全球化是不可逆的趨勢，組織中不論是領導者或部屬，皆身處在一個時間、人力、財力資源有限的壓力氛圍，持續不斷被要求、利益與觀點牴觸矛盾的工作環境中，為了有效處理組織越來越多的矛盾需求議題，必須培養一種”兼而有之”的矛盾領導能力。而矛盾領導行為對於部屬工作績效的影響效應，始終是相當值得深入探討的領域，過往相關研究尚未針對工作角色行為，在矛盾領導行為與部屬工作績效的影響性探討，因而引發本研究的研究動機，期聚焦在工作相關的行為層面，探討三者之關聯性。
本研究目的在於探討部屬的工作熟練度、適應行為、主動積極行為在主管矛盾領導行為與其工作績效間的中介效果，根據社會學習理論，領導者的認知與行為會影響部屬並促使其學習仿效行為模式；適應性績效理論提及，具有適應能力的人在組織中將快速彰顯其重要性；角色理論觀點亦表示，當組織環境不確定性高、相互依賴程度高時，個人、團隊與組織都必須主動採取行動，才能創造有效益的結果，依上述顯示工作熟練度、適應行為、主動積極行為，在矛盾領導行為與工作績效之間可能扮演著中介的角色。
本研究在台灣蒐集的跨組織有效669份主管部屬配對問卷，發現工作熟練度在矛盾領導行為與部屬工作績效間，具完全中介的效果；適應行為具部分中介的效果；主動積極行為則未具中介效果。

Globalization is an irreversible trend. In an organization, whether leaders or subordinates, they are under the pressure of limited time, manpower and financial resources. They are constantly required and in a working environment where interests and views conflict. In order to effectively deal with more and more contradictory needs of organizations, it is necessary to cultivate a kind of " both-and" paradoxical leadership ability. However, the effect of paradoxical leadership behavior on subordinate job performance is always a field worthy of further discussion. Past relevant studies have not yet focused on the role of work behavior and the impact of paradoxical leadership behavior on subordinate job performance, which has triggered the research motivation of this study, with a view to focus on the work-related behavior level and exploring the relevance of the three.
The purpose of this study is to explore the mediating effect of subordinates' task proficiency, adaptive behavior and proactive behavior on the relationship between supervisors' paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinates' job performance. According to Social Cognitive Theory, leaders' cognition and behavior will influence subordinates and promote them to learn to imitate behavior patterns; Adaptive Performance mentions that people with adaptability will quickly show their importance in the organization; The Role Theory also shows that when the organizational environment is highly uncertain and interdependent, individuals, teams and organizations must take the initiative to create effective results. According to the above findings, job proficiency, adaptive behavior and proactive behavior may play an intermediary role between paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinate performance.
In this study, 669 cross-organizational valid leader-subordinate matching questionnaires were collected in Taiwan. It was found that job proficiency was a significant mediator between paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinate performance; Adaptive behavior has partial mediating effect, while proactive behavior has no mediating effect.

〔1〕 Aragón-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic Proactivity and Firm Approach to the Natural Environment. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 556–567.
〔2〕 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), 1173–1182.
〔3〕 Bateman, T. S., &Organ, D. W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Affect and Employee “Citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587–595.
〔4〕 Bligh, Pearce, & K. (2006). The importance of self- and shared leadership in teambased knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership dynamics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 296–318.
〔5〕 Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., &Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14(2), 229–246.
〔6〕 Borman, Bryant, & Dorio, J. (2010). The measurement of task performanceas criteria in selection research. In Handbook ofemployee selection , 439–462.
〔7〕 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Personnel selection in organizations, 71–98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
〔8〕 Campbell. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 687–732.
〔9〕 Campbell. (1993). Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 35–69.
〔10〕 Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(3), 52–66.
〔11〕 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.
〔12〕 Chen. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese middle way perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 179–199.

