Performance Progress And Leadership Behavior

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: frmoe@online.no 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<0.05. Result Table 1 shows descriptive statistics, between subscale correlations and Cronbach s alpha for all subscales of the LSS. One-way ANOVA (Table 2) identified significant differences in Training & Instruction, Democratic, Social Support and Positive Feedback coach leadership behaviors between the three satisfaction categories. When included in subsequent one-way ANOVA for each LSS subscale the covariates age and competitive level were significantly related to positive feedback, F(1,113)=9.01, p=.003, Eta 2 =.07; and F(1,113)=6.78, p=.011, Eta 2 =.06 respectively. The significant main effect for level of satisfaction on coach positive feedback leadership behaviour remained, F(2,113)=3.92, p=.023, Eta 2 =.06, with LSD pairwise comparisons identifying the more than satisfied group (adjusted mean 4.28, SE=.08, 95% CI[4.13, 4.44]) 71

Frode Moen & Rune Høigaard & Derek M. Peters perceiving their coaches to exhibit greater levels of positive feedback than the not satisfied group (adjusted mean 3.85, SE=.14, 95% CI [ 3.57, 4.13], mean difference.434, p=.009). Age was significantly related to Training and Instruction, F(1,113)=4.54, p=.035, Eta 2 =.04. The significant main effect for level of satisfaction on coach Training and Instruction leadership behaviour remained, F(2,113)=5.90, p=.004, Eta 2 =.10, with LSD pairwise comparisons identifying the more than satisfied group (adjusted mean 4.15, SE=.07, 95% CI [4.01, 4.28] perceiving their coaches to exhibit greater levels of Training and Instruction than the not satisfied group (adjusted mean 3.74, SE=.12, 95% CI [3.50, 3.98], mean difference.404, p=.006), and the satisfied group (adjusted mean 3.84, SE=.09, 95% CI [3.67, 4.01], mean difference.306, p=.007). Current performance level was significantly related to Democratic behavior, F(1,113)=8.63, p=.004, Eta 2 =.07. The significant main effect for level of satisfaction on coach Democratic behavior leadership behaviour remained, F(2,113)=5.12, p=.007, Eta 2 =.08, with LSD pairwise comparisons identifying the more than satisfied group (adjusted mean 4.14, SE=.08, 95% CI [3.99, 4.30]) perceiving their coaches to exhibit greater levels of Democratic behavior than the not satisfied group (adjusted mean 3.72, SE=.14, 95% CI [3.45, 3.99], mean difference.424, p=.009), and the satisfied group (adjusted mean 3.83, SE=.10, 95% CI [ 3.64, 4.02], mean difference.313, p=.013). The covariates were not related to the Autocratic behavior or Social Support subscales and the was no main effect for satisfaction group F(2,113)=.37, p=.69 and F(2,113)=2.89, p=.06 respectively. 72

International Journal of Coaching Science Vol. 8 No. 1 January 2014 Discussion This aim of this study was to investigate athletes perceptions of their coach's leadership behaviors in relation to their satisfaction regarding their performance progress while under the guidance of their current coach. As can be seen in Table 1, the most frequent types of leadership behaviors reported in this study are in general; Training and Instruction, Democratic Behavior, and Positive Feedback. In addition, Autocratic Behavior is reported to be the less used leadership behavior. Similar findings have also been reported in other studies that looked at actual coaching behavior and those investigating athletes preferences with respect to leadership behavior (Chelladurai, 1993; Chelladurai & Reimer, 1998, Chelladurai et al., 1988; Høigaard, et al., 2008; McMillin, 1990). The analysis (Table 2) shows that athletes, who are most satisfied with their performance progress, evaluate their coaches leadership behavior higher on four out of five LSS subscales (e.g. Training and Instruction behavior, Democratic behavior, Social Support, and Positive Feedback). Furthermore, the differences remain significant, even when controlling for sex, age, length of time working with their current coach and current performance level. The route for developing excellence in sport is through deliberate practice over a lengthy period of time (Ericsson, 2009; Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Farrow, Baker, & MacMahon, 2008). Coaches are a significant factor in order to facilitate athletes pursuit of excellence (Chelladurai, 2007; Chelladurai & Reimer, 1998), and emphasizing instruction and structuring athletes practice have been named as important factors for of effective coaching (Horton & Deakin, 2008; Lacy & Darst, 1989; Potrac, Jones & Cushion, 2007). The LSS subscale for Training and Instruction is related to developing sport-specific skills aimed directly at improving athletic performance, and it is therefore reasonable that these behaviors are significant contributors to athletes performance and their subsequent satisfaction with their own performance progress. Previous research has also found that the LSS subscale Training and Instruction is the most preferred coaching leadership style among athletes (Nazarudin, Fauzee, Jamalis, Geok, & Din, 2009; Pilus & Saadan, 2009), and since it is based on Chelladurai s (2001) congruence hypothesis, (e.g. actual leader behavior is consistent with both the preferred and required behaviors), it is reasonable to believe that among high performance athletes in a competitive context, coaches are considered to entail the instruction of technical skills and tactics (Nazarudin, et al., 2009; Pilus & Saadan, 2009; Potrac, et al., 2007). Accordingly, studies have also indicated that congruence between preferred and actual leadership behavior on the subscale training and instruction influences athlete satisfaction (Chelladurai, 1984; Horne & Carron, 1985; Schliesman, 1987). The pursuit of excellence in sport also requires prioritization, motivation and dedication in order to 73

Frode Moen & Rune Høigaard & Derek M. Peters continue working hard over a period of several years; therefore, it is vitally important that a training regimen is developed to fit athletes expectations, needs and skills so they will maintain their motivation and continually practice and not give up. Democratically involving athletes thought processes, increasing their feelings of having influence on and assuming responsibility for their own development process increases their motivation and helps them carry on during periods of obstacles and setbacks (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Moen & Verburg, 2012; Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002). In this study 'the more than satisfied' athletes evaluated their coaches significantly higher on the democratic subscale than the ' dissatisfied' athletes. One interpretation of this finding is that when coaches involve athletes and allow them to participate in decisions concerning goal setting, training methods, competition tactics and strategies, this directly influences the athletes motivation and performance - or at least their satisfaction with their performance development. This may occur partly because they experience a higher level of responsibility and autonomy in their own development process and athletic career. Furthermore, as can be seen in Table 2, the 'more than satisfied' athletes evaluated their coach higher on the LSS subscales Social Support and Positive Feedback than 'dissatisfied' athletes. According to the latter, positive feedback indicates coaching behavior that reinforces an athlete by recognizing and rewarding progress and performance. Ericsson et al., (1993) argues that deliberate practice is not intrinsically satisfying and can be both mentally and physically boring and tiring. Research has shown that giving positive feedback in a constructive manner enhances athletes ability and promotes their self-efficacy, which in turn results in several positive outcomes (e.g. increased effort, persistence, reduced stress and anxiety, higher goals), or factors that positively influence their performance (Bandura, 1997; Feltz, Short Sullivan, 2008. According to Abernethy (2008), positive feedback that reinforces an athlete s performance is the most predictive factor for predicting a high level of athletic achievement. The Social Support subscale indicates coaching behavior that focuses on athlete welfare, creating a positive group atmosphere and promoting positive interpersonal relationships. Coaches who exhibit such behavior perform a sort of servant leadership (Jones, 2006; Rieke, Hammermeister & Chase, 2008, van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leadership is demonstrated by empowering and developing people through expressing humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance and stewardship (Jowett, 2003; Moen & Verburg, 2012; Rieke, Hammermeister & Chase, 2008). These attitudes and behaviors contribute to developing and maintaining an effective coach-athlete relationship, which is important in order to encourage athletes self-actualization and performance. Several sport studies exploring the coach-athlete relationship claim that effective coaching includes basic ingredients such as empathic understanding, honesty, support, liking, acceptance, friendliness, cooperation, caring and respect (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Jowett & Meek, 2000). The present study contributes to coaching research in sports and extends the literature of empirical 74

