International Journal of Coaching Science Vol. 8 No. 1 January 2014. pp.67-79
Performance Progress And Leadership Behavior Frode Moen* Norwegian University Rune Hoigaard University of Agder UK. Derek M. Peters University of Agder UK.
Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ leadership behaviours and their rating of their own satisfaction with their performance progress whilst under the guidance of this coach. Participants were 120 competitive athletes (M age = 20.3 years, SD =4.6) from different individual sports. Participants completed the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) and rated their own perceived satisfaction with their own performance progress underneath their present coach on a scale of 1 ‘extremely dissatisfied’ to 7 ‘extremely satisfied’. A one-way ANOVA analyses was used to test the differences between three composite satisfaction categories of ‘not satisfied (1-4)’, ‘satisfied’ (5) and ‘more than satisfied’ (6-7). The results indicate that the athletes who are most satisfied with their performance progress, evaluate their coaches’ leadership behavior higher in the following domains: Training and Instruction, Democratic behavior, Social Support, and Positive Feedback. Findings from the present study highlight the importance of coaches’ training and instruction behavior. The present study also highlights that the coach-athlete relationship must entail elements of reciprocity, trust, as well as being of a genuine and helping nature, and that coach’s democratic behaviour, supportive style and their ability to give positive feedback seem to support such values.
Keywords: Coaching styles, coaching behaviour, athletes, sport
*Frode Moen* Department of Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Granliveien 14, 7024 Trondheim Phone: +47 72 56 81 76 Mobile: +47 932 48 750 Mail:
[email protected]
67
Frode Moen & Rune Høigaard & Derek M. Peters
Introduction The primary role of the coach is to help athletes to improve their performance (Jones, 2006). From this, an important question emerges: ‘What sort of coaching philosophy, coaching style, or coaching behaviour best develops athletes toward expert performance and athletic success?’ Answering this key question has been the focus for researchers and practitioners for several decades (Abraham, Collins & Martindale, 2006; Blom, Watson II, & Spadaro, 2010; Chelladurai, 2007; Côté & Gilbert, 2009; Horn, 2002; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003 ; Myers, Chase, Beauchamp & Jackson, 2010; Myers, Feltz, Maier, Wolfe & Reckase, 2006). In relation to the investigation of the most effective coach behaviour for improving performance, the leadership model that has received the most research attention has been the multidimensional model of leadership in sport developed by Chelladurai (1990; 1993). According to the multidimensional model, leadership effectiveness is a function of three interacting aspects of leader behaviour: actual, preferred, and required behaviour. When these three aspects are congruent, desirable performance outcomes and athlete satisfaction should be the result. In order to measure these aspects of leadership in the context of sports coaching, Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) developed the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS).The LSS instrument consists of five subscales measuring the coach’s decision making style (Democratic and Autocratic Style), the coach’s motivational tendencies (Social Support and Positive Feedback), and the coach’s instructional behavior (Training and Instruction). Since its creation, the LSS has become one of the most commonly utilized scales for quantifying such leadership behaviors in sports coaches (Horn, 2002). Research with the LSS has investigated the relationship between ‘member characteristics’ such as age, maturity, gender, level of competition, task type, motivation and ‘preferred’ leadership in athletes (Chelladurai & Carron, 1983, Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978; Høigaard, Jones & Peters 2008; Serpa, Pataco, & Santos, 1991; Terry, 1984; Turman, 2001); differences between ‘preferred’ and ‘perceived’ leadership behaviour (Chelladurai, 1993; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998 Riemer & Toon 2001); the impact of coach leadership behavior on team dynamics such as cohesion and motivational climate (Høigaard, 2006; Høigaard & Peters, 2007); preferred coach leadership behaviors in successful and unsuccessful teams (Høigaard, Jones & Peters 2008; Serpa, Pataco, & Santos, 1991; Terry, 1984; Turman 2001; Gordon, 1998);the relationship between coach leadership behaviour and athlete performance, whilst notwithstanding the immense difficulties in quantifying ‘performance’ (Courneya & Chelladurai, 1991; Riemer & Toon, 2001); and the relationship between coach leadership behavior and athlete satisfaction with their coach’s behaviour and satisfaction per se (Chelladurai, 1984; McMilin, 1990; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986;). Despite previous research and theory suggesting an innate positive association between athlete
68
International Journal of Coaching Science Vol. 8 No. 1 January 2014
satisfaction and performance (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997), and with it accepted that the primary role of a coach is to improve the performance of their athletes, no previous research has attempted to investigate the relationship between perceived coach leadership behaviours and specifically how satisfied the athlete is with their own performance improvement under their current coach. The aim of this study therefore, was to investigate the relationship between athlete’s perceptions of their coach’s leadership behaviours and their rating of their own satisfaction with their performance progress whilst under the guidance of this coach.
