進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-1609201515134400
論文名稱(中文) 主管與部屬間上下關係認定配適與部屬效能
論文名稱(英文) Supervisor-subordinate congruence in leader-member relational identity and subordinator’s effectiveness
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 心理學系認知科學碩士班
系所名稱(英) MS in Cognitive Science
學年度 104
學期 1
出版年 104
研究生(中文) 廖冠豪
研究生(英文) Kuan-Hao Liao
學號 U76991065
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 63頁
口試委員 口試委員-任金剛
口試委員-張滿玲
指導教授-周麗芳
中文關鍵字 關係認定  配適  關係品質  不一致性 
英文關鍵字 relationship identity  fitness  relationship quality  consistence 
學科別分類
中文摘要 人際關係在組織成員間的人際互動研究中具有其重要性,尤其在華人文化中,對關係的重視程度遠較其他西方文化來得高,因此組織成員間如何認定彼此的關係便顯得重要許多。關係認定指的是個人會採用對偶角色關係的本質與狀態來定義自我,而自我構念中與他人互動關聯的部分會影響人際交換形式的偏好。過去在探討主管與部屬間關係的相關研究,常以單方面之認定作為主軸,較少討論到主管與部屬之間雙向的關係認定,亦缺乏主管與部屬間關係認定一致或不一致時之影響,忽略了關係本身的對偶性。因此,本研究將分別從情感共享、工作利益、照顧回報、服從權威四個關係認定之角度,探討主管與部屬間關係認定一致或不一致時,對關係品質之影響。

本研究針對台灣企業之主管與部屬對偶,採問卷法施策,並以多項式迴歸進行分析。結果發現:(1)情感共享認定與關係品質具正向線性關係,且認定一致時較不一致時,關係品質較高 ; (2)照顧回報認定與關係品質具正向線性關係,認定不一致時,當主管認定低於部屬認定,關係品質較高 ; (3)服從權威認定不一致時,當主管認定低於部屬認定,關係品質較高。

最後,本研究根據此次研究結果進行討論,並闡述研究限制、貢獻、以及未來研究方向。
英文摘要 SUMMARY

Using work group of Taiwan industry, the result of polynomial regression analysis showed: (1) communal affection has significantly positive relationship with relationship quality, and relationship quality is higher when consistence is high. (2) care-repay has significantly positive relationship with relationship quality, and relationship quality is higher when leader’s identity is lower than subordinate’s identity. (3) Relationship quality is higher when leader’s authority-obedience identity is lower than subordinate’s authority-obedience identity.

Keywords: relationship identity, fitness, relationship quality, consistence

論文目次 第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 認定與關係認定 5
第二節 領導者與部屬上下關係認定之內涵 7
第三節 主管與部屬交換理論與關係品質 13
第三章 研究方法 19
第一節 研究樣本 20
第二節 研究程序 22
第三節 研究工具 23
第四節 資料分析 28
第四章 研究結果 34
第一節 研究變項間之相關分析 34
第二節 主管與部屬間上下關係認定一致性效果之檢驗 39
第五章 討論與建議 47
第一節 結果與討論 47
第二節 研究貢獻 49
第三節 研究限制 50
第四節 未來研究方向 52
參考文獻 54
附錄一 主管問卷 59
附錄二 部屬問卷 61
參考文獻 周麗芳、鄭伯壎、樊景立、任金剛、黃敏萍(2006)。家長式領導。華人組織行為:議題、作法及出版,46-82。台北:華泰。

鄭伯壎(2005)。華人領導:理論與實際。台北:桂冠圖書公司。

鄭伯壎、樊景立(2001)。初探華人社會的社會取向:台灣和大陸之比較研究。中華心理學刊,43,207-221。

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爲:權力距離之調節效果。中華心理學刊,51,351-363。

何友暉、陳淑娟、趙志裕(1991)。關係取向:為中國社會心理方法論求答案。中國人的心理與行為,頁49-66。台北:桂冠圖書公司。

楊中芳(2001)。有關關係與人情構念化之綜述。中國人的人際關係、情感與信任,頁3-26。台北:遠流出版公司。

莊耀嘉、楊國樞(1997)。角色規範的認知結構。本土心理學研究,7,281-338。

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological bulletin, 112(3), 461.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”?: Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,83-93.

Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G.B. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 184-200.

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.

Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.

Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 737-750.

Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual review of sociology, 1-33.

Gioia, D. A. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63-82.

Graen, G.B., & Cashman, J.(1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a developmental approach. In J.G.Hunt & L.L.Larson(Eds.), Leadership frontiers(pp.143-166).Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Graen,G.B.(1976). Role making process within complex organization. In M.D.Dunnette(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology(pp.1201-1245). Chicago: Rand-NcNally.

Graen,G.B., Novak, M.A., & Sommerkamp, p.(1982). The effect of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a sual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.

Ho, D. Y. F. (何友暉) (1993). Relational orientation in Asian social psychology. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychology: Research and experience in cultural context (pp. 240-259). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ho, D. Y. F. (何友暉) (1995). Selfhood and identity in confucianism, taoism, buddhism, and hinduism: Constructs with the west. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 25, 115-139.

Ho, D. Y. F. (何友暉) (1998). Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: An analysis based on methodological relationalism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 1-16.

Hogg, M. (2003). Obligations. Edinburgh: Avizandum.

Lapierre, L. M., Naidoo, L. J., & Bonaccio, S. (2012). Leaders' relational self-concept and followers' task performance: Implications for mentoring provided to followers. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 766-774.

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.

Markus. H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

McCall, G.. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions. New York: Free
Press.

Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432.

Planalp, S. (1987). Interplay between relational knowledge and events. In R. Burnett, P. McGhee, & DD Clarke (Eds.), Accounting for relationships (pp. 175-191). New York: Methuen.

Roerhlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

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.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9-32.

Smirchch, L.(1983). Concept of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13, 65-93.

Tang, C., & Naumann, S. E. (2015). Paternalistic leadership, subordinate perceived leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(03), 291-306.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp.15-40).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 711-718.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-12-15起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-12-15起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw