在現今充滿著易變、不確定、複雜與模糊的外在大環境，以及組織內部面臨的跨文化、跨世代溝通，加上不可預期的全球性議題(如2019年底引爆的COVID-19)，企業如何敏捷有效率的應變已是攸關企業生存的重要關鍵。過往研究指出，員工的主動性人格、創新行為對於個人的工作績效、職涯成功，以及對於組織的團隊效能都有正向的影響；而在主管的領導風格中，具備矛盾領導行為，對於部屬的績效表現也有正向的影響。本研究希望探究創新行為對於主動性人格與工作績效表現間的關係，是否具有中介效果，並將矛盾領導的概念帶入，進一步探討具備矛盾領導行為的程度，是否對於主動性人格、創新行為及績效表現間具有調節的效果。
本研究以擔任主管職的員工作為研究對象，並與該員工的直屬主管進行配對，進行了兩階段的問卷調查，對台灣及中國大陸的台資企業發放紙本或電子線上問卷，共回收了333份有效配對問卷，根據迴歸分析的結果發現：
(1)創新行為對於主動性人格與工作績效表現間具有完全中介效果；
(2)矛盾領導行為對於創新行為與工作績效表現間具有調節效果；
(3)矛盾領導行為對於主動性人格、創新行為與工作績效表現間具有調節式中介效果。

Due to the complexity of global issues (i.e., such as COVID-19 exploded at the end of 2019) include Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity, as well as cross-cultural and inter-generational communication within the organization. How to respond quickly and efficiently is a critical issue for companies to survive on the reaction of the various external conditions. Past research has pointed out that employees' proactive personality and innovative behavior positive impact individual work performance, career success, and team effectiveness. Paradoxical leadership behaviors have a positive impact on the performance of subordinates in the leadership style. This study is to discuss whether innovative behavior has an intermediary effect on the relationship between proactive personality and work performance. Hence, introduce the level of paradoxical leadership and its expression on positive personality, innovative behavior, and a moderating effect in between the work performance.

In this study, a two-stage questionnaire survey was conducted to the employees who took the position of supervisor. Participants of the research object paired with the direct supervisor and made a paper or electronic online questionnaires that issued to Taiwan-funded enterprises in Taiwan and China. According to the results of regression analysis, 333 valid matching questionnaires found:

1.Innovative behavior has a complete intermediary effect between Proactive Personality and work performance;
2.Paradoxical leadership behavior has a moderating effect on innovation behavior and work performance;
3.Paradoxical leadership behavior has a moderating intermediary impact on active personality, innovative behavior and job performance.

中文文獻
〔1〕溫瑶、甘怡群，「主動性人格與工作績效：個體-組織匹配的調節作用」，應用心理學，14(2),118-128頁，2008。
〔2〕劉雲、石金濤，「組織創新氣氛與激勵偏好對員工創新行為的交互效應研究」，管理世界(10)，88-101頁，2009。
〔3〕張振剛、余傳鵬和李雲健，「主動性人格、知識分享與員工創新行為關係研究」，管理評論，28(4),123–133頁，2016。
〔4〕楊皖蘇、楊善林，「主動性—被動性員工創新行為：基於挑戰性—阻斷性壓力源雙路徑分析」，科學學與科學技術管理，39(08),130-144頁，2018。
〔5〕田靜婷、呂岱倚，「探討認知型態在員工心裡契約與創新行為關係間干擾效果」，管理與技術國際學術研討會，55-64頁，國立雲林科技大學，雲林縣，2005年9月。
〔6〕葉靜輝，「主動性人格、轉換型領導、服務氣候、服務績效與顧客滿意度-多層次之研究」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國104年。
〔7〕鄧伊惠，「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」，國立中央大學，碩士論文，民國107年。

