西方轉型領導帶給部屬、組織正向的影響，已存在豐富的研究；家長式領導（威權領導、仁慈領導、德行領導）為在華人文化底蘊之下，發展出特有的領導方式，然而，在華人社會，帶有父權主義的威權領導備受爭議，隨著更深入爬梳威權領導的意涵，分化出：（1）人員取向的威權領導（專權領導）；（2）工作取向的威權領導（尚嚴領導），目前實證研究指出，專權領導容易帶給部屬負向影響，尚嚴領導則是帶給部屬正向影響，但綜合來看威權領導，目前實證研究指出，仍帶給部屬較多負面的影響。過去研究指出，部屬的工作不安全感影響企業留才，故探究領導與部屬工作不安全感之間的關係有其必要。因此，本研究欲探究全球化之下文化混搭的現象，在臺灣的企業組織，是否存在著混合西方轉型領導和華人的威權領導現象？若領導者展現不一致的領導方式，是否會引發部屬的工作整體不安全感？同時，本研究關注華人特有的「中庸思維」，是否能有效調節部屬面對不一致的領導時，其工作整體不安全感的變化，因此，驗證轉型領導、威權領導（專權領導、尚嚴領導）、中庸思維三階交互作用為本研究之核心。
研究結果顯示，高中庸思維部屬面對高轉型高專權領導者，增加了工作整體不安全感；相對的，低中庸思維部屬面對高轉型高專權領導者，則降低了工作整體不安全感的程度。而高中庸思維部屬，不論面對高轉型高尚嚴或搭配低尚嚴領導者之工作整體不安全感沒有明顯差異，但低中庸思維面對高轉型高尚嚴之領導者，其工作整體不安全感顯著下降。
此研究說明了中庸思維的思考差異，會帶給部屬不同程度的工作整體不安全感，更發現中庸思維不僅具有致中和、體察全局及和諧觀的思考特性，更具有「警示」的作用。於研究末，也分析此研究結果的貢獻和研究限制，並提出未來可行的研究方向，希冀可以豐富中西領導行為混搭的討論。

The positive impact of Western transformational leadership on subordinates and organizations has been extensively studied. Parental leadership styles (authoritarian leadership, benevolent leadership, virtuous leadership) have developed as unique leadership approaches rooted in Chinese culture. However, in Chinese society, authoritarian leadership with paternalistic tendencies has been controversial. Upon a deeper examination of authoritarian leadership, it can be differentiated into: (1) personnel-oriented authoritarian leadership (Juan-chiuan leadership), and (2) task-oriented authoritarian leadership (Shang-yan leadership). Current empirical research indicates that Juan-chiuan leadership tends to have negative effects on subordinates, while Shang-yan leadership has positive effects. Nevertheless, the overall impact of authoritarian leadership is still predominantly negative.

Previous studies have suggested that subordinates' job insecurity affects employee retention in organizations. Therefore, exploring the relationship between leadership and subordinates' job insecurity is deemed necessary. This study aims to investigate the phenomenon of cultural mixing under globalization in Taiwanese corporate organizations. Specifically, it examines whether there is a presence of mixed Western transformational leadership and Chinese authoritarian leadership. If leaders display inconsistent leadership styles, does it trigger a sense of overall job insecurity among subordinates? Additionally, this study focuses on the unique Chinese concept of "Zhong-yong thinking" (moderation), examining whether it can effectively moderate changes in subordinates' overall job insecurity when facing inconsistent leadership. Hence, the core of this study is to validate the three-way interaction among transformational leadership, authoritarian leadership (Juan-chiuan leadership, Shang-yan leadership), and Zhong-yong thinking.

The research results indicate that subordinates with high Zhong-yong thinking, when facing leaders with high transformational and high Juan-chiuan leadership, experience increased overall job insecurity. Conversely, subordinates with low Zhong-yong thinking facing the same leadership styles exhibit a reduced level of overall job insecurity. For subordinates with high Zhong-yong thinking, there is no significant difference in overall job insecurity when facing high transformational and high Shang-yan or a combination of high and low Shang-yan leadership. However, for subordinates with low Zhong-yong thinking facing high transformational and high Shang-yan leadership, there is a significant decrease in overall job insecurity.

