英语论文网

本文的目标是探讨性状、变革型领导的领导风格对下属的影响（I）与上司的满意度，（II）总体满意度，（III）情感承诺、（IV）对工作压力的影响，（V）鼓舞和（VI）知识刺激。

长期以来，领导理论一直试图找到与有效领导相关的特征。可以说，大多数人认为，领导人可以对他们所领导的组织产生深远的影响。证据可以在报纸的体育版块，球迷和体育记者发现教练员更换主队，输球纪录增加，在商业新闻中有金融分析师推荐购买或出售股票，从而导致公司CEO转变的新闻，还有政治新闻，选民们要求重新选举或投票选举他们的代表的一种方式，从而提高他们的生活质量。尽管普遍的智慧对领导的影响，有相对较少的经验证据，来支持特定的领导风格和团队绩效之间的关系。领导人除了可能对小组有效性的影响外，领导者也可能影响小组成员的态度和感情。

Aims——目标

The aim of this paper is to explore the traits associated with transformational Leadership and the effects of this leadership style on subordinates in terms of (i)satisfaction with supervisor, (ii)overall satisfaction, (iii) affective commitment, (iv) impact on job related stress, (v) Inspirational motivation and (vi) Intellectual stimulation.

Introduction——简介

Leadership theory has long sought to find traits associated with effective leadership. It is safe to say that most people believe that leaders can have a profound impact on the organizations they lead. Supporting evidence can be found in newspapers' Sports sections where fans and sportswriters call for the replacement of coaches as a cure for the home team's losing record, in the Business press where financial analysts recommend the purchase or sale of stocks on news of CEO transitions, and in the Political press where voters are urged to re-elect or vote out their elected representatives as a way of improving their quality of life. Despite the common wisdom regarding the effects of leadership, there has been relatively little empirical evidence to support the relationship between specific leadership styles and group performance. In addition to the effects that leaders may have on the effectiveness of groups, leaders may also impact group members' attitudes and feelings. For instance, it may be more fun and satisfying to work for a sym pathetic, approachable leader than a person who leads by the use of intimidation and fear. Because of the link between job satisfaction, attitudes and turnover, several authors have noted the key role that leaders play in the retention of key employees (Kaye & Jordan, 1999; Harris & Brannick, 1999). The trait theory of leadership (a.k.a., the Great Man theory) has been a focus of scientific study for at least a century (e.g., Terman, 1904). Despite the long tradition of this research, the results of studies concern ing the relationship between traits and leadership have been inconsistent and disappointing. For instance, House and House & Aditya (1997) stated that 'there were few, if any, universal traits associated with effective leader ship . . . there developed among the community of leadership scholars near consensus that the search for universal traits was futile'.

There are many reasons to attend to the unity of leadership and followership. Yet, by convention, these phenomena are treated apart. Both leadership and followership represent active roles, given the reality that organizational functions require them at every level. The usual expectation of the leader role as active and the follower role as passive is misconceived even in traditional hierarchies. Barnes and Kriger (1986) observed that leadership does not rest with a single individual but is pluralistic and fluid, in part due to the crossing of the formal structure by informal networks.

In short, leadership is a process, not a person. Because of the common misconception that it belongs to on