中文摘要
論文名稱：整合式思維、複雜整合力、任務性績效與矛盾追隨行為關聯性之探討
校 所：國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所
研 究 生：邹淑宜
指導教授：林文政 博士
頁 數：40 頁
論文提要內容:
矛盾追隨行為理論是近來管理研究領域中的新興議題之一，相關研究刻正方興未艾，此一情形透露出矛盾追隨行為理論之建構正期待學界能有持續不斷的研究成果累積，以便予以補充而厚實其理論基礎。本研究即旨在延伸矛盾追隨行為的相關研究，特別是探尋影響矛盾追隨行為的前因與後果，並針對部屬的整合式思維、部屬的複雜整合力是否影響展現部屬的矛盾追隨行為，以及矛盾追隨行為是否影響部屬的任務性績效等三個面向。
本研究以主管及部屬配對的問卷方式，蒐集台灣企業473 份有效樣本進行分析，研究結果發現包括：（1）部屬的整合式思維對於矛盾追隨行為有正向顯著的影響；（2）矛盾追隨行為對部屬任務性績效有正向顯著影響。據此，本研究確認了部屬的整合式思維是影響矛盾追隨行為的前因，而矛盾追隨行為則會影響員工的任務性績效展現。

關鍵詞：整合式思維、複雜整合力、任務性績效、矛盾追隨行為。

Research on the Relationship among Holistic Thinking, Integrative Complexity, Task
Performance and Paradoxical Followership Behavior

Abstract

The theory of paradoxical followership behavior is one of the emerging issues in the recent management research field, and related researches are booming. This phenomenon
indicates that this paradoxical followership behavior theory expects to have as many research results as can be, through the endeavor of all relevant researchers, to let this theory become stronger and more solid about its theoretical basis. This study intends to extend the
scope of the current research concerning the theory of paradoxical followership behavior, in particular to explore the antecedents and consequences of this theory. This study
particularly focuses on three aspects: whether ubordinates' holistic thinking and integrative complexity will have respective influence on what extent of paradoxical followership behavior the subordinates may have; and then whether subordinate's task performance will be further influenced by the paradoxical followership behavior that subordinates actually exhibit.
In this study, 473 effective samples of Taiwanese companies were collected for analysis by questionnaires answered by supervisor and subordinate paired accordingly. The results
showed that: (1) the holistic thinking of subordinates had positive and significant effect on paradoxical followership behavior; (2) paradoxical followership behavior has positive and significant effect on subordinates’ task performance. According to such result, this study confirms that subordinates’ holistic thinking is the antecedent of paradoxical followership behavior, while paradoxical followership behavior then affects the extent of employees' task performance.

Keywords: Holistic Thinking, Integrative Complexity, Task Performance and Paradoxical
Followership Behavior.

