近期的眾多學者企圖釐清威權領導的分歧與矛盾，替威權領導的負面影響解釋出許多可能性，雖然威權領導在實徵研究中有其負面影響，但依舊為實務界所常用的領導風格，本研究試圖以華人的適配理論來解釋每日威權領導的適配，認為每日威權領導在適配的狀況下，對員工的結果變項有正面的影響。因此本篇研究認為威權領導是一種具有工具性色彩的領導風格，主管每日可以選擇要不要展現威權領導的行為，本研究推論當「員工每日預期展現的威權領導」和「主管每日實際展現的威權領導」若有適配時，員工會對主管做出更多的每日組織公民行為，以及擁有較高的每日工作滿意度。

　　本研究以手機應用程式來調查受測者的每日經驗，透過十天的每日經驗調查，試圖了解員工每天期待的威權領導是否有適時地被主管所滿足，以及利用多項式迴歸和反應曲面分析法，讓我們更能了解每日威權領導的適配對結果變項的影響。共回收338天的有效每日經驗資料，本研究發現：（1）每日威權領導的適配時，有較高的對主管的組織公民行為與工作滿意度、（2）高每日威權領導的適配比低每日威權領導的適配，有更高的對主管的組織公民行為，以及（3）對主管的組織公民行為和工作滿意度的最適點發生在中間程度的每日威權領導適配。

　　本研究結果建議領導者要把威權領導當作是可依情境而變的領導行為，要觀察員工所處的情境，進而利用適當的威權領導來幫助員工，而員工也會做出有利於主管的行為反應，達到互惠關係。

In recent years, researchers tried to clarify the paradoxical effect of authoritarian leadership. Most studies claimed that authoritarian leadership would have some negative impact on subordinates’ outcomes. However, authoritarian leadership style is still behaved by some successful leaders in the Chinese context. Hence, the present study tried to find out the positive impact of authoritarian leadership and explain it by the Chinese model of P-E fit. We proposed that when daily expected authoritarian leadership　(by subordinates) fits daily perceived authoritarian leadership (from leaders), it will make subordinates have more daily supervisor-directed organizational citizenship behavior and enhance daily job satisfaction.

　　We used mobile applications to collect daily data across 10 consecutive working days, resulting in 338 valid daily samples. The results of polynomial regression and response surface analysis indicated that (1) daily authoritarian leadership fit can lead to more daily supervisor-directed OCB and daily job satisfaction. (2) High daily authoritarian leadership fit brings about more daily supervisor-directed OCB than low daily authoritarian leadership fit does. (3) Intermediate daily authoritarian leadership fit results the highest daily supervisor-directed OCB and daily job satisfaction. Based on the results, we suggested managers try to show appropriate authoritarian leadership behavior in the light of different situations.

論文審定書 i
致謝 ii
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
圖次 vi
表次 vii
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻探討 4
第一節 威權領導的定義和演進 4
第二節 員工對威權領導的預期 7
第三節 每日威權領導適配：以華人情境的觀點 7
第四節 每日威權領導適配：以西方研究的觀點 10
第五節 每日威權領導適配與員工工作結果變項的關係 11
第三章 研究方法 16
第一節 研究樣本 16
第二節 問卷發放程序 16
第三節 研究工具 17
第四節 資料分析方式 20
第四章 研究結果 23
第一節 敘述性統計與相關分析 23
第二節 組內與組間變異 24
第三節 假說檢定 25
第五章 討論與建議 31
第一節 理論貢獻 31
第二節 管理意涵 33
第三節 研究限制與未來研究建議 34
參考文獻 35
圖次
圖 2-1 人和適配過程 8
圖 4-1 每日威權領導的適配與每日對主管的組織公民行為 27
圖 4-2 每日威權領導的適配與每日工作滿意度 27
圖 4-3 每日威權領導不一致時，員工每日對主管的組織公民行為 28
圖 4-4 每日威權領導不一致時，員工的每日工作滿意度 28
圖 4-5 每日威權領導一致時，員工每日對主管的組織公民行為 29
圖 4-6 每日威權領導一致時，員工每日的工作滿意度 29
表次
表 3-1 變項填寫時間 17
表 3-2 每日威權領導量表 18
表 3-3 每日對主管的組織公民行為量表 19
表 3-4 每日工作滿意度量表 20
表 3-5 曲面檢測值判讀 22
表 4-1 敘述性統計與相關分析 23
表 4-2 組內與組間變異 24
表 4-3 顯著差異樣本數比例 25
表 4-4 多項式迴歸方程式係數與曲面檢測值 26
表 4-5 假說結果摘要 30

