25.2: Coach Leadership

Coaches in sport have traditionally been seen as either occupying a leadership role or fulfilling a leadership role. In considering coaches as leaders, Chelladurai and Riemer (1998) defined coach leadership to be “a behavioral process that is used to increase athlete performance and satisfaction” (p. 228). Building upon this initial conceptualization, Vella et al. (2010) further suggested that coach leadership is “a process of influence that is dependent upon and constituted by the interpersonal relationship between coach and athlete” (p. 431). Vella et al. (2010) also suggested the following key aspects to coach leadership: (a) The coach–athlete relationship does not directly affect athlete outcomes, but rather acts as a mediating variable between coach behavior and athlete outcomes, (b) coach leadership behaviors are used to bring about the athlete outcomes of competence, confidence, connection, and character, (c) coach leadership behaviors are determined by the coaching context, the coach’s personal characteristics, and athlete characteristics.

25.2.1. Models of Coach Leadership

In an attempt to understand the mechanisms underpinning coach leadership, a number of models and theories have either been applied from other domains or developed specifically within a sporting context. These include: (a) trait and behavioral approaches, (b) the mediational model of leadership, (c) the multidimensional model of leadership, (d) coach–athlete relationships, (e) authentic leadership, and (f) transformational leadership approaches.

25.2.1.1. Trait and Behavioral Approaches

Simply put, trait and behavioral approaches suggest that the traits and characteristics individuals have predispose them to be effective or ineffective leaders in specific contexts. Four main trait and behavioral approaches to the study of leadership were highlighted by Carron et al.(2005) in a sporting context:

1. Universal-traits approach
2. Situational-traits approach
3. Universal-behavior approach
4. Situational-behavior approach

In the universal-traits approach the most successful leaders are scrutinized to understand the personality traits they possess that make them effective and successful leaders (for more discussion on personality and physical activity, see Chapter 6; Wilson & Rhodes, 2021). Under this line of thinking,if you identify the desired personality traits you could then be able to select the individuals with the right traits for future leadership positions. This approach, though, has been largely dismissed as being too simplistic since a single set of key personality traits could not be found and because it fails to account for the broad range of people who are successful in leadership roles (Cotterill, 2012). Building upon some of these initial limitations, the situational-traits approach seeks to understand the traits possessed and also the characteristics of the specific situation or context. This approach works on the assumption that some personality types will be more effective in some situations than others, as proposed in Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory of leadership. Examples of the sorts of traits that have been historically linked to successful leadership include confidence, decision making, delegation, creativity, and authority (Cotterill, 2012). This view that leaders are born to be effective in certain situations also suggests that the same leaders might be less effective in other contexts.

In contrast to the trait approaches, the behavioral approach suggests that individuals are not born as leaders or followers, but that leadership can be developed like other skills. The universal- behavior approach seeks to understand how leaders behave and how this makes them successful or effective as leaders. Four main styles have emerged from this approach (Cotterill, 2012):

1. Concern for task: focusing on achieving specific objectives
2. Concern for people: seeking to understand the people they lead
3. Directive leadership: making decisions for others
4. Participative leadership: sharing decisions with others

In the situational-behavior approach, the focus is on understanding what leadership behaviors and approaches are successful in specific situations. Examples of positive leadership behaviors include leading by example, communicating effectively, asking for feedback, treating everyone fairly, listening, and acting consistently (Cotterill, 2012). Although these behavioral approaches have merit, they do fail to consider the need for authentic leadership (i.e., the idea that leaders should embody their true selves in their leadership role) instead of adopting a set of general leadership behaviors that have been suggested to be effective.

