臺灣高度民主化與多元化的發展，對於社會型態、環境、家庭乃至個人都造成巨大的衝擊與影響。長期以來軍隊向來為社會所批評是高度封閉、管制嚴密及威權領導的組織。然而，隨著各類資訊發達、權利意識高漲、社會多元發展、及兵役制度的轉型等等因素的影響之下，軍隊傳統的威權領導模式勢將無法達組織目標。為將組織目標領導模式調整轉化為透明、開放及人性化管理、服務式領導的組織型態，本研究試以探討在透明化及制度化（法制化）的管理模式（申訴制度及權保措施）運行下，部屬對管理者的認知信任對威權領導與工作績效的中介效果，並進一步探討程序公平在管理者領導風格與成員內心的認知信任感形塑之中所扮演的調節效果。
本研究以中華民國海軍為研究對象，研究問卷分為主管問卷、部屬問卷兩類，以親自遞送方式，總計發放紙本問卷400份，回收有效問卷354份，有效樣本回收率88.5％。本研究使用層級迴歸分析進行研究假設之驗證。實證分析結果如下：
（1）威權領導對認知信任具有負向影響。
（2）認知信任對工作績效具有正向影響。
（3）威權領導會直接影響工作績效，且認知信任會部分中介威權領導和工作績效之間的關係。
（4）「程序公平」對「威權領導」與「認知信任」的調節效果並不明顯。
本研究主要貢獻如下:首先，驗證在軍隊法制化與國家化的效益下，官士兵是為整體組織（亦或國家）進行個人服務及工作，而非服務其主官管或部隊長，並在相關福利、獎懲、升遷、權益保障等各方面都制度化（法制化）的現今，以及個人對於現行制度的高度「認知信任」與對主管的職務信任雙重加乘下，威權領導對工作績效的直接影響勢必將大幅降低。其次，為兵役制度的轉型，原威權領導轉化為透明、開放及人性化管理、服務式領導的模式。使組織成員對於制度與管理者的程序公正有一定程度的信賴，而威權領導的比重下降，更顯示程序公平的調節作用不明顯，足可驗證現今軍隊的合理化管理模式已達一定程度的標準。最後，引證出組織可以透過教育訓練提升主管的領導效能以增進部屬對主管的信任，並提升部屬的工作績效。而訂定各項標準化作業流程(SOP)。則有利於主管就事論事進行工作指導，進而提高工作效率。所謂「兵隨將轉」，高階領導者尤其更需以身作則，作為單位主管及部屬的學習楷模。藉由其領導方式，形塑優質的組織領導文化，以增進並強化組織效能。

The highly democratic and diversified development of Taiwan has had a tremendous impact on society, the environment, the family and even to the individual. For a long time, the military has been criticized by the society for its highly closed, tightly controlled and the leading style of authoritarian leadership. However, in the age of advances in information technology, high awareness of rights, diversified social development, and the transformation of the military service system, the traditional authoritarian leadership style of the military will not be able to achieve organizational goals. In order to achieve the goal of leadership we set before, the leadership model adjustment is transformed into a transparent, open and humanized management, organization which leads with the service-oriented leadership style.
The purpose of this study is to explore the mediating effect of subordinates' cognitive trust towards their managers on the authoritarian leadership and job performance under the transparent and institutionalized (legalized) management model (appeal system and security measures), and further explore members whether the regulatory effect of procedural justice in the organization or not plays impacts on authoritarian leadership, cognitive trust and job performance.
This study takes the Republic of China Navy as the research object. The research questionnaire is divided into two categories: the competent questionnaire and the subordinate questionnaire. In total, 400 paper questionnaires were distributed and 354 valid questionnaires were collected. The effective sample recovery rate was 88.5%. This study used hierarchical regression analysis to verify the hypothesis of the study. The empirical analysis results are as follows:
(1) Authoritarian leaders have a negative influence on cognitive trust.
(2) Cognitive trust has a positive effect on job performance.
(3) Authoritarian leadership directly affects job performance, and cognitive trust will be part of the intermediary authoritarian leadership and work performance relationship.
(4) The effect of "procedural justice" on the adjustment of "authoritarian leadership" and "cognitive trust" is not obvious.
The main contributions of this study are as follows: First, to verify the effectiveness of the military's legalization and nationalization, the officers and soldiers serve and work for the organization (the state), not the service and the chief officer or the commander of the army, in the welfare, rewards and punishments, promotion, rights protection, etc. In all aspects of the institutionalized (legalized) service in the military, the high degree of "cognitive trust" of the system and the trust in the position of the supervisor, the direct influence of authoritarian leadership on job performance is bound to be greatly reduced. Secondly, the transformation of the military service system, the original authoritarian leadership transformed into a transparent, open and humanized management, service-oriented leadership model.
The members of the organization have a certain degree of trust in the procedural fairness of the system and the manager, while the proportion of authoritarian leadership has declined, and the adjustment effect of the procedural fairness is not obvious. It can be proved that the rational management mode of the current military has reached a certain level of standards. Finally, it is cited that the organization can enhance the leadership effectiveness of the supervisor through education and training to enhance the trust of the subordinates in the supervisor and improve the performance of the subordinates.
