柯承恩臺灣大學：商學研究所碩士在職專班高階公共管理組蔡清祥Tsai, Ching- HsiangChing- HsiangTsai2007-12-032018-06-292007-12-032018-06-292005http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/63706領導理論已經發展了一段很長的時間，理論基礎十分完整，實務應用也有相當成效，尤其在軍事單位以及較具規模的企業界早已實踐多時，近年來慢慢地擴展到政府機構和非營利組織。檢察機關是一個相當保守的司法機關，過去不會挑戰檢察一體制度下檢察首長的指揮監督權，現在必須隨著時代的演進從新思考領導者與被領導者間之關係。因此本研究主要是分析新興領導理論運用於檢察機關的可能性，並近一步探討檢察機關領導者領導風格與領導效能之關聯性。 本研究係首次將經過國內外學者多次驗證過的「多重領導行為問卷」（the Multifactor Leadership Questionaire，簡稱MLQ），運用於司法性質的檢察機關。希望能達到以下四個研究目的：首先，瞭解全國一審檢察機關領導者的領導風格究竟是屬於轉換型，或是交易型，還是放任型，而以何者較適合於檢察機關。其次，探求檢察機關的領導者領導風格與領導效能之關聯性，檢察長之領導風格對領導效能「額外努力」「效能」「滿意度」之影響。再者，檢察機關領導者與被領導者對領導風格之認知差異如何，二者的觀點差異是否對領導效能產生影響。最後，檢察機關領導者之領導風格，是否因被領導者工作性質不同，屬獨立性高的檢察工作或從屬性高的行政工作，而對領導效能「額外努力」「效能」「滿意度」產生影響。 本研究針對全國一審檢察機關檢察長及檢察官發放839份調查問卷，回收537份，有效樣本為481份，共分三個部分十個假設予以探討，驗證檢察機關領導者領導風格與領導效能之相關性，並驗證中介變數「認知差異」或「工作性質不同」對之是否造成影響。經研究結果分析，獲得以下幾項發現與貢獻： 一、轉換型領導與交易型領導二者並非是互相排斥的，而是具有互補作用相輔相成的。檢察長領導風格若能採取轉換型與交易型二者交互運用，必可收事半功倍之效果。 二、領導風格確實會影響領導效能，比較轉換型領導、交易型領導與放任型領導與領導效能之相關性，轉換型領導、交易型領導與領導效能均為正向的關聯性，而放任型領導與領導效能則呈負向的關聯性。 三、檢察長個人評估其領導風格與檢察官評估檢察長之領導風格具有顯著差異，不管檢察長採取轉換型或交易型之領導風格，檢察長對自己的評價，都比檢察官對檢察長的評價還要高。然而檢察長若採取放任性之領導風格，則檢察長與檢察官的觀點並無存有顯著差異。 四、對於檢察長之領導效能，檢察長與檢察官觀點是存在顯著差異。檢察長認為在其領導風格下，檢察官願意額外努力，工作效能很高，也很滿意；但是從檢察官之觀點並未若檢察長的想法。 五、檢察長與檢察官認知差異大小，也會影響領導效能，對於檢察長的領導風格，檢察長與檢察官的觀點差異愈大，檢察官愈不願意額外努力、更無效能、愈不滿意。因此，如何縮小檢察長與檢察官認知差距，亦為檢察機關領導者應該特別重視的。 六、對檢察長之領導風格與領導效能，同一檢察機關內不同工作性質的主任檢察官、行政主管、檢察官之間觀點，均是具有顯著差異。所以檢察機關的領導者應體察其等之觀點差異，採取不同之領導方式，亦即運用轉換型與交易型領導方式之比重程度應有所彈性調整，惟絶對避免採取放任性之領導風格。The theory of leadership has been developed for a pretty long time. It is solid in foundation, and effective in application, as has been proved in military units and large enterprises. In recent year, it has also begun to prevail in government agencies and non-profit organizations. The judiciary is a pretty conservative system, where nobody in the past would challenge the chief prosecutor’s power of unitary command. Now it is time to reconsider the relationship between the chief prosecutor and prosecutors. This paper mainly analyzes the possibility of applying the newly emerging theory of leadership to the prosecution branch of the judiciary and the study of the relationship between the style and effectiveness of leadership. The study is the first to apply the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), which has been corroborated by scholars at home and abroad, to the prosecution system. It is meant to achieve four objectives: First, it seeks to understand whether the leadership in the first instant prosecutors’ offices belongs to the transformation type, transaction type or laissez-faire type, and what is most suitable type for a prosecuting organization. Second, it explores the relationship between the style of leadership and its effectiveness in a prosecutors’ office, that is, its effect on the “extra effort”, the “effectiveness”, and the “satisfaction”. Still, what is the perception discrepancy between the leader and the led with regard to the style of leadership? Does the discrepancy affect the effectiveness of leadership? In the end, the study assesses the effectiveness of the leadership on personnel doing different work—prosecutors doing their work more independently or administrative officials doing their work more submissively—as far as the “extra effort”, the “effectiveness”, and the “satisfaction” are concerned. The study sent out 839 questionnaires to the chief prosecutors and prosecutors working in the first instant prosecution offices, of which 537 copies have been filled and returned, with 481 valid. The questions are divided into three categories on ten hypothetical topics. They are designed to verify the effectiveness of leadership style in a prosecutors’ office and to see whether it is affected by the differences of perception and the nature of work. The following conclusions are drawn from the analysis: 1.Transformational leadership and transactional leadership are mutually supportive rather than repulsive. If the chief prosecutor can alternate the two types of leadership, he can achieve the expected result with half the efforts. 