25.2.1.2. The Mediational Model of Leadership

A number of leadership theories have sought to build upon these earlier trait and behavioral approaches, embedding a range of important factors, including both leadership behaviors and athlete/player perceptions. One example of this is the mediational model of leadership suggested by Smith et al.(1977). The core components of this model are coach behaviors, both athletes’ perceptions of and recall of these behaviors, and athletes’ evaluative reactions to the coach. One of the core principles of this model is that both perceptions and memories (the mediators) are just as important as the actual demonstrated coach behaviors in determining athletes’ evaluative reactions to the coach. In this model, coach behaviors are believed to be influenced by the uniqueness of the coach (individual differences), including factors such as coaching goals, intentions, perception of coaching norms, role conception, perception of athlete motives, and gender (Smoll & Smith, 1989). Athlete perceptions and recall, on the other hand, are influenced by athletes’ individual differences, such as age, gender, perception of coaching norms, sport-specific achievement motives, competitive trait anxiety, general self-esteem, and athletic self-esteem (Smoll & Smith, 1989). Finally, all core components of the model—coach behaviors, athletes’ perceptions and recall, and athletes’ reactions—are influenced by situational factors, such as the nature of the sport, level of competition, setting (practice or game), previous successes and failures, current outcomes, and intrateam attraction (Smith et al., 1977). The mediational model offers insight into how mental performance consultants might improve leadership outcomes by either modifying coach behaviors or shaping athletes’ perceptions or recall abilities (Cotterill, 2012). If one is looking to modify coach behaviors, an effective approach would be to work on optimizing the coaches’ goals and motives and associated behavioral intentions. If the focus is on changing athlete perceptions, then one would focus on understanding athletes’ perceptions of coaching behaviors, and more specifically, expected coaching goals, intentions, norms, and roles within the team and broader sport.

25.2.1.3. The Multidimensional Model of Leadership

The multidimensional model developed by Chelladurai (1978) seeks to build upon all of the previously mentioned theories, integrates the core aspects of the trait, behavioral, and mediational approaches into a comprehensive model that seeks to outline a comprehensive range of factors that influence coach leadership behavior. A central tenet of the model is the congruence between three categories of leadership behaviors: required, actual, and preferred behaviors. According to Chelladurai, whether the leadership approach is adopted (and how well it is received) in a given situation is determined by a range of specific situational factors, the preferred behaviors of the group, and the preferences of the leader. The actual leadership behavior is a function of the characteristics of the leader, the behaviors required by the situation or composition of the team, and the behavior preferences of the athletes, To illustrate the impact of preferred behaviors, previous studies on leadership suggested that when coaches’ leadership style is not aligned with athletes’ preferred style, the performance of athletes may develop, but their level of satisfaction may decrease (Cotterill, 2012).

In 2007, Chelladurai further adapted the model to include the concept of transformational leadership. This concept was included as Chelladurai felt that coaches served to transform relatively unaccomplished novices into expert performers. As such, it could be argued that successful coaches exhibited transformational leadership (covered later in this chapter).

25.2.1.4. Authentic Leadership

In recent years the concept of authentic leadership has gained increased traction within leadership-focused literature. This approach to leadership was originally developed building upon reflections about the unethical ways that transformational leaders can manipulate their followers (Gardner et al., 2011). Authentic leadership has been defined in the literature to be:

A pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 90).

It has been argued that while transformational approaches outline what to do in order to facilitate change, they do not really focus on personal growth for either the leader or the follower. Furthermore, while transformational leadership requires authenticity as part of the characteristics of being visionary and of high moral character, the distinction between the two lies in the authentic leaders’ faith in their own deep sense of self-values and beliefs (Sağnak & Kuruőz, 2016). In contrast, an authentic leader leads with purpose, gives more consideration to contextual and organizational factors that influence the effectiveness of leadership, and ensures the psychological well-being of followers (Penger & Cerne, 2014).

In addition, authentic leadership is not only limited to the authenticity of the leader, but also includes the quality of the leader-follower relationships. Central to the development of these relationships are the concepts of integrity, respectability and trustworthiness (Emuwa, 2013). Recent published research has highlighted that coaches who are viewed to be authentic create transparent two-way relationships with their athletes (Bandura & Kavussanu, 2018). These positive relationships serve to then raise levels of follower commitment, motivation, and positive emotion, and they can also facilitate positive follower behaviors such as active engagement and independent critical thinking (Sağnak & Kuruőz, 2016). In a recent study, Bandura and Kavussanu (2018) also highlighted that coaches who are viewed to be authentic are perceived as being trustworthy and fostering autonomy in athletes who, as a result, reported greater enjoyment and higher commitment.

