English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25777863      Online Users : 182
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130627


    Title: 僕人領導與工作績效-新北市政府部屬對主管滿意度中介效應之實證分析
    A Study of the Relationship between Servant Leadership and Job Performance:A Case of Exploring the Mediating Role of Satisfaction with Supervisors in New Taipei City
    Authors: 郝玲玉
    Hao, Ling-Yuh
    Contributors: 詹中原
    Jan, Chung-Yuang
    郝玲玉
    Hao, Ling-Yuh
    Keywords: 僕人領導
    工作績效
    部屬對主管滿意度
    脈胳績效
    績效指標
    Servant leadership
    Job performance
    Satisfaction with supervisors
    Contextual performance
    Evaluation indicators
    Date: 2020
    Issue Date: 2020-07-01 13:57:55 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在迅速多變的時代,領導的重要性,不言而喻。在眾多領導風格中,僕人領導近年來逐漸受到重視,然而台灣以行政機關為對象之研究才剛剛起步,尚有待更為深入的探討。
    本文目的在瞭解新北市政府主管僕人領導、部屬工作績效及對主管滿意度之現況,並分析三者間關聯性,以結構性問卷針對23個一級機關科長以下公務人員進行樣本調查,回收有效問卷248份(回收率71%)。
    本文採用Van Dierendonck等人(2017)提出的五項領導特質、Borman與Motowildo(1993)提出的二項績效活動及Scarpello與Vandenberg(1987)提出的部屬對主管滿意度項目,進行實證研究。研究結果發現:
    一、有關僕人領導、工作績效、部屬對主管滿意度,公務人員整體呈現中上認同程度。
    二、不同年齡、公務年資及單位屬性公務人員對僕人領導知覺具顯著差異。
    三、不同年齡及公務年資公務人員對工作績效與部屬對主管滿意度知覺具顯著差異。
    四、不同性別主管與僕人領導間並無顯著差異。
    五、僕人領導對工作績效呈現正向顯著影響。
    六、僕人領導對部屬對主管滿意度呈現正向顯著影響。
    七、部屬對主管滿意度對工作績效呈現正向顯著影響。
    八、部屬對主管滿意度在僕人領導與工作績效之間具有完全中介效果。
    本文建議行政機關主管在領導過程中,應採行僕人領導作法,尤重「賦權」、「謙虛」及「支持」層面,且主管應提供明確的指示為提升部屬滿意度的重要環節,並強化脈胳績效評估指標等措施。行政機關並應重視、制定及落實培訓、績效管理與晉升政策、制度、法規間之關聯性。
    In this era of rapid change, the importance of leadership is self-evident. Among the many leadership styles, servant leadership has gradually been valued in recent years, and the relevant research of Taiwan government agencies has just started, so, it is still necessary to have further discusses.
    The purpose of this study is to understand the current situation of servant leadership, job performance and satisfaction with supervisors of New Taipei City, and analyzes the ways in which these are associated. Data were collected through a sample survey using a structured questionnaire of civil servants of section chief rank below in 23 agencies; 248 valid responses were received yielding a return rate of 71%.
    This study draws on the five traits proposed by Van Dierendonck et al.(2017), two performance activities identified by Borman and Motowildo(1993)and the items of satisfaction with supervisors proposed by Scarpello and Vandenberg(1987), applies these three dimensions to an empirical survey of local government agencies.
    According to the study findings:
    1. Civil servants of New Taipei City Government have an above average recognition of servant leadership, job performance and satisfaction with supervisors.
    2. Different age, seniority and unit attribute civil servants perceived servant leadership with significant differences.
    3. Different age and seniority civil servants perceived job performance and satisfaction with supervisors with significant differences.
    4. There is no significant difference between different gender supervisors and servant leadership.
    5. Servant leadership has a significantly positive effect on job performance and satisfaction with supervisors.
    6. Servant leadership has a significantly positive effect on satisfaction with supervisors.
    7. Satisfaction with supervisors has a significantly positive effect on job performance.
    8. Satisfaction with supervisors fit fully mediates the effect of servant leadership on job performance.
    This study recommends several things as following. When exercising leadership, supervisors should adopt the techniques of servant leadership, with particular emphasis on the "empowerment", "modesty" and "support" levels, and provide clear instructions as an important link to improve the satisfaction with supervisors, also, have to set evaluation indicators of contextual performance to enhance overall performance. Administrative authority should have to formulate, implement and attach importance to the correlation of policies, systems and decrees between training, performance management and promotion.
