現代人工作時間長、負荷重，人際互動關係複雜，加上認知付出與回饋不對等，造成龐大的工作壓力，這些現象都是現今職場離職重大因素。現今公司創造利潤仰賴的是員工的知識，故員工就是公司最有價值的資產。因此，避免有價值的員工大量流失，成為公司重大的課題。本研究期許能促使領導者更重視員工想法及感受，發展出彼此契合且信賴的關係，冀望企業產出更高價值的經濟交換效益。
領導部屬交換理論(Leader-Member Exchange, LMX)近年來發現 LMX 關係中存在矛盾。身為一位領導者，其個人、社會及組織資源有限，例如：時間、心力或是職權等，在有限資源中，領導者無法將所擁有的資源平均分配給每位部屬，不同的資源分配便造成員工間工作壓力的差異。因此本研究的目的為(一)探討不同領導部屬交換關係的形成原因。(二)探討驅動領導部屬交換關係對員工工作壓力之影響因素。
本研究採用質化研究取向之個案研究法，以深度訪談的方式，探討身為圈內人部屬及圈外人部屬的工作壓力影響情況。依個案公司台北總部服務5年以上並具擔任4年以上主任經驗之15位基層主管之直屬部屬進行LMX 7關係品質量表檢測，以了解部屬知覺與該主任關係後，再次篩選出直屬關係存在2年以上並由同一位主任領導之1位圈內人部屬和一位圈外人部屬，共計5組，此10位部屬為受訪者作為主要研究對象進行研究，研究發現結論為：
(一)不同領導部屬交換關係的形成原因：低品質的領導部屬交換關係，主要是因為受限於情感因素上，其中重複性最高原因的是與主管個性不契合，具體事項諸如與主管價值觀相左、被主管主觀定義的派系不同，以及主管的個人喜好問題等；而高品質的領導部屬交換關係，主要建立在情感因素及貢獻因素上，其中重複性最高的原因是員工的交際手腕，諸如適時體察主管想法、主動拉近與主管的距離。
(二)驅動領導部屬交換關係對員工工作壓力之直接影響因素：1.人際影響：圈外人專業較不容易受到信任，較容易受到主管的不尊重對待；圈內人感受到較大的競爭壓力，被主管賦予較高的期待。2.心理影響：圈外人會謹慎的處理事情，在意別人的眼光，尤其是主管的看法，當感覺不被尊重、工作缺乏公平、沒有晉升機會，感受到付出與回饋失衡時，就會產生挫折感，甚至懷疑自己；圈內人在工作績效及晉升上的自我要求高，若考績不盡理想會產生挫折感，另外，面對主管的期許，除了工作負荷的無助感，也會因負荷過重而產生倦怠感。3.生理影響：不管是圈內外人對工作都有相當程度的負荷量，產生心力交瘁及工作倦怠感。
(三)驅動領導部屬交換關係對工作壓力之間接影響因素：1.環境影響：圈外人常被交代較無價值的瑣碎工作，能拿到的資源及機會相對較低；圈內人則會花時間在維持與主管好的關係上。2.認知失調：圈外人提到主管分工不公平、對於工作表現上的評價不夠客觀，工作上也不被認同，對應的工作貢獻與回報就不對等；圈內人認為工作的產出變成是在幫主管做績效，故也表示工作貢獻與回報不對等。

People in modern day work long hours and have high responsibilities, complex interpersonal relationships, and unbalanced cognition paying and returning in workplace, which create great working pressure to them. These phenomenon are the main reasons for people to leave the jobs today. Today’s companies rely on their employees’ knowledge to make profits, so the employees are the most valuable assets for them. The study promote the leaders to pay more attention to employees’ feelings and opinions so that it can create a relationship that is trustable and supportable between each other, and the research hopes the companies could develop the most valuable economical exchange benefits.
Recently, the theory of Leader-Member Exchange (Leader-Member Exchange, LMX) found that there are contradictions between LMX relationships. As the leaders, they have the limited personal, social, and organizational resources. For examples, times, mental efforts, authorities…etc. Within the limited resources, leaders cannot equally distribute all of them to each single employee. Those different resources distributions creates different working pressures among employees. Therefore, the purposes of this study are: (1) discuss the reasons for forming different LMX relationships. (2) discuss the effects of working pressure for employees under LMX relationships.
