隨著組織經營環境的快速變動與日益矛盾，領導者展現悖論思維以整合對立需求，已成為提升組織彈性與部屬績效的關鍵能力。過去研究多著重於悖論領導對組織層級結果的影響，對於主管悖論思維在部屬層級的心理歷程與行為反應機制探討較為有限。本研究以內隱領導理論與關係認同理論為基礎，建構理論模型，探討主管悖論思維之期待與感知一致性對部屬任務性績效之影響，並檢驗部屬複雜整合力的調節作用及調節式中介效果。透過台灣地區企業主管與部屬配對蒐集有效問卷181份，並運用SPSS與AMOS進行統計分析。
研究結果顯示，當主管展現的悖論思維符合部屬內隱期待時，能有效提升部屬的任務性績效；同時，部屬複雜整合力高低顯著調節主管行為感知與關係認同之關聯，進而強化對績效表現的正向影響。初步分析指出，高複雜整合力的部屬能更靈活整合主管悖論行為中傳遞的矛盾訊息，將其解讀為積極且正面的領導行為，進而轉化為更高的工作投入與成果表現。本研究不僅深化了悖論思維與內隱領導理論於部屬層次的應用，亦揭示部屬個體特質在領導歷程中不可忽視的關鍵作用，對組織領導策略與人力資源管理提供了理論啟示與實務建議。

With the growing complexity and contradictions in organizational environments, demonstrating paradoxical thinking has become a critical leadership capability for enhancing organizational resilience and employee performance. However, research exploring the psychological processes and behavioral responses at the employee level remains limited. Grounded in Implicit Leadership Theory and Relational Identification Theory, this study constructs a model to investigate the impact of the consistency between employees’ expectations and perceptions of supervisors’ paradoxical thinking on task performance, and examines the moderating role of employees’ Integrative Complexity. Data were collected from 181 supervisor–subordinate dyads in Taiwan and analyzed using SPSS and AMOS software.
The results reveal that when supervisors’ paradoxical behaviors align with employees’ implicit leadership expectations, employees exhibit higher task performance. Moreover, employees with higher Integrative Complexity are better able to integrate contradictory leadership signals and translate them into higher work engagement and outcomes. This study enriches paradoxical thinking and implicit leadership theories at the individual level and highlights the importance of employee cognitive traits in leadership processes, offering insights for organizational leadership and talent management.

初永華（2024）。悖論領導行為、員工建言與部屬工作創新行為之研究：探討部屬心理安全調節式中介效果。國立中央大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
蔡佳芬（2017）。高績效人力資源管理實務、心理資本與工作績效關係之研究－以組織認同為中介變項。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
陳致宇（2017）。主管情緒能力與部屬工作績效之關係：以部屬情緒智力與情緒勞動策略為調節變項。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
馬嘉陽（2023）。矛盾領導行為對創新行為的雙面刃效果：以工作複雜度與觀點採取為調節變項。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20(4), 696-717.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, 14(1), 20-39.
Ashforth, B. E., Schinoff, B. S., & Brickson, S. L. (2016). "My company is friendly," "mine’s a rebel": Anthropomorphism and shifting organizational identity from "what" to "who." Academy of management review, 41(3), 1–24.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career development international, 13(3), 209–223.
Bartlett, C. A., & Beamish, P. W. (2018). Transnational management: Text, cases, and readings in cross-border management (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). Jossey-Bass.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The leadership quarterly, 18(6), 606–632.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1–18). Ballinger Publishing Company.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Consulting Psychologists Press.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 26(1), 81-98.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M., & McDonald, R. (2015). 17. Disruptive innovation. Harvard business review, 93(12), 44-53.
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of management annals, 11(1), 479-516.
Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel psychology, 64(1), 7-52.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 611.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological methods, 12(1), 1.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 57(1), 61-94.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 90(4), 659.
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.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 597.
Ghemawat, P. (2007). Redefining global strategy: Crossing borders in a world where differences still matter. Harvard Business Press.
Hair Jr, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. In Multivariate data analysis (pp. 785-785).
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of applied psychology, 89(1), 36.
Kane, J. S. (1996). The conceptualization and representation of total performance effectiveness. Human resource management review, 6(2), 123-145.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 246.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (2002). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Routledge.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
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.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human performance, 11(2-3), 145-165.
O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy Jr, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The leadership quarterly, 5(1), 43-58.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organisational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (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.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3, 71-92.
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., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536.
Smith, C. P. (Ed.). (1992). Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel psychology, 61(4), 793-825.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 590.
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.