Running head: COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS

Coach-Player Relationshi s: !oes a Coach"s Leadershi Style I# act Tea# Cohesion$ %oti&ation$ and O&erall Success' E#ily (uyse )heaton College

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS A*stract The ur ose o+ this a er is to disco&er i+ a coaches leadershi style i# acts tea# cohesion$

ercei&ed credi*ility$ layer #oti&ation ,intrinsic-e.trinsic/$ and o&erall success rate #easured *y 0in-loss1 This study redicts that coaches 0ho use a less controlling leadershi style 0ill encourage tea# cohesion and 0ill *e ercei&ed o&erall as #ore credi*le *y their athletes1 Second$ this study redicts that coaches 0ho use a #ore inter ersonal$ athlete-oriented leadershi style 0ill #oti&ate their layers #ore e++ecti&ely than coaches 0ho use an i# ersonal$ tas2-oriented style1 Lastly$ coaches 0ho use #ore inter ersonal leadershi styles 0ill in turn *e #ore success+ul$ #easured *y 0in-loss rate1 The +i&e leadershi styles3 de#ocratic$ autocratic$ ositi&e +eed*ac2$ social su ort$ and training and instruction are used to #easure

co##unication 0ithin coach- layer relationshi s1

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS

!oes a Coach"s Leadershi Style I# act Tea# Cohesion$ %oti&ation$ and O&erall Success' The to ic o+ leadershi styles across coach- layer relationshi s is i# ortant *ecause a coach"s chosen style has the o ortunity to in+luence either ositi&ely or negati&ely an athlete"s

de&elo #ent1 The 0ay a coach leads their tea# *y a gi&en co##unication leadershi style can either roduce high le&els o+ cohesion$ #oti&ation$ and success or 4ust the o osite1 Tur#an

,5667/ ac2no0ledged the i# ortance o+ leadershi in regards to tea# er+or#ance in his state#ent$ 8there are tea#s 0ith a signi+icant nu#*er o+ talented athletes that are una*le to er+or# at high le&els$ 0hile other tea#s 0ith li#ited talent are a*le to *eat the odds and 0in cha# ionshi s9 , 1 :;</1 It is i# ortant to study the +i&e co##unication styles o+ leadershi *ecause they dictate coach- layer co##unication$ athlete e. erience$ and in turn decide the success or +ailure o+ a tea#1 The research *ehind this study o+ leadershi on coach- layer relationshi s is *ased o++ o+ a +i&e di#ensional leadershi scale1 )atson ,56::/ re+erred to the leadershi scale as the %ultidi#ensional %odel o+ Leadershi ,%%L/ and !i#ec and =a4tna ,566>/ re+er to the scale as the Leadershi Scale +or S orts ,LLS/1 (oth #odels are co# osed o+ the sa#e +i&e styles o+ leadershi : ,:/ de#ocratic leadershi 3 #ore o+ an inter ersonal style *ased on the inclusion o+ the athletes in decision-#a2ing3 ,5/ autocratic leadershi 0hich consists o+ *eha&iors that are e# loyed to esta*lish authority and o0er as a coach3 ,7/ training and instruction 0hich ai#s to de&elo athletes 2no0ledge and s2ill3 ,?/ ositi&e +eed*ac2 0hich co# rises o+ a coaches atte# t to sho0 a reciation +or their athletes3 and ,@/ social su ort 0hich &alues the

inter ersonal needs o+ each athlete inside and outside o+ the s ort ,Sagar A Bo0ett$ 56:5/1 This study 0ill loo2 at the relationshi *et0een coach- layers and ho0 it is a++ected due

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS 4 to the leadershi style *eing co##unicated1 It 0ill then see2 to disco&er i+ the co##unication o+ a s eci+ic leadershi styles i# act tea# cohesion$ layer #oti&ation$ and o&erall success1

