本研究旨在瞭解北部五縣市國民中學總務主任工作壓力及因應策略的現況。以北部五縣市公立國民中學總務主任為問卷普查對象，共回收214份有效問卷，以SPSS12.0視窗中文版進行資料分析，再施以半結構式訪談，以輔助調查研究之不足，根據分析結果與訪談所得，提出建議。本研究之結論： 一、北部五縣市國民中學總務主任整體的工作壓力感受，屬於中等程度以上，對因應策略的使用狀況偏高。 二、在不同背景變項與工作壓力的關係上： （一）「30歲以下」的總務主任其工作壓力感受較強。 （二）「30歲以下」的總務主任其工作壓力感受較強。 （三）未婚總務主任所感受到的壓力，高於已婚的總務主任。 （四）「任總務主任年資未滿1年」的總務主任工作壓力感受較強。 （五）教育背景不同的總務主任工作壓力有差異。 （六）「偏遠地區」的總務主任工作壓力感受較強。 （七）「12班以下」的總務主任工作壓力感受較強。 三、不同背景的國民小學總務主任壓力因應策略分析： 壓力因應策略的使用上，不因性別、年齡、婚姻狀況、教育背景、任總務主任年資、學校所在地以及學校班級數等因素不同而有所差異。 四、不同壓力感受的總務主任壓力因應策略的分析： 　　工作壓力各層面感受高壓力組的總務主任在因應策略使用的得分顯著高於低壓力組。 最後依據上述的發現與結論，提出對國中總務主任、校長、教育行政主管機關的建議，以供參考。 一、對國中總務主任的建議 （一）增長專業知能，加強專業進修。 （二）落實權責分明，明確職務代理。 （三）強化工友技能，提昇工作績效。 （四）善用壓力對策，化壓力為助力。 二、對校長的建議 （一）訂定輪調制度，增進凝聚力量 （二）建立領導風範，加強溝通授權。 （三）運用獎勵措施，激發工作潛能。 （三）營造優質環境，減少雜務干擾。 三、對教育行政主管機關的建議 （一）修定相關法令，合理配置人力。 （二）加強知識管理，提升行政品質。 （三）成立營繕機構，專責辦理採購。 （四）建立人力資源，因應人力精簡。 （五）精簡公文報表，強化統合視導。 （六）開辦知能研習，增長專業知能。 / A Study on the Job Stress and Coping Strategy of the junior high Schools’ Directors of General Affairs in Northern Taiwan county . ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate the job stress and coping strategy of the high schools’ directors of general affairs in Northern Taiwan county. This study adopted both of the questionnaires and interviews to achieve the purposes stated above. The focus group included 214 junior high schools’ directors of general affairs in Northern Taiwan county . Four major conclusions of this study were as follows: 1.Perception of job stress of the junior high schools’ directors of general affairs was above average. The coping strategies were used more frequently. 2.the connection between different background and job stress: (1) There were no significant difference about sensitivity with job stress between directors in gender (2) In “ job stress”, the directors of less 30 years old had higher sensitivity than the directors of 41-50 years old . (3) In “ job stress”, the directors of less one year experience had higher Sensitivity than the directors of 5-8 years experiences. (4) In “ job stress”, the single directors had higher sensitivity than the married directors. (5) The job stress that junior high schools’ directors of general affairs differs from different educational background (6) In “ job stress”, the directors of remote districts had higher Sensitivity than the directors of towns and villages . (7) In “ job stress”, the directors of less12 numbers of classes of the school had higher Sensitivity than the directors of over 60 numbers of classes of the school . 3. Analyzing coping strategy of the junior high schools’ directors of general affairs with different background: There were no significant differences about ways of coping between junior high schools’ directors of general affairs in gender,age,marriage,educational backgrounds,years of service,service area,size of school enrollment. 4.Analyzing coping strategy of the directors with different perception of job stress: In coping strategy, the groups with higher sensitivity about “job stress ” got higher point than the groups with lower sensitivity.

