現今組織面對的是越來越不可預測、複雜同時具挑戰性的環境。因此企業在這樣的環境下必須確保能擁有快速適應、預測市場的能力以及在決策上的靈活性。單一的領導行已無法滿足組織及成員的多樣化需求，取而代之的是運用兩者兼顧整合思維的領導方式，即所謂的雙元領導。雙元領導具有開放式與閉合式特徵，前者培養員工創新，後者幫助員工發揮價值，並在情境與時間中保持靈活性，即開放式領導與閉合式領導。過去研究大多將開放式領導與閉合式領導分別進行研究，探討單一領導風格對部屬工作表現之影響，但鮮少將兩種領導風格進行高高低低概念上的分類並探討其影響。因此，本研究將開放式領導與閉合式領導同時考慮，使用多項式迴歸與反應曲面分析，探究開放－閉合雙元領導、開放式領導、閉合式領導以及無為領導在主管部屬交換關係與任務適應性間的關聯。本研究共收集了383份台灣企業之有效主管部屬配對問卷，使用多項式迴歸與反應曲面分析結果，研究發現：（一）當主管展現高開放式高閉合式的開放－閉合雙元領導時，相較於低開放式低閉合式的無為式領導，其主管部屬交換關係較高。（二）當主管展現高開放式低閉合式領導的開放式領導時，其主管部屬交換關係會高於展現低開放式高閉合式的閉合式領導。（三）主管部屬交換在開放－閉合雙元領導與部屬任務適應性之間具有中介的效果。最後針對本研究之學術貢獻、管理意涵、研究限制及未來研究方向提出說明與建議。

Organizations are facing an increasingly unpredictable, complex and challenging environment. Therefore, organizations must have the ability to quickly adapt, predict the market and have flexibility in decision-making. A single leadership can no longer meet the diverse needs of the organization and its members. Instead, a both/and leadership style that takes into account both integrated thinking, called Ambidextrous Leadership. Ambidextrous leadership has the characteristics of opening and closing. Opening cultivates employees’ innovation and closing helps employees to achieve goals and maintain flexibility. Existing research of opening and closing leadership has been focusing on the study of single perspective leadership style, the two leadership styles were rarely classified into high and low concepts and explored their impact. Hence, this study aims to combine both opening leadership and closing leadership to explore their interaction effect on LMX and task adaptivity. A field study based on 383 supervisor and subordinator dyads in Taiwan, using polynomial regression and response surface to test the result. The finding support that (1)LMX is higher under the ambidextrous leadership when compare with neither/nor leadership.(2)LMX is higher under opening leadership when compare with closing leadership.(3)LMX mediates the mutually strengthening interaction effect between ambidextrous leadership upon subordinate’s task adaptivity.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions: sage.
Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct‐oriented biodata: Capturing change‐related and contextually relevant future performance. International journal of selection and assessment, 7(2), 97-111.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long range planning, 43(1), 104-122.
Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, S. (2005). Organizational Role Stress. Handbook of Work Stress, 7-33.
Breevaart, K., & Zacher, H. (2019). Main and interactive effects of weekly transformational and laissez‐faire leadership on followers’ trust in the leader and leader effectiveness. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 92(2), 384-409.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology, 389-444.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of applied psychology, 91(4), 954.
Buijs, J. (2007). Innovation leaders should be controlled schizophrenics. Creativity and innovation management, 16(2), 203-210.
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.
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of applied psychology, 98(6), 962.
Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational behavior and human performance, 13(1), 46-78.
Deluga, R. J. (1990). The effects of transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership characteristics on subordinate influencing behavior. Basic and applied social psychology, 11(2), 191-203.
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization science, 6(5), 524-540.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of management review, 11(3), 618-634.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The management of organization, 1(1), 167-188.
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.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization science, 21(3), 593-608.
Gerlach, F., Hundeling, M., & Rosing, K. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and innovation performance: a longitudinal study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
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.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership frontiers, 143, 165.
Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader—member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational behavior and human performance, 30(1), 109-131.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in organizational behavior.
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.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader–member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 66(2), 203-214.
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.