This study illustrates that differences in Zhong-yong thinking lead to varying degrees of overall job insecurity among subordinates. It further reveals that Zhong-yong thinking not only possesses characteristics of moderation, global understanding, and a harmonious perspective but also serves as a "warning" mechanism. Finally, the study analyzes the contributions and limitations of the research results and suggests future research directions, aiming to enrich discussions on the blend of Chinese and Western leadership behaviors.

任金剛、樊景立、鄭伯壎、周麗芳（2003）：《高階主管之家長式領導與 組織效能：一項個人與組織層次的分析》。教育部華人本土心理學研究追求卓越計畫研究報告，報告編號 89-H-FA01-2-4-4。台北： 教育部。
朱容霆（2021）。臺灣中高齡女性退休決策探討：工作、家庭與婚姻分析。﹝碩士論文。國立中正大學﹞臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/t9j3ph。
林瑋芳、鄧傳忠、林以正、黃金蘭（2013）。進退有據：中庸對拿捏行為與心理適應之關係的調節效果。本土心理學研究，40，45-84。
吳佳煇、林以正《中庸量表的編製》。《本土心理學研究》，2005 年 12 月，第 24 期，第 247 ~ 300 頁。
吳宗祐、徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎（2002）：〈怒不可遏？或忍氣吞聲？華人企業中主管威權領導行為與部屬憤怒情緒反應的關係〉。《本土心理學研究》，18，3-49。[Wu, T. Y., Hsu, W. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2002).Expressing or suppressing anger: Subordinates’ anger responses to supervisors’ authoritarian behaviors in a Taiwan enterprise. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 18, 3-49.]
吳宗祐、鄭伯壎（2003）。組織情緒研究之回顧與前瞻。應用心理研究，19，137-173。
吳宗祐（2008）：〈主管權威領導與部屬的工作滿意度與組織承諾：信任的中介歷程與情緒智力的調節效果〉。《本土心理學研究》，30，3-63。[Wu, T. Y. (2008). The mediating process of trust and the moderating effect of emotional intelligence on a Chinese supervisor’s authoritarianism leadership and a subordinate’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 30, 3-63.]
吳欣蓓、陸洛、顧家祈、張妤玥（2010）。轉換型領導行為、部屬工作壓力級主管滿意度的關聯──人格特質為調節變項。中華管理學報，11（2），1-30。
周麗芳、任金剛、曾春榮、葉羿廷（2017）。威權領導的現代轉化與適應：再論專權、尚嚴與恩威並濟。2017第十屆華人心理學家雙年會。哈爾濱，大陸。（特邀論壇主持人: 交響樂中的古箏悠揚：華人領導風格研究的前景與挑戰）
周麗芳、任金剛、李明彥（2017）。威權、仁慈領導與泛家族主義。2017第十屆華人心理學家雙年會。哈爾濱，大陸。（特邀論壇主持人: 交響樂中的古箏悠揚：華人領導風格研究的前景與挑戰）
周婉茹、周麗芳、鄭伯壎、任金剛（2010）。專權與尚嚴之辨：再探威權領導內涵與恩威並濟的效果 [Juan-chiuan and Shang-yan: The Components of Authoritarian Leadership]. 本土心理學研究(34), 223-284. https://doi.org/10.6254/2010.34.223
徐克謙（1998）：〈從「中」字的三重含義看中庸思想〉。《孔孟月刊》（台北），37期，5-9。
陳佳雯、陸洛（2011）。還有明天？工作不安全感的差異性影響。人力資源管理學報，11（3），49-73。
楊國樞、鄭伯壎（1989）。傳統價值觀、個人現代性及組織行為：後儒家假說的一項微觀驗證。「中央研究院民族學研究所集刊」，64，1-49。
楊中芳（2001）：〈中國人的世界觀：中庸實踐思維初探〉。楊中芳（著）：《如何理解中國人》。台北：遠流出版公司。
楊中芳（2010）。中庸實踐思維體系探研的初步進展。本土心理學研究，34，3-96。
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。
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》（台北），14，3-64。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳（2005）：《家長式領導三元模式：現代轉化及其影響機制──威權領導：法家概念的現代轉化》。行政院國家科學委員會 專題研究計畫成果報告，報告編號 NSC94-2413-H-002-003-PAE。 台北：行政院國家科學委員會。
鄭伯壎（2005）：《華人領導：理論與實際》。台北：桂冠圖書公司。
鄭伯壎（2017）：《華人領導的十堂必修課》。台北：五南。
Ashford, S., J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Consequences of Job Insecurity: A Theory-Based Measure and Substantive Test. The Academy of Management Journal 32(4), 803-829.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994, 1994/01/01). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self‐esteem. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(1), 35-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519409539961
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. (2008). Pseudo-Transformational Leadership: Towards the Development and Test of a Model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 851-861. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9552-8
Carey, J. W. (1992). Political Correctness and Cultural Studies. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00778.x
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coffman, D. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40: 235-259.
Chen, C. C., & Farh, J.-L. (2010). Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: Paternalism and its elaborations, moderations, and alternatives. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 599–622). Oxford University Press.
Christie, A., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2011). Pseudo‐transformational leadership: Model specification and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(12), 2943–2984. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00858.x
Chiu, C., Mallorie, L., Keh, H. T., & Law, W. (2009). Perceptions of culture in multicultural space: Joint presentation of images from two cultures increases in-group attribution of culture-typical characteristics. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 282-300. doi: 10.1177/0022022108328912
Cheng, B. S., Huang, M. P., & Chou, L. F. (2002).Paternalistic leadership and its effectiveness:Evidence from Chinese organization teams. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 3(1), 85-112.
