大學學院院長領導角色：從組織類型之觀點

The Leadership Role of University College Deans: A Perspective on Organizational Typology

以國內外大學學院院長領導的相關文獻、組織效能，及Quinn的理論架構為基礎，本研究旨在探討在新公共管理思潮下，國內大學學院組織類型，進一步分析大學學院院長領導角色的現況。透過自編的問卷工具，以國內教師為範圍，依學校類型、地區別進行分層比例抽樣，再考量教育部學科分類標準（即人文、社會、科技），運用叢集抽樣方式分配各校所屬學院的教師樣本數。運用所回收的樣本資料，進行集群分析、區別分析及變異數分析。本研究發現在新公共管理思潮下，國內大學學院組織類型呈現混合治理模式，即以家族型、市場型為主。其次，不同學院組織類型中，院長所展現的領導角色皆以經紀者、協調者最明顯。呼應相關文獻，可知國內高等教教育治理架構中呈現有別於西方的臺灣獨特脈絡。本研究是國內少數在高等教育治理相關主題中，聚焦於大學學院院長領導，並採用實證研究分析，不僅瞭解國內大學內部治理在新公共管理思潮下，大學學院組織的類型，亦探討院長領導角色的現況。根據研究結果，可提供國內未來調整學院實體化政策、發展中層領導力架構之參考。此外，亦有助於學院院長釐清其角色、定位及中層領導力的重要性。

Grounded in relevant domestic and international literature on the leadership of university college deans both domestically and internationally, organizational effectiveness, and Quinn's theoretical framework, this study explores the types of university college organizations in the context of New Public Management (NPM). It further analyzes the current state of the leadership roles of deans within Taiwanese universities. A self-developed questionnaire was administered to faculty members across universities in Taiwan. Stratified proportional sampling was conducted based on school type and region, and, following the Ministry of Education’s disciplinary classifications (humanities, social sciences, and technology), cluster sampling was used to allocate faculty samples from different colleges. The collected data were analyzed using cluster analysis, discriminant analysis, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Findings indicate that, under NPM, Taiwanese university colleges exhibit a hybrid governance model, primarily characterized by clan- and market-oriented structures. Across different organizational types, deans most prominently demonstrate the roles of broker and coordinator. These results align with existing literature, highlighting a governance framework in Taiwanese higher education that is distinct from Western contexts. This study is among the few in Taiwan to empirically examine the leadership roles of university college deans within the broader discourse on higher education governance. The findings not only enhance understanding of organizational typologies and governance structures under NPM but also provide valuable implications for future adjustments to college corporatization policies and the development of middle-level leadership frameworks. Furthermore, the results can assist deans in clarifying their roles, positioning, and recognizing the importance of middle-level leadership.