Guo, Z., Yan, J., Wang, X., & Zhen, J. (2020). Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Work Outcomes: A Paradox Theory Perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition. In: New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Havermans, L. A., Den Hartog, D. N., Keegan, A., & Uhl‐Bien, M. (2015). Exploring the role of leadership in enabling contextual ambidexterity. Human Resource Management, 54(S1), s179-s200.
Hu, W., Luo, J., Chen, Z., & Zhong, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leaders helping newcomers get on board: Achieving adjustment and proaction through distinct pathways. Journal of Business Research, 118, 406-414.
Johnson, R. W. (2001). An introduction to the bootstrap. Teaching statistics, 23(2), 49-54.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2): Wiley New York.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Guilford publications.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of social psychology, 10(2), 269-299.
Li, S., Jia, R., Seufert, J. H., Wang, X., & Luo, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leadership and radical innovative capability: The moderating role of leader support. Creativity Innovation Management, 29(4), 621-633.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of management journal, 23(3), 451-465.
London, M., & Mone, E. M. (1999). Continuous learning. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development, 119-153.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of management review, 21(2), 402-433.
Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization science, 20(4), 812-828.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice SAGE Publications. Inc., 383-405.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd edit.). New York.
Park, S., Sturman, M., Vanderpool, C., & Chan, E. K. (2013). Only time will tell: the dynamics of LMX, job performance, and justice. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Popova, N., & Shynkarenko, V. (2016). Personnel development at enterprises with regard to adaptation to the VUCA world. Економічний часопис-ХХІ(156), 88-91.
Portugal, E., & Yukl, G. (1994). Perspectives on environmental leadership. The leadership quarterly, 5(3-4), 271-276.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Sanghi, S. (2007). Organizational Behavior [with CD]: Prentice-Hall of India.
Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization science, 25(6), 1860-1877.
Rosing, K., Bledow, R., Frese, M., Baytalskaya, N., Johnson Lascano, J., & Farr, J. L. (2018). The temporal pattern of creativity and implementation in teams. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 91(4), 798-822.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The leadership quarterly, 22(5), 956-974.
Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: the duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 694-709.
Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai‐Hamburger, Y., Te'eni, D., & Schwartz, D. G. (2002). An empirical assessment of the loose–tight leadership model: quantitative and qualitative analyses. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(3), 303-320.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of applied psychology, 69(3), 428.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader-member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of management journal, 41(3), 298-318.
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(1), 9-32.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536.
Tsui, A. S., & O'reilly III, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of management journal, 32(2), 402-423.
Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. Handbook of psychology, 607-634.
Vecchio, R. P., & Gobdel, B. C. (1984). The vertical dyad linkage model of leadership: Problems and prospects. Organizational behavior and human performance, 34(1), 5-20.
Xin, K., Farh, J., Cheng, B., & Tsui, A. (1999). Guanxi and vertical dyads: Evidence from Taiwan and the PRC. Paper presented at the Conference of the Asia Association of Social Psychology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees' self‐reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24-46.
Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership Organization Development Journal.
Zacher, H., & Wilden, R. G. (2014). A daily diary study on ambidextrous leadership and self‐reported employee innovation. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 87(4), 813-820.
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.
李悅、王懷勇 （2018）。雙元創新行為與心理脫離: 矛盾式領導風格的調節作用及其邊界條件，科學學與科學技術管理，10。
邱皓政 （2017）。量化研究與統計分析—SPSS資料分析範例。台灣五南出版社 。
侯楠、彭堅 （2018）。恩威並施, 積極執行與工作績效——探索中國情境下雙元領導的有效性，心理學報, 51(1) ，117-127。
張鋼、陳佳樂 （2013）。組織二元性的研究綜述與展望，世界科技研究與發展，35(4)， 526。
趙鍇、向姝婷 （2020） 。如何解決團隊創新悖論? 基於成員認知風格 “組型” 與 “構型” 視角的探究，心理科學進展，29(1)，1。
劉珮琪 （2015）。華人社會追隨力之概念初探。(未出版之碩士論文)。國立中央大學，桃園市。
羅瑾璉、趙莉、韓楊、鐘競、管建世 （2016） 。雙元領導研究進展述評，管理學報，13(12)，1882-1889。