    Reference: 尹澄智(2015)。公務機關主管領導風格對職員工作績效影響之研究。元智大學管理碩士在職專班論文,未出版,桃園。
    王婷虹(2019)。是自己人重要嗎?從領導部屬交換理論看溝通風格與其相似性對主管滿意度之影響。政治大學公共行政學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
    池易珊(2017)。政務領導、行政領導與民眾服務對公務人員工作滿意、工作倦怠之研究-臺北市和新北市之比較。臺北市立大學社會暨公共事務學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
    行政院人事行政總處(2019)。地方政府主管人數及性別統計表。2019年9月5日,取自:https://www.dgpa.gov.tw/mp/info?mid=153&uid=156&pid=5194。
    吳明隆(2014)。論文寫作與量化研究。臺北:五南。
    余德成(1996)。品質管理人性面系統因素對工作績效之影響。國立中山大學企業管理研究所博士論文,未出版,高雄。
    李孟珠(2016)。僕人式領導與工作特性對員工幸福感影響之研究─以中央研究院行政人員為例。世新大學行政管理學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
    李秉諭(2019)。領導統御、工作投入與工作壓力對海巡人員工作滿意度之影響-以海巡署南部分署為例。南華大學管理學院企業管理學系管理科學碩士論文,未出版,嘉義。
    李開復(2016)。我在管理工作中積累的九種最重要的領導力。2020年3月31日,取自:https://www.facebook.com/kaifulee/posts/1312700625423919:0。
    考試院(2016)。公務人員對公部門工作環境與認知"意見調查概況分析。2019年8月5日,取自:https://www.exam.gov.tw/public/data/681811562571.pdf。
    沈緯鈞、廖主民(2011)。運動心理因子之中介模式分析策略-重新審視迴歸分析取向。中華體育季刊,25(1),91–99。
    林文政(2016)。績優員工升主管就陣亡?可能是公司選人出了錯!真正適合管理職的人才是這種。2020年4月5日,取自:https://www.managertoday.com.tw/columns/view/43085?fb_comment_id=1286734351357770_1454382514592952。
    林思伶(2004)。析論僕人式/服務領導(Servant-Leadership)的概念發展與研究。高雄師大學報,16,39–57。
    邱景昇(2017)。矯正機關戒護人員領導風格、工作壓力與工作績效相關研究。國立虎尾科技大學企業管理系經營管理碩士在職專班,未出版,雲林。
    官惠卿(2016)。公務人員知覺主管服務領導、職場友誼與工作滿意度之相關研究—以臺北市政府為例。臺北市立大學教育行政與評鑑研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
    邱菁眉(2014)。主管僕人領導與公務人員組織信任、工作投入之相關研究─以臺北市政府教育局為例。國立臺北教育大學教育經營與管理學系碩士學位論文。未出版,臺北。
    邱皓政(2012)。量化研究與統計分析:SPSS資料分析範例。臺北:五南。
    侯文雅(2014)。領導型態對組織承諾與工作績效影響之研究-以某公路養護機關為例。正修科技大學經營管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
    莊錫陽(2013)。轉型領導與工作績效之關聯性研究:探討工作滿意度的中介效果與工作特性的調節效果。國防大學管理學院運籌管理學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
    張淼江(2002)。兩岸員工工作價值觀、工作滿意與工作績效關係之研究--以定期貨櫃運送業為例。國立成功大學交通管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺南。
    康曉霙(2011)。公務機關領導風格、工作滿意度與組織承諾相關性研究。師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
    陳欣榆(2013)。公務人員組織領導及情緒勞動對工作績效、團隊效能和工作滿意度之影響。銘傳大學公共事務學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
    陳榮權(2013)。轉換型領導、組織公平、工作滿足對工作績效之影響研究-以嘉義地區公務人員為例。南華大學企業管理系管理科學碩士論文,未出版,嘉義。
    陳慧倫(2019)。情緒智能、工作滿意度、關係品質與工作績效之研究─以銀行分行行員為例。國立臺灣海洋大學航運管理學系碩士學位論文,未出版,基隆。
    陳學鼎(2015)。組織政治行為對工作績效之影響-以主管領導風格為干擾變數。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
    黃文鎮(2013)。主管僕人式領導與員工組織承諾及其工作績效關係之研究─以臺南市戶政事務所為例。長榮大學高階管理碩士在職專班碩士論文,未出版,臺南。
    黃素貞(2002)。員工組織政治知覺與工作投入及工作績效關係之研究。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士在職專班碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
    黃添旺(2015)。服務領導、心理賦權與職涯滿足關係之研究─財政部高雄國稅局為例。國立高雄應用科技大學人力資源發展系碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
    黃營杉、汪志堅譯(2002)。研究方法(原作者:Kerlinger, F. N. 與Lee, H.B.)。臺北:華泰文化。(原著出版年:1999)
    黃瓊萩(2014)。家長式領導、組織文化、組織學習與工作滿意之研究~以原能會暨所屬機關之核能專業人員為例。國立高雄應用科技大學人力資源發展系碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
    黃麗卿(2010)。僕人式領導理論、模型與應用層面的探討。南亞學報,30,243–260。
    許炳輝(2013)。組織變革對領導型態、工作績效之影響—以法務部矯正署成立為例。樹德科技大學經營管理研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄。
    新北市政府各機關組織規程及編制表。2019年8月25日,取自:https://www.personnel.ntpc.gov.tw/home.jsp?id=e15df33d3d93728f。
    廖月娟譯(2018)。這一生,你想留下什麼?史丹佛的10堂領導課(原作者:John L. Hennessy)。臺北:天下文化。(原著出版年:2018)
    聖經(2017)。聖經當代譯本,聖經資源中心,臺北。
