外在環境的改變迫使企業面臨快速變動而難以預測的全球性競爭環境，為了保有競爭力及尋求永續發展之可能性，企業精簡支出以維持企業之營運。因此，企業留用或招募有助於企業營運與發展之少數菁英，因此員工需承擔較大的責任而承受及壓力，如何改善壓力對於員工個人績效之影響，乃是現今企業的重要課題之一。本研究首先探討壓力源與個人績效之間關係，再進一步探討哪些因素會影響壓力源與個人績效之間關係，而本研究主要針對領導─成員交換關係及內在動機是否會影響壓力源與個人績效之間關係進行探討。
本研究之主要研究對象為台灣企業之員工，總計發放445份問卷，回收之有效樣本為313份，有效回收率為70.33%。本研究主要採用層級迴歸分析以進行研究假說之驗證。經過實證分析，本研究所得之研究結果如下：
一、 挑戰型壓力源與個人績效呈現正向影響。
二、 阻礙型壓力源與個人績效呈現負向影響。
三、 個人之內在動機能夠調節壓力源與個人績效之間的關係。
四、 領導─成員交換關係能夠調節阻礙型壓力源與個人績效之間的關係。
本研究之主要貢獻如以下敘述，首先，由於過去相關研究對於壓力源與個人績效之間關係未達成共識，本研究之第一個貢獻為實證發現挑戰型壓力源將正向影響個人績效以及阻礙型壓力源將負向影響個人績效；接著，過去之研究並未針對究領導─成員交換關係及內在動機是否會影響壓力源與個人績效之間關係進行探討，因此本研究以領導─成員交換關係及內在動機作為調節變數進行探討，並驗證內在動機能夠調節二種類別的壓力源與個人績效之間的關係，而領導─成員交換關係僅能夠調節阻礙型壓力源與個人績效之間關係。本研究之發現可作為後續研究及業界實務之參考。

Due to the changes of the external environment, enterprises face rapid change and unpredictable global competition. In order to retain competitiveness and the possibility of sustainable development, companies retain or recruit a small number of elites to streamline costs so that maintain operations. Therefore, the company's employees bear greater responsibility and pressure. How to improve the relationship between stressors and employees’ job performance is one of the most important issues for the enterprises. This study explored the relationship between stressors and job performance, and then explored what factors might affect the relationship between stressors and job performance. However, the research focus on how Leader-Member Exchange or intrinsic motivation affects the relationship between stressors and job performance is still rare. Thus, this study focus on whether Leader-Member Exchange and intrinsic motivation affects the relationship between stressors and job performance.
The research is performed by the questionnaire survey, and the respondents are employees of Taiwanese companies. We delivered 445 questionnaires and we had 313 valid questionnaires returned. The final response rate is 70.33%. This study used hierarchical regression analysis to verify all hypotheses. The followings are our findings: First, challenge stressors are positively related to job performance. Second, hindrance stressors are negatively related to job performance. Third, the moderating effect of intrinsic motivation will impact the relationship between stressors and job performance. Forth, the moderating effect of LMX will impact the relationship between hindrance stressors and job performance.

Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185-201.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Social exchange theory. Retrieved September, 3, 2007.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65-74.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930-942.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335-362.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992-1003.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39-50.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 161-178.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48-58.
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039-1050.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & JAWORSKI, R. A. A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 71-99.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775.
Li, A. N., & Liao, H. (2014). How do leader–member exchange quality and differentiation affect performance in teams? An integrated multilevel dual process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 847-866.
Li, F., Deng, H., Leung, K., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Is Perceived Creativity‐Reward Contingency Good for Creativity? The Role of Challenge and Threat Appraisals. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 693-709.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121.
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.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66-80.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Sturman, M. C. (2003). Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. Journal of Management, 29(5), 609-640.
Tsui, A. S., & O'reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402-423.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Weick, K. E., Bougon, M. G., & Maruyama, G. 1976. The equity context. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15: 32–65.
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L., & Finch, D. M. (2009). Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 254-262.
Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2011). How leader–member exchange influences effective work behaviors: Social exchange and internal–external efficacy perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 739-770.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111.
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540-555.