International Journal of Coaching Science Vol. 8 No. 1 January 2014 research regarding this matter. However, the present study has some limitations. Sample size may have influenced the results. Studies with larger numbers of participants are required in future research, as well as a more solid and causal design. Moreover, one should note that the collected data is constituted by self-reporting measures and it cannot be known to what extent these self-reports truly reflect the variables under scrutiny. Conducting studies that combine self-reported data with data obtained in a more objective manner could further develop this line of research, for instance, using longitudinal studies that incorporate both quantitative and qualitative methods in order to investigate possible cause and effect relationships. Conclusions The present study s results highlight not only the importance of coaches training and instruction behavior, but also the fact that similar studies state that coaches' relationship with their athletes involves much more than the simple teaching and instruction of technical skills and tactics (Bloom, Durant-Bush, Schinke, & Salmela, 1998; Jones, 2006; Moen & Verburg, 2012). Specifically, the coach-athlete relationship must entail elements of reciprocity, trust as well as be of a genuine and helping nature (Bloom et al., 1998; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Poczwardowski, Barott, & Henschen, 2002). Therefore, in order to develop an effective coach- athlete relationship, coaches need to involve their athletes in their work through democratic behavior, be socially supportive and give positive feedback. Additionally, they need to give clear instructions and structure their athletes activities. The great challenge for coaches is to find a unique balance and combination suiting the athletes skills, needs, and personality in ways that stimulate performance progress. References Abernethy, B. (2008). Introduction: Developing expertise in sport- how research can inform practice. In D. Farrow., J. Baker, & C. MacMahon (Eds.), Developing Sport Expertise. New York: Routledge. Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. (2006). The coaching schematic: Validation through expert coach consensus. Journal of Sport Sciences 24, 549-564. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Blom, L. C., Watson II, J. C., & Spadaro, N. (2010). The impact of a coaching intervention on the 75

Frode Moen & Rune Høigaard & Derek M. Peters coach-athlete dyad and athlete sport experience. Athletic Insight- The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 12. Retrieved from http://www.athleticinsight.com/ Vol12Iss3/Feature.htm. Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N., Schinke, R. J., & Salmela, J. H. (1998). The importance of mentoring in the development of coaches and athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 267-281. Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 27-41. Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 328-354. Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook on Research on Sport Psychology. New York: Macmillian. Chelladurai, P. (2001). Managing organization for sport and physical activity: A systems perspective. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway. Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. In G. Tenenbaum., & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), The handbook of sport psychology (3 rd edition,pp.113-135).newyork:wiley. Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A. V (1978). Leadership. Canadian association for health, physical education and recreation sociology of sport monograph series A, Catgary, AB: university of Calgary. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of Sport Science, 3, 85-92. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh S. D. (1980). Preferred leadership in sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45. Chelladurai, P., & Riemer H. A. (1997). A classification of facets athlete satisfaction. Journal of sport management, 11, 13 159. Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. A. (1998). Measurement of leadership in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology (pp. 227-253). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Chelladurai, P., Imamura, H., Yamaguchi, Y., Oimnuma, Y., & Miyauchi, T. (1988). Sport leadership in a cross-national setting: the case of Japanese and Canadian university athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 374-389. Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 4, 307-232. Courneya, K. S., & Chelladurai, P. (1991). A model of performance measures in baseball. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 16-25. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press. Ericsson, K. A. (2009). Development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert performance 76

