仁慈領導雙構面模式之再探：內涵釐清與量表建構

Revisiting the Dual Dimensions of Benevolent Leadership: Construct Clarification and Scale Development

10.6254/IPRCS.202212_(58).0001

林昱錡(Yu-Chi Lin)；簡忠仁(Chung-Jen Chien)；林姿葶(Tzu-Ting Lin)

工作照顧 ； 仁慈領導 ； 生活照顧 ； 華人組織 ； 華人領導 ； benevolent leadership ； Chinese organization ； Chinese leadership ； life-oriented considerate behaviors ； work-oriented considerate behaviors

本土心理學研究

58期（2022 / 12 / 01）

3 - 59

繁體中文;英文

仁慈領導是一種具有華人特色的領導風格，因同時具有工作照顧與生活照顧兩個構面，而與西方領導理論有明顯的不同。然而，過去對於仁慈領導雙構面模式的討論卻較為少見，以至於在概念內涵與測量工具上仍有待評估。有鑑於此，本文以兩個子研究試圖解決此理論缺口。研究一採取歸納研究途徑，蒐集100位企業員工知覺領導者照顧行為之事例，以關鍵事例法建構工作照顧與生活照顧之內涵；研究二則根據雙構面之內涵編寫量表，以386位企業員工為對象，進行探索性與驗證性因素分析，以確認雙構面題項之信效度。綜合來說，本文發現當代仁慈領導的工作照顧與生活照顧各包含五項具體的展現方式類別，其中，工作照顧包含了人才培育、排除險阻、權益發聲、讚揚鼓舞，及傾聽協調；生活照顧包含了生活支援、人生指引、噓寒問暖、家眷關照，及生活扶持。而分析結果發現這十項向度可進一步整併為三個構面：工作照顧、關懷照護，及濟困解危。最後，作者將本文發現與既存理論進行對話，並為日後的研究提供一些新的發展方向。

Benevolent leadership is a work- and life-oriented leadership style characterized by traditional Chinese values. It entails individualized care in two dimensions: work-related (e.g., allowing opportunities to correct mistakes, providing coaching and mentoring, or showing concern for the career development of employees) and life-related (e.g., treating employees as family members, providing assistance during a personal crisis, or showing holistic concern beyond the professional relationship). The unique feature of benevolent leadership in comparison with Western leadership styles such as supportive leadership, individual consideration, servant leadership, and authentic leadership, is its dual-dimensional nature. Although previous studies have provided preliminary evidence of this dual-dimensional structure, several research gaps remain. First, the original concept of benevolent leadership was based on an observational study of the founders of Chinese family businesses. Since Chinese culture is characterized by significant power-distance relationships, the difference in power and resources between the highest-level founder and middle management are significant. This power inequality has the potential to generate different benevolent behaviors. Research focusing on the work and life consideration behaviors of middle management is needed. Second, if the globalization of values has impacted younger generations to reduce emphasis on hierarchy, the behavioral representation of benevolent leadership based on traditional culture may need updating. For example, how leaders display their work- and life-oriented consideration behaviors may differ from leaders of the previous generation. Research focusing on leaders' benevolent behavior in modern organizations is needed. Third, the existing measurement tool for assessing the dual dimensions of benevolent leadership was generated based on the original benevolent leadership theory. Whether this instrument is sufficient for describing current leaders' caregiving behaviors remains an open question. These potential theoretical and methodological problems are the main reason for the lack of recent discussion of the benevolent leadership model and they hinder progression of the theory. We conducted two studies. Study 1 clarified the characteristics of leaders' work and life caring behaviors. We collected data from 100 employees in Taiwan, including 176 critical incidents in the work domain and 96 in the life domain. We adopted an inductive approach to analyze the data. We identified 10 behavioral categories that could be classified into the work-oriented dimension (talent cultivation, problem elimination, voices of followers, inspiration, and coordination with listening) and the life-oriented dimension (life assistance, life guidance, daily care, family concerns, and relief of suffering). In Study 2, we developed a reliable scale to measure benevolent leadership in the work and life domains. First, we generated 21 new items based on the theoretical definitions and critical incidents we identified in Study 1. Next, we conducted a forced categorization procedure to confirm the face and content validity of the items based on the responses of 60 undergraduate students. We combined these 21 newly developed items with the 11 original items to analyze their structure. We divided a sample of 386 employees into two random groups for exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). A total of 18 items reached the acceptable criteria for factor analysis, and the EFA identified three factors. The work-oriented factor comprised 8 new items; we deleted the original work domain items due to cross-loading or insufficient factor loading. The other two factors comprised life-orientated behaviors: life-orientation (5 items, including 1 newly-developed item and 4 original items) and problem-solving orientation (5 newly-developed items). We found moderate positive correlations among the three dimensions. The CFA showed that the second-order dual-factor model had appropriate fit indices, confirming the reliability and validity of the three-dimensional structure of the updated benevolent leadership scale. We revisited the characteristics of the work and life domain caring behaviors expressed as a part of benevolent leadership. The analyses revealed that benevolent leadership has a three-dimensional structure. In addition to the original work and life dimensions, we also identified a problem-solving dimension from new life dimension items. We developed a reliable questionnaire to assess the three-dimensional structure of benevolent leadership. We posit that these dimensions may cross management levels and industry because our participants contained both middle and C-suite leaders, they came from diverse industries and occupations (not just traditional family businesses), and we changed the research perspective from leader to follower to investigate behaviors perceived by followers. Our results provide a new understanding of the work and life dimensions of benevolent leadership in modern organizations along with a measurement tool. We discuss our findings in the context of the existing leadership literature, and identify future research directions.