Literature Review Team Cohesion and a Coachs Perceived Credibility Tea# cohesion is one +actor that$ 0hen de&elo ed on tea#s$ has an incredi*le i# act in deter#ining their o&erall success1 Tur#an ,5667/ de+ines cohesion as 8an indi&iduals sense o+ *elonging to a articular grou and his or her +eelings o+ #orale associated 0ith #e#*ershi s in grou s9 , 1 :;</1 In another article *y Tur#an ,566;/$ it is descri*ed as 8a strong +eeling o+ C0eness"9 and 8#e#*ers all 0or2ing together +or a co##on goal9 , 1 :D@/1 Cohesion is a o0er+ul +orce that deter#ines 0hether a layer 0ill continue tea# #e#*ershi ,Tur#an$ 566;/1 Scholars researching cohesion on tea#s ha&e +ound that cohesion is a roduct +ro# tea# success$ there+ore Tur#an ,566;/ thin2s that cohesion can in turn lead to success1 He +ound that there is an high correlation *et0een cohesion and success+ul er+or#ance ,Tur#an$ 566;/1 In other 0ords$ 0here there is cohesion a#ong a tea#$ there is usually success1 Sagar and Bo0ett ,56:5/ agree 0ith Tur#an ,566;/ that cohesion is tied to tea# success and is roduced through ositi&e coach- layer co##unication1 S eci+ically$ scholars +ound that the ositi&e +eed*ac2 style *et0een coaches and layers increases cohesion a#ong the 0hole tea# ,Sagar A Bo0ett$ 56:5/1 This is rein+orced in Tur#an"s ,566;/ research 0hen he argues that according to students$ 8a coaches attitude to0ards the entire tea# 0as another +actor that encouraged and ro#oted cohesion a#ong the tea#9 , 1:></1 Ad&ersely$ 0hen coaches use aggressi&e co##unication such as shouting$ criticiEing$ and inti#idation$ o+ten trends o+ an autocratic leadershi style$ it is +ollo0ed *y a decrease in tea# cohesion1 Additionally$ 0hen aggressi&e co##unication is directed to0ards the layers$ coaches are in turn ercei&ed as less credi*le in ter#s o+ character

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS and e. ertise *y their athletes ,Sagar A Bo0ett$ 56:5/1 Sagar and Bo0ett"s study on the de&elo #ent o+ tea# cohesion through the ositi&e +eed*ac2 leadershi is only e. anded *y research done *y Tur#an ,566;/1 In his article on

coaches and cohesion$ Tur#an ,566;/ agrees that the use o+ ositi&e +eed*ac2 0ill lead to higher le&els o+ tea# cohesion and autocratic styles 0ill only decrease tea# cohesion1 He adds to Sagar and Bo0ett"s research *y su*#itting that not only does ositi&e +eed*ac2 roduce tea# cohesion *ut training and instruction$ de#ocratic$ and social su ort can also *e &ie0ed as contri*utors1

)hen coaches atte# t to +oster a ositi&e en&iron#ent centered around indi&idual layer satis+action and tea# cohesion$ the e++ects are increased 0ith each interaction outside o+ ga#es and ractice1 )hen coaches de#onstrate social su ort *y tal2ing 0ith their athletes a*out issues

*eyond the s ort$ cohesion is increased ,Tur#an$ 566;/1 In a de#ocratic style o+ leadershi $ layers are all laced on the sa#e le&el$ and co##unication and coo eration is &alued1 )hen layers +eel &alua*le to the tea# it creates an en&iron#ent 0here cohesion has an o ortunity to

really thri&e1 In Tur#an"s ,566;/ research o+ tea# cohesion and leadershi styles$ he +ound that 0hen e&eryone is in&ol&ed in tea# acti&ities cohesion strengthens1 Additionally 0hen raise or unish#ent is handled 0ith the #entality that it is the res onsi*ility o+ the entire tea#$ not an indi&idual$ cohesion increases ,Tur#an$ 566;/1 This idea 0as disco&ered *y Tur#an ,566D/ in re&ious research 0hen he stated$ 8indi&iduals in&ol&ed in grou acti&ities are #ore li2ely to resign +ro# the tea# i+ they are not recogniEed$ a reciated$ or a++orded ositi&e +eed*ac2 +or their in&ol&e#ent9 , 1 5<>/1 Thus ositi&e +eed*ac2 is an i# ortant +actor +or tea# cohesion and a layers continued artici ation1 In one study done *y Tur#an ,566;/$ a s eci+ic tea# indicated that their coach created a 8unity council9 consisting o+ t0o senor athletes1 The ur ose 0as +or the t0o seniors to re resent the tea# 0hen *ringing grou concerns to the coach$ de#onstrating a de#ocratic style

