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).

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).

一、中文部分
　　王文科(民85)：教育研究法(增定新版)。台北：五南圖書公司。
　　王加微(民79)：行為科學（初版）。台北：五南圖書出版社。
　　王秉鈞主譯， Stephen P. Robbins原著(民84)：管理學。台北：華泰書局。
　　王秋絨（民70）：國民中學組織環境對於教師角色壓力的影響。國立臺灣師範大學教
育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
　　王振鴻（民78）：國中校長領導方式、教師同理心與教師衝突反應方式關係之研究。
國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
　　李金泉(民81)：SPSS/PC+實務應用統計分析。台北：松岡電腦圖書公司。
　　李青芬、李雅婷、趙慕芬合譯， Stephen, P. Robbins原著(民83)：組織行為學。台
北：華泰書局。
　 李美枝(民80)：社會心理學--理論研究與應用（七版）。台北：大洋出版社。
　 李茂興、李慕華、林宗鴻合譯，Robbins, S. P.原著 (民83)：組織行為。台北：揚智
文化公司。
　 李錫永(民76)：主管人員組織衝突解決之研究。國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論
文(未出版)。
　 余朝權、何雍慶、吳秉恩、林志忠、張東隆等譯，Cary Dessler 原著(民72)：組織理
論--整合結構與行為。台北：聯經出版社。
　 吳清山(民80)：學校行政。台北：心理出版社。
　 吳定、陳錦德、黃靖武等譯，Robret A. & David D. & Van F. 原著（民80）：組織行
為。台北：天一圖書公司。
　 吳國銑（民89）：我國大專院校運動教練領導行為比較研究。體育學報，第二十八輯，
頁59-68。
　 吳慧卿（民87a）：運動組織衝突與因應策略初探。中華體育季刊，46期，頁15-25。
　 吳慧卿(民87b)：運動教練領導行為、團隊衝突與選手滿意度之影響初探。臺灣師大體
育研究，第六期，頁1-18。
　 吳慧卿(民89)：臺灣地區運動教練領導研究回顧。二ΟΟΟ年國際體育運動管理研討會
手冊，頁54-55。
　 沈鵬飛（民83）：員工之技能特性、勞資衝突程度與衝突解決方式之關係。國立政治大
學企業管理研究所博士論文（未出版）。
　 林正常(民86)：運動生理學。台北：師大書苑。
　 林青山(民81)：心理與教育統計學。台北：師大書苑。
　 林肇崇（民83）：員工潛在衝突強度之個案調查研究。私立東吳大學管理學研究所碩士
論文（未出版）。
　 林靜茹(民82)：國民中小學校長人際衝突管理及其相關因素之研究。國立高雄師範大學
教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　 邱皓政（民90）：量化研究與統計分析。台北：五南圖書。
　 邱聯榮(民80)：職業棒球隊球員工作環境知覺、工作滿意與教練團領導行為對成績表現
的影響。 國立體育學院研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　 邱聯榮（民87）：中區五專男子籃球隊團隊凝聚力、球員知覺的教練領導行為和球員滿
意度對成績表現之影響。建國學報，17期，頁135-150。
　　洪嘉文(民86)：領導形態與工作滿意關係之實證研究。國立臺灣師範大學體育研究所
碩士論文(未出版)。
　　侯謹瑜(民84)：自主管理團隊的成員角色與衝突之研究。國立中興大學企業管理研究
所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　涂志賢（民89）：運動教練領導風格對選手成績表現與滿意度影響之研究。體育學報
，第二十八輯，頁45-58。
　　袁旅芳（民87）：護理長衝突來源及衝突處理偏好之探討。私立台北醫學院醫學研究
所碩士論文（未出版）。
　　胡俊豪（民86）：國民小學校長之衝突管理策略及其成效。國立臺北師範學院國民教
育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
　　郭建志譯、鄭伯壎校閱，Claudia Rawlins原著(民86)：管理學導論。台北：桂冠圖書
公司。
　　郭家樂(民85)：員工對『體恤領導』與『結構領導』之滿意度與員工抵制行為關係之
研究—以台灣電子業為例。國立交通大學管理科學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　郭進財(民85)：我國大學院校體育教師對體育主任領導方式與工作滿意度之研究。國
立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　許玉英(民82)：基層員工衝突處理行為之研究—以高雄煉油場為例。國立成功大學企
業管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　陳文祥（民87）：國民小學教師組織承諾與學校衝突處理意向之研究。臺北市立師範
學院國民教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
　　陳玉娟(民84)：臺灣地區游泳教練領導行為與選手成績表現及滿意度相關研究　國立
臺灣師範大學體育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　陳　昇（民88）：大學教師因資源分配而導致的衝突處理研究。大葉大學事業經營研
究所碩士論文（未出版）。
　　陳其昌(民82)：排球教練領導行為對團隊凝聚力的影響暨驗證運動情境領導理論之研
究。國立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　陳嘉皇（民85）：國民小學學校組織衝突管理之研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研
究所碩士論文（未出版）。
　　黃玉生(民78)：企業組織內中階層主管角色衝突之關連性研究。私立東吳大學社會學
研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　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