1. Farh, J. L.,Cheng, B. S.(2000).A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations.Management and organizations in the Chinese context,London:
   連結：
2. 王世明,周婉茹,吳宗祐,鄭伯壎(2018)。仁慈的雙面刃：仁慈領導對創造力績效的雙路徑模式。中華心理學刊，60，57-79。
   連結：
3. 王叢桂(2002)。價值觀的形成與變遷。應用心理研究，14，77-187。
   連結：
4. 吳宗祐(2014)。除了助長，還需深耕：論「家長式領導」的研究進展。本土心理學研究，42，125-145。
   連結：
5. 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。
   連結：
6. 林姿葶,鄭伯壎(2012)。華人領導者的噓寒問暖與提攜教育：仁慈領導之雙構面模式。本土心理學研究，37，253-302。
   連結：
7. 林姿葶,鄭伯壎,周麗芳(2014)。家長式領導：回顧與前瞻。本土心理學研究，42，3-82。
   連結：
8. 林家五,王悅縈,胡宛仙(2012)。真誠領導與仁慈領導對組織公民行為及主管忠誠之差異效果。本土心理學研究，38，205-256。
   連結：
9. 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，24，119-149。
   連結：
10. 黃敏萍,林姿葶,鄭伯壎,梁瑋鈞(2012)。華人企業組織中的魅力領導：由概念分析到量表建構。管理學報，29，307-331。
    連結：
11. 樊景立,鄭伯壎(2000)。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，13，126-180。
    連結：
12. 鄭伯壎,周麗芳,樊景立(2000)。家長式領導量表：三元模式的建構與測量。本土心理學研究，14，3-64。
    連結：
13. 鄭伯壎,姜定宇(2000)。華人組織中的主管忠誠：主位與客位概念對員工效能的效果。本土心理學研究，14，65-114。
    連結：
14. 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，17，105-161。
    連結：
15. Butler, J. K., Jr(1991).Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory.Journal of Management,17(3),643-663.
16. Chan, S. C. H.,Mak, W. M.(2012).Benevolent leadership and follower performance: The mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX).Asia Pacific Journal of Management,29,285-301.
17. Chemers, M. M.,Ayman, R. E.(1993).Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions.Cambridge, MA:Academic Press.
18. Chen, X. P.,Eberly, M. B.,Chiang, T. J.,Farh, J. L.,Cheng, B. S.(2014).Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance.Journal of Management,40(3),796-819.
19. Cheng, B. S.,Chou, L. F.,Wu, T. Y.,Huang, M. P.,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.
20. Chiu, C. Y.,Yang, C. F.(1987).Chinese subjects’ dilemmas: Humility and cognitive laziness as problems in using rating scales.Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society,18,39-50.
21. Fabrigar, L. R.,Wegener, D. T.,MacCallum, R. C.,Strahan, E. J.(1999).Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.Psychological Methods,4(3),272-299.
22. Farh, J. L.,Earley, P. C.,Lin, S. C.(1997).Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.Administrative Science Quarterly,42,421-444.
23. Farh, J. L.,Liang, J.,Chou, L. F.,Cheng, B. S.(2008).Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations: Research progress and future research directions.Business leadership in China: Philosophies, theories, and practices,Cambridge, UK:
24. Farh, J. L.,Zhong, C. B.,Organ, D. W.(2004).Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China.Organization Science,15(2),241-253.
25. Hinkin, T. R.(1995).A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.Journal of Management,21(5),967-988.
