隨著全球環境的變化，矛盾的現象也愈來愈頻繁。而以往的研究多是將重心放在討論領導者的領導風格，本研究相信追隨者的追隨態度也有一定的重要程度。矛盾的概念源自華人文化中的陰陽論，是古代中國人二元論的自然觀，包括天地、晝夜、寒暑等，兩者互相對立但又互相依靠。這種陰陽相對立的現象就是一種矛盾的現象，在組織中，領導力與追隨力看似對立但也同時依存。

華人文化中的陰陽哲學就相似於西方矛盾的概念，西方著重對立面的分析，但東方思想則嘗試協調相反的觀點，強調縱合性與包容性。矛盾追隨行為是一種新的追隨者的風格，其概念與邏輯是由矛盾領導行為衍伸而來，本研究主要是探討轉換型領導風格的四個構面及交易型領導的二個構面與部屬的脈絡型績效行為間的關聯，並加入矛盾追隨行為為中介變項，端看組織中具有矛盾的思維的部屬是否能將脈絡型績效的影響極大化。

本研究採用階層迴歸分析，主要的研究結果如下：
- 主管的轉換型領導風格對部屬的脈絡型績效有正向顯著的影響，且部屬的矛盾追隨行為對兩者具有完全中介效果。
- 主管的交易型領導風格對部屬的脈絡型績效有正向顯著的影響，且部屬的矛盾追隨行為對兩者具有部分中介效果。
- 主管的轉換型領導風格對部屬的矛盾追隨行為有正向顯著的影響。
- 主管的交易型領導風格對部屬的矛盾追隨行為有正向顯著的影響。
- 部屬的矛盾追隨行為對其脈絡型績效有正向顯著的影響。
將研究結果使用在人力資源管理的措施上，在選才及晉升制度及教育訓練規畫上，強化矛盾追隨力的辨識及內化，必能使組織氛圍協和及利益最佳化。

With the changes of the global environment, intensified contradictions are becoming more frequent. Previous studies have mostly focused on leaders' leadership styles. This study believes that followers' attitudes are also important. The concept of a paradox is derived from the theory of Yin and Yang in Chinese culture, that states a connection of two opposite principles in nature and human affairs, including heaven and earth, day and night, and so on. They are not only opposite but depend on each other. In organization, leadership and followership, it seems to be that opposites must also rely on each other.
This study mainly discusses the relationship between the four factors of transformational leadership, the two factors of transactional leadership and the contextual performance, with paradoxical followership behavior serving as a mediator. The research results are supported by reliability analysis, correlation and regression analysis.
The critical findings of this thesis are as following：
- Both transformational leadership and transactional leadership have a significantly more positive effect on contextual performance.
- Both transformational leadership and transactional leadership have a significantly more positive effect on paradoxical followership behavior.
- Paradoxical followership behavior has a significantly more positive effect on contextual performance behavior.
- Paradoxical followership behavior serves as the full mediator between transformational leadership and contextual performance.
- Paradoxical followership behavior serves as the partial mediator between transformational leadership and contextual performance.
Results may be used in the measurement of human resource management, in things such as talent selection and internal promotion system, as well as for employee training activities. Identification and internalization of the paradoxical followership behavior will be strengthened, which will create an organizational atmosphere of harmony and maximize the influence of contextual performance behavior.