吳宗祐、周麗芳、鄭伯壎 (2008)。主管的權威取向及其對部屬順從與畏懼的知覺對威權領導的預測效果。本土心理學研究，(30)，65-115。
吳宗祐、徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎 (2002)。怒不可遏或忍氣吞聲：華人企業主管威權領導與部屬憤怒反應。 本土心理學研究，18，3-49。
吳宗祐 (2008)。主管威權領導與部屬的工作滿意度與組織承諾：信任的中介歷程與情緒智力的調節效果。 本土心理學研究，(30)，3-63。
周婉茹、周麗芳、鄭伯壎、任金剛 (2010)。專權與尚嚴之辨：再探威權領導的內涵與恩威並濟的效果。 本土心理學研究，(34)，223-284。
周婉茹、鄭伯壎、連玉輝 (2014)。威權領導：概念源起，現況檢討及未來方向。 中華心理學刊，56(2)，165-189。
周婉茹、鄭伯壎、連玉輝 (2014)。威權領導：概念源起、現況檢討及未來方向。 中華心理學刊，56(2)，165-189。
鄭伯壎 (1995)。家長權威與領導行為之關係：一個台灣民營企業主持人的個案研究。 中央研究院民族學研究所集刊，79，105-159。
陳孟君 (2010)。華人家長式領導對運動教練的啟示。 第三屆運動科學暨休閒遊憩管理學術研討會論文集，344-351。
黃柏勳 (2003)。 韓非領導觀的探究與啟示。 學校行政，(26)，54-65。
樊景立、鄭伯壎 (2000a)。 華人組織的家長式領導：一項文化觀點的分析。 本土心理學研究，13，126-180。
樊景立、鄭伯壎（2000b）家長式領導：再一次思考。 本土心理學研究，13，219-226。
鄭伯壎、黃敏萍、周麗芳 (2002)。 家長式領導及其效能：華人企業團隊的證據。 香港華人心理學報，3，85-112。
鄭伯壎、謝佩鴛、周麗芳 (2002)。 校長領導作風、上下關係品質及教師角色外行為：轉型式與家長式領導的效果。 本土心理學研究，17，105-161。
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Amabile, T.M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B.A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.
Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In K. S. Yang, K. K. Hwang, & U. Kim (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context, 445-466. New York: Springer.
Bellah, R. N. (1970). Father and son in Christianity and Confucianism. In R. N. Bellah (Ed.), Beyond belief: Essays on religion in a post-traditional world, 76-99. New York: Harper & Row.
Chan, S. C., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization‐based self‐esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128.
Chen, C. C., & Farh, J. L. (2010). Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: Paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology, 599-622. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chen, X. P., & Chen, C. C. (2004). On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(3), 305-324.
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796-819.
Cheng, B. S., Boer, D., Chou, L. F., Huang, M. P., Yoneyama, S., Shim, D., & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). Paternalistic leadership in four East Asian societies: Generalizability and cultural differences of the triad model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 82-90.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89-117.
Cheng, B. S., Huang, M. P., & Chou, L. F. (2002). Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness: Evidence from Chinese organizational teams. Journal of psychology in Chinese societies (Hong Kong), 2002, 3.1: 85-112.
Chuang, A., Hsu, R. S., Wang, A. C., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Does West “fit” with East? In search of a Chinese model of person–environment fit. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 480-510.
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), 611-628.
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in international comparative management, 3(1), 127-150.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 58(1), 51-100.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577-1613.
Farh, J. L., Liang, J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese Organizations: Research progress and future research direction. In Leadership and management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices.
Farh, J. L., Cheng, B., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. (2004). Authority and Benevolence: Employee’s Responses to Paternalistic Leadership in China. In Academy of Management Annual Meeting, August 6-11, New Orleans.
Fleenor, J. W., McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other rating agreement and leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 487-506.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power 150-167. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review, 161-178.
Hamilton, G. G. (1990). Patriarchy, patrimonialism, and filial piety: A comparison of China and Western Europe. British Journal of Sociology, 77-104.