    聖經問題回答(Got Questions Ministries中文版)(2019)。聖經對洗腳有什麼說法?2019年9月2日,取自:https://www.gotquestions.org/T-Chinese/T-Chinese-foot-washing.html.
    蔡明達、沈易利、蔣秀姿(2007)。僕人領導於健身產業之應用。中華體育,21(1),67–74。
    賴建華(2010)。稅務人員工作滿意及自覺工作績效之探討-以台北市國稅局為例。2019年9月1日,取自:http://dba.kuas.edu.tw/files/archive/107_cf4d9b39.pdf。
    賴苡修(2019)。公部門僕人式領導與員工建言行為之初探─以臺北、新北市第一線服務機關為例。國立政治大學公共行政學系研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
    賴瓊雲(2016)。探討激勵策略、領導類型與工作績效之關係-以內政部地政機關為例。逢甲大學公共政策研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺中。
    劉廷揚、許祺妮(2013)。以轉換型領導為觀點-探討牧羊人領導、僕人式領導與德行領導。臺北海洋技術學院學報,6(1),96–111。
    戴立人(2014)。學校教職員知覺僕人式領導與學校績效之關聯-以組織承諾為中介變項。育達科技大學企業管理系碩士論文,未出版,苗栗。
    嚴奇峰、卓明德、李粵強(2014)。領導者定位、領導行為與部屬對主管滿意度關係之研究-華人對偶關係情境之觀點。商略學報,6(2),105-132。
    Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W.(2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326.
    Barner, R.(1994). Enablement : The key to empowerment. Training and Development, 6, 33–36.
    Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A.(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
    Beck, C. D.(2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21, 299–314.
    Bennis, W., Spreitzer, G. M., Cummings, T. G., & Cummings, T.(2001). The Future of Leadership: Today’s Top Leadership Thinkers Speak to Tomorrow’s Leaders. New York, NY : John Wiley & Sons.
    Blau, P. M.(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
    Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J.(1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. C.(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations ,71-98. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
    Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J.(1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109.
    Campbell, J. P.(1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2 ,687–732. Pala Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
    Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A.(2013). Impact of transformational and servant leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 433–440.
    Colton, D., & Covert, R. W.(2007). Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
    Cronbach, L. J.(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
    De Rubio, A., & Kiser, A.(2015). Gender and age differences in servant leadership. Academy of Business Research Journal, 1, 49–63.
    Dhanapati, M.(2018). Study of Servant Leadership Attributes in Bhutanese Civil Service Organization. Sonam Choden, Royal Institute of Management.
    Dillman, D.A.(2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York, NY : John Wiley & Sons.
    Dimitrova, M.(2008). An empirical test of the servant leadership theory in a Bulgarian context (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3325531)
    Duff, A. J.(2013). Performance management coaching: servant leadership and gender implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(3), 204 –221.
    Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R.C.(2019). Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30, 111–132.
    Fridell, M., Belcher, R.N., & Messner, P.E.(2009). Discriminate analysis gender public school principal servant leadership differences. Leadership and Orgnization Development Journal, 30(8), 722–736.