英文文獻
〔1〕 Adkins, C. L., Russell, C. J., & Werbel, J. D. (1994). Judgments of fit in the selection process: The role of work value congruence. Personnel psychology, 47(3), 605-623.
〔2〕 Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations: Sage.
〔3〕 Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond.
〔4〕 Babad, E. Y., Inbar, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Pygmalion, Galatea, and the Golem: Investigations of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 459.
〔5〕 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
〔6〕 Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your heart's content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative science quarterly, 45(4), 802-836.
〔7〕 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations: Collier Macmillan.
〔8〕 Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
〔9〕 Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 463-478.
〔10〕 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). Organizational description questionnaire: Sampler set: Mind Garden, Incorporated.
〔11〕 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541-554.
〔12〕 Bass, R. (1977). R. Bass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 265 (1977). Phys. Rev. Lett., 39, 265.
〔13〕 Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). The strategies for taking charge. Leaders, New York: Harper. Row.
〔14〕 Bennis, W. G. (2000). Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and change: Basic Books.
〔15〕 Bies, R. J. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome: JSTOR.
〔16〕 Bizot, E. B., & Goldman, S. H. (1993). Prediction of satisfactoriness and satisfaction: An 8-year follow up. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43(1), 19-29.
〔17〕 Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of management Journal, 46(5), 554-571.
〔18〕 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 71.
〔19〕 Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). The postheroic leader. Training & Development Journal.
〔20〕 Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this" We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(1), 83.
〔21〕 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership New York. NY: Harper and Row Publishers.
〔22〕 Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm (Vol. 11): Academic Pr.
〔23〕 Campbell, J. J., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness.
〔24〕 Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 313-575.
〔25〕 Carsten, M. K., Harms, P., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2014). Exploring historical perspectives of followership: The need for an expanded view of followers and the follower role. Followership: What is it and why do people follow, 3-25.
〔26〕 Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543-562.
〔27〕 Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
〔28〕 Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2-3), 179-199.
〔29〕 Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of management Review, 12(4), 637-647.
〔30〕 Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Sage Publications.
〔31〕 Deluga, R. J., & Souza, J. (1991). The effects of transformational and transactional leadership styles on the influencing behaviour of subordinate police officers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 64(1), 49-55.
〔32〕 DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of management Review, 35(4), 627-647.
〔33〕 Drucker, P. F. (1988). The coming of the new organization.
〔34〕 Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion in management: Productivity as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
〔35〕 Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the United States. Organization science, 15(2), 210-220.
〔36〕 Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American sociological review, 31-41.
〔37〕 Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858-881.
〔38〕 Fang, T., & Faure, G. O. (2011). Chinese communication characteristics: A Yin Yang perspective. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 320-333.
〔39〕 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.
〔40〕 Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in organizational behavior.
〔41〕 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.
〔42〕 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign (Vol. 72). Reading: Addison-Wesley.
〔43〕 Harold, K., & Heinz, W. (1990). Essentials of management. An International Perspective.
〔44〕 Harris-Wilson, E. (2017). The Effects of the Empowering Role of Followers on Leaders: A Phenomenological Perspective. Regent University.
〔45〕 Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 73(4), 695.
〔46〕 Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). The Management of Organizational Behavior . Engelwood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall.
〔47〕 Hitt, M. A., & Barr, S. H. (1989). Managerial selection decision models: Examination of configural cue processing. Journal of applied psychology, 74(1), 53.
〔48〕 Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations: Sage publications.
〔49〕 Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational dynamics, 16(4), 5-21.
〔50〕 Hollander, E., & Kelly, D. (1992). Appraising relational qualities of leadership and followership. Paper presented at the International Journal of Psychology.
〔51〕 Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43-54.
〔52〕 Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological bulletin, 71(5), 387.
〔53〕 Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. American psychologist, 45(2), 179.
〔54〕 Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 63(6), 597-606.
〔55〕 Homans, G. C. (1961). Human behavior: Its elementary forms: New York: Harcourt, Brace.
〔56〕 Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of applied psychology, 78(6), 891.
〔57〕 Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of applied psychology, 84(5), 680.
〔58〕 Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1996). The resource-advantage theory of competition: dynamics, path dependencies, and evolutionary dimensions. The Journal of marketing, 107-114.
〔59〕 Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. Research in organizational behavior.
〔60〕 Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of applied psychology, 89(5), 755.
〔61〕 Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
〔62〕 Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2): Wiley New York.
〔63〕 Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders: Harvard Business School Press Boston.
〔64〕 Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers: Harvard Business Review Case Services.
〔65〕 Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations, 5-16.
〔66〕 Kipnis, D. (1976). The powerholders.
〔67〕 Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.
〔68〕 Korman, A. (1977). Organization behavior engiewoods: New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
〔69〕 Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management review, 12(4), 648-657.
〔70〕 Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organizations: A comparative analysis of relation networks. Administrative science quarterly, 181-199.
〔71〕 Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Leadership perceptions and leadership performance: Two distinct but interdependent processes. Applied social psychology and organizational settings, 129-154.
〔72〕 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.
〔73〕 Ng, E. S., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 281-292.
〔74〕 Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological review, 108(2), 291.
〔75〕 Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of management, 14(4), 547-557.
〔76〕 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996a). Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 81(4), 380.
〔77〕 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996b). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of management, 22(2), 259-298.
〔78〕 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
〔79〕 Robbins, S. P., Judge, T., & Breward, K. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior (Vol. 7): Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River.
〔80〕 Robbins, S. R. (2002). The evolution of the learning content management system. Learning circuits.
〔81〕 Rosenbach, W. E., Pittman, T. S., & Potter III, E. H. (2012). What Makes a Follower? Contemporary issues in leadership, 77-87.
〔82〕 Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization science, 4(4), 577-594.
〔83〕 Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387-409.
〔84〕 Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
〔85〕 Spangler, W. D., & Braiotta Jr, L. (1990). Leadership and corporate audit committee effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies, 15(2), 134-157.
〔86〕 Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73-84.
〔87〕 Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A Fresh Look at Followership: A Model for Matching Followership and Leadership Styles Kent Bjugstad Comcast Spotlight.
〔88〕 Tsui, A. S., & O'reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402-423.
〔89〕 Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104.
〔90〕 Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of applied psychology, 81(5), 525.
〔91〕 Van Vianen, A. E., Shen, C. T., & Chuang, A. (2011). Person–organization and person–supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 906-926.
〔92〕 Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.
〔93〕 Weber, M. (1947). Theory of Social aod Economic Organization (1921): London: Oxford University Press.
〔94〕 Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders' conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 822-834.
〔95〕 Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel psychology, 47(4), 787-811.
〔96〕 Yang, K.-S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. Chinese societies and mental health, 19-39.
〔97〕 Yukl, G., Kennedy, J., Srinivas, E., Cheosakul, A., Peng, T., & Tata, J. (2001). CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR: A PRELIMINARY REPORT. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
〔98〕 Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 353-376.
〔99〕 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.
〔100〕 Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization Management, 34(5), 590-619.
中文文獻
〔1〕 林文政：銳利、嚴格卻不傷人的領導者，才能讓部屬信服！3個歷史小故事。2016年06月24日，取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/52696
〔2〕 邱郁雅，「矛盾追隨行為量表之建立」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零六年。
〔3〕 張容瑄，「矛盾追隨行為前因及後果探討」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零六年。
〔4〕 彭台光、高月慈和林鉦棽，「管理研究中的共同方法變異:問題本質、影響、測試和補救」，管理學報，23(1)，77-982頁，民國九十五年。
〔5〕 潘涵筠，功高震主的權力分析：權力差距理論的驗證，台北市國立臺灣大學，民國一零一年。
〔6〕 鄭宜潔，「內隱追隨力量表之建立」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國一零五年。
〔7〕 鄭紀瑩，華人企業的組織忠誠：結構與歷程，碩士論文，國立台灣大學，民國八十五年。
〔8〕 罗文豪，「随研究的历史溯源、现实驱力与未来展望」，中国人力资源开发，15，6-15頁，民國一零四年。