，257-336頁(未出版)。
　　黃隆民(民74)：國民教師角色衝突與工作滿意之關係研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研
究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　黃曬莉（民85）：中國人的人際和諧與衝突：理論建構及實徵研究。國立臺灣大學心
理學研究所博士論文（未出版）。
　　張文雄(民73)：組織衝突之研究。國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。
　　張永旺(民84)：我國一條鞭主計制度實際運作情形之探討—政府會計人員組織承諾、
角色衝突與工作滿足。國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　張志成(民86)：自我效能和集體效能與團隊凝聚力的相關研究暨不同凝聚力組型輸贏
歸因之探討。國立體育學院運動科學研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
　　張潤書(民84)：行政學。台北：文景書局。
　　張鐸嚴(民74)：國民小學教師與行政人員間衝突管理之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育
研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　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
所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　莊孟達(民82)：企業高階管理人對組織衝突的知覺與應對策略。私立中原大學心理學
研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　莊豔惠(民86)：教練領導行為對團隊凝聚力及內在動機的影響。　國立體育學院體育
研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　楊純碧(民87)：教練領導行為對團隊氣氛與教練-選手關係滿意度之影響。國立體育學
院體育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　廖貴峰(民75)：國中教師角色衝突、角色不明確與工作倦怠之研究。國立臺灣師範大
學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　鄭伊娟(民86)：不同機關間森林經營管理權責上之衝突研究—武陵地區之個案分析。
國立中興大學森林研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　鄭志富(民84)：運動管理學上課講義。(未出版)。
　　鄭志富(民85a)：運動組織與團隊衝突管理。第廿七屆大專院校運動會體育學術研討會
論文集，頁41-44。
　　鄭志富(民85b)：運動領導量表(中文版)之編製。行政國家科學委員會專題研究。NSC
84-2413-H-003-027。
　　鄭志富(民86a)：運動教練領導模式分析。運動教練領導行為研究，頁1-29。台北：師
大書苑。
　　鄭志富(民86b)：運動領導量表(中文版)之編製。運動教練領導行為研究，頁45-47。
台北：師大書苑。
　　鄭志富(民86c)：大專院校足球教練領導行為之研究。運動教練領導行為研究，頁137-
178。臺北：師大書苑。
　　鄭志富(民86d)：多元領導模式的驗證性研究--臺灣地區運動教練領導研究。運動教練
領導行為研究，頁269-270。臺北：師大書苑。
　　鄭志富(民88)：大學體育室組織衝突之研究（Ι）。行政院國家科學委員會專案
。NSC89-2413-H-003-030。
　　鄭志富(民89)：大學體育室組織衝突之研究（Π）。行政院國家科學委員會專案
。NSC89-2413-H-003-07-S。
　　鄭伯壎譯，H. Joseph Reltz原著(民78)：組織行為。台北：中華企管叢書發展中心。
　　鄭敏雄（民81）：大專院校教練領導行為與運動員滿意度關係之研究。國立臺灣師範
大學體育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　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
專男子排球國手選拔賽之球隊為例。中華民國大專院校體育總會八十年度體育學術研討會
報告書，頁235-252。
　　鄭詩釧（民87）：國民小學班級經營氣氛、教室衝突管理與教師教學效能關係之研究
。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文(未出版)。
　　葉美玲、高美玲（民87）：結構方程模式與線性結構關係之簡介。護理研究，第7卷五
期，頁490-497。
　　蔣憶德、陳淑滿、葉志仙（民90）：教練領導行為與團隊凝聚力之相關研究。體育學
報第三十輯，頁195-206，中華民國體育學會。
　　劉一民(民78)：教練的自我認識。中華體育季刊，11期，頁63-66。
　　劉一民(民80)：運動哲學研究。台北：師大書苑。
　　劉明德等譯，Gray, E. R. & Smeltzer, L.R.原著 (民82)：管理學--競爭優勢。台北
：桂冠圖書公司。
　　盧俊宏(民83)：運動心理學　台北：師大書苑。
　　盧素娥(民84)：大專籃球選手的知覺運動動機氣候與團隊凝聚力之相關研究。國立體
育學院體育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　歐滄和、李茂能編著，盧欽銘校閱(民81)：社會科學研究法辭典。高雄：復文書局。
　　賴文堅（民86）：教育人員之場地獨立性、自我概念與其衝突反應方式之研究。國立
政治大學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
　　賴世堤（民88）：大專院校田徑教練領導行為之研究。大專體育學刊，第一卷第二期
，頁111-128。
　　賴世堤（民89）：高中（職）田徑教練領導行為之研究。體育學報，第三十輯，頁
185-194。
　　謝金青(民81)：國民小學行政兼職教師角色衝突與工作滿意之研究。國立政治大學教
