不同的性別領導者會因為大眾既定的男女刻板印象而造成不同的領導預期效果，有不少研究也聚焦在性別刻板印象跟領導者之間以及其所造成的影響。過去有研究提出雙性別特質領導者(Androgynous Leaders)，當一位領導者同時展現出男性與女性的性別特質，其領導效果與被部屬所喜愛的程度會是最好的。而像角色一致性理論(Role Congruity Theory)就是聚焦在女性領導者，並說明領導者展現出相同性別特質時其領導效果較佳。但正向違反理論卻是呈現相反的結論，也就是領導者展現出相反性別特質時其領導效果會得到較高的評價。為了證實過去的理論與釐清主管性別與其所展現出不同男女特質的差異，本研究採取了發放情境問卷的實驗法，並根據領導者所展現出不同男女性別特質程度高低，分成了以下四個分類: (1)雙性別特質領導者 (Androgynous leaders)、(2)同性別特質領導者 (Ordinary leaders)、(3)異性別特質領導 (Anomalous leaders)，(4)無性別特質領導 (Falling-short leaders)。再分別針對男女性別的領導者做成了共8份情境問卷。共計269人參與了本研究。而研究結果顯示也證實了不管是男性或女性主管，雙性別特質領導的效能為最好，無性別特質領導效能為最差。男性領導者中，異性別特質領導效能優於同性別特質領導，而女性領導者則是同性別特質領導優於異性別特質領導，也指出女性的領導者適用角色一致性理論，而男性領導者適用於正向違反理論。最後，針對所做的研究結果進行討論以及說明研究限制，並提供未來的研究方向與實務上的應用。

Leadership effectiveness of male or female leaders varies because of gender stereotype. Some research argue that leadership of an androgynous leader, who is together with masculinity and femininity, is considerably accepted by subordinates. Role congruence theory, which aims at female leaders, considers a feminine leader acquires better leadership while violation of gender role theory claims a leader with opposite-gender features gets greater effectiveness. To verify prior theories and clarify differences in gender role of supervisors and his/her gender traits, this study employed a scenario experiment with eight questionnaires, which categorized male and female leaders, based on level of gender traits demonstrated, into four groups accordingly: (1) Androgynous leaders, (2) Original leaders, (3) Anomalous leaders, and (4) Falling-short leaders. A total of 269 subjects participated in the study. The results show and verify that, within either male or female leaders, highest effectiveness is found with androgyny while poor effectiveness is seen with Falling-short leaders. Within male leaders, anomalous leader performances better than the one with masculinity, whereas original leader is superior than anomalous leader within female leaders. The results also indicate that role congruity theory applies to female leaders and violation of gender role theory applies to male leaders. Contributions, limitations, suggestions for future studies, and managerial implications of this study were then discussed.

論文審定書... i
致謝... ii
摘要... iii
Abstract... iv
目錄... v
附圖、附表目錄... vi
緒論... 1
第一章 文獻探討... 4
第一節 刻板印象與性別刻板印象... 4
第二節 性別角色與領導... 5
第三節 性別與領導者性別特質組合... 9
第四節 理論推論與實驗假設... 11
第二章 研究方法... 15
第一節 研究樣本... 15
第二節 研究工具... 16
第三節 研究程序... 19
第四節 資料分析... 19
第三章 研究結果... 20
第一節 情境操弄檢核... 20
第二節 領導者性別、四種類型領導人與其領導效能... 22
第三節 研究結果與其所對應的假設... 28
第四章 討論與建議... 30
第一節 結果討論... 31
第二節 研究限制與未來展望... 33
參考文獻... 35
附錄一、情境素材... 40
附錄二、問卷... 46

張春興 (1989)。張氏心理學辭典。臺北市：東華。
陳皎眉 (1996)。性別認同與性別角色。陳皎眉、江漢生、陳惠馨（合著），兩性關係。國立空中大學。
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》（台北）， 79，119-173。
Anderson, N., Lievens, F., van Dam, K., & Born, M. (2006). A construct-driven investigation of gender differences in a leadership-role assessment center. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 555-566.
Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7(3), 136-141. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.x
Banaji, M. R., Hardin, C., & Rothman, A. J. (1993). Implicit stereotyping in person judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 272-281. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.272
Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1142-1163. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1142
Broverman, I.K., Vogel, S.R. Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E., and Rosenkrantz, P.S.(1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 2, 59-78.
Browne, K. (1999). Divided labours: An evolutionary view of women at work, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Chevron, E. S., Quinlan, D. M., Blatt, S. J. (1978). Sex roles and gender differences in the experience of depression
Chow, E.N. (1987). The influence of sex-role identity and occupational attainment on the psychological well-being of Asian American women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 69–82.
Cook L., Rothwell B., (2000). The X & Y of leadership. How men and women make a difference at work, The Industrial Society, London
Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Marecek, J., & Pascale, L. (1975). When stereotypes hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(6), 520-530. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(75)90003-7
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradictions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31（1）, 1-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00326.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude in-context. In J. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 19-35). Gospons, Blackwell Publishing.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes, H. M. Trautner, T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender. (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Eichinger, J., Heifetz, L.J. & Ingraham, C. (1991). Situational shifts in sex role orientation: Correlates of work satisfaction and burnout among women in special education. Sex Roles (1991) 25: 425. doi:10.1007/BF00292532
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. Management and organizations in the Chinese context, 85–127.
Goldberg, S. (1993). Why men rule: A theory of male dominance. Chicago: Open Court.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell & G. N. Powell (Eds.), Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Handbook of gender and work. (pp. 391-412).
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657- 674. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00234
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81-92. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 935-942. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.935
Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106: 39-60.
Korabik, (1990). Androgyny and leadership style. Journal of Business Ethics, 9: 283292
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), 777-785. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The “good manager”: Masculine or androgynous? Academy of Management Journal, 22, 395–403.
Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter
Redding, S.G. and HSIAO, M. (1990). AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF OVERSEAS CHINESE MANAGERIAL IDEOLOGY*. International Journal of Psychology, 25: 629–641. doi:10.1080/00207599008247917
Sally Helgesen, 1995. The Female Advantage: Women's Ways of Leadership. Doubleday Currency.
Sandra L Bem (1974). The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny. J Consult Clin Psychol. 42(2): 155-62.
Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and value: The organization of large-scale Taiwan enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It's not just a woman's issue. Sex Roles, 47, 179-191.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28.
Steele, C.M. & Aronson, J, (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Nov;69(5):797-811.
Wang, A. C., & Liu, Y. Y. Chen., B. S. (2015). Learning from the opposite: A qualitative examination of male and female leadership advantage., Paper accepted for presentation at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada.
Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. (2013). Gender makes the difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 101-113. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.001
Westwood, R. I. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The culture basis for “paternalistic leadership” among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18, 445-480.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the beahvior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699-727. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699