企業所面臨的困難除了外在環境的變化之外，對其本身內部的結構及管理等也需要跟進時代重新考量，才能隨著市場環境變化去因應資訊科技進步之調整及創新，有許多研究顯示這些高壓且對立的氛圍可透過組織、領導力來降低及解決，因此矛盾領導在其中所扮演的角色就顯的相對重要。隨著世代的移轉，矛盾領導的解決方案早已成為領導者重要的課題之一，也因此矛盾領導在現今企業中開始受到領導者們的注目。
本研究主要目的是探討部屬在職場上面對矛盾領導行為時，對本身的創新行為與績效之影響，同時探討創新行為與績效之間的關聯性。藉由主管與部屬二階段填答及配對方式進行問卷蒐集，研究發現：(1)矛盾領導行為正向影響創新行為，即矛盾領導行為越強，創新行為越強。(2)矛盾領導行為正向影響工作績效，即矛盾領導行為越強，工作績效越好。(3)創新行為正向影響工作績效，即創新行為越強，工作績效越好。並提出3點實務建議做為創造創新行為與提升工作績效之參考。

In addition to difficulties faced by enterprises brought upon by changes in the external environment, enterprises also need to re-consider their own internal structure and management to adjust and innovate in response to the progress of information technology as the market environment changes. The high-pressure and antagonistic atmospheres brought upon by these changes can be reduced and resolved through organization and leadership, so the role of paradoxical leadership in them is relatively important. With the transfer of generations, the solution of paradoxical leadership has already become an important issue for leaders. Therefore, paradoxical leadership has begun to attract the attention of leaders in today's enterprises.
The main purpose of this research is to explore the influence of subordinates and their own paradoxical leadership behaviors on their own innovation behavior and performance, and to explore the correlation between innovation behavior and performance. The questionnaire was collected through two-stage answering and matching of supervisors and subordinates. The study found that: (1) Paradoxical leadership behavior positively affects innovation behavior, that is, the stronger the paradoxical leadership behavior, the stronger the innovation behavior. (2) Paradoxical leadership behavior positively affects job performance, that is, the stronger the paradoxical leadership behavior, the better the job performance. (3) Innovation behavior positively affects work performance, that is, the stronger the innovation behavior, the better the work performance. This research also puts forth three practical suggestions as a reference for creating innovative behaviors and improving work performance.

一、網路資料
﹝1﹞ 工商時報：專訪中央大學人力資源管理研究所副教授：矛盾拿捏新時代領導思維。2017年8月9日，取自https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20170809000165-260210?chdtv
﹝2﹞ 天下雜誌：VUCA 時代，怎麼讓你的組織變敏捷?。2018年2月，取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5088385
﹝3﹞ 哈佛商學評論：打造跨世代不老企業：中央大學人力資源管理研究所副教授林文政：成為最佳矛盾領導人。2019年2月，取自https://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article_content_AR0008639.html"ttps://www.hbrtaiwan.com/article_content_AR0008639.html
﹝4﹞ 經理人雜誌：【林文政專欄】未來在等待的人才：唯有「學習者」生存。2014年9月，取自https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/45999

 
二、中文文獻
﹝1﹞ 王怡婷，「主管的矛盾領導行為與員工的創新行為之關聯性－以員工的模糊容忍度、經驗開放性、矛盾思維為中介變項」，國立中央大學，高階主管企管碩士班碩士論文，民國108年。
﹝2﹞ 王子寬、溫金豐、陳世哲，「多層次分析探討經理人雙歧在高績效工作系統與其個人創新行為之中介效果」，國立中山大學管理學院人力資源管理所碩士論文，民國107年。
﹝3﹞ 李城忠，應用統計學-SPSS完全攻略，新文京出版社，新北市，民國九十七年 。
﹝4﹞ 吳思華(1998)，策略九說。臉譜文化事業出版社，臺北市，民國八十七年。
﹝5﹞ 姚明暉，李元旭，「包容性領導對部屬創新行為作用機制研究」，科技進步與對策，31( 10) ，6-9頁，2014。
﹝6﹞ 陳慶源，「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，高階主管企管碩士班碩士論文，民國108年。
﹝7﹞ 陳明哲，「文化雙融：一位管理學者的反思與行踐」，管理學報，31（4），263－282頁，2014。
﹝8﹞ 張新基，「國民小學創新經營、組織文化與組織效能關係之研究」，屏東教育大學教育行政研究所博士論文，民國96年。
﹝9﹞ 傅馨瑩，「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，人力資源管理研究所碩士論文，民國107年。
﹝10﹞蘇品真，「矛盾領導行為、矛盾追隨行為與部屬適應性行為之關聯性探討-不確定性規避的調節式中介效果的檢驗」，國立中央大學高階主管企管碩士班碩士論文，民國108年。