International Journal of Coaching Science Vol. 8 No. 1 January 2014 and design of optimal learning environments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363 406. Farrow, D., Baker, J., & MacMahon, C. (2008). Developing Sport Expertise. New York: Routledge. Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Self-Efficacy in Sport. Research and Strategies for working with athletes, teams, and coaches. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics. Gordon, J., (1998). Decision Styles and Coaching Effectiveness in University Soccer, Canadian Journal of Sport Science, 13, 56-65. Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sports domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.) Advances in sport psychology (2 nd edition,pp.309-354).champaign,il:humankinetics. Horne, T., & Carron A. V. (1985) Compatibility to coach-athlete relationships. Journal of Sport Psychology 7, 137-149. Horton, S., & Deakin, J. (2008). Expert Coaches in Action. In D. Farrow, J. Baker & C. MacMahon (Eds.), Developing sport expertise: Researchers and coaches put theory into practice (pp. 75-85). London, UK: Routledge. Høigaard, R. (2006). The influences of coaches behaviour on team cohesiveness in junior football teams. 26 th International Congressof Applied Psychology,16-21 July Athens, Greece. Høigaard, R., Jones, G. W., & Peters, D. M. (2008). Preferred coach leadership behaviour in elite soccer in relation to success and failure. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 3, 241-250. Høigaard, R. & Peters, D. M. (2007). The relationship between perceived coach behavior and perceived motivational climate in youth football. I: Y. Theodorakis, M. Goudas, & A. Papaioannou (ED.). 12 th European congress of sport psychology. Sport and exercise psychology bridges between disciplines and cultures. Book of abstracts,363. Jones, R. L. (2006). The sports coach as educator: re-conceptualising sports coaching. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, London. Jowett, S. (2003). When the Honeymoon is over: A case study of a coach-athlete dyad in crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 444-460. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medalists perspective of the athlete-coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313-331. Jowett, S, & Meek, G. (2000). Coach-athlete relationships in married couples: An exploratory content analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 157-175. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART Q): Development 77

Frode Moen & Rune Høigaard & Derek M. Peters and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14, 245 257. Jowett, S., & Poczwardowski, A. (2007). Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. In S. Jowett., & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 3 14). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Lacy, A. C., & Darst, P. D. (1989). The Arizona State University Observation Instrument (ASUOI). In P. W. Darst, B, Zakrajsek, & V. H. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing Physical Education and Sport Instruction, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Nazarudin, B. H. N. M., Fauzee, O. S. M., Jamalis, M., Geok, K. S., & Din, A. (2009). Coaching leadership styles and athlete satisfaction among Malaysian University Basketball team. Research Journal of International Studies, 9, 4-11. McMillin, C. J. (1990). The relationship of athlete self-perceptions and athlete perceptions of leader behaviors to athlete satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. Moen, F., & Verburg, E. (2012). Subjective Beliefs among Athletes about how Relational factors affect Intrinsic motivation, Responsibility and Development in Sport. The International Journal of Coaching and Science. 1, 81-100. Myers, N. D., Chase, M. A., Beauchamp, M. R., & Jackson, B. (2010). The coaching competency scale II High School Teams. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 477-494. Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., Maier, K. S., Wolfe, E. W., & Reckase, M. D. (2006). Athletes evaluations of their head coach s coaching competency. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77, 111-121. Pensgaard, A. M., & Roberts, G. C. (2002). Elite athletes experiences of the motivational climate: The coach matters. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 12, 54-59. Pilus, A. H., & Saadan, R. (2009). Coaching leadership styles and athlete satisfaction among hockey team. Journal of Human Capital Development, 2, 77-87. Potrac, P., Jones, R. L., & Cushion, C. J. (2007). Understanding power and the coach s role in pro-fessional English soccer: A preliminary investigation of coach behaviour. Soccer and Society, 8, 33 49. Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J.E. & Henschen, K.P. (2002). The athlete and coach: Their relationship and its meaning. Results of an interpretive study. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 116-140. Rieke, M., Hammermeister, J. & Chase M. (2008). Servant leadership in sport: a new paradigm for effective coach behavior. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching 3, 227-239. Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P.(1995). Leadership and satisfaction in athletics. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 276-293. Riemer, H. A., & Toon, K. (2001). Leadership and satisfaction in tennis: Examination of congruence, gender 78

International Journal of Coaching Science Vol. 8 No. 1 January 2014 and ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 243-256. Schliesman, E. S. (1987). Relationship between the congruence of preferred and actual leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with leadership. Journal of Sport Behavior 10, 157-166. Serpa, S., Pataco, V., & Santos, F. (1991). Leadership patterns in handball international competition. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 78-89. Terry, P. (1984). The coaching preferences of elite athletes competing at Universiade 83. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 9, 201-208. Turman, P. D. (2001). Situational coaching styles: The impact of success and athlete maturity level on coaches' leadership styles over time. Small Group Research, 32, 576-594. Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37. 1228-1261. Weiss, M. R., & Freidrichs, W. D. (1984). The influence of leadership behaviors, coach attributes and institutional variables on performance and satisfaction. Journal of Psychology, 8, 332-346. 79