在數位智能迅速襲來的浪潮中，企業組織面臨的外部挑戰與不確定性日益嚴峻，領導者是否具備敏捷回應趨勢的策略思維，將成為企業組織能否乘勢破浪、穩健轉型的首要關鍵。面對瞬息萬變的科技與市場環境，領導者需展現前瞻視野與敏捷思維，方能制定有效經營策略及創造持續價值。伴隨全球化與技術創新日漸加劇，企業需進行內部組織、主力產品與營運上的調整。此情境下，悖論領導行為逐漸成為因應內、外部變化的關鍵思維。
悖論領導行為強調領導者在面對矛盾與衝突時，能展現高度的自我覺察與調節能力，並在多重期望間取得動態平衡，進而激勵成員積極參與組織發展與創新歷程。本研究旨在探討主管的悖論領導行為與部屬任務性績效間之關係，並進一步檢視以「信任主管」與「領導部屬交換關係（LMX）」是否具有序列中介效應。本研究採用問卷調查法，僅對台灣企業之主管與部屬進行配對問卷，回收有效樣本共186份。
研究結果顯示，悖論領導行為兼具對立與平衡特質，員工可能難以立即理解其意圖與價值。透過信任與領導部屬交換關係的歷程轉化，悖論領導的行為得以延伸並被內化，呼應 Zhang et al. (2015) 強調悖論領導須經歷部屬心理過程的說法，也為悖論領導影響力的建構邏輯提供具體驗證。唯有當「信任」與「關係品質」形成連續歷程時，悖論領導才真正展現出對績效的推動力，藉由此研究結果作為推動組織轉型與強化領導實務之參考。然而，本研究亦存在文化脈絡、產業類型與工作條件等限制，建議後續研究可進一步延伸至不同背景驗證，以提升理論與實務並重應用價值。

Amid the rapid rise of digital intelligence, enterprises are increasingly confronted with external challenges and uncertainties. Whether leaders possess strategic thinking aligned with emerging trends has become a key determinant of an organization’s ability to navigate transformation and seize opportunities. In a fast-evolving technological and market environment, leaders must demonstrate foresight and flexibility to formulate effective strategies and generate sustained value. As globalization and technological innovation intensify, organizations are compelled to adjust their structures, products, and operations. Under such circumstances, paradoxical leadership behavior has emerged as a critical leadership mindset for responding to internal and external changes.
Paradoxical leadership emphasizes a leader’s ability to maintain high levels of self-awareness and self-regulation when faced with tensions and contradictions, enabling them to strike a dynamic balance among competing expectations and motivate members to actively engage in organizational innovation and development. This study aims to examine the relationship between supervisors’ paradoxical leadership behavior and subordinates’ task performance, and further explores whether trust in supervisor and leader–member exchange (LMX) serve as sequential mediators. A questionnaire survey was conducted using paired responses from supervisors and subordinates in Taiwanese enterprises, yielding a total of 186 valid dyads.
The results suggest that paradoxical leadership, with its inherent tension and balance, may not be immediately understood by employees in terms of their intentions or value. Through the transformational processes of trust and leader–member exchange (LMX), such behaviors can be extended and internalized by subordinates. This supports Zhang et al. (2015), who who emphasized the importance of follower psychological processes. Only when trust and relationship quality develop sequentially does paradoxical leadership translate into improved performance. These insights inform organizational transformation and leadership practice, though limitations related to culture, industry, and work conditions warrant further research across varied contexts.

參考文獻
中文文獻
王婷虹、董祥開、詹中原（2020）。與主管越相似會讓部屬越滿意嗎？領導部屬交換理論觀點的探討。文官制度, 12(4), 99–135。
王新怡（2003）。家長式領導、信任與員工效能〔碩士論文，國立中山大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/h4u666

林澄貴（2011）。人力資源管理：策略與實務（四版）。華泰文化。
邱湘瑜（2009）。主管真誠領導對員工信任及員工投入之影響研究〔碩士論文，國立彰化師範大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/kcnz24。

邱淑芬, 莊佩茹, & 連小雅. (2015). 主管部屬交換與創造性績效之關係: 內在動機與正向心情之中介效果. 組織與管理, 8(2), 43-71.
姜定宇、李秋玫、張詩盈（2012）。正向領導行為對部屬信任與創新行為之影響：以心理資本為中介變項。人力資源管理學報, 12(4), 25–58。
張璐（2022）。新興領導方式：悖論式領導。現代管理, 12(4), 361–371。
許道然（2001）。公部門組織信任與組織公民行為關係之研究〔博士論文，國立政治大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jun6sn
黃莉芙（2013）。管理教練技能對員工工作焦慮之關聯性—以對主管信任為中介變項〔碩士論文，國立中央大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/eg6ctd

劉燕君（2019）。領導研究新取向：基於悖論視角。現代管理科學, 2019(7), 118–120。
鄭伯壎（2001a）。信任與組織理論的發展。《本土心理學研究》，15, 247–300
鄭鼎耀（2015）。授權領導對情感性承諾與建言行為－多因子信任之中介歷程〔碩士論文，大葉大學〕。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/77799p

英文文獻
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185–201.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289.
Blau, P. (2017). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Routledge.
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(3), 305-337.
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.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258.
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.
Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. (2008). From the head and the heart: Locating cognition-and affect-based trust in managers' professional networks. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 436-452.
Chughtai, A., Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2015). Linking ethical leadership to employee well-being: The role of trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 653-663.
Dansereau Jr, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2), 184-200.
Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader‐member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 315-326.
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.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Educational implications of the theory of multiple intelligences. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-10.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-Analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal 56(3), 827-851.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing and partially self-designing contributors: Toward a theory of leadership-making. Journal of Management Systems 3:3 (1991), pp. 25-39
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Leadership Frontiers, 143(165), 86-96.
Hu, L. T., & 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.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269.
Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader-member exchange: Recent research findings and prospects for the future. The Sage Handbook of Leadership, 311-325.
J Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927.
Jawahar, I. M., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Workplace justice, citizenship behavior, and task performance: A multidimensional justice perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 301–318.
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Sage Publications.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985.
Lewis, M.W. (2000) Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760-776.
Li, X., Xue, Y., Liang, H., & Yan, D. (2020). The impact of paradoxical leadership on employee voice behavior: a moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 537756.
Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 777.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430.
Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 49-62.
Perry, R. W., & Mankin, L. D. (2004). Understanding employee trust in management: Conceptual clarification and correlates. Public Personnel Management, 33(3), 277-290.
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189-198.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592-1623.
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., & Lewis, M. W. (2012). When executives embrace paradox. Harvard Business Review, 90(1–2), 57–64.
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Both/and” leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62-70..
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241..
WANG, Z., & XU, H. (2015). The trickle-down effect in leadership research: a review and prospect. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(6), 1079.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible leadership: Creating value by balancing multiple challenges and choices. John Wiley & Sons.
Zhang, M. J., Zhang, Y., & Law, K. S. (2022). Paradoxical leadership and innovation in work teams: The multilevel mediating role of ambidexterity and leader vision as a boundary condition. Academy of Management Journal, 65(5), 1652-1679.
Zhang, W., Liao, S., Liao, J., & Zheng, Q. (2021).Paradoxical leadership and employee task performance: A sense-making perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 753116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753116
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Zhang, Y., & Han, Y. L. (2019). Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 42-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.007

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.