Huang, X., Xu, E., Chiu, W., Lam, C., & Farh, J. L. (2015). When authoritarian leaders outperform transformational leaders: Firm performance in a harsh economic environment. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(2), 180-200.
Ilies, R., Wilson, K. S., & Wagner, D. T. (2009). The spillover of daily job satisfaction onto employees' family lives: The facilitating role of work-family integration. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 87-102.
Johns, G. 1981. Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27: 4
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403.
Lee, S., Cheong, M., Kim, M., & Yun, S. (2016). Never Too Much? The Curvilinear Relationship Between Empowering Leadership and Task Performance. Group & Organization Management, 1059601116646474.
Lee, Y. T., & Antonakis, J. (2014). When preference is not satisfied but the individual is: How power distance moderates person–job fit. Journal of Management, 40(3), 641-675.
Liang, S. K., Ling, H. C., & Hsieh, S. Y. (2007). The mediating effects of leader-member exchange quality to influence the relationships between paternalistic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of American Academy of Business, 10, 127-137.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise, New York (McGraw-Hill Book Company) 1960.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of vocational behavior, 31(3), 268-277.
Muczyk, J. P., & Reimann, B. C. (1987). The case for directive leadership. The Academy of Management Executive, 1(4), 301-311.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California management review, 32(2), 77-97.
Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham, J. G., & Pulling, C. (2005). Conflicts in the work-family interface: Links to job stress, customer service, employee performance, and customer purchase intent. Journal of Marketing, 69, 130–143.
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. 1991. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organizational fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 487-516.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 71(3), 492.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313-338.
Porter, A. (1973). The factorial structure of modernity: Empirical replications and a critique. American Journal of Sociology, 79: 15-44.
Pye, L. W. (1981). The Dynamics of Chinese Politics (Cambridge, MA: Oelschlager, Gunn and Hain).
Redding, G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism (Vol. 22). Walter de Gruyter.
Robbins, S. P. (1996). Organizational behavior, concept, controversies, and application. (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 297-321.
Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543-554.
Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and values: The organization of large-scale Taiwanese enterprises (No. 62). Harvard Univ Asia Center.
Stephina, L. P., Perrewe, P. L., Hassell, B. L., Harris, J. R., & Mayfield, C. R. (1991). A Comparative Test of the Independant Effects of Interpersonal, Task, and Reward Domains on Personal and Organizational Outcomes. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(1), 93.
Taris, R., & Feij, J. (2001). Longitudinal examination of the relationship between supplies–values fit and work outcomes. Applied Psychology, 50(1), 52-80.
Turban, D. B., Jones, A. P., & Rozelle, R. M. (1990). Influences of supervisor liking of a subordinate and the reward context on the treatment and evaluation of that subordinate. Motivation and Emotion, 14(3), 215-233.
Wang, A. C., Tsai, C. Y., Dionne, S. D., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., Cheng, B. S., & Lin, Y. C. (2016). Firm yet caring: Examining the curvilinear effect of paternalistic leadership on performance. Paper presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, California.
Weber, M. (1968). The types of legitimate domination. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society, 3, 212-216. New York: Bedminster.
Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for 'paternalistic headship' among the overseas Chinese. Organization studies, 18(3), 445-480.