|
COPYRIGHT 2006 University of South Alabama
Leadership has been defined as "a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal" (Northouse, 2001, p. 3). Given its apparent practical appeal, it is not surprising that leadership has been one of the most studied areas in industrial and organizational psychology (Northouse, 2001). In sport, the importance of effective leadership has been cited by athletes and coaches as a vital component to achievement (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998; Gould, Hodge, Peterson, & Petlichkoff, 1987) and athlete satisfaction (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995). Up to this point, most sport leadership research has focused on coaching effectiveness by identifying their personality traits, behavioral attributes, and situational determinants (Chelladurai, 1984).
Several models of sport leadership have been advanced, the most noteworthy being Chelladurai's (1978, 1984, 1993) Multidimensional Model of Leadership (MML), a linear model comprised of antecedents, leader behaviors, and consequences. The antecedents are factors that influence leader behavior and can be classified into situational (e.g., team goals, norms), leader (e.g., leader's experience or personality), and team member characteristics (e.g., gender, ability). These antecedent variables are believed to influence three states of leader behavior; labeled required, preferred, and actual. Specifically, situational and member characteristics influence both required (i.e., parameters of the organization) and preferred (i.e., group member preferences) leader behaviors, while leader characteristics influence actual leader behaviors. The consequences contained in the MML are group performance and team member satisfaction which are a function of the degree of congruence among the three states of leader behavior. In order to examine the hypothesized relationships in the MML, Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) developed the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS), an inventory that measures five dimensions of leader behavior: training and instruction, democratic, autocratic, social support, and positive feedback.
The majority of research using the LSS has focused on the leadership behaviors of coaches. One approach has examined the influence of the antecedent variables such as gender, personality, age, sport experience, athlete maturity, organizational goals, culture, and task roles in relation to preferred and perceived coaching behaviors (cf. Chelladurai, 1993; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Another approach has examined the congruence between perceived and preferred coaching behaviors in relation to team performance and/or athlete satisfaction (cf. Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Overall, the results have shown that athletes were most satisfied with coaches who emphasized behaviors aimed at improving athletic performance by emphasizing the skills, tactics, and techniques of the sport. In addition, athletes perceived that performance was enhanced by coaches who provided positive feedback and rewarded good performances (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998).
Although the leadership behaviors of coaches are fundamental to the satisfaction and performance of athletes, several researchers (Glenn & Horn, 1993; Kozub & Pease, 2001; Loughead & Hardy, 2005; Rees & Segal, 1984) have suggested athletes are another important source of leadership within teams. Given the importance of athlete leadership, it is critical to distinguish between formal and informal leadership roles (Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). Formal leaders have been designated to their position by the organization (Loughead, Hardy, & Eys, in press). According to Glenn and Horn, coaches typically have one or two athletes on a team who provide motivation and direction to their teammates. It is not uncommon for coaches to either appoint a team captain or have the team elect a captain. In the sport of ice hockey, the team captain wears the letter "C" on the jersey formally designating his/her leadership role. In contrast, athletes other than team captains can assume an informal leadership role since this type of leadership emerges on the basis of their interactions with other team members and is not formally appointed by the organization (Loughead & Hardy, 2005).
Only a few studies have examined athlete leader behaviors. In particular, these studies were conceptualized from Chelladurai and Saleh's (1980) LSS and compared the relationship between athlete leader behaviors and coach leader behaviors. Furthermore, these studies did not distinguish between formal and informal types of leaders. For example, Kozub and Pease (2001) examined the coach-athlete leadership relationship in high school basketball. The resuits showed a positive relationship between athletes strong in task and social leadership behaviors and the coaching behaviors of social support, training and instruction, democratic behavior, and positive feedback. However, operationalizing athlete leadership into only task and social dimensions limited the identification of specific leader behaviors compared to the five leadership behaviors identified in the LSS. In an attempt to address this oversight, Loughead and Hardy (2005) used the LSS to measure coach's behaviors and a modified version of the LSS (and its five leadership dimensions) to assess athlete leader behaviors. The results indicated coaches were perceived by their athletes to exhibit higher levels of training and instruction, and autocratic behaviors than athlete leaders. On the other hand, athlete leaders were viewed to display greater social support, positive feedback, and democratic behaviors than coaches. Taken together, the results indicated that coaches...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
