華人文化中獨特的威權領導、仁慈領導一直都是華人組織研究中的重要而鮮明的領導現象。其中，隨著全球化趨勢，威權領導理論意義與誤解、實徵結果的不一致等狀況，本研究進一步將威權領導區分成專權、尚嚴領導，來釐清威權領導：(1)經由部屬的挑戰-阻礙型壓力對工作績效所產生的不同影響；(2)恩威並濟的本質。本研究以問卷調查方式，對台灣企業193位員工進行研究，結果發現：(1)主管的專權領導程度越高，部屬的阻礙型壓力感受越強；主管的尚嚴領導程度越高，部屬的挑戰型壓力感受越強；(2)主管的尚嚴領導會透過部屬的挑戰型壓力間接提升部屬的工作績效；(3)主管的仁慈領導會降低部屬的工作壓力感受；(4)主管的仁慈領導能夠弱化專權領導對部屬阻礙型壓力的正向影響、強化尚嚴領導對部屬挑戰型壓力的正向影響。最後，根據本次研究結果進行討論，並對研究貢獻、研究限制及未來研究方向加以闡述。

The unique authoritarian leadership and benevolent leadership in Chinese culture has always been an important and distinct leadership phenomenon in the study of Chinese organizations. Among them, with the trend of globalization, the theoretical significance and misunderstanding of authoritarian leadership and the inconsistent results of empirical research, this study further divides authoritarian leadership into two categories; dominance-focused and discipline-focused. To clarify: (1) the different influences of authoritarian leadership on job performance through the challenge-hindrance stress of subordinates; (2) the coexistence of authoritarian leadership and benevolent leadership. This study conducted a questionnaire survey on 193 employees of Taiwanese companies. The results showed that: (1) the supervisor's dominance-focused authoritarian leadership will trigger the subordinates' hindrance stress and the supervisor's discipline-focused authoritarian leadership will trigger the subordinates' challenge stress (2) the discipline-focused authoritarian leadership of the supervisor will indirectly enhance the job performance of the subordinates through the challenge stress of the subordinates; (3) the benevolent leadership of the supervisor will reduce the job stress of the subordinates; (4) the benevolent leadership of the supervisor can weaken the positive influence of dominance-focused authoritarian leadership on subordinates' hindrance stress and strengthen the positive influence of discipline-focused authoritarian leadership on subordinates' challenge stress. Finally, based on the results of this study, we will discuss the research contributions, research limitations and future research directions.

方妙玲、劉博民（2016）：〈員工自我導向學習與工作績效之關聯性研究〉。《服務業管理評論》，14，49-75。
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：國立台灣大學。
余安邦、楊國樞（1989）：〈社會取向成就動機與個我取向成就動機：概念分析與實徵研究〉。《中央研究院民族學研究所集刊》，64，51-98。
吳宗祐（2008）：〈由不當督導到情緒耗竭：部屬正義知覺與情緒勞動的中介效果〉。《中華心理學刊》，50(2)，201-221。
李艷、孫健敏、焦海濤（2013）：〈分化與整合—家長式領導研究的走向〉。《心理科學進展》，21(7)，1294-1306。
周婉茹、周麗芳、鄭伯壎、任金剛（2010）：〈專權與尚嚴之辨：再探威權領導的內涵與恩威並濟的效果〉。《本土心理學研究》，34，223-284。
周婉茹、鄭伯壎、連玉輝（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。
周麗芳（2016）：《華人職場中的員工幸福感：本土文化取徑的研究與介入》，科技部研究技術報告，報告編號MOST-104-2420-H-006-010-MY3。台北：行政院科技部。
周麗芳、周婉茹、嚴珮瑜（2011）：〈威權領導的前因與後果：主管與部屬間的壓力移轉〉。「第七屆華人心理學家學術研討會」，台北。
周麗芳、鄭伯壎、任金剛（2006）：《情境脈絡影響。家長式領導：模式與證據（下）》。台北：華泰文化公司。
林姿葶、鄭伯壎（2007）：〈性別與領導角色孰先孰後? 主管-部屬性別配對，共事時間及家長式領導〉。《中華心理學刊》，49(4)，433-450。
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。