This study adopts qualitative research orientation based on individual cases, and it uses the method of interviewing to explore how working pressure could influence In-Group and Out-Group employees within the company. Based on the individual case, the study draws from 15 directed subordinators in the headquarters of Taipei, to conduct a test of LMX 7 relationship quality scale. This study filters the sample with those who have the direct relationship with their supervisors over 2 years, and pick one In-Group employee and one Out-Group employee under each five specific supervisors. In the result, the total of the 10 subordinators are the main focuses of the study.
The findings and conclusion of the study are:
(1) The reasons for forming different LMX relationships:
Within the low quality’s Leader-member exchange relationships, the main reason is limited on the emotional factors, and the most repetitive reasons are employees could not fit into their supervisors’ personalities. The specific examples are having different opinions with their supervisors and having different personal preference with their supervisors. Within the high quality’s LMX relationships, it mainly depends on emotions’ and contributions’ factors, and the most repetitive reasons are the social skills of the specific employee, such as observing the thoughts of their supervisors’ on the right time, and being active to shorten the distance between them and their supervisors.
(2) The direct effects of working pressure for employees under LMX relationships: 1. the effects of interpersonal relationships: The professions of the Out-group employees are hard to get the trust from their supervisors and easy to be treated differently from them. In-group people feel more competitive stress and have more expectations from their supervisors. 2. The effects of mental factors: the Out-group employees will do things carefully and care others’ thoughts, especially from their supervisors. Those employees will feel frustrated when they are feeling unrespect and missing the fairness from work jobs and promotion, such as feeling unbalanced between contributing and rewarding. In-group employees have high level of self-demanding on job performance and promotion, so they will be frustrated if they don’t have good job grades.
(3) The indirect effects of working pressure for employees under LMX relationships: 1. the effects of the environmental factors: Out-group employees usually are asked to do some relatively invaluable and unimportant jobs, so they have relatively lower chances to get enough resources from the jobs. In-group employees will instead spend more time with their supervisors to keep the good relationships between them. 2. Cognition imbalanced: Out-group employees reported that when their supervisors have unfair job distribution, they will correspond to inequivalent work contributions and returns. In-group employees believe that the productions of jobs become to help their supervisors to gain performances, so they also said the work contributions and returns are inequivalent.

一、 中文部分
王文科、王智宏(譯)(2002)。J. H. McMillan & S. Schumacher著。質的教育研究－概念分析(Research in education conceptual introduction)。台北市：師大書苑。
阮光勛(2014)。促進質性研究的品質與可信性。國教新知，61(1)，92-102。
吳鳳翎(2011)。職場友誼與組織政治知覺之關係。北商學報，20，59-70。
沈其泰、黃涓容、姜定宇(2014)。領導者的團隊情緒領導行為與團隊效能： 團隊社會交換關係與知覺風險程度的干擾效果。人力資源管理學報，14(2)，55-80。
林冠瑜(2014)。餐飲服務業領導部屬交換關係對員工工作負荷量與離職傾向影響之研究 - 以W餐飲公司為例。國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
林文政、鍾珮珊、范維恩(2014)。好關係沒有壞影響嗎？領導部屬交換關係對組 織年資與晉升力評分倒U 字型關係的調節效果。東吳經濟商學學報，86，1-28。
洪雅惠(2009)。屏東地區長期照顧機構照顧服務員工作現況調查及工作成究之探討。美和科技大學健康照護研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
翁光瑩(2013)。領導-部屬交換關係與主管晉升力評分的關聯性：以主管知覺組織支持和領導-領導交換關係為調節變項。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所在職專班碩士論文，未出版，桃園市。
高鳳霞、鄭伯壎(2014)。職場工作壓力：回顧與展望。人力資源管理學報，14(1)，77-102。
高鋕昇(2016)。工作績效對情緒耗竭與工作投入之關聯性 研究：探討領導部屬交換關係的調節效果。國防大學運籌管理學系碩士論文，未出版，桃園市。