2.It is true that the style of leadership will affect its effectiveness. A comparison shows that the transformational leadership and the transactional leadership are positive whereas the laissez-faire leadership is negative. 3.There are marked differences between the chief prosecutor’s assessment and a prosecutor’s assessment on the style of leadership. Whether it is transformational leadership or transactional leadership, the chief prosecutor’s assessment is always higher than that of a prosecutor’s. However, if the chief prosecutor adopts the laissez-faire leadership, there is no remarkable difference in the assessments made by the chief prosecutor and the prosecutors. 4.There is a marked difference between the chief prosecutor and the prosecutors with regard to the effectiveness of leadership. The chief prosecutor thinks that under his or her leadership style the prosecutors will work extraordinary hard and more effectively and will give a higher satisfaction, but the prosecutors think differently. 5.The perception difference between the chief prosecutor and the prosecutors may also affect the effectiveness of leadership. The greater the difference, the less the prosecutors are willing to work extraordinary hard, and also the lower the satisfaction will be. Therefore, the chief prosecutor should try to narrow the gap of perception. 6.With regard to the style and effectiveness of the chief prosecutor’s leadership, the divisional chief prosecutor, the prosecutors, and the administrative officials of the same prosecutors’ office hold remarkably different views. The chief prosecutor therefore, should take note of the difference and adopt different types of leadership. This is to say, he or she should adjust the proportions of the transformational leadership and the transactional leadership and, more important, avoid the laissez-faire leadership.謝 詞 中文摘要 英文摘要 第一章 緒論 ………………………………………………… 1 第一節 研究背景 ………………………………………… 1 第二節 研究動機 ………………………………………… 3 第三節 研究目的 ………………………………………… 5 第二章 文獻探討 …………………………………………… 6 第一節 領導之涵義 ……………………………………… 6 第二節 領導與管理之不同 ……………………………… 8 第三節 領導理論與研究之發展………………………… 10 一、傳統領導理論……………………………………… 10 二、新興領導理論……………………………………… 15 三、領導效能理論……………………………………… 19 四、領導風格與領導效能關聯性研究之論文………… 19 第四節 領導理論文獻評述……………………………… 22 第三章 研究設計與方法…………………………………… 27 第一節 研究架構 ……………………………………… 27 第二節 調查工具 ……………………………………… 28 第三節 資料收集 ……………………………………… 29 第四節 資料分析方法 ………………………………… 30 第五節 研究假設 ……………………………………… 32 第四章 研究結果分析……………………………………… 34 第一節 反應偏差之檢定 ……………………………… 34 第二節 敘述統計 ……………………………………… 35 第三節 檢察機關檢察長領導風格與領導效能 相關性之分析 ………………………………… 36 一、領導風格比較分析 ……………………………… 36 二、領導風格影響領導效能比較分析 ……………… 36 三、領導效能比較分析 ……………………………… 37 第四節　檢察機關檢察長與檢察官認知差異之比較分析 39 一、領導風格觀點差異分析…………………………… 39 二、領導效能觀點差異分析…………………………… 39 三、領導風格觀點差異對領導效能之影響分析……… 40 第五節 檢察機關不同工作性質部屬認知差異之比較分析42 一、領導風格觀點差異分析…………………………… 42 二、領導效能觀點差異分析…………………………… 43 三、領導風格觀點差異對領導效能之影響分析……… 44 第五章 研究結論與建議 …………………………………… 47 第一節 假設驗證 ……………………………………… 47 一、領導風格影響領導效能部分……………………… 47 二、領導者與被領導者之認知差異部分……………… 48 三、被領導者工作性質之差異部分…………………… 50 第二節 研究發現與貢獻 ……………………………… 53 一、學術理論方面 …………………………………… 53 二、實務運用方面 …………………………………… 54 第三節 研究限制 ……………………………………… 57 第四節 未來研究之建議 ……………………………… 59 參考文獻 …………………………………………………… 61 附錄 附錄一 全國檢察機關問卷有效份數佔回收比率統計…… 68 附錄二 全國檢察機關問卷有效份數佔發放比率統計…… 69 附錄三 問卷調查之填答者基本資料分析 ……………… 70 附錄四 轉換型交易型放任型領導之各項子構面詳細分析 資料（本文第四章所列之表各項子構面數據）… 73 附錄五 將全國一審檢察機關區分為大型、中型、小型， 比較分析檢察長的領導型態與領導效能之相關性 資料………………………………………………… 78 附錄六 檢察機關不同工作性質部屬對領導風格認知差異 之各項子構面詳細分析資料……………………… 84 附錄七 調查問卷領導風格因素分析……………………… 85 附錄八 MLQ調查問卷 ………………………………………en-US檢察一體檢察長領導風格轉換型交易型放任型檢察長領導效能額外努力效能滿意度認知差異不同工作性質transformational leadershiptransactional leadershiplaissez-fair leadershipextra efforteffectivenesssatisfactionother