威權領導範型的效果比較：個人中心取向觀點

The Effectiveness of Authoritarian Leadership Profiles: A Person-centered Approach

許以萱(Yi-Hsuan Hsu) ； 周婉茹(Wan-Ju Chou) ； 鄭伯壎(Bor-Shiuan Cheng)

《中華心理學刊》 Volume 66 Issue 2 (2024/06) Pp. 247-276

https://doi.org/10.6129/CJP.202406_66(2).0003

Abstracts

威權領導依據控制焦點的不同，可以區分為專權與尚嚴兩種成分，專權領導的控制焦點在「人」；尚嚴領導的控制焦點則為「事」。過去威權領導研究多在向度層次進行探討，雖能了解領導者在展現專權或尚嚴時各自引發的效果，但研究主軸為變項效果及變項間的線性關係，無法在保有個體完整性的思維下，確實分類出組織中的領導者類型。考量到現今組織中存有不同類型的威權領導者，以及專權與尚嚴兩者的內涵與運作機制迥異、相關偏低，顯示二者應為獨立分立的概念；再加上員工在實務上更傾向將主管的領導感知為不同類別，並據此類別作為互動基礎，支持了「剖面模型」的觀點不僅符合學理，也與現象更為貼合。因此，研究一先以潛在剖面分析，分別以239與286兩筆樣本，檢驗各類威權領導剖面在實務場域中的出現狀況。兩筆資料均顯示只有強人型（高專權－高尚嚴）、紀律型（低專權－高尚嚴）及非典型（低專權－低尚嚴）三類會出現，且近半數主管為紀律型。研究二收集華人企業組織中102位主管與271位部屬之對偶樣本，確認潛在剖面分析結果同研究一，並對三類剖面進行效果比較。整體而言，紀律型在任務性績效、默從性沉默及防衛性沉默上的效果最強，強人型與非典型的效果則各有其利弊。最後，本研究對兩項研究結果進行綜合討論，並提出研究意涵、研究限制及未來研究方向。

Keywords

工作績效 ； 沉默行為 ； 尚嚴領導 ； 專權領導 ； 潛在剖面分析

Parallel abstracts

Authoritarian leadership (AL) can be divided into two dimensions, dominance-focused AL and discipline-focused AL. At the core of dominance-focused AL is tactical control for the purpose of triggering fear and obedience in subordinates. Discipline-focused AL emphasizes discipline with the purpose of triggering a dedicated work attitude in subordinates. Previous studies on AL have mostly been conducted at the dimensional level. Although it is possible to understand the respective effects of leaders demonstrating dominance-focused AL and discipline-focused AL, the present study focuses on the effects of variables and the linear relationship between variables. As a result, this study does not classify leaders in organizations unless true profiles derived from people are considered. The operating mechanisms of dominance-focused AL and discipline-focused AL are completely different, and the correlation between the two types of leadership is low, indicating that dominance-focused AL and discipline-focused AL should be mutually independent concepts. In addition, employees are more inclined to perceive a supervisor's leadership as falling into different categories in practice, and using this category as the basis of interaction supports the concept that AL is a profile model. In Study 1, latent profile analyses (LPA) were conducted using two sets of data, with 239 and 286 samples, to explore the appearance of various types of AL in real life. The results of both showed that there were three types of AL: the strongman type (high dominance-focused AL and high discipline-focused AL), the discipline type (low dominance-focused AL and high discipline-focused AL), and the atypical type (low dominance-focused AL and low discipline-focused AL). Nearly half of the supervisors included in the study were discipline type. Study 2 collected paired samples from 102 supervisors and 271 subordinates in Taiwanese enterprise organizations. The LPA typology results were confirmed to be the same as in Study 1. Then, the effects of the three types of profiles were examined, and the results showed that the discipline type had the strongest effects on subordinate task performance, acquiescence, and defensive silence, while the strongman and uncontrolled types each had their own sets of advantages and disadvantages. This paper includes a comprehensive discussion of the two studies' results and proposes the implications, limitations, and future directions of research based on the research findings.

Parallel keywords

dominance-focused and discipline-focused authoritarian leadership ； job performance ； latent profile analysis ； silence behavior

References

周婉茹,鄭伯壎,連玉輝 Y. H., Y. H.(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,周麗芳,鄭伯壎,任金剛 C.-K., C.-K.(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.

林孟君 M.-C., M.-C.(2015).威權領導真的令人服從嗎？雙向度威權領導的效能與仁慈領導的調節作用.國立臺灣大學心理學研究所=National Taiwan University.

林容璿 J.-H., J.-H.(2015).主管發怒有用嗎？主管績效期待、主管－部屬社會關係因子及工作豐富化的角色.國立臺灣大學心理學研究所=National Taiwan University.

林毓生 Y. S., Y. S.(1989).政治秩序與多元社會.聯經=Linking Publishing.