華人社會習慣以高調或低調形容個人的行事風格，員工在職場中也常常透過高調或低調來形容主管的領導風格。本研究目的在於，透過量表發展來做為有效衡量高低調領導風格的工具。由於高低調是一組概念混雜的詞彙，學術上也尚未針對高低調領導風格明確定義，本研究採用質性與量化混合研究方法。首先透過質性訪談蒐集高低調領導風格事例，並將訪談結果依照高低調領導風格分為4種類型(嶄露鋒芒、主導議題、不出風頭、退居二線)。再依據此作為量表題項發展的依據，將量表題項透過網路問卷發放，透過量化分析中，探索性因素分析、多元迴歸分析的統計分析的結果，建立量表的信度與效度，並將高低調領導風格分為5個構面(退於二線、展現企圖、默默付出、自信大方、刻意表現)。

People in Chinese Society used to describe personal behavior style with high- or low-profiled. Likewise, employees used to describe leaders’ style with high- or low-profiled in the workplace. The purpose of the study is to develop a scale which can measure high- and low-profiled leadership styles. “High- and Low-profiled” is a set of vocabulary with complicated concepts, and academically, high- and low-profiled leadership style has not been clearly defined, so the study adopts qualitative and quantitative mixed methods to do research. First, the study classified high- and low-profiled leadership style by the results into 4 types, including showing one’s talent, leading issues, not showing up, retreating to the second line. Then, through exploratory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis, the study established reliability and validity for the scale. The study contributes to develop an accurate tool and makes people know more about high- and low-profiled leadership styles.

中文部分
余蓮（民95）。淡之頌。臺北：桂冠。
張振學（民95）。高調做事低調做人。中國：中國國華僑出版社。
段錦云、凌斌（民100）。中國背景下員工建言行為結構及中庸思維對其影響。心理學報，43（10），1185-1197。
楊自偉（民104）。華人集體主義再思考──差序格局規範下的集體主義認知與行為傾向。中國人力資源開發，9，49-55。
張家偉（民109）。領導者的高調與低調風格:一個探索性的研究 （未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。

西文部分
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). The psychology of personnel selection. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised one personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and neo five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Judge. T.A., Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J. & Barrick, M.R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621-652. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: the Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q‐Set and the five‐factor model. Journal of Personality, 54(2), 430-446. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-6494.1986.tb00403.x
Noordin, F. & Jusoff, J. (2010) Individualism-collectivism and job satisfaction between Malaysia and Australia. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(2), 159-174. doi:10.1108/09513541011020963
Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995–1027. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00099.x
Peeters, M. A. G., Rutte, C. G., Tuijl, H. F. M., Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). The big five personality traits and individual satisfaction with the team. Small Group Research, 37(2), 187-211. doi: 10.1177/1046496405285458
Pothmann, S. & Coetzer, E. P. (2003) The big five personality dimensions and job performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29 (1), 68-74. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v29i1.88
Robinson, M. A. (2017) Using multi-item psychometric scales for research and practice in human resource management. Human Resource Management, 57, 739-750.doi: 10.1002/hrm.21852
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323