And set up various standardized operating procedures (SOPs). It is conducive to the supervisor to conduct work guidance on the matter, and thus improve work efficiency. The so-called "Bing will turn", high-level leaders need to lead by example, as a model for the unit supervisor and subordinates. Through its leadership style, it forms a high-quality organizational leadership culture to enhance and strengthen organizational effectiveness.

中文文獻
紀乃文、王誼臻(2014)。「轉換型領導與部屬工作績效：探討部屬適配知覺的中介效果及部屬適應 性特質的干擾效果」。組織與管理，7 卷2 期，81-126。
劉娜婷、蔡秉毅、徐雅惠、吳肇展(2014)。「威權領導與職場偏差行為之關係：主管與部屬交換關 係差異與個人文化價值觀所扮演的角色」。組織與管理，7 卷 2 期，1-50。
黃家齊(2002)。人力資源管理活動認知與員工態度， 績效之關聯性差異分析-心理契約與社會交換觀點。管理評論，21(4)，101-127。
楊國彬、熊欣華(2011)。夥伴資源，創業策略與創業績效:以台灣資訊電子新創事業為例。管理評論，30(1)，17-39。
韓志翔、江旭新、楊敦程(2009)。高承諾人力資源管理，知覺組織支持，信任與知識分享之關係探討: 跨層次的分析。管理評論， 28(1)，25-44。
吳宗祐 (2008)。主管威權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。
鄭伯壎(1990)。領導與情境:互動心理學硏究途徑，大洋出版。
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。
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。
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。
張火燦、陳聿函(2008)。情緒勞務是否能提高服務品質:創造力環境與工作標準化的角色。萬能商學學報，(13)，325-349。
鄭林偉、林進財、邵琳 (1998)。台灣汽車產業行銷通路成員信任-承諾模式實證研究。交大管理學報，18(2)，143-169。
吳宗祐、徐瑋伶、鄭伯壎 (2002)。怒不可遏或忍氣吞聲:華人企業主管威權領導與部屬憤怒反應。本土心理學研究，(18)，3-49。
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，82，48-88。
徐志輝、李素箱、林家彣(2013)。企業辦理運動會對員工組織承諾與工作績效關聯性之探討-以 S 公司員工運動會為例。運動與遊憩研究，7(3)，16-32。
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。
池文海、楊宗儒、呂正雄（2008）。內部行銷與情緒智力對員工績效之影響。中華管理學報，9(3)，1-22。
林淑姬、樊景立、吳靜吉、司徒達賢(1994)。薪酬公平，程序公正與組織承諾，組織公民行為關係之研究。管理評論，13(2)，87-107。
熊欣華(2003)。組織間信任. 組織行為研究在台灣:三十年回顧與展望，台北縣新店市:桂冠，357-384。
鄭伯壎(2005)。華人領導: 理論與實際，台北: 桂冠。
姜定宇、丁捷、林伶瑾(2012)。家長式領導與部屬效能: 信任主管與不信任主管的中介效果。中華心理學刊，54(3)， 269-291。
林鉦琴、蕭淑月、何慧清（2005）。社會交換理論觀點下組織支持、組織知識分享行為與組織公民行為相關因素之研究：以信任與關係為分析切入點。人力資源管理學報，5 (1)，77-110。
韓志翔、江旭新、楊敦程(2009)。高承諾人力資源管理，知覺組織支持，信任與知識分享之關係探討:跨層次的分析。管理評論， 28(1)，25-44。
盧俊成，蔡啟通，葉長青，(2001)，團隊成員認知賦能對個人創新性關係之研究，銘傳大學「2001年知識經濟、科技創新與組織管理學術研討會」論文集，509-525，台北：銘傳大學。
中華民國國防部國防報告書編撰委員會。《104年中華民國國防報告書》。台北：中華民國國防部，民國104年。
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。
 

英文文獻
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). Academic Press.
Alston, F., & Tippett, D. (2009). Does a technology-driven organization's culture influence the trust employees have in their managers?. Engineering Management Journal, 21(2), 3-10.
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. Handbook of psychology, 277-307.
Barger, P. B., & Grandey, A. A. (2006). Service with a smile and encounter satisfaction: Emotional contagion and appraisal mechanisms. Academy of management journal, 49(6), 1229-1238.
Barnard, C. (1938).The functions of the executive.
Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1998). High performance work systems and firm performance: A synthesis of research and managerial implications. In Research in personnel and human resource management.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional communication criteria of fairness. Research in organizational behavior, 9, 289-319.
Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Boksem, M. A., & De Cremer, D. (2010). Fairness concerns predict medial frontal negativity amplitude in ultimatum bargaining. Social neuroscience, 5(1), 118-128.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2), 99-109.
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.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological bulletin, 120(2), 189.
