面對全球化的競爭，產業結構的快速變化，「創新」及「高工作績效」是企業組織得以永續經營的不二法門，但要達成這樣的工作表現，卻又需要仰賴組織中每一份子的努力與付出。然而每位員工的背後都有著不同成長背景與內隱性格，他們所面對的環境信息往往又是高度複雜、新穎、模糊及動態的，對於這些不確定性，不同的員工都有著本能上的不同反應，也許接受、也許規避。研究顯示，對於不確定性的反應，也往往會影響個人的工作表現，進而影響企業組織的發展。
「矛盾領導行為」是近年備受關注的研究議題，但過去很少針對它與「創新」及「工作績效」之間的關係進行研究，尤其是透過調節影響的方式，也就是讓主管發揮自身的矛盾領導行為來影響部屬的工作成果。期望這個研究，能為矛盾領導行為如何影響員工的成功創新與高工作績效找到方向。
本研究主要採取兩階段配對問卷，以台灣地區民營企業的主管與部屬為對象，蒐集有效669份有效的主管與部屬配對問卷，有效配對樣本回收率為68.8%，研究結果發現，(1) 主管的矛盾領導行為在部屬的不確定性規避與部屬的創新行為負向關係間具有調節效果，主管矛盾領導行為越強，越能改善部屬不確定性規避對創新行為負向的影響；(2) 主管的矛盾領導行為在部屬的不確定性規避與部屬的工作績效負向關係間具有調節效果，主管矛盾領導行為越強，越能改善部屬不確定性規避對工作績效的負向影響。

To face global competitions and rapid changes in every industry, innovation and high job performance are essential factors for organizational sustainability. Both innovative actions and high job performance require employees’ dedication and efforts. However, with different personal backgrounds and characters, every employee will inevitably react differently to the highly complex, dynamic, new and vague information they receive daily at work. Some of them tend to accept the uncertainties, and others tend to avoid them. Relevant studies have shown that one’s reactions to uncertainties will often affect his job performance and further influence the development of the organization.
Paradoxical leadership behavior has been one of the most popular subjects in the studies of people management in recent years. Nonetheless, few studies have discussed the relationship between supervisors’ paradoxical leadership behaviors and their subordinates’ innovation and job performance, especially on how supervisors can influence their subordinates’ job performance through their own paradoxical leadership behaviors. This research thus aimed to find out how supervisors’ paradoxical leadership behaviors can help their subordinates to achieve successful innovation and excellent job performance.
For this study, my partners and I designed two-stage matching questionnaires for supervisors and their subordinates in private-owned companies in Taiwan. We have collected a total of 669 valid questionnaires, and the overall effective response rate was 68%. The analysis of the responses showed that: (1) the supervisors’ paradoxical leadership behaviors can significantly adjust the negative effect the subordinates’ uncertainty avoidance has on their innovation. The stronger the supervisors show paradoxical behaviors, the less negative effect the subordinates’ uncertainty avoidance will have on their innovation. (2) the supervisors’ paradoxical leadership behaviors can significantly adjust the negative effect the subordinates’ uncertainty avoidance has on their job performance. The stronger the supervisors show paradoxical leadership behaviors, the less negative effect the subordinates’ uncertainty avoidance will have on their job performance.

英文參考文獻
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and Innovation in Organizations.
Andriopoulos, C., &Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity : Managing Paradoxes of Innovation Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity : Managing Paradoxes of In. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses., 1(6), 589–595. Retrieved from
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., &Farr, J. (2009). A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(03), 305–337.
Borman, & Motowidlo. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance.
Cameron, K. S., &Quinn, R. E. (1999). An Introduction to changing organisational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Diagnosing and Chaning Organisational Culture, 1–12.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology.
Chen, Tsui, Farh. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002).pdf. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 339–356.
Chen, M. (2002). Transcending paradox : The Chinese & quot ; middle way & quot ; perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20(1), 179–199. Retrieved from
DiMaggio, P. J., &Powell, W. W. (2012). THE IRON CAGE REVISITED: INSTITUTIONAL ISOMORPHISM AND COLLECTIVE RATIONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL FIELDS, 48(2), 147–160.
Dorfman, P. W., &Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimension of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited.
Gong, Y., Huang, J., &Farh, J. (2009). Employee Learning Orientation, Transformational Leadership, and Employee Creativity: the Mediating Role of Employee Creative Self-Efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organisations across nations.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Hu, L., &Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Huang, L. (2014). 在越南台商訓練模式跨文化調整之實務探討.
Janssen, O. (2001). FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS AS A MODERATOR IN THE CURVILINEAR RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN JOB DEMANDS, AND JOB PERFORMANCE AND JOB SATISFACTION. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039–1050.
Jung, J. M., &Kellaris, J. J. (2004). Cross-national differences in proneness to scarcity effects: The moderating roles of familiarity, uncertainty avoidance, and need for cognitive closure. Psychology and Marketing, 21(9), 739–753.
Kanter, R. (1988). When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organizations. In Knowledge Management and Organisational Design (Vol. 10, pp. 93–131). Elsevier.
Kleysen, R. F., &Street, C. T. (2001). Toward a multi‐dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 284–296.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., &Lewis, Marianne W. (2018). Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.
Miron, E., Erez, M., &Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175–199.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory.
Poole, M. S., &Van deVen, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.
Reneker, D. H., &Mazur, J. (1983). Dispirations, disclinations, dislocations, and chain twist in polyethylene crystals. Polymer, 24(11), 1387–1400.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., &Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974.
Schermerhorn,Hunt,&Osborn. (2000). Organizational behavior. NY: John Willy& Sons.
Schroeder, R., Van de Ven, A., Scudder, G., & Polley, D. (1989). The development of innovation ideas.
Scott, S. G., &Bruce, R. A. (1994). DETERMINANTS OF INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR: A PATH MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL INNOVATION IN THE WORKPLACE. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.
Scott Shane, S. Venkataraman, &MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural Differences in Innovation Championing Strategies. Journal of Management, 21(5), 931–952.
Smith, W. K., &Lewis, M. W. (2011). TOWARD A THEORY OF PARADOX : A DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM MODEL Tecnicas de communicative. Academy of Manahement Review, 36(2), 381–403.
Swierstra, T., &Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology. NanoEthics, 1(1), 3–20.
Thuy, N. (2016). 激勵制度、工作動機對於在台越南籍勞工-工作投入及工作績效影響之研究, (July).
Van deVen, A. H. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.
vanVianen, A. E. M., Shen, C.-T., &Chuang, A. (2011). Person-organization and person-supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 906–926.
Wang, P., &Chan, P. S. (1995). Top management perception of strategic information processing in a turbulent environment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16(7), 33–43.
Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of Fit in Overidentified Models with Latent Variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 118–154.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., &Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating value by balancing multiple challenges and choices.
Zhang, Xiaomeng, &Bartol, K. M. (2010). The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 862–873.
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y., &Li, X. (2015). Paradoxical Leader Behaviors in People Management: Antecedents and Consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566.

中文參考文獻

傅馨瑩. (2018). 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探討. 國立中央大學.
劉追, 鄭倩. (2016). 不確定性規避與員工創新行為：創新自我效能感的中介作用.
李悦, 王懷勇. (2018). 双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, 39(10).
鄧伊惠. (2018). 矛盾領導行為與部屬任務性績效的關聯性 ─以部屬複雜整合力及部屬整合性思維為中介變項.