Chen, H. Y., & Kao, H. S. R. (2009). Chinese paternalistic leadership and non-Chinese subordinates’ psychological health. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20, 2533-2546.
Chou, L. F., Chu, C. C., Yeh, H. C., & Chen, J. (2014). Work stress and employee well-being: The critical role of Zhong-Yong. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(2), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12055
Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2007, June). Does globalization matter? The change of power distance and its effects on authoritative leadership in business and military organizations in Taiwan. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Globalization and Development in Chinese Economic Region, Taipei, Taiwan.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580-590.
Dekker, S. W. A., & Schaufeli, W. B. 1995. The effects of job insecurity on psychological health and withdrawal: A longitudinal study. Australian Psychologist, 30: 57-63.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. 1984. Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 9, 438-448.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90028-E
Long W. Lam & Aichia Chuang & Chi-Sum Wong & Julie N. Y. Zhu, 2019. "A typology of three-way interaction models: Applications and suggestions for Asian management research," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-16, March.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438-458. doi:10.2307/259288
Li, C., Zhao, H., & Begley, T. M. (2015, 2015/06/01/). Transformational leadership dimensions and employee creativity in China: A cross-level analysis. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1149-1156. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.009
Li, M., Ahmed, A., Syed, O. R., Khalid, N., & Muñoz, J. E. (2022, 2022-August-22). Impact of abusive leader behavior on employee job insecurity: A mediating roles of emotional exhaustion and abusive peer behavior [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947258
Lin, C.-S., Huang, P.-C., Chen, S.-J., & Huang, L.-C. (2017). Pseudo-transformational Leadership is in the Eyes of the Subordinates. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 179-190. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2739-5
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291
Nasser, F., & Takahashi, T. (2003). The effect of using item parcels on ad hoc goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: An example using Sarason’s reactions to tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 16, 75-97.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Qalati, S. A., Zafar, Z., Fan, M., Sánchez Limón, M. L., & Khaskheli, M. B. (2022). Employee performance under transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: A mediated model. Heliyon, 8(11), e11374. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11374
Richter, A., & Näswall, K. (2019). Job insecurity and trust: Uncovering a mechanism linking job insecurity to well-being. Work & Stress, 33(1), 22-40. doi:10.1080/02678373.2018.1461709Sankowsky, D. (1995). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of power. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 57–71.
Rosenblatt, Z., & Ruvio, A. 1996. A test of a multidimensional model of job insecurity: The case of Israeli teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17: 587-605.
Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X. A., & Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(3), 629–640.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504.
Stahl, G. K., & Caligiuri, P. (2005). The effectiveness of expatriate coping strategies: The moderating role of cultural distance, position level, and time on the international assignment. Journal of Applied Psychology,90(4), 603-615
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Tian, A. W., Meyer, J. P., Ilic-Balas, T., Espinoza, J. A., & Pepper, S. (2023). In search of the pseudo-transformational leader: A person-centered approach. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113675. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113675
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111401017
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Wu, M., Huang, X., Li, C., & Liu, W. (2012). Perceived interactional justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Management and Organization Review, 8, 97-121.
Zand, D.E.(1972). Trust and managerial problem-solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229-239.