〔13〕 Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., &Farh, J.-L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(3), 339–356.
〔14〕 Chia, Y. M. (1998). Motivation and Junior Supervisors’ Performance: The Moderating Role of Work-group Cohesion. International Journal of Management, 441–453.
〔15〕 Clegg, S. R., daCunha, J. V., &e Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management Paradoxes: A Relational View. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.
〔16〕 Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R., &Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 130–135.
〔17〕 Conway, J. M. (1996). Additional construct validity evidence for the task/contextual performance distinction. In Human Performance, 309–329.
〔18〕 Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 435–462.
〔19〕 Cummings, & B. (1987). Advanced manufacturing technology and work design. In The human side of advanced manufacturing technology, 37–60.
〔20〕 Detert, J. R., &Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884.
〔21〕 Evans, P. A. L. (2000). No TitleThe dualistic leader: Thriving on paradox. In S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Management 21C: New visions for the new millennium. New York, NY/London, UK: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
〔22〕 Fang. (2005). From “Onion” to “Ocean”: Paradox and Change in National Cultures. International Studies of Management and Organization, 71–90.
〔23〕 Fang. (2010). Asian management research needs more self-confidence: Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27: 155–170.
〔24〕 Fang. (2012). Yin yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization Review, 8: 25–50.
〔25〕 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.
〔26〕 Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., &Parker, S. K. (2007). A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behavior in Uncertain and Interdependent Contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347.
〔27〕 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5). NJ: Prentice hall Upper Saddle River.
Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
〔28〕 Hesketh, & N. (1999). The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. In Technology and performance, 21–55. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
〔29〕 Hoffman& Dilchert, S. (2012). A review of citizenship and counterproduc-tive behaviors in organizational decision-making. In The Oxfordhandbook of personnel assessment and selection, 543–569.
〔30〕 Ilgen, & H. (1991). Handbook of industrial and organi- sational psychology (2nd ed.).
〔31〕 Ilgen & Pulakos. (1999). The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 240–292.
〔32〕 Kahn, K. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.).
〔33〕 Korman, A. (1977). Organization Behavior. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice Hall.
〔34〕 Lyness, K. S., &Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 777–785.
〔35〕 Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., &Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.
〔36〕 Moscoso, S., Salgado, J. F., &Anderson, N. (2017). How Do I Get a Job, What Are They Looking For? Personnel Selection and Assessment. In An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology, 25–47. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
〔37〕 Murphy, & J. (1999). The changing nature of work performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 325–365.
〔38〕 Neal, A., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Technology and performance.
〔39〕 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory.
〔40〕 Organ, D. W., &Ryan, K. (1995). A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW OF ATTITUDINAL AND DISPOSITIONAL PREDICTORS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802.
〔41〕 Parker, S. (2000). From Passive to Proactive Motivation: The Importance of Flexible Role Orientations and Role Breadth Self‐efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 447–469.
〔42〕 Parker, S. K. (1998). Role breadth self-efficacy: Relationship with work enrichment and other organizational practices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 835– 852.
〔43〕 Parker, Sharon K., Williams, H. M., &Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652.
〔44〕 Podsakoff, P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
〔45〕 Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., &Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624.
〔46〕 Rothman, N. B., &Melwani, S. (2017). Feeling Mixed, Ambivalent, and in Flux: The Social Functions of Emotional Complexity for Leaders. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 259–282.
〔47〕 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.
〔48〕 Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., &Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 18–38.
〔49〕 Sackett, & D. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (vol. 1).
〔50〕 Smith. (1976). Behaviors, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.). In Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 745–775.
〔51〕 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.
〔52〕 Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., &Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering Leadership in Management Teams: Effects on Knowledge Sharing, Efficacy, And Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
〔53〕 Trevor, C. O., Gerhart, B., &Boudreau, J. W. (1997). Voluntary turnover and job performance: Curvilinearity and the moderating influences of salary growth and promotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 44–61.
〔54〕 Wall, C. & C. (2002). Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51: 146–169.
〔55〕 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.
〔56〕 Wheaton, B. (1987). NAssessment of fit in over-identified models with latent variables. (16th ed.). Sociological Methods and Research.
〔57〕 Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
〔58〕 Zenger, T. R. (1992). Why Do Employers Only Reward Extreme Performance? Examining the Relationships Among Performance, Pay, and Turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 198.
〔59〕 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.

〔1〕 傅馨瑩. (2017). 矛盾領導行為對部屬工作績效之影響： 矛盾追隨行為的中介與調節效果的探討. 國立中央大學.
〔2〕 陳慶源. (2018). 矛盾領導行為與部屬工作行為表現關聯性之探討: 以部屬思維層面變數與矛盾追隨行為為中介變項. 國立中央大學.
〔3〕 黃熾森. (2013). 研究方法入門：組織行為及人力資源的應用 研究方法入門 (二版). 台北市: 鼎茂出版.