透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.239.83.89
  • 學位論文

選手知覺教練領導行為、團隊衝突 、團隊凝聚力及滿意度關係之實證研究

指導教授 : 鄭志富
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


本研究旨在瞭解大學校院桌球選手知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突、團隊凝聚力及滿意度關係之現況,並比較不同背景變項桌球選手所知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度差異情形。其次,分析桌球選手所知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度各變項間的典型關係。最後,根據典型相關分析結果,建立桌球選手所知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度之結構方程模式。研究對象為227名臺灣地區大學校院桌球選手,並以自編之『大學校院桌球隊團隊內部運作調查問卷』為研究工具進行調查。根據調查所蒐集之資料,經多變項變異數分析(One-way MANOVA)、典型相關分析(Canonical Correlation Analysis)及結構方程模式(Structural Equation Modeling,SEM)等統計方法處理,結果發現:(一)國內大學院校桌球選手知覺到教練較多的『獎勵行為』;其次, 『認知與價值觀』的差異是造成團隊衝突的主要原因。此外,『妥協』方式為大學校院桌球選手在面對衝突時最主要的處理方式。同時,大學校院桌球選手之團隊凝聚力主要是以『人際親和』為形成來源。而在滿意度方面,選手對於『團隊內部』的滿意度最高。(二)組別、性別、學校類別及訓練頻率的差異會影響選手對於教練領導行為的知覺。其次,不同組別、性別、年齡的選手,其衝突發生原因有顯著差異存在。此外,不同性別、入隊時間、與教練相處年數、學校類別及訓練頻率的選手,其衝突處理方式有顯著差異存在。同時,不同組別、教練相處年數、學校類別及訓練頻率的選手,其凝聚力有顯著差異存在。再者,不同組別、性別、教練相處年數、學校類別的選手,其滿意度有顯著差異存在。(三)選手知覺的教練領導行為對團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度均可有效解釋,其各別解釋力為28%、19.1%、30.1%、36.4%。其次,團隊衝突發生原因對於衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力、滿意度亦均可有效解釋,其分別解釋力各為5.2%、15.5%、10.7%。此外,衝突處理方式對團隊凝聚力及滿意度均可有效解釋,其分別解釋力為29.5%、19.5%;再者,滿意度亦可有效解釋團隊凝聚力,其解釋力為44.7%。(四)選手知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及滿意度間之結構方程模式,主要是藉由選手所知覺到的非專制式的教練領導行為之展現,影響選手對於『領導與團隊』的滿意度,進而影響團隊凝聚力的作用力會達到最大。其次,選手知覺的教練領導行為、團隊衝突發生原因、衝突處理方式、團隊凝聚力及選手滿意度結構方程模式之χ2最佳適合度(χ2/DF)、模式比較適合度(CFI)、標準適合度指標(NFI)、根號平均平方餘差(RMR)所得之數值而言,除標準適合度指標(NFI)略微低於最佳模式的標準之外,其餘皆達到模式的最佳適合度指標所要求的標準,因此本研究之教練領導行為、團隊衝突、選手滿意度及團隊凝聚力之結構方程模式是可被接受的。關鍵詞:運動教練領導行為、團隊衝突、團隊凝聚力、選手滿意度、結構方程模式。 The purpose of this study was to understand the current status of the relationship among coaches’ leadership, team conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players in universities, and compare the difference among coaches’ leadership, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players with different-background variables. Finally, according to the results of Canonical Correlation Analysis, the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) among coaches’ leadership, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players. The studying subjects were 227 university tennis players in Taiwan, and the self-edited “Questionnaire of Internal Operation of University Tennis Teams” was used as the studying tool for investigation. Based on the collected data, through One-way MANOVA, Canonical Correlation Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and the like statistical methods, the results showed: (1)Domestic university tennis players perceived more “positive behaviors” for their coaches. Secondly, the difference of “recognition and concept of value” was the major cause resulting in team conflict. Beside, in face of conflict, the major solution was “compromise”. Meanwhile, “human-relational harmony” was the main source that unified players. Last, the players had the highest satisfaction for “inside of team ”. (2)The difference in team, gender, school and training frequency would affect players’ perception to their coaches’ leading behaviors. Secondly, there was significant difference of the conflicting causes existing in different teams, genders and ages. Beside, there was significant difference of the solution of conflicts existing in the players with different gender, team-attending time, years for getting along with the coach, school and training frequency. Meanwhile, there was significant difference of team cohesion existing in the players with different team, years for getting along with the coach, school and training frequency. Last, there was significant difference of solution existing in the players with different team, gender, years for getting along with the coach, and school. (3)Coaches’ leadership perceived by the players could effectively explain the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction. The respective explaining capabilities were 28%, 19.1%, 30.1% and 34.4%. Secondly, the causes of team conflict could also effectively explain the solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction. The respective explaining capabilities were 5.2%, 15.5% and 10.7%. Beside, the solutions of team conflict could effectively explain team cohesion and satisfaction as well. The respective explaining capabilities were 29.5% and 19.5%. Last, satisfaction could also effectively explain team cohesion. The respective explaining capability was 44.7%. (4)The Structural Equation Modeling among coaches’ leadership perceived by the players, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction mainly affected players’ satisfaction to “leader and team”, so as to reach the maximum influence on team cohesion, through coaches’ non-despotic leadership perceived by players. Secondly, as for the numbers obtained by the RMR of x2/DF, CFI and NFI of the structural equation modeling of coaches’ leadership perceived by the players, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction, except that NFI was a little bit lower than the standard of DF, all of the rest reach the standard required by DF Index of the modeling. Therefore, the structural equation modeling of coaches’ leadership, team conflict, players’ satisfaction and team cohesion of this study was acceptable. Keyword: coach leadership behavior, team conflict, team cohesion, athletics’ satisfaction, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