Brouthers, K. D. (2002). Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of international business studies, 33(2), 203-221.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The leadership quarterly, 18(6), 606-632.
Butler Jr, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of management, 17(3), 643-663.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology.
Cascio, W. F. (2006). The economic impact of employee behaviors on organizational performance. In America at work(pp. 241-256). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Chan, S. C. (2014). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice: Does information sharing matter? Human Relations, 67(6), 667-693.
Chan, S. C., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization‐based self‐esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128.
Chemers, M. M., & Ayman, R. E. (1993). Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. Academic Press.
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.
Chi, S. C. S., & Liang, S. G. (2013). When do subordinates' emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates' emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 125-137.
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. (2002). Implicating trust in the innovation process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 409-422.
Costigan, R. D., Iiter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998). A multi-dimensional study of trust in organizations. Journal of managerial issues, 303-317.
Costigan, R. D., Iiter, S. S., & Berman, J. J. (1998). A multi-dimensional study of trust in organizations. Journal of managerial issues, 303-317.
Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., Spendolini, M. J., Fielding, G. J., & Porter, L. W. (1980). Organization structure and performance: A critical review. Academy of management review, 5(1), 49-64.
De Cremer, D., & Blader, S. L. (2006). Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2), 211-228.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 611.
Dunn, J. (2000). Trust and political agency. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, electronic edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, 73-93.
Erdem, F., & Ozen, J. (2003). Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in developing team performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 9(5/6), 131-135.
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84-127). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
FARH, J. L., Werbel, J. D., & Bedeian, A. G. (1988). An empirical investigation of self‐appraisal‐based performance evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 141-156.
Feldman, M. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15(3), 295-309.
Flaherty, K. E., & Pappas, J. M. (2002). The influence of career stage on job attitudes: Toward a contingency perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22(3), 135-143.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management journal, 32(1), 115-130.
Folger, R., Rosenfield, D. D., & Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural justifications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 268.
Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations.
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: The building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(6), 588-607.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of management, 16(2), 399-432.
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hansen, M. H., Morrow Jr, J. L., & Batista, J. C. (2002). The impact of trust on cooperative membership retention, performance, and satisfaction: an exploratory study. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 5(1), 41-59.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of international business studies, 14(2), 75-89.
Hosmer, L. T., & Kiewitz, C. (2005). Organizational justice: A behavioral science concept with critical implications for business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(1), 67-91.
Hunt, J. G. 2005. Explosion of the leadership field and LQ’s changing of the editorial guard. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 1-8.
Hwang, S., & Cameron, G. T. (2008). Public's expectation about an organization's stance in crisis communication based on perceived leadership and perceived severity of threats. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 70-73.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business research, 58(4), 500-507.
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1306.
Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organizational justice and stress: the mediating role of work-family conflict. Journal of applied psychology, 89(3), 395.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2, p. 528). New York: Wiley.
Kline, T. J., Sulsky, L. M., & Rever-Moriyama, S. D. (2000). Common method variance and specification errors: A practical approach to detection. The Journal of psychology, 134(4), 401-421.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 656-669.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management journal, 38(1), 60-84.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual review of psychology, 50(1), 569-598.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual review of psychology, 41(1), 585-634.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24-59.
McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management review, 23(3), 473-490.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of marketing, 57(1), 81-101.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?. Journal of applied psychology, 76(6), 845.
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.
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of management, 34(3), 566-593.
Redding, S. G., & Hsiao, M. (1990). An empirical study of overseas Chinese managerial ideology. International Journal of Psychology, 25(3-6), 629-641.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(4), 1020.
Schermerhorn Jr, J. R., Gardner III, W. L., & Dresdow, S. A. (1992). Success profiles for student examination performance in a large-lecture management course: An empirical study. Journal of Management Education, 16(4), 430-443.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future.
Shore, L. M., & Thornton III, G. C. (1986). Effects of gender on self-and supervisory ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 115-129.
Shrauger, J. S., & Osberg, T. M. (1981). The relative accuracy of self-predictions and judgments by others in psychological assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2), 322.
Silin, R. H. (1976). Leadership and values: The organization of large-scale Taiwanese enterprises (No. 62). Harvard Univ Asia Center
Simon, H., & March, J. G. (1958). Organization. N.-Y.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.
Tsai, M. H., Chang, S. H., & Hsieh, M. C. (2016). The impact of Taiwan elementary principal’s distributed leadership and teacher’s emotional labor on teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics, 9(1), 67-88.
Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of management, 26(1), 155-169.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(5), 830.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). Academic Press.
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1-60). Academic Press.
Waldman, D. A. (1994). The contributions of total quality management to a theory of work performance. Academy of management review, 19(3), 510-536.
Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and patriarchy: The cultural basis for'paternalistic headship'among the overseas Chinese. Organization studies, 18(3), 445-480.
Whitley, R. (1992). Business systems in East Asia: Firms, markets and societies. Sage.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human relations, 43(10), 975-995.
Zhang, Y., Huai, M. Y., & Xie, Y. H. (2015). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 25-36.