| Summary: | 博士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 工業教育學系 === 90 === ABSTRACT
This research tended to implement the Chinese Leadership Models established by Dr. Kang, Charles Tze-li (1997) and applicable surveys in the field of primary high school employees among Zhejiang Province, Mainland China and Taiwan region. The purpose of this research was to explore the value of culture, leadership behavior perception and expectation, and leadership behavior difference dimensions and their influences upon leadership effectiveness among the employees of primary high school institutions between the Zhejiang and Taiwan.
This research was constructed, through “Indigenous Leadership Inventory”, “Culture Inventory”, and “ Leadership Effectiveness Inventory” referenced by leadership literatures and documents. After the Inventory was created, scholars with extensive research experience in leadership and testing theory were invited to guide and conduct a pilot test in order to establish the validity and reliability of the research instrument. This research utilized the questionnaire investigation methods on the matrix from the primary high school teachers and employees in Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan region. Through layers of random sampling, we drew 2,290 questionnaires for Zhejinag and 1,115 copies for Taiwan region. These questionnaires were mailed out to conduct a field test. Then, we collected back 1,082 and 741 copies of questionnaires and generated the effective 1,067 copies for Zhejiang province, Mainland China and 725 questionnaires for Taiwan regions. The research hypothesis were tested on these documented data using varieties of methods including factor analysis, t-test, F-test, Pearson correlation analysis, Wilk’s Λmultivariate variance analysis, multiple stepwise regression, and path analysis. Some concrete conclusions and suggestions were drawn to recommend to the high school leaders between the Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan.
We concluded the following issues based upon documentation analysis and field test results.
1. We developed the various “Indigenous Leadership Inventory”, “Culture Inventory”, and “ Leadership Effectiveness Inventory” and obtained a good fitness in validity, reliability, and well explained variance of leadership behavior, culture and leadership effectiveness between Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan.
2. The people from both sides of Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan experienced more than 50 years separate rulings and possessed different political philosophies and historical events; therefore, people present a different sculpture effect on their cultural value perceptions. Mainland China has a large power distance and collectivenism dimensions than Taiwan region; however, Taiwan region has femininity, stronger uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation dimensions.
3. Both samples sustained relative differences between perceptions and expectations between Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan samples towards their leadership behavior. That explained the space for the management to strive for. Additionally, the employees of Zhejiang province, Mainland China percepts a higher difference than those of Taiwan region. Therefore, the management of high school from Zhejiang province, Mainland China needed more efforts than those from Taiwan region.
4. The samplers from both Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan region revealed a medium evaluation on their management leadership effectiveness. However, samplers from Mainland China have a higher level of satisfaction than those from Taiwan in their employee satisfaction.
5. The various dimensions of leadership effectiveness, leadership behavior perceptions and expectations, difference and the value of cultural in both Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan region display a significant positive correlation. These proved that leadership behavior and culture dimensions have a positive influential effect upon leadership effectiveness.
6. Different management academic background variables in both Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan region lead to a differential phenomenon on leadership behavior and leadership effectiveness.
7. The importance sequence of the predicted variables on leadership effectiveness revealed differently in Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan region. In Zhejiang province, the most important predicted factor is the perception of the role of mentor; however, the factor is the perception of the role of parent in Taiwan region.
8. The cultural difference between Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan region lead to a direct influence effect toward the leadership behavior, and through leadership behavior imposed an indirect influential effect on leadership effectiveness. Simultaneously, leadership behavior will have a direct positive influential factor on leadership effectiveness.
To comprehend the previous conclusions, this research provided the following suggestions toward the primary high school leaders:
1. Leaders from Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan region should emphasize the cultural difference and its transition.
2. Leaders from Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan region might control the expectations, shorten the difference between expectations and perceptions and upgrade the work satisfaction.
3. Leaders from Mainland China should strengthen the leadership behavior from role of a mentor to upgrade the leadership effectiveness; while leaders from Taiwan should strengthen the leadership behavior from role of parent to improve leadership effectiveness.
4. Leaders from Zhejiang province, Mainland China and Taiwan region should cultivate the value of large power distance and collectivism, in order to attain the objection of organization and raise the satisfaction of followers directly.
5. Leaders should stress the mediating effect of the role of parent and mentor with the collectivism, femininity, strong uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation, in order to increase the leadership effectiveness indirectly.
6. Leaders should fill up the cognitive gap among employees to differences of the academic experience, sex, age of leaders, and tenure and educational degree of employees.
|
|---|