並列摘要


The purpose of this study was to understand the current status of the relationship among coaches’ leadership, team conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players in universities, and compare the difference among coaches’ leadership, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players with different- background variables. Finally, according to the results of Canonical Correlation Analysis, the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) among coaches’ leadership, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion perceived by the table tennis players. The studying subjects were 227 university tennis players in Taiwan, and the self-edited “Questionnaire of Internal Operation of University Tennis Teams” was used as the studying tool for investigation. Based on the collected data, through One-way MANOVA, Canonical Correlation Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and the like statistical methods, the results showed: (1)Domestic university tennis players perceived more “positive behaviors” for their coaches. Secondly, the difference of “recognition and concept of value” was the major cause resulting in team conflict. Beside, in face of conflict, the major solution was “compromise”. Meanwhile, “human-relational harmony” was the main source that unified players. Last, the players had the highest satisfaction for “inside of team ”. (2)The difference in team, gender, school and training frequency would affect players’ perception to their coaches’ leading behaviors. Secondly, there was significant difference of the conflicting causes existing in different teams, genders and ages. Beside, there was significant difference of the solution of conflicts existing in the players with different gender, team-attending time, years for getting along with the coach, school and training frequency. Meanwhile, there was significant difference of team cohesion existing in the players with different team, years for getting along with the coach, school and training frequency. Last, there was significant difference of solution existing in the players with different team, gender, years for getting along with the coach, and school. (3)Coaches’ leadership perceived by the players could effectively explain the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction. The respective explaining capabilities were 28%, 19.1%, 30.1% and 34.4%. Secondly, the causes of team conflict could also effectively explain the solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction. The respective explaining capabilities were 5.2%, 15.5% and 10.7%. Beside, the solutions of team conflict could effectively explain team cohesion and satisfaction as well. The respective explaining capabilities were 29.5% and 19.5%. Last, satisfaction could also effectively explain team cohesion. The respective explaining capability was 44.7%. (4)The Structural Equation Modeling among coaches’ leadership perceived by the players, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction mainly affected players’ satisfaction to “leader and team”, so as to reach the maximum influence on team cohesion, through coaches’ non- despotic leadership perceived by players. Secondly, as for the numbers obtained by the RMR of x2/DF, CFI and NFI of the structural equation modeling of coaches’ leadership perceived by the players, the causes and solutions of team conflict, team cohesion and satisfaction, except that NFI was a little bit lower than the standard of DF, all of the rest reach the standard required by DF Index of the modeling. Therefore, the structural equation modeling of coaches’ leadership, team conflict, players’ satisfaction and team cohesion of this study was acceptable. Keyword: coach leadership behavior, team conflict, team cohesion, athletics’ satisfaction, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

並列關鍵字

無資料

參考文獻


  鄭敏雄、劉一民(民80):教練領導行為與團隊凝聚力之關係研究-以參加79學年度大
  黃金柱(民79):國家級運動教練領導行為調查研究。體院論叢,第一卷,第二期
意度對成績表現之影響。建國學報,17期,頁135-150。
  鄒春選(民82):公立體育場場長領導方式與組織效能關係之研究。國立體育學院研究
Wu, K. H. (2000b). A competitive study of collegiate coaches’ leadership

被引用紀錄


林家玉(2018)。轉換型領導、組織氣候與組織承諾之關係研究〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2018.00857
林淑蕙(2013)。優質學校團隊效能之研究 -以臺北市新生國小為例〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2013.00598
黃多伶(2012)。主管轉換型領導與團隊凝聚力對服務業員工組織公民行為影響之研究-以薪酬滿意為調節變項〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2012.01225
林文科(2011)。士官長角色認同與權威性格對衝突行為影響之研究-以領導滿意度為干擾變項〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2011.00652
朱桂芳(2009)。臺北縣國小校長領導行為與學校行政人員團隊凝聚力關係之研究〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2009.01432

延伸閱讀