Method Sample A total of 168 athletes from individual sports were invited to participate in the study, and 120 completed the surveys, representing a response rate of 71%. The participants ranged from 14 to 41 years in age (M=20.3, SD=4.6) and 38% were female and 62% were male. The athletes was recruited form different sports such as cross country skiing, biathlon, nordic combined, ski jumping, snowboard, bicycling, alpine skiing, BMX, orienteering, swimming, and taekwondo, and 32% (39 athletes) of the athletes compete at national level (Perform regularly behind the 10 best in their sports), and 21% (25 athletes) of the athletes compete at high national level (Perform regularly among the 10 best in their sport), and 36% (43 athletes) at the highest national level (Perform regularly among the 5 best in their sports), and 7% (8 athletes) at high international level (Perform regularly among the 10 best in their sport), and 4% (5 athletes) at the highest international level (Perform regularly among the 5 best in their sports). A total of 21 out of the athletes have been in a coach-athlete relationship with their coaches less than a year, 71out of the athletes between one and two years, 18 out of the athletes between two and three years, and 6 out of the athletes longer than six years.
Procedure Coaches from these different sports were gathered for an up-grading coaching course arranged by the Norwegian Olympic Committee together with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The program was aimed at elite coaches who were working with national and international elite teams in Norway. The coaches’ athletes were asked to voluntarily evaluate their coaches who participated at the coaching course, and the data collection was completed before the course started. An online questionnaire
69
Frode Moen & Rune Høigaard & Derek M. Peters
was developed with the help of the online survey management tool Quest Back, in order to measure psychological variables concerning their thoughts, feelings, and actions regarding their relationships with their coaches. Institutional ethics approval was obtained according to Norwegian University of Science and Technology institutional procedures.
Instruments Leadership behavior. The athlete should report their coaches leadership behavior using The Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) The LSS is a 40-item inventory that assesses five dimensions of leadership behavior: Training and instruction; (thirteen items), cover coaching behavior aimed at improving the athletes’ performance by emphasizing instructions and structuring and coordinating the athletes’ activities. An example item is: “Explain to each athlete the techniques and tactics of sport.” ‘Democratic behavior’ (nine items), cover coaching behavior that allows greater athletes participation in decisions pertaining to group goals, practice methods, game tactics and strategies. An example item is: “Gets group approval on important matters before going ahead.” ‘Autocratic behavior’ (five items) cover coaching behavior that involves independence in decision-making and stresses personal authority. An example item is: “Refuses to compromise a point.” ‘Social support’ (eight items) cover coaching behavior that focuses on the welfare of individual athletes, positive group atmosphere, and interpersonal relations with members. An example item is: “Looks out for the personal welfare of the athletes.” ‘Positive feedback’ (five items), cover coaching behavior that reinforces an athlete by recognizing and rewarding good performance. An example item is: “Gives credit when credit is due.” Responses are provided on a five-point scale anchored at the extremes by ‘never’ (1) and ‘always’ (5). Thus, higher scores reflect stronger perceptions of the use of each behavior. All subscales had satisfactorily Cronbach’s Alphas as shown in Table 1.
Satisfaction with progress in sport To assess the athlete satisfaction with their progress in sport the following question was used: How satisfied are you with your progress in sport underneath your present coach? The response categories were divided into: 1) Extremely dissatisfied, 2)Very dissatisfied, 3)Dissatisfied, 4)Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, 5) Satisfied, 6)Very satisfied, 7)Extremely satisfied. The responses were divided into three composite satisfaction categories 1) Not satisfied (response categories 1 to 4); Satisfied (Response category 5); and More than satisfied (response categories 6 and 7).
70
International Journal of Coaching Science Vol. 8 No. 1 January 2014
Data analysis The reliability of the LSS subscales was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, mean (SD) were computed and normality assessed using Shapiro-Wilks tests.
Spearman’s rho correlations between the LSS
subscales were produced. Individual one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey tests were performed to investigate differences in each LSS subscale between the three composite satisfaction categories.
These analyses were
then re-run including athlete sex, age, length of time working with their current coach and current performance level as covariates with any group differences then evaluated using LSD post hoc tests. Acceptance of alpha for significance was set at P