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS 6 leadershi 1 The idea that the tea# had an i# act on decisions a*out tea# acti&ities and structure o+ ractices really i# acted ho0 the tea# gre0 *ecause they each had the indi&idual a*ility to control tea# cohesion ,Tur#an$ 566;/1 Along 0ith Tur#an"s ,566;/ results o+ de#ocratic leadershi roducing cohesion$ Sagar and Bo0ett ,56:5/ also had si#ilar +indings in their

research on ho0 a coach"s reaction to0ards athletes a+ter a lost ga#e or a #ista2e in ractice i# acts entire tea# cohesion1 Sagar and Bo0ett ,56:5/ +ound that e&en a+ter a loss or error$ it ro#otes cohesion 0hen a coach"s co##unication is encouraging$ #oti&ational$ ro#otes coo eration$ and ai#s to teach or instruct$ *ecause it increases an athletes" sel+-estee#$ satis+action 0ith training and er+or#ance$ and intrinsic #oti&ation1 Motivation: Intrinsic and Extrinsic The conce t o+ #oti&ation enco# asses t0o di#ensions$ intrinsic and e.trinsic1 8Intrinsic #oti&ation is a dri&e that co#es +ro# 0ithin as o osed to e.trinsic #oti&ation 0hich

is instilled *y and outside source9 ,Fass A Seiter$ 566< as cited in )atson$ 56::$ 1 >?/1 A coach"s leadershi style can *e indirectly associated 0ith an athlete"s #oti&ation$ 0hether intrinsic or e.trinsic1 A coach"s co##unication o+ leadershi style can hold signi+icant o0er o&er athletes #oti&ation1 A coach"s leadershi style can deter#ine ho0 the tea# is #oti&ated and in 0hat 0ay ,(aric A (uci2$ 566>/1 Gor e.a# le$ i+ a coach has an autocratic style o+ leadershi $ they are #ore tas2-oriented$ 0hereas i+ the coach has a de#ocratic style they are #ore athlete-oriented1 On a tea# 0ith autocratic style$ coach- layer relationshi s$ co##unication$ and #oti&ation loo2s di++erently than on a tea# 0ith a de#ocratic style1 According to (aric and (uci2 ,566>/ autocratic leadershi roduces a high ressure$ results

dri&en$ and 0inning oriented en&iron#ent1 An en&iron#ent in 0hich athletes 0ould *e #oti&ated e.trinsically$ *y outside +actors such as s eeches$ re&ious success$ or other eo le ,(aric A (uci2$ 566>/1 The danger in this is that e.trinsic +actors 0ill continue to *e unrelia*le

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS and changing1 In co# arison$ on a tea# 0ith a coach 0ho ractices a de#ocratic style o+ leadershi $ the #oti&ation 0ould *e athlete-centered$ #ore learning-oriented than outco#e or er+or#ance oriented$ and the cli#ate 0ould *e e++ort$ not results +ocused1 Coaches 0ho are de#ocratic leaders encourage intrinsic #oti&ation$ sel+-#oti&ation$ and sel+-desire as o

osed to

*eing #oti&ated *y outside +actors 0hich can *e outside o+ an indi&iduals control ,(aric A (uci2$ 566>/1 According to (aric and (uci2 ,566>/$ an athlete"s erce tion o+ their coach$ and +eeling o+ o&erall tea# cohesion is strongly related to intrinsic #oti&ation1 Additionally$ i+ a coach is #ore inter ersonal in their coaching style$ then their athletes 0ill *e #ore intrinsically #oti&ated1 The less de#ocratic and su orti&e the en&iron#ent$ the #ore e.trinsically #oti&ated

the athletes 0ill *e ,(aric A (uci2$ 566>/1 (aric and (uci2"s ,566>/ idea directly relates to the research done *y Sagar and Bo0ett ,56:5/ a*out a coach"s co##unication style in relationshi to layer #oti&ation1 Sagar and Bo0ett ,56:5/ oint out that$ 8 ositi&e coach *eha&iors such as rein+orce#ent and encourage#ent can lead to increased le&els o+ athletes3 hysical conce t$ general$ sel+-estee#$ #oti&ation$ and satis+action9 , 1 :D?/1 In other 0ords$ the #ore de#ocratic$ ositi&e +eed*ac2$ and training and instruction that a coach uses$ the #ore e++ecti&e the #oti&ation 0ill *e1 Si#ilar results 0ere +ound in a study done *y Sulli&an and =ent ,5667/ 0hich con+ir#ed that de#ocratic$ ositi&e +eed*ac2$ and training and instruction are the strongest contri*utors +ro# coach- layer co##unication that lead to high intrinsic #oti&ation1 Overall Team uccess and atis!action Al#ost all the research a*out tea# success and o&erall satis+action strongly +a&ored de#ocratic coaching styles o&er autocratic1 In a study done *y Sagar and Bo0ett ,56:5/$ they +ound that #ore athletes ercei&ed *oth &er*al and hysical aggression in their coach"s *eha&ior$ the less satis+ied they 0ere 0ith their coach$ 0hich in turn reduced success+ul co# etition

