2010). A multilevel study on antecedents of manager voice in Chinese context. Chinese Management Studies, 4(3), 212-230.
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affect: their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1020.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 219.
Watson, J. B. (1925). Experimental studies on the growth of the emotions. The Pedagogical seminary and journal of genetic psychology, 32(2), 328-348.
Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 682.
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555.
Westwood, R. L., & Chan, A. (1992). Headship and leadership. In Organisational behaviour: Southeast Asian perspectives B2 - Organisational behaviour: Southeast Asian perspectives. Hong Kong: Longman.
Willner, A. R. (1985). The spellbinders: Charismatic political leadership: Yale University Press.
Wu, M., Huang, X., Li, C., & Li, W. (2011). Perceived interactional justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 97-121.
Wu, M., Huang, X., Li, C., & Liu, W. (2012). Perceived interactional justice and trust‐in‐supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 97-121.
Wu, M., & Xu, E. (2012). Paternalistic leadership: From here to where? In X.Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research and practice (pp. 449-466).
Xu, E., & Huang, X. (2012). 14 Ostracism, Chinese style. Handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research and practice, 258.
Yang, K. S. (2003). Methodological and Theoretical Issues on Psychological Traditionality and Modernity Research in an Asian Society: In Response to Kwang-Kuo Hwang and Beyond. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 263-228.
Yeh, K.-H. (2003). The Beneficial and Harmful Effects of F ilial Piety: An Integrative Analysis. Progress in Asian Social Psychology: Conceptual and Empirical Contributions: Conceptual and Empirical Contributions, 67.
電子全文 Fulltext
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 Thesis access permission:自定論文開放時間 user define
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus:開放下載的時間 available 2025-02-24
校外 Off-campus:開放下載的時間 available 2025-02-24

您的 IP(校外) 位址是 35.172.111.47
現在時間是 2023-06-04
論文校外開放下載的時間是 2025-02-24

Your IP address is 35.172.111.47
The current date is 2023-06-04
This thesis will be available to you on 2025-02-24.

QR Code