近年來，桌球運動在大專校院中持續發展，許多學生透過校隊訓練與競賽累積技術能力、心理素質與團隊經驗。對大專校院桌球隊員而言，校隊訓練不僅是提升競技能力的歷程，也是培養自我要求、面對壓力與持續學習的重要場域。過程中，教練不僅扮演技術指導者之角色，亦會透過日常訓練、比賽準備與互動方式，影響隊員之心理狀態與學習成效。因此，探討教練領導風格如何影響隊員學習與成長，對於大專校院桌球校隊之訓練發展與教練實務具有重要意義。
隨著領導理論之發展，強調服務他人、重視成員需求與促進個人成長之僕人領導逐漸受到重視。然而，相較於企業組織領域，僕人領導於運動團隊情境中的應用仍有進一步探討空間。基於此，本研究以大專校院桌球教練僕人領導作為自變項，並以隊員學習成效之兩個構面：能力感知與精力投入作為依變項，進一步納入訓練情境下之自我效能與關係能量作為中介變項。探討教練僕人領導對隊員學習成效之影響，以及自我效能與關係能量是否在其中具有中介效果。本研究之調查對象為曾參與大專校院桌球校隊之隊員，透過網路問卷、比賽現場發放、教練與選手協助轉發等方式進行資料蒐集。研究共回收 206 份問卷，其中有效問卷為 194 份，樣本來自 35 間學校。問卷回收後，使用 JASP 0.19.3.0 進行信度分析、描述性統計、相關分析、迴歸分析與中介效果分析。分析結果如下：
一、大專校院桌球教練僕人領導與隊員能力感知具有顯著正向關係；大專校院桌球教練僕人領導與隊員精力投入亦具有顯著正向關係。
二、大專校院桌球教練僕人領導與隊員自我效能、關係能量皆具有顯著正向關係；隊員自我效能與能力感知亦具有顯著正向關係。
三、自我效能顯著中介大專校院桌球教練僕人領導與隊員能力感知之關係；然而，自我效能在教練僕人領導與精力投入之間的中介效果未達顯著關係，關係能量在教練僕人領導與能力感知、精力投入之間的中介效果亦未達顯著關係。

In recent years, table tennis has continued to develop in colleges and universities. Many students accumulate technical abilities, psychological qualities, and team experience through varsity team training and competition. For collegiate table tennis team members, varsity team training is not only a process of enhancing competitive ability, but also an important setting for developing self-discipline, facing pressure, and continuing to learn. In this process, coaches not only play the role of technical instructors, but also influence team members’ psychological states and learning effectiveness through daily training, competition preparation, and forms of interaction. Therefore, exploring how coaches’ leadership styles affect team members’ learning and growth is of great significance for the training development and coaching practice of collegiate table tennis teams.
With the development of leadership theories, servant leadership, which emphasizes serving others, valuing members’ needs, and promoting personal growth, has gradually received attention. However, compared with the field of business organizations, the application of servant leadership in sports team contexts still requires further exploration. Based on this, this study uses servant leadership among collegiate table tennis coaches as the independent variable, and uses two dimensions of team members’ learning effectiveness—perceived competence and effort-importance—as dependent variables. Self-efficacy and relational energy are further included as mediating variables. This study examines the influence of coaches’ servant leadership on team members’ learning effectiveness, as well as whether self-efficacy and relational energy have mediating effects in these relationships. The participants of this study were team members who had participated in collegiate table tennis varsity teams. Data were collected through online questionnaires, on-site questionnaire distribution at competitions, and assistance from coaches and players in forwarding the questionnaire. A total of 206 questionnaires were collected, among which 194 were valid. The sample came from 35 schools. After the questionnaires were collected, JASP 0.19.3.0 was used to conduct reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and mediation effect analysis. The results are as follows:
1. Servant leadership among collegiate table tennis coaches has a significant positive relationship with team members’ perceived competence; servant leadership among collegiate table tennis coaches also has a significant positive relationship with team members’ effort-importance.
2. Servant leadership among collegiate table tennis coaches has significant positive relationships with team members’ self-efficacy and relational energy; team members’ self-efficacy also has a significant positive relationship with perceived competence.
3. Self-efficacy significantly mediates the relationship between servant leadership among collegiate table tennis coaches and team members’ perceived competence. However, the mediating effect of self-efficacy between coaches’ servant leadership and effort-importance is not significant, and the mediating effects of relational energy between coaches’ servant leadership and perceived competence and effort-importance are also not significant.

一、 中文文獻
王俊明、陳其昌，2006。大專院校教練效能及領導行為對運動員運動動機及運動態度的影響。臺灣運動心理學報。第九期: 1-18。
王俊明，2013。教練領導行為及團隊動機氣候對選手自我效能及團隊集體效能的影響。運動與健康研究。第二卷第二期: 13-30。
王文宜、陳毅芬、周麗卿，2015。運動教育模式對排球技能學習成效及學習動機之影響。運動與健康研究。第四卷第一期: 39-47。
巫沛耘、牟鍾福、鄭俊傑，2020。運動代表隊教練僕人式領導之探討。運動知識學報。第十七期: 185-192。
周如萍、謝瑄容、張富貴，2010。大專桌球選手教練領導、運動滿意度與成績表現之研究。興大體育學刊。第十期: 37-53
陳南福、胡凱揚，2022。僕人式領導與家長式領導在運動團隊之應用。休閒保健期刊。第二十七期: 51-62。
曾冠堯，2009。運動團隊家長式領導對自我效能之影響：多層次分析觀點。新竹教育大學體育學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
劉坤桐，2008。教師領導風格與學生學習相關研究。佛光大學社會教育學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
顏琳真，2025。臺北市高中職體育課學習滿意度與學習成效之研究。臺北市立大學體育學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
黃若飴、吳淑卿，2020。成就動機及目標取向對自我效能及學習表現的影響。嶺東體育暨休閒學刊。第十八期: 1-20。
徐志雄，2025。僕人領導風格對員工建言行為之影響。臺灣大學生物科技管理碩士在職學位學程碩士班未出版碩士論文。
二、 英文文獻
Amah, O. E. (2018). Leadership styles and relational energy: Do all leaderships styles generate and transmit equal relational energy? South African Journal of Business Management, 49(1), a231.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2014). Empowering leadership: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 487–511.
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader-member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 264–275.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barbuto, J. E., Jr., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Chelladurai, P. (1978). A contingency model of leadership in athletics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83.
Cherian, J., & Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self-efficacy on motivation and performance of employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(14), 80–88.
Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 765–776.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009). Examining the impact of servant leadership on turnover intention. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(4), 351–365.​
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1996). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. J. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48–58.
Owens, B. P., Baker, W. E., Sumpter, D. M., & Cameron, K. S. (2016). Relational energy at work: Implications for job engagement and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 35–49.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational Psychologist, 19(1), 48–58.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor: NFER-NELSON.
Shirom, A. (2001). Reflections on the study of burnout. In S. E. Hobfoll (Ed.), Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace (pp. 149–176). Marcel Dekker.
Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.
Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25–30.
Takamatsu, S. (2022). Coaching servant leadership: Scale development and validation. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, Article 871495.
Wang, S., De Pater, I. E., Yi, M., Zhang, Y., & Yang, T. P. (2020). Empowering leadership: Employee-related antecedents and consequences. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(2), 457–481.
Yang, F., Liu, J., Wang, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Feeling energized: A multilevel model of spiritual leadership, leader integrity, relational energy, and job performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 983–997.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.