創意風格與工作塑造之研究-以幼兒園園長與教師為例

Abstract

本研究旨在探討工作塑造與精進型、突破型兩種創意風格之幼兒園園長與教師，其工作塑造樣貌、從事工作塑造面臨的挑戰與調適的差異，並探討不同創意風格之幼兒園園長與教師，其創造性人格量表分數是否具有差異。\n本研究以台北市、新北市曾於91-95年度榮獲績優或優等幼兒園之園長與教師為研究對象，25位園長(園主任)與25位教師進行個別訪談與填寫問卷，每位研究對象之訪談時間約為90分鐘。\n(一)分析結果發現，創意風格與工作塑造樣貌層面：(1)二種創意風格，其工作塑造的改變幅度上有差異，突破型創意風格幼兒園園長與教師較精進型創意風格幼兒園園長與教師，在職責、關係工作塑造層面上，有較多從事跨越疆界，處理疆界外部的表現。(2)認同工作塑造層面上，突破型較精進型善於發現契機，主動改變。(二)創意風格與工作塑造挑戰及調適層面：(1)挑戰頻率：突破型具有較多人際溝通衝突之工作塑造挑戰；精進型則具有較多在意他人對自我看法之工作塑造挑戰。(2)調適方式：面臨非人際關係的工作塑造挑戰時，精進型與突破型創意風格者皆會以授權賦能，培育組織成員能力之方式解決困境，進行自我調適；面臨人際關係的工作塑造挑戰時，精進型創意風格者偏好以自我說服、善用自我優勢、人際溝通策略與技巧的方式進行調適；而突破型創意風格者較偏好以積極主動改變他人看法、調整自我心態的方式進行自我調適。(3)調適程度：精進型創意風格者較能順利調適自我內心的掙扎；突破型創意風格者則需要花費較長時間調適自我，但若調適發生困難時，則會選擇離開或是等待外力改變。(三)創意風格與創造性人格層面，精進型與突破型二種創意風格，在創造性人格量表分數上具有顯著差異。\n本研究亦發現：(一) 精進型與突破型皆會想要有所創新與改變。(二) 面對人際溝通的衝突時，偏好的處理方式不同。精進型傾向先接納他人意見，不正面衝突，偏好以人際溝通策略技巧避免衝突發生；突破型傾向先嘗試說服改變他人，再視情況決定是否改變自己的做法，而學習人際溝通策略技巧改善衝突。(三) 不同創意風格，其引發從事工作塑造的動機不同。精進型多為由外而內，受外在事件影響而引發改變的動機；突破型從多為由內而外，察覺與滿足自身需求而引發改變的動機。(四) 精進型與突破型創意風格皆會有工作塑造學習歷程之表現。(五) 職位高低對工作塑造之影響。高職位有較多工作塑造機會與行為表現、工作塑造的面向較廣且改變幅度較大，且多透過自我消化、授權賦能、幫助他人的方式進行調適；低職位常藉由尋求他人協助、參加研習的方式進行調適。\n最後研究者根據上述結論，針對幼兒園教師、幼兒園主管人員、教育行政機關以及後續研究提出建議。

The main purpose of this study is to discuss creativity style and job crafting, including “adaptors” and “innovators”. This study utilizes Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) to distinguish adaptors from innovators, as well as to study the job crafting of these two styles. \nResearcher select 12 principals and 12 teachers from twelve public kindergartens, and 13 principals and 13 teachers from thirteen privacy kindergartens from Taipei City and New Taipei City, totally fifty samples, forty-seven available samples, as well as interviewed time is about ninety minutes for each interviewee.\n\nFollowing are the results of this study：\n\nFirst, it is in terms of creativity style and job crafting that (A) Innovators’ breadth of change is wider than adaptors. Moreover, innovators have more boundary-crossing and boundary-outside performances than adaptors in the task and relationship scope of job crafting. (B) In the cognition scope of job crafting, innovators master to perceive opportunities and change actively. \n\nSecond, it is in terms of creativity style and challenges and adaptive moves in job crafting that (A) Frequency of challenge：Innovators have more challenge of interpersonally communicational conflict than adaptors. Besides, adaptors have more challenge about identity from other people. (B) Adaptive moves：On the part of impersonal challenge, adaptors and innovators solve problems as well as adapt inner struggles with empowering and fostering abilities of organizational members. On the part of interpersonal challenge, adaptors prefer to utilize self-persuasion and master on taking interpersonal intelligence to adapt inner struggles；Innovators prefer to change opinions of other people to adapt inner struggles. (C) Degree of adaptation：adaptors are better able to adapt successfully inner struggles than innovators；Innovators need more time to adapt inner struggles than adaptors. If innovators cannot adapt successfully, they shall choose to leave or wait for being changed by external force. \n\nThird, it is in terms of creativity style and The Creative Personality Scale (CPS) that had significantly different between adaptors and innovators in CPS. \n\nAdditionally, this study also found：(A) Not only adaptors but also innovators eager to innovate and change. (B) Adaptors and innovators who prefer to take different ways to solve problems when they are faced with interpersonal conflict. (C) Adaptors and innovators who have different motives of job crafting. (D) Both adaptors and innovators doing job crafting through a period of learning. (E) Higher rank and lower rank job crafters have different performances of job crafting. \n\nOn the basis of the results, this study proposes some suggestions for teachers, kindergarten principals, administrations, and researchers.