本研究旨在建立國民中學總務主任核心能力指標，藉以提供相關主管單位進行總務人力培訓及學校行政人員職涯進修之參考。研究初始，先以文獻分析法歸納出國民中學總務主任核心能力指標，並邀請專家委員進行適切性問卷與模糊德菲術問卷評估，完成指標的修正與確立。接著，即運用三角模糊術整合專家委員對指標內容重要性之看法，並接續指標篩選作業，最後以歸一化方式求得各構面與指標權重，遂完成整體指標系統建立。 本研究建構之指標系統共為六大構面38項指標，各構面權重介於15.8%至17.3%之間，有關構面權重與指標內涵依序排列為： 一、「自我管理」構面（17.3%），各指標權重介於3.2%至3.8%間，依序為：廉潔自持、敬業精神、溝通表達、行政倫理、情商管理。 二、「法規知能」構面（17.2%），各指標權重介於2.0%至2.5%間，依序為：政府採購法規知能、消防法規知能、財產管理法規知能、建築法規知能、營繕法規知能、主計法規知能、勞工安全衛生法規知能、文書管理法規知能。 三、「管理實務」構面（16.8%），各指標權重介於1.7%至2.0%間，依序為：採購管理、營繕工程管理、防災與校安管理、風險與危機管理、出納與財務管理、資源管理、事務工作管理、職工管理、文書與檔案管理。 四、「行政領導」構面（16.8%），各指標權重介於1.7%至2.0%間，依序為：領導與協調、行政與績效管理、團隊建立與合作、政策執行、人力資源管理、計畫撰擬與管理、問題分析與規劃、公共關係管理、會議管理。 五、「校園營造」構面（16.1%），各指標權重介於3.9%至4.2%間，依序為：設備與設施維護、綠能與環保管理、空間規劃、綠美化管理。 六、「永續創發」構面（15.8%），各指標權重介於5.1%至5.4%間，依序為：顧客導向、前瞻與創新、反思與再造。 / The purpose of this study is to construct main competency indicators of director of general affairs in junior high school, which aim to provide governments with information about training personnel of general affairs and school administrators. To start the research, main competency indicators of director of general affairs was organized by literature review. Then invite experts to conduct appropriate assessment and Fuzzy Delphi questionnaire evaluations, completing modification of indicators. Secondly, Symmetric triangular fuzzy number was used to analyze experts’ opinions on the importance of each indicator and continue indicator selection. Finally, normalization of fuzzy number’s total score determined the weight of each dimensions and indicators, so that build the whole indicator system. The indicator system consists of six dimensions and 38 indicators, and the weight of each dimension is between 15.8% and 17.3%. The contents of dimensions and indicators are as follows: 1. Dimension of “self-management”: each weight of indicators is between 3.2% and 3.8%, which are reputation, professional dedication, communication, administrative ethics and emotional quotient management. 2. Dimension of “knowledge of rules and regulations”: each weight of indicators is between 2.0% and 2.5%, which are rules of public purchasing, rules of fire services, rules of property management, rules of building technique, rules of construction and maintenance, rules of accounting, rules of labor safety and health, and rules of document management. 3. Dimension of “practice of management”: each weight of indicators is between 1.7% and 2.0%, which are purchasing management ,building and maintenance management, management of disaster reduction and school security, risk management, finance management, resource management, general affairs management, personnel management, and document management. 4. Dimension of “ administrative leadership”: each weight of indicators is between 1.7% and 2.0%, which are leadership and negotiation, administration and performance management, team building and collaboration, policy enforcement, management of human resource, program writing and management, problem analyzing and programing, public relationship management and meeting management. 5. Dimension of “school operation and maintenance”: each weight of indicators is between 3.9% and 4.2%, which are facilities maintenance, green resource and environment management, space design and greenification management. 6. Dimension of “sustainable development”: each weight of indicators is between 5.1% and 5.4%, which are customer orientation, being proactive and creative, introspection and re-built.