育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　謝益銘(民81)：途徑目標領導與通路內衝突、績效之關係研究。國立中興大學企業管
理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　謝文全(民85)：學校行政。台北：五南圖書公司。
　　蔡明若(民83)：國小學童人際衝突因應策略之研究。臺北市立師範學院初等教育研究
所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　蔡承志譯(民80)：組織行為（初版）。台北：桂冠圖書公司。
　　蔡坤志(民82)：通路內領導、衝突、滿意感及績效結構關係之探討—加盟便利連鎖店
為例。國立中興大學企業管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　蕭嘉惠、黃明玉(民87)：多元領導模式驗證研究-以花蓮地區大專院校為例。體育學報
，第二十五輯，頁71-80。
　　蕭嘉惠（民88）：臺灣地區大專排球教練領導行為比較研究。花蓮：書恆出版社。
　　羅理平等譯，司徒達賢校閱，Webber, Rossa, A.原著(民72)：組織理論與管理。台北
：桂冠圖書公司。
　　羅虞村(民76)：領導理論研究。台北：文景書局。
　　韓瑞信(民83)：行政機關衝突處理方式與工作滿足之研究—台南市政府之個案分析。
私立東海大學公共行政研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
　　蘇麗敏(民83)：個人生涯規劃與衝突管理之探討—以我國稅務人員為個案研究。國立
政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
二、英文部份
Appenzeller, H. (1993). Managing sport and risk management strategies. Durham,
NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Bird, A. M. (1977). Development of a model for predicting team performance.
Research Quality, 48, 24-32.
Barwarley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1987). Assessing the
cohesion of team: Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 9, 275-294.
Barwarley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1988). Exploring the
relationship between cohesion and group resistence to disruption. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 119-123.
Carron, A. V., Chelladurai, P. (1981). The dynamics of group cohesion in
sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 123-139.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and
considerations. Journal of Sport psychology, 4, 123-138.
Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred
leadership. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 371-380.
Chelladurai, P., Imamura, H., Yamaguchi, Y., Oinuma., & Miyauchi , T. (1988).
Sport leadership in a cross nation setting: The case of Japanese　and Canadian
University athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 374-389.
Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M.Murphey, & L. K.
Tennant (Eds.). Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Gruber, J., & Gray, G. (1981). Factors patterns of variables influencing
cohesiveness at various levels of basketball competition. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 52,19-30.
Eitzen, D. S. (1986). Athletics and higher education: A conflict perspective.
In Ress, C. R. and W. Miracle. Sport and social theory, (pp. 227-238).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Fisher A. C., & Zwart, E. F. (1982) Psychological analysis of athletes’
anxiety responses. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 248.
Frisby, W. M. (1983). The organizational structure and effectiveness of
Canadian national sport governing bodies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Waterloo.