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS 8 outco#es ,in ter#s o+ 0in-loss rates/ and e&en increased uns orts#anli2e conduct ,Sagar A Bo0ett$ 56:5/1 Si#ilarly$ (aric and (uci2 ,566>/ and )atson ,56::/ +ound that success+ul tea#s ercei&ed their coaches as using #ore de#ocratic$ training and instruction$ and ositi&e +eed*ac2 leadershi styles rather than co##unication *y an autocratic style1 It is i# ortant to understand di++erent leadershi styles that coaches utiliEe 0ith their tea#s *ecause leadershi styles are a ro&en +actor in success o+ s ort tea#s ,)atson$ 56::/1 Scholars ha&e +ound and (aric and (uci2 ,566>/ su ort that layers thri&e in

en&iron#ents 80hen coaches create a cli#ate in 0hich control is #ini#iEed and they try to understand their layers" &ie0 oint$ ta2e into account their +eelings and e. lain to the# 0hy certain *eha&iors are necessaryH9 , 1 :;;/1 The strongest redictor o+ a tea#"s e++ecti&eness$ *ased on 0in-loss rate$ is an athlete"s ercei&ed su ort +ro# their coach ,(aric A (uci2$ 566>/1

That"s 0hy si#ilar to 0hat (aric and (uci2 ,566>/ clai#$ Sagar and Bo0ett ,56:5/ say$ 8coaches can create o ti#al learning en&iron#ent +or their athletes *y enacting a de#ocratic leadershi style that o++ers su orti&e +or#s o+ #essages and +eed*ac2$ and rosocial co##unicationH9

, 1 :<6/1 Research done *y (eaucha# $ (ray$ Eys$ and Carron ,566@/ +ocused on leadershi styles and role a#*iguity o+ s orts tea#s1 They +ound that on tea#s 0here ositi&e +eed*ac2 and training and instruction styles are ro#inent$ o&erall success o+ the tea# is higher ,(eaucha# $ (ray$ Eys$ A Carron$ 566@/1 Studies done *y Tur#an and Schrodt ,566?/ and Tur#an ,566D/ agree that the de#ocratic style o+ leadershi is #ost co##on on success+ul tea#s1 Although they did disco&er a trend on success+ul tea#s that re orted the use o+ an autocratic style$ #i.ed 0ith high le&els o+ ositi&e +eed*ac2 and training and instruction1 This co#*ination has *een +ound to create the highest le&el o+ a++ecti&e learning1 This theory goes *ac2 to the traditional idea o+ 8tough lo&e9 and it argues that coaches can act autocratically as long as the athletes 2no0 they ha&e their *est

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS interest in #ind1 ummery and Rationale

This study is i# ortant *ecause it ta2es another ste to0ards understanding coach- layer relationshi s$ and ho0 s eci+ic leadershi styles i# act tea# cohesion$ layer #oti&ation$ and o&erall tea# success1 In gaining a ne0 understanding o+ the e++ects that a coaches s eci+ic leadershi style has on their tea#$ 0e can deter#ine 0hich #ethods o+ coaching are #ost *ene+icial to layers1 This study ai#s to dra0 on re&ious research +ro# scholars a*out coach- layer relationshi s and the leadershi scale +or s orts ,LSS/1 Pre&ious researchers interested in leadershi styles ha&e dra0n u on +actors such as 0in-loss rate and layer sur&eys in ho es to disco&er a correlation *et0een s eci+ic leadershi styles and ho0 the athletes recei&e the#1 To ta2e the research a ste +urther and loo2 s eci+ically at tea#s 0here a s eci+ic style is e# loyed and ho0 that i# acts tea# cohesion and relationshi s$ indi&idual layer #oti&ation +or the tea# and s ort$ and lastly success o+ the tea#1 It is i# ortant to 2no0 0hat leadershi styles are e++ecti&e and +oster learning and gro0th as 0ell as 0hich can actually da#age an athletes sel+ i#age and a*ility1 Sagar and Bo0ett ,56:5/ state that 8Coach"s #essages are o0er+ul redictors o+ ho0 athletes +eel and ercei&e the#sel&es and their s orting e. eriences1 Gurther$ the 0ay in 0hich coaches interact and co##unicate 0ith their athletes in+luences ho0 athletes learn$ de&elo $ er+or#$ and *eha&e9 , 1 :@5/1 Coaches hold a large and so#e0hat +rightening a#ount o+ o0er o&er student-athletes de&elo #ent in their +or#ati&e years and that is 0hy it is i# ortant to study 0hich #ethods o+ leadershi are hel +ul and su orti&e and 0hich #ani ulate$ control$ and tear do0n1 The *est

