| 摘要: | 本研究主要目的在於探討我國甲組成棒總教練的領導行為、權力基礎與球隊成績之關係。以自編之「甲組成棒總教練領導行為及權力基礎與團隊成績之關係」問卷為研究工具，以普查的方式調查台灣25支甲組成棒球隊共500位球員，共回收466份（93.20%）。回收問卷經整理後，剔除無效與填答不完整問卷54份，有效問卷為413份（88.41%）。問卷資料後經編碼建檔後，利用SPSS for Windows 18.0版套裝軟體進行描述性統計、獨立樣本t考驗、單因子變異數分析、雪費法事後比較等統計分析。研究結果發現：一、我國甲組成棒選手對總教練實際表現的領導行為感受程度得分高低依序為「訓練與指導行為」、「關懷行為」、「獎勵行為」、「民主行為」及「專制行為」；權力基礎感受程度得分高低依序為「專家權」、「合法權」、「參考權」、「獎賞權」及「強制權」。二、總教練的領導行為在不同守備位置、教育程度及球齡上達顯著差異；而不同成績類型之球隊在「訓練與指導行為」、「民主行為」及「獎勵行為」因素上達到顯著差異。三、總教練的權力基礎在不同守備位置、身分及球齡上達顯著差異；而不同成績類型之球隊則在「獎賞權」、「強制權」、「合法權」、「專家權」及「參考權」構面上達到顯著差異。
The purpose of this study was to discuss the relationship among head coach’s leadership, base of power, and team performances of adult baseball players in division A. The questionnaire of relationship among head coach’s leadership, base of power, and team performances of adult baseball players in division A was developed to investigate the variables in the study. Research participants are players in 25 adult baseball teams in Division A in Taiwan. Total of 500 questionnaires were delivered and 413 valid ones were collected (88.41%). The data collected were processed by software, SPSS for Windows 18.0, and analyzed with t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Scheffe’s post hoc. The results showed: 1.Players’ perceiving “head coaches’ leadership” from a practical point of view, ranked in order, are through: (1) training and instruction behavior, (2) social support behavior, (3) positive behavior, (4) democratic behavior and, (5) autocracy behavior. Players’ perceiving “base of power,” ranked in order, are through: (1) expert power, (2) legitimate power, (3) referent power, (4) reward power, and (5) coercive power. 2.The leadership of head coach is significantly different in positions, education backgrounds, and years of participation ; while teams with different performances are significant distinct in the dimensions of “training and instruction behavior,” “democratic behavior,” and “social support behavior,” in the head coach’s leadership. 3.The head coach’s base of power is significant in positions, identities, and years of participation; while teams with different performances are significant distinct in the dimensions of “reward power,” “coercive power,” “legitimate power,” “expert power,” and “referent power.” |
