受到性別角色刻板印象的影響,女性領導者由於其性別角色與傳統男性化的領導者角色不符合,往往導致其領導效能被低估;在華人組織中,受到傳統男尊女卑觀念的影響,關於性別角色刻板印象的認知,與強調女男平等的西方社會應有不同的意涵。然而,過去的領導研究多從西方的觀點出發,往往無法真正瞭解華人組織中的特殊現象及其意義,故而本研究兼採華人的家長式領導理論,企圖從華人文化的觀點,重新檢視華人企業中,直屬主管的情緒表現與領導風格符合性別角色刻板印象與否對於部屬所知覺的領導效能之影響。本研究以二因子變異數分析回收的345份問卷,結果顯示,主管情緒表現及領導風格確實會影響其領導效能,然而,主管的性別對於領導效能卻無顯著影響。在考量主管性別與情緒表現及領導風格的交互作用後發現,男女性主管展現負向情緒、交易型領導、威權領導及仁慈領導時的領導效能確實會有顯著的差異存在,而在展現正向情緒、轉型領導、德行領導時的領導效能則無顯著差異。意即,性別本身並不會直接影響部屬所知覺的領導效能,然而,主管的情緒表現及領導風格是否符合其性別角色期待,的確對其領導效能具有顯著的影響效果,此結果也間接證實了性別角色刻板印象確實深植人心。本研究並據此研究結果提出後續的學術研究及管理上的建議。
The leadership effectiveness of female leaders is often underestimated because of their gender-role stereotype does not fit managerial stereotype. The past researches on the effects of gender-role stereotype are mainly developed from Western theories, without regarding the cultural differences in societies and organizations between the East and the West. As a result, the critical points and particular situations in realizing Chinese organizations could be mistakenly ignored. Therefore, this study utilizes both Western and Eastern theories, to examine the leadership effectiveness on the fitting between supervisor’s gender-role stereotype and their emotional expression and leadership styles in Chinese organization. After two-way ANOVA analysis of 345 questionnaires, the result shows, the emotional expression and leadership styles certainly affect leadership effectiveness, nevertheless, gender doesn’t. When consider the interactions, there are significant differences between male and female supervisors’ leadership effectiveness on negative emotional expression, transactional leadership, authoritarian leadership, and benevolent leadership, however, no significant differences exist on positive emotional expression, transformational leadership, and moral leadership. Which means, the fitting of supervisors’ leadership behaviors and their gender-role is more important than gender itself on improving their leadership effectiveness. This result implies that the gender-role stereotype has not been changed by time. The direction for further research and implications for practice in leadership were discussed finally.