DOI: 10.6129/CJP.20141224
中華心理學刊 民103，56卷，2期，149-164
Chinese Journal of Psychology 2014, Vol.56, No.2, 149-164
王安智（中原大學心理學系）
摘要
自鄭伯壎及其團隊（如Farh & Cheng, 2000）提出德行領導（moral leadership），做為具有華人特色的家長式領導重要向度之一後，此一強調個人德行修為的領導風格，便被視為是一項具有本土特色的領導概念。過去10年間，幾項重要的後續研究已初步釐清德行領導的豐富內涵，並驗證其與部屬效能的高度展現有關。但值此同時，西方領導學社群也開始以道德領導（ethical leadership）為題，探討領導者如何展現個人操守並進一步提倡合乎倫理規範的行為操守。當道德領導逐漸成為近十年來西方領導研究的「顯學」，並在文化分析中被認定為可一路追溯至古希臘時代對道德的崇尚時，有志於華人德行領導的研究者便不禁反思：德行領導究竟是華人特有的領導風格，還是在非華人情境下也普遍存在的現象？本文首先回顧德行領導與道德領導兩者在過去10年間的研究進展，再從文化根源分析、運作機制探討及行為展現對照3種角度，進一步比較兩者的異同。本文並試圖建立一項整合性的概念架構，用以指出德行領導在定義與概念化層次上，應普遍存在於各種文化場域之中；但其向度與內涵之展現，則是鑲嵌於文化之中的產物，在各文化場域中各自呈現不同的風貌。最後，本文在此一概念架構的基礎上，提出值得研究者繼續投入的未來研究方向。
關鍵詞：家長式領導、道德領導、德行領導
Moral Leadership: An Indigenous Construct or a Universal Phenomenon?
An-Chih Wang（Department of Psychology, Chung Yuan Christian University）
Abstract
Since Farh & Cheng (2000) proposed moral leadership as one of the dimensions of Chinese paternalistic
leadership, it has been considered an indigenous leadership construct emerged from Confucian doctrine of selfcultivation. For the past ten years, several important follow-up studies have clarified the nature of it and evidenced its favorable effects on subordinate performance. As this leadership construct gradually developed, Western scholars also defined a similar term, ethical leadership, as a leader’s normatively appropriate conduct and his or her promotion of such morality. When Western literature on leadership further traced ethical leadership to Aristotle’s philosophy, researchers interested in Chinese moral leadership started to wonder whether moral leadership is truly an indigenous leadership construct that only exists in Chinese settings. To probe this question, I first review literature on moral leadership and that on ethical leadership separately, and then compare these two constructs from three perspectives: (1) cultural origins, (2) underlying mechanisms, and (3) behavioral demonstration. Accordingly, I propose a framework that integrates the two leadership constructs. I argue that at the definition and the conceptualization level, moral or ethical leadership is universal and can be observed across different cultural settings. However, its dimensions and explicit display are culture-specific; it consists of disparate sets of behavioral patterns in different contexts. Based on this newly proposed framework, I identify several fruitful future research directions.
Keywords: paternalistic leadership, ethical leadership, moral leadership