0ay to do this is to loo2 at tea# cohesion$ layer #oti&ation$ and o&erall success in relationshi to coach- layer relationshi and leadershi styles1 (ased on these areas +or research the

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS hy otheses +or this s eci+ic study are as +ollo0s: H:: Coaches 0ho use de#ocratic$ social su ort$ ositi&e +eed*ac2$ or training and

10

instruction leadershi styles 0ill encourage tea# cohesion and 0ill *e ercei&ed as #ore credi*le *y their athletes1 H5: Coaches 0ho use a #ore de#ocratic rather than a autocratic leadershi style 0ill re ortedly ha&e #ore #oti&ated athletes1 H7: Coaches 0ho use a #ore de#ocratic a roach to coaching rather than autocratic 0ill in turn *e #ore success+ul$ #easured *y 0in-loss rates1 Method In order to disco&er i+ #y three hy otheses are correct I 0ill *e er+or#ing a crosssectional study o&er the course o+ a single +all athletic season1 I 0ill select t0enty 0o#en"s &olley*all tea#s$ ten +ro# the co# etiti&e high school le&el$ and ten +ro# the !i&ision III le&el1 I ha&e chosen the !i&ision III le&el *ecause the +actor o+ scholarshi #oney as a #oti&ation to lay 0ouldn"t *e an issue1 Once the tea#s are selected I 0ill o*ser&e their ractices aying close attention to each coaches leadershi style1 Iualitati&e research #ethods such as o*ser&ation +ocus on inter reting and descri*ing eo les 0ords and *eha&iors in natural settings1 That is 0hy I 0ill *e using o*ser&ation to see ho0 the layers and coaches co##unicate 0ith each other in their o0n gy# during ractice ti#es1 Not only 0ill I o*ser&e coach and layer interactions *ut I 0ill also o*ser&e ho0 the layers interact 0ith each other1 A+ter the season is o&er$ I 0ill then conduct *rie+$ se#i-structured narrati&e inter&ie0s 0ith the layers on each tea#1 I 0ill *e loo2ing to the layers at this oint +or the 8inside scoo 9 on tea# and coach- layer dyna#ics1 These inter&ie0s 0ill *e conducted orally and no less then 5 0ee2s a+ter the season ends1 In the inter&ie0 rocess I 0ill #ainly *e as2ing introducing$ ro*ing$ and direct Juestions in ho es to get the clearest #ost straight +or0ard ans0ers1 All o+

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS #y Juestions 0ill *e o en ended and the artici ants 0ill *e in+or#ed o+ the inter&ie0s con+identiality1 (y assuring the artici ants o+ this$ and as2ing direct Juestions ho e+ully the layers 0ill *e #ore honest and o en in their ans0ers1 I 0ill ho e+ully disco&er through the