    Jernigan III, I. E., & Beggs, J. M.(2005). An examination of satisfaction with my supervisor and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35 (10), 2171-2192.
    Gouldner, A. W.(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.
    Greenleaf, R. K.(1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
    Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R.(1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170.
    Hogue, M.(2016). Gender bias in communal leadership: examining servant leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(4), 837–849.
    Hoppock, R.(1935). Job Satisfaction. New York, NY:Harper and Brothers.
    Infante, D. A., Anderson, C. M., Martin, M. M., Herington, A. D., & Kim, J.(1993). Subordinates' satisfaction and perceptions of superiors' compliance-gaining tactics, argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and style. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(3), 307-326.
    Irving, J.A., & Berndt, J.(2017). Leader Purposefulness within Servant Leadership: Examining the Effect of Servant Leadership, Leader Follower-Focus, Leader Goal-Orientation, and Leader Purposefulness in a Large U.S. Healthcare Organization, Administrative Sciences, 7(2), 10.
    Kalleberg, A. L.(1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42, 124-143.
    Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B.(2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Orlando:Harcourt Inc.
    Lee, K. L., & Low, G.T.(2008). Bases of Power and Subordinates' Satisfaction with Supervision--The Contingent Effect of Educational Orientation. International Education Studies, 1(2), 3-13.
    Likert, R.(1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.
    Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D.(2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.
    Locke, E. A.(1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(4), 309–336.
    Mann, F. C.(1965). Toward an understanding of the leadership role in formal organization. In Dubin, R., Homans, G. C., Mann, F. C., & Miller, D. C. (Eds.), Leadership and productivity, 68-103. San Francisco, CA : Chandler Publishing Co .
    Matteson, J. A., & Irving, J. A.(2005). Servant versus self-sacrificial leadership: Commonalities and distinctions of two follower-oriented theories. Paper presented at the Servant Leadership Roundtable at Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
    Meng, Y., He, J., & Luo, C.(2014). Science Research Group Leader’s Power and Members’ Compliance and Satisfaction with Supervision. Research Management Review, 20(1), 1-15.
    Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R.(1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (4), 475-480.
    Nair, K.(1994). A Higher Standard of Leadership: Lessons from the Life of Gandhi. San Francisco, CA:Berrett-Koehler.
    Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models, 4th Ed., Chicago:Irwin.
    Peter, L. J. & Hull, R.(1969). The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong. New York, NT:William Morrow & Co.
    Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E.(1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homnwood, IL : Richard D. Irwin.
    Scarpello, V., & Vandenberg, R. J.(1987). The Satisfaction with My Supervisor Scale: Its utility for research and practical applications. Journal of Management, 13(3), 447-466.
    Sendjaya, S.(2015). Personal and organizational excellence through servant leadership: Learning to serve, serving to lead, leading to transform. Switzerland: Springer.
    Senjaya, S., & Pekerti, A.(2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 643–663.
    Smith, P. C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. L.(1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL:Rand McNally.
    Sousa, M., & Van Dierendonck, D.(2016). Introducing a short measure of shared servant leadership impacting team performance through team behavioral integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2002.
    Spears, L. C.(2010). Servant Leadership and Robert K. Greenleaf’s Legacy. In Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K.(Eds.), Servant Leadership: Developments in Theory and Research, 11–24. New York, NY : Palgrave macmillan.
    Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K.(2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349–361.
    Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I.(2011). The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249–267.
    Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., De Windt, N., & Alkema, J.(2014). Same Difference? Exploring the Differential Mechanisms Linking Servant Leadership and Transformational Leadership to Follower Outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 544-562.
    Van Dierendonck, D., Sousa, M., Gunnarsdottir, S., Bobbio, A., Hakanen, J., Verdorfer, A. P., Duyan, E.C., & Rodriguez-Carvajal, R.(2017). The Cross-Cultural Invariance of the Servant Leadership Survey: A Comparative Study across Eight Countries. Administrative Sciences, 7(2),1-11.
    Vroom, V. H.(1962). Ego-involvement, job satisfaction and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 15(2), 159-177.
    Washington, R.R., Sutton, C.D., & Field, H.S.(2006). Indvidual differences in servant leadership: the roles of values and personality. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 700-716.
    Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R.V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H.(1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XXII). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center, Word Adjustment Project.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    行政管理碩士學程
    107921041
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0107921041
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202000548
    Appears in Collections:[行政管理碩士學程(MEPA)] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    104101.pdf1175KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback