摘要
本研究之目的在於以學校為研究場域，觀察學校組織的領導者在領導行為的展現上是否貼近「家長式領導風格」，並進一步探討「家長式領導行為」是否能讓「領導者貫徹命令、部屬服從領導」，「組織和諧」及「命令與服從」需求間具有何種關係。最後並以「家長式領導風格」為基礎發展出「國民小學家長式領導型態模型」以供學校領導者改善領導效能的策略方法，以做為學校領導者未來在經營學校、領導教職員工時的參考依據。
研究者透過專家推薦的方式，選定一位領導行為與「家長式領導風格」相符之國民小學校長做為研究對象，並以實地實驗研究法進行變項間的研究分析以做為驗証假設的依據。本研究所得結果茲分述如下：
一、「家長式領導風格領導策略行為指標」下轄九項領導策略及47項具體行為指標。研究對象在其中38項具體行為指標呈現「符合」情形；三項指標呈現「不符合」情形，分別是指標「1-3」、「3-5」、「4-5」；六項指標呈現「部分符合」情形，分別是指標「2-4」、「4-2」、「5-5」、「6-3」、「7-5」、「9-2」。整體而言，研究對象的領導行為大致符合「家長式領導風格領導策略行為指標」。
二、「家長式領導風格領導策略行為指標」中有部分具體行為指標對「命令與服從需求」及「和諧需求」呈現負面影響，故刪除指標「2-5」、「7-5」；增加指標「1-7」，修正指標「1-4」、「2-4」、「3-2」、「3-5」、「6-3」，並將修正後之結果以「學校組織家長式領導風格領導策略行為指標」呈現。
三、家長式領導型態模型概由三部分所組成，第一部分是「家父長角色的型塑」內含包括「法職權」、「專家權」、「掌控資訊」、「樹立權威」、「關懷部屬」及「以德服人」六個向度。組織領導者可藉由此六向度的運用來鞏固權力，使部屬對其產生依賴感，領導者方能有效發揮其影響力從而型塑其組織中「家父長角色」的形象。
第二部分是由「命令與服從」及「組織和諧」兩大需求所組成，本研究發現「命令與服從」需求是領導者最為期待的需求，然而若要滿足領導者貫徹命令的需求，先決條件是組織要先達成和諧的需求，只有在組織和諧的情境中，領導者家父長角色才會被部屬所認可，家父長角色建立後領導者才能貫徹其命令。反之，若組織處於衝突狀態，領導者的家父長角色將無法獲得部屬認同，如此一來即無法滿足「命令與服從」需求。誠如上述，「組織和諧」與否是影響領導者命令貫徹及部屬服從領導的關鍵要素；反之，「命令與服從需求」若未能滿足亦會造成組織的衝突。
第三部分是由「家長式領導策略」所構成，共包含了九項主要策略指標及46項具體行為指標。運用「家長式領導策略」可使領導者得以「掌控組織」及「撫平衝突」使組織重新回到和諧的狀態，俾使「家長式領導型態」得以順利運作。
此外，本研究亦對「家父長角色的型塑」、「命令與服從」及「組織和諧」兩大需求的關係、及「家長式領導策略」等進行分析討論。文末並針對實務應用與未來之研究方向提出具體可行之建議。

Abstract
The first purpose of this research is to observe if the leadership shown from the school leader is close to ‘‘Leader Type Paternalistic Style’’.The second is to study if the leader showing the leadership of ‘‘Leader Type Paternalistic Style’’ could let him follow his order through and let the members be subject to his order. And the third is to disscuss the ralationship between ‘‘the need of keeping the organization in companionate situation’’ and ‘‘the need of letting the members be subject to the leader’s order’’. Finally, the research would develop ‘‘The Paternalistic Style Pattern of elementary shcool’’ which is besed on ‘‘The Paternalistic Style’’ in order to provide school leaders ways to improve their leadership effectiveness and it’s also a reference for the school leaders to adminiser schools.
By the way of professional commendation, the reaserch chooses a principal of an elementary school as a reaserch object whose leadership is close to ‘‘Leader Type Paternalistic Style’’ and uses field experiment study to analyses the relationships among all the variables.The results of this research are shown as the next:
Ⅰ. ‘‘Coping Strategy indexes of Leader Type Paternalistic Style’’ include nine leadership strategies and 47 concrete leadership indexes. The leadership of the reaserch object accords with 38 concrete leadership indexes; there are 3 discrepancies between his leadership and the indexes, such as indexes 1-3, 3-5, 4-5; and his leadership partly accords with 6 concrete leadership indexes, such as indexes 2-4, 4-2, 5-5, 6-3, 7-5, 9-2. In a short, The leadership of the reaserch object accords with most concrete leadership indexes.
Ⅱ.The study deletes indexes 2-5, 7-5; adds indexes 1-7; amends indexes 1-4, 2-4, 3-2, 3-5, 6-3 because these concrete leadership indexes of ‘‘Coping Strategy indexes of Leader Type Paternalistic Style’’ have bad effect on ‘‘the need of keeping the organization in companionate situation’’ and ‘‘the need of letting the members be subject to the leader’s order’’. And the reserch resets these indexes into ‘‘Coping Strategy indexes of Leader Type Paternalistic Style in School Organization’’.
Ⅲ. The Paternalistic Style Pattern is formed of three parts. The first part is to build up the father’s character which is formed of ‘‘legitimate power’’, ‘‘expert power’’, ‘‘imformation power’’, ‘‘building up authority’’, ‘‘Taking care of members’’, and ‘‘moral lead’’ six dimensions. By using the six dimensions, the leader could hold his power, let the members depend on him, and therefore he could build up the father’s character.
The second part is formed of ‘‘the need of keeping the organization in companionate situation’’ and ‘‘the need of letting the members be subject to the leader’s order’’. The reaserch finds that the former one is what the leader needs most. But if the leader want to satisfy his need, he must keep the organization in companionate situation. Only in companionate situation, the members would recognize the father’s character of the leader and therefore he could let the members be subject to his order, otherwise he would get the antithesis. To sum up, keeping the organization in companionate situation is the key point for letting the members be subject to the leader’s order, otherwise if the leader couldn’t follow his order through, it would cause conflicts in the organization.
The third part is formed of ‘‘Coping Strategy indexes of Leader Type Paternalistic Style’’ which include nine leadership strategies and 46 concrete leadership indexes. By using these Strategies, the leader could control the organization, counteract the conflicts and therefore he could keep the organization in companionate situation and let ‘‘The Paternalistic Style Pattern’’ work.
Besides, the reaserch has also deeply analysed ‘‘building up the father’s character’’, the relationship between ‘‘the need of keeping the organization in companionate situation’’ and ‘‘the need of letting the members be subject to the leader’s order’’, and ‘‘Coping Strategy indexes of Leader Type Paternalistic Style’’. At last, the thesis also provides some suggestions to the leaders, the education authorities and the other students.

參考文獻
王文科 (2000)。質的教育研究法。台北：師大。
司徒達賢 (1999)。非營利組織的經營管理。台北：天下遠見。
李青芬，李雅婷，趙慕芬譯 （2002）。組織行為學（Stephen P. Robbins原著）。台北：華泰。
杜正勝（1982）。編戶齊民－傳統的家族與家庭。載於杜正勝主編：吾土與吾民，(頁300-350)。台北：聯經。
吳清基 (2000)。教育行政。台北：五南。
周丁浦生（1990）。衝突與管理。載於楊國樞．曾仕強主編：中國人的管理觀。台北：冠桂。
林明地（2002）。學校領導－理念與校長專業生涯。台北：高等教育。
金耀基（1987）。從傳統到現代。台北：時報文化。
洪天富譯（1997）。儒教與道教（Marx Webber原著）。江蘇：江蘇人民出版社。
凌文輇（1991）。中國人的領導與行為。見楊中芳、高尚仁（主編）：中國人、中國心-人格與社會篇，(頁409-448)。台北：遠流。
徐宗林（1986）。教育與文化。台北：文景。
許士軍（1995）。管理學。台北：東華。
張金鑑 (1995)。管理學新論。台北：五南。
張春興（1988）。實驗觀察研究。見楊國樞、文崇一、吳聰賢、李亦園編：社會及行為科學研究法。台北：東華。
郭崑謨（1990）。中西管理理念與行為之比較。載於楊國樞．曾仕強主編：中國人的管理觀。台北：冠桂。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北：五南。
陳其南（1990）。傳統家族制度與企業組織－中國、日本和西方社會的比較研究。載於楊國樞．曾仕強主編：中國人的管理觀。台北：冠桂。
費孝通（2000年11月15日）。論「和而不同」(第三版)。北京：人民日報海外版。
黃光國（1998）。知識與行動－中華文化傳統的社會心理詮釋。台北：心理。
楊國樞（1992）。中國人的社會取向：社會互動的觀點。楊國樞、余安邦主編：中國人的心理與行為-理念與方法篇。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
楊國樞（1995）。家族化歷程、泛家族主義、及組織管理。海峽兩岸組織文化暨人力資源管理研討會宣讀論文。台北：信義文化基金會。
蔡秉峰 (2003)。國民小學校長家長式領導行為之觀察與分析。2003年教育政策與行政學術團體聯合年會。南投：台灣教育政策與評鑑學會。
鄭伯壎（1999）。家長領導的概念建構與工具發展：以教育組織為例。國科會專題研究。計畫編號：NSC 88-2413-H-002-014。
鄭伯壎（2000）。華人組織的家長式領導：概念再建構、測量及模式的建立（Ⅰ）。國科會專題研究。計劃編號：NSC 89-2413-H-002-013。
鄭伯壎、樊景立（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（6），頁127-180。
鄭伯壎（2000）。家長式領導：三元模式的建構與測量。本土心理學研究，14（5），頁3-64。
鄭伯壎（2001）。華人組織的家長式領導：概念再建構、測量及模式的建立（Ⅱ）。國科會專題研究。計劃編號：NSC 89-2413-H-002-039。
鄭伯壎（2002）。華人領導者的部屬歸類模式及其驗證。國科會專題研究。NSC 90-2413-H-002-015。
鄭燕祥 (1996)。學校管理的改進：理念、變革與實踐。香港：香港中文大學初等教育期刊，3(2)，頁15-26。
賴澤涵（1982）。我國家庭的組成、權力結構、及婦女地位之變遷。載於陳昭南、江玉龍、陳寬政主編，社會科學整合論文集，(頁383-404)。台北：中央研究院三民主義研究所。
謝文全 (2000)。學校行政。台北：五南。
謝金青（2003）。家長式領導風格內涵之理解與分析。國科會專題研究。計劃編號：NSC 91-2413-H-134-003。

Bellah, R. N.（1970）. Father and son in Christianity and Confucianism. In R. N. Bellah （Ed.）Beyond belief: Essays on religion in a post-traditional world. N.Y. : Harper & Row.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B.(1995). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. N.Y. : Harper & Row.
Cycert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W.(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin.
David, H. (1991). Management principles and practice. New Jersey: 　 Prentice-Hall.
Davies, B.（1997）. Rethinking the educational context: A reengineering approach. In B.Davies, and L.Ellison, （Eds.）, School leadership for the 21st century: A competency and knowledge approach （pp.36-53）. London: Routledge.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act. New York: McGraw-Hill.
DeRoche, E.F.（1987）. An administrator's guide for evaluation programs and personnel: An effective schools approach （2nd ed）. Newton Massachusetts : Allyn & Bacon.
Deyo, F. C.（1978）. Local foremen in multinational enterprise: A comparative case study of supervisory role-tensions in Western and Chinese factories of Singapore. Journal of Management Studies, 15, 308-17.
Deyo, F. C.（1983）. Chinese management practices and work commitment in comparative perspective. In L. A. P. Gosling & L. Y. C. Lim （Eds.）,The Chinese in Southeast Asia: Identity, culture and politics, （vol.2,pp.215-230）. Singapore: Maruzen Asia.
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S.（2000）. A Cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li., A. S Tsui., & E. Weldon（Eds.）, Management and organizations in the Chinese Context. London: Macmillan.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The Bases of Social Power, in Studies in Social Power, ed. Dorwin Carturight, Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Reserch.
Gini, A. (1997). Moral leadership and business ethics. Chicago:
Loyola University.
Goldring, E. B., & Rallis, S. F.（1993）. Principals of dynamic schools: Taking charge of chance. Newbury Park: Corwin.
Hamilton, G. G.（1990）. Patriarchy, patrimonialism, and filial piety: A comparison of China and Western Europe. British Journal of Sociology, 41（1）, 77-104.
Hampton, D. R., Summer, C. E., & Webber, R. A.（1986）. Organizational behavior and practice of management. Scott, Foresman & Company.
Ho, D. Y. F.（1994）. Filial piety, authoritarian moralism, and cognitive conservatism in Chinese societies. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 120, 347-65.
Kerlinger, F. N.(1986). Fundations of behavioral research. Chicago: Holt Rinchart and Winston, Inc.
Kotter, J. P.（1990）‘‘What leaders really do,’’ Harvard Business Review, May-June 1990, pp. 103-11; and J. P. Kotter, A Force for Change: How leadership differs from management. N. Y.: Free.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1990). Military executive leadership. In K.E. Clark and M. B. Clark, Measures of Leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Levine, D. U.（1992）. An interpretive review of US. research and practice dealing with unusually effective schools. In D. Reynolds & P. Cuttance（Eds.）, School effectiveness: Research, policy and practice（pp.25-47）. London: Villiers House.
Lewicki, R. J., & Litterer, J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Mechanic, D. (1962) . Sources of Power of Lower Participants in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.24,pp.349-364.
Patton, M. Q.（1990）. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury park: Sage.
Pye, L. W.（1985）. Asia power and politics. cambridge. MA: Harvard University.
Redding, S. G.（1990）. The spirit of Chinese capitalism. N.Y. : Walter de Gruyter.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Silin, R. H.（1976）. Leadership and value: The organization of large-scale Taiwan enterprises. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Smith, R. J.（1994）. China’s cultural heritage:The Qing dynasty, 1644-1912. Colorado: Westview.
Smith, S. C., & Piele, P. K.（1997）. School leadership. Oregon: University of Oregon.
Stogdill, R.（1974）. Handbook of leadership. N.Y. :Free.
Trotter, A. & Ellison, L.（1997）. Understanding competence and competency. In B. Davies, and L. Ellison, （Eds.）, School leadership for the 21st century: A competency and knowledge approach （pp.36-53）. London: Routledge.
Weber, M. (1954). Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society. Combridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Westwood, R. I.（ed）.（1992）. Organizational behavior－Southeast Asian perspectives. Hong Kong: Longman.
Westwood, R. I., & Chan, A.（1992）. Headship and Leadership. In R. I.
Westwood（Ed）, Organizational behavior－Southeast Asian perspectives. Hong Kong: Longman.
Yukl, G. A.（1981）. Leadership in Organizations. New jersey: Prentice-Hall.