林姿葶、鄭伯壎、周麗芳（2014）：〈家長式領導二十年：問題與解答〉。《本土心理學研究》，42，147-177。
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。
林隆儀、胡梅莉（2009）：〈工作特性與信任在領導風格對工作績效影響的干擾效果-以台灣投信產業為例〉。《企業管理學報》，82，48-89。
胡昌亞、鄭瑩妮（2014）：〈不當督導研究回顧與前瞻〉。《中華心理學刊》，56(2)，191-214。
高旭繁、陸洛（2011）：〈工作壓力及其後果的組群差異：以 OSI 模式為理論基礎之大樣本分析〉。《臺大管理論叢》，22(1)，239-272。
高鳳霞、鄭伯壎（2014）：〈職場工作壓力：回顧與展望〉。《人力資源管理學報》，14(1)，77-101。
張松山、孫仲山、陳冠年（2011）：〈績效評估指標，組織溝通，評核方式與工作績效關聯性之實證研究〉。《工業科技教育學刊》，4，57-64。
連淑君、余德成（2004）：〈薪資制度、責任感與工作績效之研究〉。《人力資源管理學報》，4(2)，47-59。
陳嵩、李佩芬、陳光偉（2008）：〈上司家長式領導對銷售人員目標取向及績效之影響—以銀行理財專員為例〉。《企業管理學報》，77，1-46。
趙安安、高尚仁（2005）：〈台灣地區華人企業家長式領導風格與員工壓力之關聯〉。《應用心理研究》，27，111-131。
樊景立、鄭伯壎（1997）：〈華人自評式績效考核中的自謙偏差：題意，謙虛價值及自尊之影響〉。《中華心理學刊》，39(2)，103-118。
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。
鄭伯壎（1995）：〈差序格局與華人組織行為〉。《本土心理學研究》，3，142-219。
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、周麗芳、黃敏萍、樊景立、彭泗清（2003）：〈家長式領導的三元模式：中國大陸企業組織的證據〉。《本土心理學研究》，20，209-250。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立（2000）：〈家長式領導：三元模式的建構與測量〉。《本土心理學研究》，14，3-64。
鄭伯壎、林姿葶、鄭弘岳、周麗芳、任金剛、樊景立（2010）：〈家長式領導與部屬效能：多層次分析觀點〉。《中華心理學刊》，52(1)，1-23。
鄭伯壎、黃敏萍（2005）：〈華人企業組織中的領導〉。見楊國樞（主編）：《華人本土心理學（下）》，749-787。台北：遠流出版。
鄭伯壎、周麗芳、樊景立（2000）：〈家長式領導：三元模式的建構與測量〉。《本土心理學研究》，14，3-64。
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。
駱月絹（2015）：《「盡人事/知天命」—華人努力階層模式之研究》。臺灣大學心理學研究所學位論文，博士論文。
鍾珮珊、林文政（2016）：〈員工組織年資，工作績效與挑戰性工作經驗對晉升力評分的相對影響效果〉。《輔仁管理評論》，23(1)，1-22。
蘇義祥、胡國強（2000）：〈個人成熟度及內外控取向的調節作用對領導型態與工作績效關係之研究—以中華電信公司專戶服務部門為例〉。《管理評論》，19(2)，89-111。

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1972). Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: A five-year panel study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8(2), 185-200.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel psychology, 31(4), 665-699.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 71.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational psychology, 2, 687-732. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Cannon, W. B. (1932). The wisdom of the body. New York: Norton.
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.
Chen, T. (2011). Structuring versus autocraticness: Exploring a comprehensive model of authoritarian leadership. Doctoral dissertation, City University of Hong Kong.
Chen, C. C., & Farh, J. (2010). Developments in understanding Chinese leadership: Paternalism and its elaborations, and alternatives. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 599-622). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Chen, T., Li, F., & Leung, K. (2017). Whipping into shape: Construct definition, measurement, and validation of directive-achieving leadership in Chinese culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(3), 537-563.
Cheung, J. H., Sinclair, R. R., Shi, J., & Wang, M. (2015). Do Job Demands of Chinese Manufacturing Employees Predict Positive or Negative Outcomes? A Test of Competing Hypotheses. Stress and Health, 31(5), 432-442.