Gallant, H. (1996). Labor relations in professional sports. In Parkhouse, B.
L. The Management of sport: Its foundation and application (2nd. ed.) (pp. 119-
146).
Garland, D. J., & Barry, J. R. (1988). The effects of personality and
perceived leader behavior on performance in collegiate football. The
Psychological Record, 38, 237-247.
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. (1994). Organization:
Behavior structures process (8th. ed.). Champaign, IL: Burr Ridge.
Gordon, A. M. (1986). Behavior correlates of coaching effectiveness.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta, Canada.
Gruber, J., Gray, G. (1981). Factor s patterns of variables influencing
cohesiveness at various levels of basketball competition. Research Quarterly
for Sport Exercise and Sport, 52, pp 19-30.
LeUnes, A. D., & Nation, J. R. (1989). Sport psychology. Chicago, IL: Nelson-
Hall.
Litter, J. A. (1980), Organizations, structure and behavior. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Martens, R., & Peterson, J. (1971). Group cohesiveness as a determination of
success and member satisfaction in team performance. International Review of
Sport Sociology, 6, 49-61.
Moriarty, D., & Holman-Prpich, M. (1987). Canadian interuniversity athletics:
A model and method for analyzing conflict and change. Journal of Sport
Management, 1(1), 57-73.
Moady, R. W., Sharplin, A., & Premeaux, R. R. (1991). Management: Concept
practices, and skill (5th. ed) . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Papp. J. (1978). New directions in human resource management. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Pearton, R. (1986). Violence in sport and the special case of soccer
hooliganism in the United Kingdom. In Rees, C. R. and A. W. Miracle. Sport and
social theory. (pp. 67-83). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Pinkley, R. L. (1990, April). Dimensions of conflict frame:　Disputant
interpretations of conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 117-121.
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (2), p296-320.
Rahim, M. A., Garret, J. E., & Buntzman, P. (1992). Ethics of managing
interpersonal conflict in organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 423-
432.
Reis, H. T., & Jeisma, B. (1978). A social psychology of sex differences in
sport. In W. F. Straub (Ed.). Sport Psychology: An analysis in athlete
behavior (2nd. ed). New York, NY: Movement Publications.
Resser, C., & Loper, M (1987). Management : The key to organizational
effectiveness. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Robinson, T. T., & Carron, A. V. (1982). Personal and situational factors
associated with dropping out versus maintaining participation in competitive
sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 364-378.
Robbins, S. P. (1992). Organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall Inc.
Robbins, S. P. (1994). Management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Schreisheim, E. S. (1987). Relationship between the congruence of preferred
and actual leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with leadership.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 10, 157-166.
Slack, T. (1997). Understanding sport organizations: The application of
organization theory. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics publishers.
Serpa, S., Pataco, V., & Santos, F. (1991). Leadership patterns in Handball
International Competition. International. Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 78-
89.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness
training: A cognitive-behavior approach to enhancing relationship skill in
youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75.
Sorenson, J. E., & Sorenson, T. L. (1974, May). The conflict of professionals
in bureaucratic organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 98-106.
Spink, K, S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball
teams. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 301-311.
Spink, K, S., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Group cohesion and adherence in exercise
class. Journal of Sport Psychology, 14, 78-86.
Thomas, K. W., & Schmadt, W. H. (1967, June). A survey of managerial interests
with respect to conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 315-318.
Weiss, M, R., & Friderichs, W. D. (1996). The influence of leader behavior,
coach attributes, and institution variables on performance and satisfaction of
collegiate basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 332-346.
Westre, K. R., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). The relationship between perceived
coaching behavior and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport
Psychology, 5,41-54.
Williams, J. M., & Hacker, C. (1982). Causal relationship among cohesion,
satisfaction, and performance in woman’s intercollegiate field hockey teams.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 324-337.
Williams, J.M., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1991). The cohesion performance outcome
relationship in a coaching sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13,
364-371.
Wu, H. C. (2000a). A study of university sport team organizational conflict in
Taiwan. Abstract of North American Society for Sport Management 15th Annual
Conference,156.
Wu, K. H. (2000b). A competitive study of collegiate coaches’ leadership
behavior in Taiwan. Abstract of North American Society for Sport Management
15th Annual Conference,157.