英文文獻
〔1〕Amabile, T.M., Contri, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., ＆ Herron, M., “Assessing the work environment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp.1154-1184, 1996.
〔2〕Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., ＆ Kramer, S. J., “Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support”, Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), pp.5-32, 2004.
〔3〕Bagozzi, R. P. and Yi, Y., “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models”, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 16(1), pp.74-94,1988.
〔4〕Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M., “The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), pp.103‒118, 1993.
〔5〕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(03), pp.305–337, 2009.
〔6〕Crant, J. M., “The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), pp.532-537, 2000.
〔7〕Brewer, M. B., “The social self: On being the same and different at the same time”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, pp.475–482, 1991.
〔8〕Campbell, J. P., “Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology”, Handbook of industrial and organizational, pp.687–732,1990.
〔9〕Crant, J. M., “Proactive behavior in organizations”, Journal of management, 26(3), pp.435-462, 2000.
〔10〕Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., ＆ Emmons, R. A., “Person × situation interactions : choice of situations and congruence response models”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,47(3), pp. 580–592, 1984.
〔11〕Farh, J. L., and Cheng, B. S., “Modesty bias in self-ratings in Taiwan : impact of item wording, modesty value, and self-esteem”, Chinese Journal of Psychology, 39, pp.103-118, 1997.
〔12〕Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F., “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error” Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), pp.39-50, 1981.
〔13〕Gardner, H., and Hatch, T., "Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences", Educational researcher, 18(8), pp.4-10, 1989.
〔14〕Gong, Y., Huang, J., ＆ Farh, J., “Employee Learning Orientation, Transformational Leadership, and Employee Creativity: the Mediating Role of Employee Creative Self-Efficacy”, Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), pp.765–778, 2009.
〔15〕Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., ＆ Black, W. C. Multivariate data analysis (5th ed)., Macmillan, New York, 1998.
〔16〕Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M., “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), pp.1-55, 1999
〔17〕Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., ＆ Cook, Cb D., “Scales for the measurement of innovativeness”, Human Communication Research, 4(1), pp.58-65, 1977.
〔18〕Kanter, R., “When a Thousand Flowers Bloom : Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organizations”, Knowledge Management and Organizational Design, Vol. 10, pp.93–131, 1988.
〔19〕Kleysen, R. F., and Street, C. T., “Toward a multi‐dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), pp.284–296, 2001.
〔20〕Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., ＆ Sheep, M. L., “Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance”, Academy of Management Journal, 49, pp.1031–1057, 2006.
〔21〕Lewis, M. W., “Exploring paradox : Toward a more comprehensive guide”, Academy of Management Review, 25, pp.760–776, 2000.
〔22〕Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., ＆ Lewis, Marianne W., “Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem”, Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), pp.26–45, 2018.
〔23〕Mumford, M. D. and Gustafson, S. B., “Creativity syndrome : Integration, application, and innovation”, Psychological bulletin, 103(1), pp.27-43, 1988.
〔24〕Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill , New York, 1978.
〔25〕Osuna, E. E., “The Psychological Cost of Waiting”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, pp.82-105, 1985.
〔26〕Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A., “Employee creativity : Personal and contextual factors at work”, Academy of Management journal, 39(3), pp.607-634, 1996.
〔27〕Ouchi, W. G., “The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy”, Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp.173–192, 1978.
〔28〕Parker, S. K., and Sprigg, C.A., “Minimizing strain and maximizing learning : The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, pp.925-939, 1999.
〔29〕Rosenthal, S. A., and Pittinsky, T. L., “Narcissistic leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, 17, pp.617–633, 2006.
〔30〕Rosing, K., Frese, M., ＆ Bausch, A., “Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), pp.956–974, 2011.
〔31〕Schermerhorn, Hunt, ＆ Osborn, Organizational behavior, John Willy＆ Sons, New York, 2000.
〔32〕Scott, S. G. and Bruce, R. A., “Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of management journal, 37(3), pp.580-607, 1994.
〔33〕Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., ＆ Kraimer, M. L., “Proactive personality and career success”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), pp.416-427, 1999.
〔34〕Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L. ＆ Crant, J. M., “What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success”, Personnel Psychology, 54, pp.845-874, 2001.
〔35〕Smith, W. K. and Lewis, M. W., “Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing”, The Academy of Management Review, 36(2), pp.381–403, 2011.
〔36〕Van Dam, K., “Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, pp.29-51,2004.
〔37〕Wheaton, B., “Assessment of Fit in Over-identified Models with Latent Variables”, Sociological Methods and Research, 16, pp.118-154, 1987.
〔38〕Zacher H, "and Rosing Km “Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation”, Leadership ＆ Organization Development Journal, 36(1), pp.54-68, 2015.
〔39〕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.
〔40〕Zhang, Xiaomeng, ＆ Bartol, K. M., “The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), pp.862–873, 2010.