〔1〕 Amabile, T., & Gryskiewicz, S. S.,Creativity in the R&D laboratory, Center for Creative Leadership, 1987.
〔2〕 Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F.,"Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students." Psychological
Science, 15(8), pp 507-510. 2004.
〔3〕 Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A., "A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles." Journal of
Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(3), pp 304. 2006.
〔4〕 Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J., "A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity." Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), pp 305-337. 2009.
〔5〕 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S., "Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance." Personnel Selection in Organizations; San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp 71. 1993.
〔6〕 Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W., "Who is this" We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations." Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(1), pp 83. 1996.
〔7〕 Brouthers, K. D., "Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance." Journal of international business studies, 33(2), pp 203-221.2002.
〔8〕 Byars, L., & Rue, L. (1994). Human Resource and Personnel Management:Homewood: New York: John Wiley and Sons.
〔9〕 Chaleff, I.,The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2009.
〔10〕 Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A., "Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), pp 691-705. 2007.
〔11〕 Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E., "Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership." Organization Science, 6(5),pp 524-540. 1995.
〔12〕 Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C., "Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs." Journal of management studies, 40(6), pp 1359-1392. 2003.
〔13〕 Evans, P. A., "The dualistic leader: Thriving on paradox." S. Chowdhury (Ed.), Management C, 21, pp 66-82. 2000.
〔14〕 Hair, J., Black, W., & Babin, B. (2010). R. Anderson (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
〔15〕 Handy, C., "The Age of Paradox (Harvard Business School Press)." Harvard/Mass. 1994.
〔16〕 Heneman, H. G., Heneman, R. L., & Judge, T.,Staffing organizations, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 1997.
〔17〕 Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M., "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives." Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), pp 1-55. 1999.
〔18〕 Jawahar, I., & Ferris, G. R., "A longitudinal investigation of task and contextual performance influences on promotability judgments." Human Performance, 24(3), pp
251-269. 2011.
〔19〕 Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K., "Supervisory feedback: Alternative types and their impact on salespeople's performance and satisfaction." Journal of Marketing Research, pp 190-201. 1991.
〔20〕 Kellerman, B., "What every leader needs to know about followers." Harvard Business Review, 85(12), pp 84. 2007.
〔21〕 Kelley, R. E.,In praise of followers, Harvard Business Review Case Services, 1988.
〔22〕 Korman, A. (1977). Organization behavior engiewoods: New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
〔23〕 Lee, Y.-T., Han, A.-G., Byron, T. K., & Fan, H.-X., "Daoist leadership: Theory and application." Leadership and management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices, 5179. 2008.
〔24〕 Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E., "When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations
and promotions of upper-level female and male managers." Journal of applied psychology, 91(4), pp 777. 2006.
〔25〕 Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A., "Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition." Psychological review, 108(2), pp 291. 2001.
〔26〕 Pulakos, E. D., & Wexley, K. N., "The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and performance ratings in manager-subordinate dyads." Academy of Management
Journal, 26(1), pp 129-139. 1983.
〔27〕 Reddin, W. J., "Managerial effectiveness." 1970.
〔28〕 Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A., "Organizational Behavior Prentice Hall." Rowold J, Heinitz K (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the
convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Leadersh. Q, 18(2), pp 121-133. 2003.
〔29〕 Rosenbach, W. E., Taylor, R. L., & Youndt, M. A.,Contemporary issues in leadership, Hachette UK, 2012.
〔30〕 Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N., "Organizational behavior." John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York. 2000.
〔31〕 Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W., "Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing." Academy of management Review, 36(2), pp 381-403. 2011.
〔32〕 Spector, P. E., & Wimalasiri, J., "A cross‐ cultural comparison of job satisfaction dimensions in the United States and Singapore." Applied Psychology, 35(2), pp 147-158. 1986.
〔33〕 Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P., "Integrative complexity of communications in international crises." Journal of conflict resolution, 21(1), pp 169-184. 1977.
〔34〕 Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. W: CP Smith (red.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (s.393-400): New York: Cambridge University Press.
〔35〕 Van Scotter, J. R., "Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment." Human resource
management review, 10(1), pp 79-95. 2000.
〔36〕 Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J., "Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as
separate facets of contextual performance." Journal of applied psychology, 81(5), pp 525. 1996.
〔37〕 Walker, J. W., & LaRocco, J. M., "Talent pools: The best and the rest.(Perspectives)." Human Resource Planning, 25(3), pp 12-15. 2002.
〔38〕 Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X., "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), pp 420-432. 2005.
〔39〕 Wheaton, B., "Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables." Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), pp 118-154. 1987.
〔40〕 Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y.-L., & Li, X.-B., "Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences." Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), pp 538-566. 2015.

中文參考文獻
〔1〕 Robbins，組織行為學，一版，李青芬、李雅婷和趙慕芬，九版，華泰文化事業公司出版，台北市，民國九十年。
〔2〕 司徒達賢，管理學的新世界，一版，天下遠見出版股份有限公司出版，台北市，民國九十四年。
〔3〕 刘建军，领导学原理——科学与艺术，四版，复旦大学出版社出版，中國大陸上海，民國九十六年。
〔4〕 林志峰，「管領導型態、人格特質、組織承諾與工作績效關聯性之研究—以國防部軍備局生產製造中心生產工廠為例」，台南科技大學，碩士論文，民國九十五年。
〔5〕 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。
〔6〕 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。
〔7〕 赵慧军，「追随行为的探索性研究」，经济与管理研究，4，106-110 頁，民國一零二年。
〔8〕 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。
〔9〕 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。
〔10〕 黃錦淑，「研發人員的工作設計與工作績效關係之研究: 兩種工作特性模式之應用」，國立中山大學，碩士論文，民國八十九年。
〔11〕 鍾珮珊和林文政，「員工組織年資、工作績效與挑戰性工作經驗對晉升力評分的相對影響效果」，輔仁管理評論，23(1)，1-22 頁，民國一零五年。
〔12〕 簡博浩和韓志翔，「任務性、脈絡性及適應性績效表現對主管獎酬決策的影響:調查法及實驗法」，臺大管理論叢，18(2)，27-62 頁，民國九十七年。