三、英文文獻
﹝1﹞ Amabile, T.M. “Creativity and Innovation in Organizations”. Harvard Business School Background, Note 396-239, January 1996.
﹝2﹞ Anderson, R.W., “The future of human resource: Forging ahead or falling behind” Human Resource Management, 36(1), 17-22, 1997.
﹝3﹞ Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Rust, R.T. “Customer Satisfaction, Productivity, and Profitability: Differences between Goods and Services”. Marketing Science, 16, 129-145, 1997.
﹝4﹞ Bass, B. M. “From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision”. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-32, 1990.
﹝5﹞ Cameron, K. S., &Quinn, R. E., Organizational paradox and transformation. In Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. (pp. 1–18). New York, NY, US: Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers, 1988.
﹝6﹞ Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L.” Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China”, Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 75(3), 339-356, 2002.
﹝7﹞ Dess, G.G., and R.B. Jr. Robinson, “Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective Measure: The Case of the Privately- held Firm and Conglomerate Business Unit”, Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), pp. 265-273, 1984.
﹝8﹞ Delmas, M. A.”Innovation against European Rigidities Institutional Environment and Dynamic Capabilities”, Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 19-43, 2002.
﹝9﹞ Donavan, D. T., Brown, T. J., & Mowen, J. C. ”Internal benefits of service-worker customer orientation: Job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of marketing, 68(1), 128-146, 2004.
﹝10﹞Dobrow, S. R., Smith, W. K., & Posner, M. A. ”Managing the grading paradox: Leveraging the power of choice in the classroom”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 261-276, 2011.
﹝11﹞Ekvall, G. “Organizational Climate for Creativity and Innovation”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105-123, 1996.
﹝12﹞Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. “Differentiated leader-member exchanges:The buffering role of justice climate”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1104-1120, 2010.
﹝13﹞Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. “A Framework for Quality Management Research and an Associated Measurement Instrument”, Journal of Operations Management, 11, 339-366, 1994.
﹝14﹞Fombrum, C., Tichy, N. M. & Devanna, M. A., Strategic Human Resource Management. New York: Wiley. USA.1984.
﹝15﹞Garon, E. B., Rizvi, N. A., Hui, R., Leighl, N., Balmanoukian, A. S., Eder, J. P., Horn, L., “Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer”, New England Journal of Medicine, 372(21), pp 2018-2028, 2015.
﹝16﹞Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.2009.
﹝17﹞Hung, Y. Y. R., Lien, Y.H. B., Yang, B., Wu, C. M.,& Kuo, Y.M. “Impact of TQM and organizational learning on innovation performance in the high-tech industry”, International Business Review, 20(2), 213-225, 2011.
﹝18﹞Hogan, R.,Raskin, r., & Fazzini, D. The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark &M.B. Clark(Eds.), Measures of leadership, West Orange, NJ:Leadership Library of America, 343-354.
﹝19﹞Kotter, J. P., A force for change: How Leadership Differs From Management. The Free Press, New York, 1990.
﹝20﹞Kriengsak P., Rodney A. S. and Sherif M.,”The role of climate for innovation in enhancing business performance：The case of design firms”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15(5), 407-422, 2008.
﹝21﹞Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., Yan, J. ”Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames”, Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 539-560, 2017.
﹝22﹞Lewis, M. W., ” Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide”. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), pp. 760-776, 2000.
﹝23﹞Lin, H.-F., “Knowledge Sharing and Firm Innovation Capability: An Empirical Study”, International Journal of Manpower, 28, 315-332, 2007.
﹝24﹞Lavine, M. “Paradoxical leadership and the competing values framework”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 189-205, 2014.
﹝25﹞Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. “Paradoxical frames and creative sparks Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration”, Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes,116,229-240, 2011.
﹝26﹞Miron-Spektor, E.,Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., &Lewis, M. W. "Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem." Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45, 2017.
﹝27﹞Marsh,H.W.,& Hocevar, D. “Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. ” Psychological Bulletin,97(3),562-582, 1985.
﹝28﹞Kelley, R. “In Praise of Followers”., Harvard Business Review, 66, 142-148, 1988
﹝29﹞S., & Van de Ven, A. H., “Using paradox to build management and organization theories”, Academy of management review, 14(4), pp 562-578, 1989.
﹝30﹞Schumpeter J A., Die theorie der wirtschaftlichen entwicklung. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. English translations: The theory of economic development Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.1934 and A Galaxy Book,New York:Oxford University Press 1961.
﹝31﹞Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A., “Determinants of Innovative Behavior A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace”, The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607, 1994.
﹝32﹞NY John Willy & Sons “Schermerhorn,,Hunt,& Osborn.,Organizational behavior”, 2000.
﹝33﹞Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W., “Toward a theory of paradox A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing”, Academy of Management Review, 36: 381– 403, 2011.
﹝34﹞Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N., Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics, San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
﹝35﹞Statar. ”Organizational Learning The Key to Management Innovation”, Sloan Management Review, 63(1):63~73, 1989.
﹝36﹞Susanne G. “Scott and Reginald A. Bruce Reviewed work(s) “, Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 580-607 , Jun., 1994.
﹝37﹞Swamidass, P.M., and W.T. Newwell, “Manufacturing Strategy, Environmental Uncertainty and Performance, A Path Analytic Model, Management Science, 33(4), pp.509-524, 1987.