11

inter&ie0s 0hich coaching style +osters an indi&idual"s #oti&ation$ tea# cohesion$ and o&erall layer satis+action 0ith the coach1 A conta#inating &aria*le I need to 0atch out +or in the inter&ie0s is the +act that so#e layers 0ill *e *itter to0ards their coach i+ they ne&er layed1 Another ossi*le conta#inating &aria*le is that any gi&en layer could co#e into the inter&ie0 and ha&e had a recent negati&e interaction 0ith a tea##ate or the coach and this 0ould change their ans0ers1 A+ter I ha&e co# leted the o*ser&ation in ractices$ conducted narrati&e inter&ie0s 0ith the layers$ I 0ill then loo2 at the 0in-loss rate o+ each tea# to disco&er i+ a s eci+ic coaching style is #ore success+ul than the others1 Lastly$ I 0ill ta2e the inter&ie0s 0ith the layers and loo2 at the results under #y o0n o*ser&ations o+ their coach"s leadershi style and co# are it 0ith their 0in-loss rate1 This rocess should hel #e disco&er i+ #y hy otheses are true or not1 I chose to o*ser&e the tea#s +or one season in their o0n en&iron#ent *ecause this 0ay I could see the# in their natural setting1 I 0ould tell the layers or coach I 0as er+or#ing a study on leadershi styles *ecause I 0ouldn"t 0ant to s2e0 the results1 This is the *est #ethod *ecause it allo0s #e to see +irst hand 0hat style the coach"s uses then use hard data ,0in-loss rate/ to #easure the tea#"s success1 I chose to er+or# ost-season se#i structured inter&ie0s *ecause I 0ant to *e a*le to as2 the layers the Juestions #ysel+1 This 0ill ho e+ully eli#inate all con+usion that could ha en i+ I 0ould ha&e ad#inistered a sur&ey1 "iscussion Im#lications The study o+ leadershi styles has *een researched a lot in the real# o+ the o++ice *ut not

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS 12 as #uch in coaching1 I thin2 that this study is &ery i# ortant *ecause it sheds light on issues that can dee ly e++ect childhood de&elo #ent1 S orts are a huge 2ey in the de&elo #ent o+ the #a4ority o+ today"s youth1 On the &olley*all court I"&e learned 0hat good and *ad leadershi loo2s li2e1 I"&e gotten the chance to learn$ gro0$ and de&elo #y o0n style o+ leadershi and e&entually I 0ill use it in the 0or2 +orce1 I thin2 that #ore studies should *e done on leadershi styles that coaches use *ecause *e+ore 2ids get to the 0or2 +orce they are *eing #olded *y leadershi styles on their s orts tea#s1 I+ 0e can increase the 2no0ledge a*out coaches leadershi styles than 0e can *e #ore e++ecti&e in creating a ositi&e s orts en&iron#ent that encourages gro0th and de&elo #ent rather than stunts it1 Limitations (ased on the literature I loo2ed at$ one o+ the #ain li#itations o+ #y research is de#ogra hics1 So#e o+ the studies I loo2ed at dealt 0ith only #ale athletes$ others studied only +e#ale$ and so#e included *oth in their data1 I assu#e gender 0ould #a2e a &ery large di++erence in the results o+ ho0 athletes res onded to a gi&en leadershi style1 Gor e.a# le$ I thin2 that 0o#en and #en 0ould recei&e an autocratic leadershi style &ery di++erently1 I thin2 not only 0ould #en and 0o#en athletes recei&e it di++erently in general *ut also another +actor in+luencing that is the gender o+ their coach1 A second li#itation in #y research is that I ne&er s eci+ied i+ the leader I 0as re+erring to 0ould *e #ale or +e#ale1 I also ne&er clari+ied i+ the tea#s I 0ould o*ser&e 0ere #ale or +e#ale1 Lastly$ #y data in #easuring 0in-loss rate could *e s2e0ed i+ one tea# had an incredi*ly hard schedule 0hile another tea# had an easy one1 There is no 0ay o+ controlling 0hich tea#s lay each other at any gi&en day or ti#e in the season1 One tea# could lay another in a tourna#ent a+ter there are e.hausted +ro# the re&ious ga#e and lose$ *ut they 0ould ha&e 0on on a nor#al day1 A conta#inating &aria*le I 0ould *e a0are o+ in the inter&ie0 rocess is the +act that so#e girls #ay *e gathering their in+or#ation +ro# a

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS 13 negati&e e. erience1 So#e o+ the layers #ay ha&e 4ust si# ly not li2e their tea#$ or coach1 They could ha&e ne&er gotten laying ti#e or gotten in trou*le and that 0rec2ed their entire ers ecti&e o+ their coach and their gi&en leadershi style1

