威權領導是常見於華人社會中的領導風格，意指領導者強調其絕對而不容挑戰的權威，對部屬嚴格控制，並要求部屬毫不保留的服從。然而，多數文獻卻指出威權領導對部屬及組織多造成負面影響，理應被改良或汰除，與今日威權領導仍坐擁一眾忠實支持者並持續為企業組織創造高績效的現象產生矛盾。

本研究推論，威權領導並非如大部分研究所示地這般不合時宜，它能否引發部屬的正面反應、行為的關鍵，很可能取決於領導行為施展的時機，與領導行為本身滿足部屬期待的程度之間的適配。因此，本研究旨在透過質性研究取徑，探討部屬在何種情境下，會產生期待主管展現威權領導行為的動機，以及主管若在該特定情境下主動展現部屬期待的威權領導行為，需求滿足後的部屬又會產生什麼樣的結果反饋。

本研究在研究設計上，採取能夠一次觸及較多受測對象同時又能使其詳述內心感受的事例敘述蒐集法，並以紙本或電子問卷為媒介，在問卷說明中提供受測者充分的相關資訊，再經由中性的開放式問題，引導受測者詳述與研究相關的代表性事件，藉此蒐集、分析關鍵的情境線索，建立起一整合性的理論模型。最後再以莊璦嘉等人（2015）提出的華人個人與環境適配模型，作為解釋威權領導如何幫助部屬及組織獲得正面結果的理論基礎。

Leader authoritarianism, referring to a leader’s assertion of strong authority, tight control, and high demand for unquestioned obedience from subordinates, is a prevailing leadership style in nowadays Chinese society. However, a majority of extant literature pertaining to leader authoritarianism’s effectiveness tells a different story. It demonstrates leader authoritarianism tend to cause negative influence on individual and organizational outcomes and demands improvement or replacement for better leadership style, deviating from the fact that leader authoritarianism is still widely accepted by Chinese subordinates and organizations.

I speculate the gap emanates from the fact that the existing study of leader authoritarianism lacks the discussion of relationship between contextual factors and subordinate’s anticipation. Therefore, this study aims at exploring leader authoritarianism’s effectiveness by examining the fit between the timing of superior demonstrates authoritarianism and the timing of subordinate anticipates authoritarianism’s appearance. To cope with such cases, I adopt submitted narrative approach to collect accounts pertinent to the experience of working with authoritarians from business professionals, and exploit narrative analytic techniques and grounded theory approach to analyze the data and construct a theoretical model that could explain under what circumstances leader authoritarianism could most likely bring positive result to subordinate and organization.

國立中山大學研究生學位論文審定書 i
中文摘要 ii
英文摘要 iii
目錄 iv
圖次 v
表次 v
第一章 序論 1
第二章 文獻探討 5
第一節 威權領導 5
第二節 個人與環境適配 10
第三章 研究方法 17
第一節 研究設計 17
第二節 研究樣本與程序 19
第三節 研究工具 21
第四章 23
第一節 事例元素分類與標籤 23
第二節 隨情境而變的威權領導理論模型 30
第五章 討論 43
第一節 隨情境而變的威權領導 43
第二節 促成華人部屬達到環境與個人適配的威權領導 44
第三節 管理意涵 47
第四節 研究限制與未來研究建議 48
中文參考文獻 50
英文參考文獻 52
附錄 57

林子群、高三福（2012）：〈教練家長式領導與選 手同儕互動關係〉。《嘉大體育健康休閒期刊》， 11（2），25-33。

林安梧（1996）：《當代新儒家哲學史論》。台北： 明文書局

林姿葶、郭均誠、周婉茹、鄭伯壎（2014）：〈領導者差序對待幅度與部屬效能：平均德行領導的調 節效果〉。《本土心理學研究》。

李婉菱（2008），〈組織變革過程中內部工作轉換機制與個人特性對轉職者個人與環境適配程度之影響〉，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文

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？華人企業中主管威權領導行為與部屬憤 怒情緒反應的關係〉。《本土心理學研究》，18， 3-49。

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.

吳宗祐（2008）：〈主管權威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。

莊璦嘉、林惠彥（2005）。個人與環境適配對工作態度與行為之影響。台灣管理學刊，5（1），123-148

曾秋美、王俊明（2011）：〈家長式領導對大專體 育科系運動代表隊團隊氣氛及競技倦怠的影響〉。 《長榮運動休閒學刊》，5，93-112。

許金田、胡秀華、凌孝綦、鄭伯壎、周麗芳（2004）： 〈家長式領導與組織公民行為的關係：上下關係品 質之中介效果〉。《交大管理學報》，24（2）， 119-149。

湯慧娟、宋一夫（2010）：〈教練領導行為、情緒感 受與運動員領導信任〉。《台大體育學報》，18， 45-55。

楊國樞（1993）：〈中國人的社會取向：社會互動 的觀點〉。見楊國樞、余安邦（主編）：《中國人 的心理與行為：理念與方法篇（一九九二）》，頁 87-142。台北：桂冠

費孝通，1993，《鄉土中國與鄉土重建》，台北：風雲時代出版社

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, 頁 126-180.