Chiang, T. J., Wang, A. C., Chen, X. P., & Cheng, B. S. (2009, August). CEO authoritarian leadership in China: Exploring its effects on employee and organizational performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management 2009 Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.
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.
Chou, W. J., Chou, L. F., & Cheng, B. S. (2010, August). Authoritarian leadership and subordinate well-being: How and when does leadership function? Paper presented at the Academy of Management 2010 Annual Meeting, Montréal, CA.
Chou, W. J. (周婉茹)., & Cheng, B. S. (鄭伯壎). (2014). Opening the black box: A two-dimensional model of authoritarian leadership and task performance. 中華心理學刊, 56(4), 397-414.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Farh, J. L. (2006). Does employee’s authoritarian values matter: The effectiveness of people-related and task-related authoritarian leadership in China and Taiwan’s private business. Paper presented at the 2006 International Association for Chinese Management Research (IACMR) Biannual Conference, Nanjing, China.
Chou, L. F., Cheng, B. S., & Farh, J. L. (2006). Does Employee’s Authoritarian Value Matter: The Effectiveness of People-related and Task-related Authoritarian Leadership in China and Taiwan’s Private Business. In 2006 International Association for Chinese Management Research (IACMR) Biannual Conference.
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.
Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834.
De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79-93.
de Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. C. (1998). Need for supervision: Its impact on leadership effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(4), 486-501.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. The Oxford handbook of human motivation, 85-107.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499.
Edwards, P. K. (1986). Managing the Factory. Oxford, Blackwell.
Farh, L. J., Cheng, B., Chou, L., & Chu, X. (2006). Authority and Benevolence: Employees’ responses to Paternalistic Leadership in China. In China's Domestic Private Firms: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Management and Performance.
Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 37(1), 1.
French, J. R., & Kahn, R. L. (1962). A programmatic approach to studying the industrial environment and mental health. Journal of social issues, 18(3), 1-47.
Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1165-1185.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513.
Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment. Organizational behavior and human performance, 33(1), 1-21.
Karasek Jr, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative science quarterly, 285-308.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, productivity and the the reconstruction of working life. Basic books.
Karasek, R. A., Triantis, K. P., & Chaudhry, S. S. (1982). Coworker and supervisor support as moderators of associations between task characteristics and mental strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3(2), 181-200.
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512-519.
LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883.
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.
LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2016). Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036-1059.
Liken, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lin, W., Ma, J., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2015). A double‐edged sword: The moderating role of conscientiousness in the relationships between work stressors, psychological strain, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 94-111.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 151-173.
Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2009). The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 737-748.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92(2), 438.
Redding, G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438.
Schott, R. L. (1999). Managers and mental health: Mental illness and the workplace. Public Personnel Management, 28(2), 161-183.
Schriesheim, C. A., House, R. J., & Kerr, S. (1976). Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of discrepant research results and some empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 297-321.
Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and values: The organization of large-scale Taiwanese enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smither, R. D. (1991). The return of the authoritarian manager. Training, 28(11), 40-44.
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the "causes" of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York, NY, US: Free Press.
Teigen, K. H. (1994). Yerkes-Dodson: A law for all seasons. Theory & Psychology, 4(4), 525-547.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management journal, 43(2), 178-190.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. L. (1997). Where guanxi matters: Relational demography and guanxi in the Chinese context. Work and Occupations, 24(1), 56-79
Ventura, M., Salanova, M., & Llorens, S. (2015). Professional self-efficacy as a predictor of burnout and engagement: The role of challenge and hindrance demands. The Journal of psychology, 149(3), 277-302.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063.
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2010). Toward a better understanding of the effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 68-77.
Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for'paternalistic headship'among the overseas Chinese. Organization studies, 18(3), 445-480.
Wu, M., & Xu, E. (2012). Paternalistic leadership: From here to where? In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research and practice (pp. 449-466). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Yao, Y. H., Fan, Y. Y., Guo, Y. X., & Li, Y. (2014). Leadership, work stress and employee behavior. Chinese Management Studies, 8(1), 109-126.
Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J. ; London : New Delhi: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Zhu, F., Burmeister-Lamp, K., & Hsu, D. K. (2017). To leave or not? The impact of family support and cognitive appraisals on venture exit intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 23(3), 566-590.