張伊婷(2010)。主管部屬關係、心理契約滿足與組織公民行為之關係。國立屏東商業技術學院經營管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東縣。
陳玫樺(2012)。領導者—成員交換關係對教師離職傾向影響之研究：以教師工作滿意度為中介變項。國立政治大學教育行政與政策研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳瑋婷(2011)。《特殊教育研究學刊》之質性研究趨勢：以近十年為例。特殊教育季刊，118，44-52。
許境頤、江彧慈(2013)。「罵」有用嗎？以資源保存理論 看不當督導對部屬的影響。人力資源管理學報，13(1)，81-104。
陳欽雨、呂傅裕、莊雅晴(2015)。社會支持、工作壓力與情緒智力對離職意圖之影響研究。管理實務與理論研究，9(2)，57-80。
湯雅云(2005)。轉換型領導對員工創造力影響之研究—以創造力技能與內在動機為中介變數。元智大學企業管理學系碩士論文，未出版，桃園市。
黃煜文(譯)(2013)。Leigh Branham 著。留不住人才，你就賺不到錢！：7大人事管理危機×54招留住人才策略(The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave: How to Recognize the Subtle Signs and Act Before It's Too Late)。台北市：木馬文化。
黃嘉欣(2010)。領導部屬交換與組織自尊與工作滿意度的關係研究。廣州番禺職業技術學院學報。9(5)，45-50。
黃正秋、翁良杰(2015)。轉換型領導與創造力之關係：探討領導者部屬交換關係的中介效果及績效付酬公平性的干擾效果。遠東學報，32(2)，71-81。
湯柏齡、陳永煌、諶立中(2002)。工作壓力。中華職業醫學雜誌，9(2)，145-147。
黃讚松、謝幸君、許金田(2014)。主管工作壓力與員工偏差行為的關聯性：員工職場暴力知覺的中介效果。銘傳設科學報，8，29-49。
楊豐華、李泊諺、陳玫陵、楊豐松(2013)。組織政治知覺、職場靈性與工作壓力關係之研究。致理學報，33，193-223。
董文慧、顏志龍(2008)。轉換型領導與交易型領導對領導者與部屬交換關係之預測效果－價值觀相似性的中介效果。復興崗學報，91，19-48。
廖珮妏(2015)。從量化與質化研究信效度探討社會科學領域的研究品質。中國科學技術大學學報，63，69-88。
熊欣華、陳欽洲(2012)。自己人更優惠，或是更辛苦？領導部屬交換關係中的矛盾。人力資源管理學報，12(4)，29-52。
潘淑滿(2006)。質性研究：理論與應用。台北市：心理。
蔡居隆(2001)。領導型態與主管效能之研究─以台灣南區郵政管理局為例。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
蔡啟通(2006)。領導者部屬交換關係與員工創新行為：組織正義之中介效果及組織特性之干擾效果。管理學報，23(2)，171-193。
鍾燕宜、余憶如(2010)。主管眼前的紅人=人緣比較好？！T&D飛訊季刊，16，11-21。
羅新興、梁成明、余永章(2006)。受評者對績效評核的程序正義知覺之前因及其影響。管理學報，22(3)，341-358。
羅潔伶、曾建勳(2014)。領導者-部屬交換關係對員工幸福感之影響。經營管理論叢2013第五屆管理與決策學術研討會特刊，5，31-44。
蘇容萱(2004)。主管-部屬交換理論。品質月刊，40(8)，30-32。

二、 英文部分
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-699.
Cannon, W. B. (1932). The wisdom of the body., New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. California: Sage Publications.
Cooper, C. L., Sloan, S. J., & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational stress indictor management guide. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nel-son.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader—member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development, Academy of Management Review, 11, 618-634.
French, J. R. P., & Caplan, R. D. (1973). Organizational stress and individual strain. In A. J. Murrow (Ed.), The Failure of Success., New York: AMACOM.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Kahn, R. L. (1962). A programmatic approach to studying the industrial environment and mental health. Journal of Social Issues, 18, 1-47.
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. R. (1975). A role making model in formal organizations: A developmental approach. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 6, 143-165.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct ideas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.
Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Organizational Behaviour, 9, 175-208.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. New York: Scott Foresman.
Jamal, M. (1990). Relationship of job stress and type-A behavior employees, job satisfaction, organization commitment, psychosomatic health problems and turnover motivation. Human Relations, 43, 727-738.
Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1336-1342.
King, M., Stanley, G., & Burrows, G. (1987). Stress: Theory and practice. Sydney, Australia: Grune & Stratton.
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075-1079.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Selye, H. (1955). Stress and disease. Science, 122, 625-631.
Selye, H. (1964). From dream to discovery. New York: McGraw Hill.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B. & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: an investigation of leader-member exchange and decision influence, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579-584.
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C.(1999). Psychological contract violations during organizational restructuring. Human Relations, 52, 895-922.