26. Hinkin, T. R.(1998).A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires.Organizational Research Methods,1(1),104-121.
27. Hofstede, G.(1980).Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?.Organizational Dynamics,9(1),42-63.
28. Javidan, M.,Dorfman, P. W.,De Luque, M. S.,House, R. J.(2006).In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE.Academy of Management Perspectives,20(1),67-90.
29. Kaiser, H. F.(1960).Directional statistical decisions.Psychological Review,67(3),160-167.
30. Lanaj, K.,Jennings, R. E.(2020).Putting leaders in a bad mood: The affective costs of helping followers with personal problems.Journal of Applied Psychology,105(4),355-371.
31. Lin, T. T.,Cheng, B. S.,Wang, A. C.,Chou, L. F.,Huang, M. P.(2010).Trust in leader and perceived organizational support as the mediators of the relationship between benevolent leadership and subordinate outcomes.International Association for Chinese Management Research (IACMR) Annual Conference,Shanghai, China:
32. MacKenzie, S. B.,Podsakoff, P. M.,Fetter, R.(1991).Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(1),123-150.
33. Nunnally, J. C.(1978).An overview of psychological measurement.Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders,New York:
34. Redding, S. G.,Hsiao, M.(1990).An empirical study of overseas Chinese managerial ideology.International Journal of Psychology,25,629-641.
35. Schriesheim, C. A.,Hinkin, T. R.(1990).Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales.Journal of Applied Psychology,75(3),246.
36. Sheer, V. C.(2010).Transformational and paternalistic leaderships in Chinese organizations: Construct, predictive, and ecological validities compared.Intercultural Communication Studies,19,120-141.
37. Wang, A. C.,Cheng, B. S.(2010).When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy.Journal of Organizational Behavior,31(1),106-121.
38. Westwood, R.(1997).Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for ‘paternalistic headship’ among the overseas Chinese.Organization Studies,18(3),445-480.
39. Wu, J. B.,Tsui, A. S.,Kinicki, A. J.(2010).Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups.Academy of Management Journal,53(1),90-106.
40. Yukl, G.(1999).An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories.The Leadership Quarterly,10(2),285-305.
41. 周麗芳,鄭伯壎,樊景立,任金剛,黃敏萍(2006)。家長式領導：回顧與展望。華人組織行為──議題、作法及出版，台北:
42. 姚開,陳坤虎(1998)。如何編製一份問卷以「健康相關生活品質」問卷為例。職能治療學會雜誌，16，1-24。
43. 徐瑋伶,黃敏萍,鄭伯壎,樊景立(2006)。德行領導。華人組織行為──議題、作法及出版，台北:
44. 許士軍(1997)。家族主義、專業主義與創業──以華人企業為背景的探討。管理評論，16，1-9。
45. 楊國樞(1998)。家族化歷程、泛家族主義及組織管理。海峽兩岸之組織與管理，台北:
46. 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，79，119-173。
47. 鄭伯壎(2005).華人領導：理論與實務.台北:桂冠圖書公司.
48. 鄭伯壎,樊景立,周麗芳(2006).家長式領導：模式與證據.台北:華泰文化公司.

1. 簡忠仁,林昱錡,林姿葶(2023)。「施恩」與「報恩」：仁慈領導的回顧與展望。中華心理學刊，65(4)，299-325。
2. (2024)。華人組織中的人際關係：回顧與展望。中華心理學刊，66(1)，153-193。
3. (2024)。家長式領導情感影響歷程之初探研究。中華心理學刊，66(1)，1-24。