蔡英美（2005b）：〈家長式領導、情緒感受與團隊 凝聚力之關係研究〉。《國立體育學院論叢》， 16（2），347-358。

蔡忠道（2003）：〈秦漢之際思想析論〉。《人文藝 術學報》，2，1-32。[Tsai, Z. D. (2003). Qin han zhi ji sixiang xilun. Journal of Humanities and Arts, 2, 1-32.]

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。

鄭伯壎（1993）：《家長權威價值與領導行為之關係探討》。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告，報告編號NSC82-0301-H002-029。台北：行政院國家科學委員會。

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》（香港），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》（台北），17，105-161。

鄭伯壎、周麗芳、黃敏萍、樊景立、彭泗清（2003）：〈家長式領導的三元模式：中國大陸企業組織的證據〉。《本土心理學研究》（台北），19，209-250。

Adamopoulos, J., & Lonner, W. J. (2001). History of cross-cultural psychology and theoretical criticism. In D. M. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. 2007. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life (3rd ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization- based selfesteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 108-128.

Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111-1119.

Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Huang, M. P., Wu, T. Y., & 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.

Chen, C. C., & Farh, J. L. (2008, June). Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: Pateralism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternative. Paper presented at the 2008 International Association for Chinese Management Research (IACMR) Biannual Conference, Guangchou, China.

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 (pp. 599-622). New York Oxford University Press.

Chen, T. T. (2011). Structuring versus autocraticness: Exploring a comprehensive model of authoritarian leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of Hong Kong.

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: 305–324. Hwang, K. K. 1987. Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92: 944–974.

Ch،ü, T. T. (1961). Law and society in traditional China. Paris, FR: Mouton.

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), pp. 480-510.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. 2007. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. San Francisco: Sage.

Edwards, J. R. 1991. Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology: 283–357. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Farh, J. L., Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Chu, X. P. (2006). Authority and benevolence: Employees’ responses to paternalistic leadership in China. In A. S. Tsai, Y. Bian, & L. Cheng (Eds.), China’s domestic private firms: Multidisciplinary perspectives on management and performance (pp. 230-260). New York: Sharpe.

Farh, J. L., Liang, J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: Research progress and future research directions. In C. C. Chen & Y. T. Lee (Eds.), Leadership and management in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hamilton, G. G. (1990). Patriarchy, patrimonialism, and filial piety: A comparison of China and Western Europe. British Journal of Sociology, 41, 77-104.

Ho, D. Y. F. 1995. Selfhood and identity in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism: Contrasts with the West. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 25: 115–139.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Value. Beverly Hill, CA: Sage

Hsu, F. L. K. 1971. Psychosocial homeostasis and jen: Conceptual tools for advancing psychological anthropology. American Anthropologist, 73: 23–44.

Huang, X., Chiu, W., Xu, E., Lam, C. K., & Farh, J. L. (2012, October). When authoritarian leaders outperform transformational leaders: Firm performance in a harsh economic environment. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual International Conference of Strategic Management Society, Prague, CZ.

Hwang, K. K. 1987. Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92: 944–974.

Hwang, K. K. 2000. Chinese relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological considerations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30: 155–178.

Kiazad K., Restubog S. L. D., Zagenczyk T. J., Kiewitz C., Tang R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: the role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. J. Res. Pers. 44 512–519. 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004

Koerner, M. (2013). Courage as Identity Work: Accounts of Workplace Courage. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), pp.63-93.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281–342.

Li, J. 2012. Cultural foundations of learning: East and West. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper

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, 268-277.

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Porter, L. W. 1961. A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45: 1–10.

Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Riessman, C. K. 2008. Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.

Sampson, E. E. 1988. The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal functioning. American Psychologist, 43: 15–22.

Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437–453

Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. 2011. Reinterpreting time in fit theory: Crafting and recrafting narratives of fit in medias res. Academy of Management Review, 36: 76–101.

Tu, W. M. 2012. Confucian spirituality in contemporary China. In F. Yang & J. B. Tamney (Eds.), Confucianism and spiritual traditions in modern China and beyond: 75–96. Leide, Netherlands: Brill.

Wagner, J. A., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Securing CompetitiveAdvantage (5th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Wang, A. C. (2017). Developmental leadership: How Chinese leaders integrate control and care to cultivate subordinates. Paper accepted for presentation at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, Georgia.

Westwood, R. I., & Chan, A. (1992). Headship and leadership. In R. I.Westwood (Ed.), Organizational behavior: A Southeast Asian perspective. Hong Kong: Longman.

Westwood, R. I. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for “paternalistic headship” among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 8, 445-480.

Whitley, R. (1992). Business systems in East Asia: Firms, markets and societies. London: Sage.

Yang, K. S. 1995. Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In T. Y. Lin, W. S. Tseng & Y. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health: 19–39. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.