25.2.1.5. Transformational Leadership

A revised version of the multidimensional model (Chelladurai, 2007) incorporated the concept of transformational leadership, in which the leader transforms the aspirations and attitudes of group members and subordinate leaders (e.g., assistant coaches, team captains) by creating and articulating a new mission for the group. This extension to the model suggests that leadership can help to change the expectations of the group regarding the leadership requirements of a specific situation.

The transformational model of leadership has been applied to the sports coaching context with positive results (Vella et al., 2010) and has seen increased application to sporting environments in recent years (Arthur et al., 2017). Transformational leadership has been described as “the process of influencing major changes in the attitudes and assumptions of organization members (organization culture) and building commitment for major changes in the organization’s objectives and strategies” (Yukl, 1989, p. 174). More simply, it is a course of action in which both leaders and participants engage in a mutual ongoing process of raising one another to higher levels of motivation, moral reasoning, and self-consciousness (Charbonneau et al., 2001). Research exploring the leadership approaches of 132 business managers suggested that individuals scoring in the highest group of moral-reasoning on the Multi Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) exhibited more transformational leadership behaviors than leaders scoring in the lowest group (Turner et al., 2002).

Four specific leader behaviors have been associated with transformational leadership (Hoptionet al., 2007): (a) Idealized influence, (b) inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration. A number of studies have reported links between these four behaviors and key group factors including team members’ values, team needs, team awareness, and ultimately team performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Idealized influence is a behavior through which leaders seek to instill pride in the group members, set a good example, and earn the respect of the group. Inspirational motivation refers to a behavior that leaders adopt to motivate and inspire those around them by developing a collective purpose and shared vision. Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed as athletes are engaged in helping leaders create an exciting and attractive future. Intellectual stimulation occurs when leaders are creative and innovative with group members through questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and encouraging creativity in one another. One outcome of this process is the enhancement of each person’s knowledge and abilities. Finally, individualized consideration guides the behavior of leaders in growing future leaders by paying attention to each individual’s needs for achievement and growth. Leaders serve as supporters, mentors, and coaches for participants, thereby increasing these individuals’ potential for development and increased competence. In sport, one example of the application of transformational leadership is captured in Newland et al.’s (2015) phenomenological study of 11 female team sport athletes. The athletes highlighted transformational approaches adopted by coaches, including caring, motivating, teaching life lessons, and trusting. This example suggests that coaches who wish to adopt a transformational approach should seek to focus on interpersonal skills, including how to both motivate and care for their athletes, with a focus on them as people and not just sporting outcomes.

25.2.1.6. Coach–Athlete Relationships

Coach leadership requires engagement with athletes and as a result, the quality of the relationships that exist between the coach and their athletes is crucial in underpinning how effective the coach can be as a leader. Crucial to this is the development of intrapersonal and interpersonal knowledge. Intrapersonal knowledge includes self-awareness and reflection, both of which have been shown to influence the development of coaching and leadership (Vella et al., 2010). In contrast, interpersonal knowledge is the awareness of others in relation to oneself. The importance of these forms of knowledge and associated interpersonal skills cannot be overstated, and, as such, should form a core component of understanding and assessing effective leadership.

Coach–athlete relationship frameworks are built upon the view that both leadership and coaching are social processes that are constituted and maintained by reciprocal, interpersonal relationships. The coach–athlete relationship has been conceptualized by Jowett (2006) in relation to four interpersonal constructs: closeness, commitment, complementarity, and co-orientation. Closeness is reflected in mutual feelings of trust and respect that result from appraisals of coaches’ and athletes’ relationship experiences. Commitment is represented in coaches’ and athletes’ long-term orientation toward the relationship. This orientation includes thoughts of attachment and the intention to maintain the athletic relationship. Complementarity is reflected in coaches’ and athletes’ actions of cooperation. Co-orientation includes reciprocal behavior whereby, for example, the coach instructs while the athlete follows instructions. The corresponding behavior would then be when the coach and the athlete manifest a friendly attitude toward one another and communicate effectively during training sessions (Jowett, 2007).

Mageau and Vallerand (2003) presented a motivational framework that outlined core aspects of the coach that can affect both the quality of and perception of the relationship. These factors include the coach’s personal orientation, the coaching context, and the coach’s perceptions of the athlete’s behavior and motivation, all of which influence the coach’s autonomy-supportive behavior (the degree to which the coach empowers the athlete to be autonomous). The core importance of supporting athlete autonomy in this model relates to the premise that autonomy-supportive behaviors have a beneficial impact on athletes’ intrinsic and self-determined extrinsic motivation, which are important determinants of performance and persistence (for more on autonomy, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation, see Chapter 3; Quested et al., 2021).

25.2.2. Assessing and Quantifying Coach Leadership in Sport

In seeking to assess, compare, and contrast coach leadership, a number of specific measures have been developed including the Leadership Scale for Sports (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

25.2.2.1. Leadership Scale for Sports

The Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS), developed by Chelladurai and Saleh (1980), is based upon the multidimensional model of leadership (Chelladurai, 1978). The scale is composed of 40 items, representing five dimensions of leader behavior (Chelladurai, 2012): (a) training and instruction, (b) democratic behavior, (c) autocratic behavior, (d) social support, and (e) positive feedback and rewarding behavior. Training and instruction refer to the development of athletic performance through the use of technical skill, tactical, and team culture development. Democratic behavior reflects the degree to which the individual involves athletes in the team decision-making process. Autocratic behavior scores reflect the degree to which the coach acts as an independent decision-maker and acts in an autocratic manner. The social support dimension reflects the degree to which the coach demonstrates care, concern, and the provision of support to athletes. Positive feedback and rewarding behavior refer to the extent to which the coach rewards positive or desirable athlete behavior.

The scale is assessed using a five-point Likert scale (always, often, occasionally, seldom, never). One interesting feature of the measure is that it can be used to better understand the leadership preferences of both athletes and coaches and can identify the existence of differences between the two.

One study to utilize the LSS was conducted by Loughead and Hardy (2005), who used the LSS to compare the leadership behaviors both of coaches and athlete leaders. Their results suggested some differences between coaches and athlete leaders. First, that the coaches were more likely to score higher on the training and instruction, and autocratic behavior dimensions. In addition, the athlete leaders recorded higher scores on the social support, positive feedback, and democratic behavior dimensions when compared to the coaches. These findings highlight that not all of the leadership needs of a team are met by coaches. As a result, mental performance consultants should look to develop a holistic view of the leadership needs of a team and how these needs can be met (see Chapter 20 for more discussion on mental skills training or psychological skills training; Rymal et al., 2021).

25.2.2.2. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

The second tool developed to assess leadership behavior is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1995). Similar to the LSS, the MLQ assesses leadership styles including passive leadership, transactional leadership, and transformational leadership.

A number of studies have been conducted using the MLQ in a sporting setting, For example, Paradis and Loughead (2010), in their study of leadership in youth sport athletes, reported that the individualized consideration (e.g., “the leader differentiates among us”) and inspirational motivation (e.g., “the leader expresses confidence”) dimensions of the transformational leadership scale were most decisive in determining the effectiveness of youth sports leaders. In a study of female adolescent soccer players, Price and Weiss (2013) asked participants to fill out the MLQ for both the coach and the athlete leader in the team. The results suggested that the transformational leadership behaviors of both coaches and athlete leaders were positively related to perceived competence, intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, team cohesion, and confidence. Interestingly, it was also reported that athlete leadership behaviors were overshadowed by the coach for individual outcomes (such as enjoyment) but were equal for team outcomes (such as collective efficacy).