$uture "irections Gurther research in the area o+ coach- layer relationshi s and leadershi styles could loo2 at the gender o+ the coaches in correlation 0ith leadershi style1 !o #en or 0o#en e# loy a s eci+ic leadershi style #ore' !oes a tea# acce t an autocratic style leadershi #ore +reely co#ing +ro# a #ale than they 0ould recei&ing it +ro# a +e#ale coach' Are s eci+ic leadershi styles recei&ed the sa#e co#ing +ro# a #ale &ersus a +e#ale coach' Are certain leadershi styles are #ore e++ecti&e 0hen used on +e#ale athletes rather than #ales' Another area o+ +urther research 0ould *e to loo2 at coaches" ages in relation to 0hat leadershi style they are #ost li2ely to ractice1 In research done *y !i#ec and =a4nta ,566>/ they +ound that the age o+ coaches does o+ten a++ect re+erred leadershi style1 This study +ound that older coaches #ore +reJuently use a #i.ture o+ *oth de#ocratic and autocratic *eha&iors1 This is e. lained *ecause they ha&e #ore e. erience and they 2no0 0hat situations need to *e handled autocratically and 0hich can *e decided de#ocratically1 In addition the study +ound that all ages e# loy training and instruction and ositi&e +eed*ac21 Research +ound that #ost success+ul coaches e# loy a de#ocratic a roach at ractices and an autocratic one in ga#es or during a tense situation ,!i#ec A =a4nta$ 566>/1 There are endless o ortunities +or coaches to use each style o+

leadershi correctly$ not one articular one is al0ays correct *ecause they each hold a se arate and i# ortant o0er1 Conclusion In the research I +ound that legiti#ate research can *e +ound su orting all +i&e leadershi

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS 14 styles1 Each style has it"s ositi&e ele#ents and each has it"s negati&e1 So#e studies 0ere done o+ the er+ect ti#e +or and scenario 0hen certain styles should *e co#*ined +or the #ost e++ecti&e results1 %y ad&ice to a +uture coach 0ould *e to thin2 a*out 0hat results they 0ant +ro# the tea#1 )hat do they 0ant the layers to get out o+ the e. erience' )hat do they as a coach 0ant to get out o+ the e. erience' Then that should deter#ine 0hat style o+ leadershi you use1 Although all the styles had good ele#ents I thin2 any style chosen should contain so#e ele#ent o+ the de#ocratic style1 (eing an athlete #y 0hole li+e and ha&ing e. erience in *oth ositi&e and negati&e leadershi en&iron#ents the #ost i# ortant as ect in a success+ul tea# is e# o0er#ent1 I+ the coach ractices so#e a#ount de#ocratic leadershi and gi&es the tea# so#e o0nershi and leadershi than they 0ill +eel e# o0ered1 )hen so#eone is e# o0ered$ they are intrinsically #oti&ated$ nothing e.trinsically can ta2e a0ay their #oti&ation to 0or2 hard$ learn$ and 0in1 This is i# ortant on s orts tea#s *ecause hal+ o+ the *attle is *elie&ing in the goals and not letting anything distract you +ro# that1 I+ you ha&e the o ortunity to o0n and create the

tea# goals than you 0ill identi+y 0ith the# and *e #ore li2ely to *elie&e in the# yoursel+1 !e#ocratic leadershi encourages e# o0er#ent$ *ut that doesn"t #ean that it is the only correct style in e&ery circu#stance1 There is a ti#e and a lace +or each leadershi style and I thin2 the *est 0ay to *e a success+ul coach 0ith a cohesi&e$ #oti&ated tea# 0ho sees you as credi*le is to 2no0 that right ti#e1

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS Re+erences (ariK$ R1$ A (uci2$ L1 ,566>/1 %oti&ational di++erences in athletes trained *y coaches o+ di++erent #oti&ational and leadershi ro+iles1 Kineziologija$ 41,5/$ :;:-:>?1

15

(eaucha# $ %1 R1$ (ray$ S1 R1$ Eys$ %1 A1$ A Carron$ A1 L1 ,566@/1 Leadershi *eha&iors and #ultidi#ensional role a#*iguity erce tions in tea# s orts1 Small Group Research$ 36,:/$ @-561 !i#ec$ T1$ A =a4tna$ T1 ,566>/1 Psychological characteristics o+ younger and older coaches1 Psiholoske Karakteristike Mladih Starjih Trenera$ 41,5/$ :<5M:;61 Sagar$ S1 S1$ A Bo0ett$ S1 ,56:5/1 Co##unicati&e acts in coach-athlete interactions: )hen losing co# etitions and 0hen #a2ing #ista2es in training1 $6,5/$ :?;M:<?1 Sulli&an$ P1 B1$ A =ent$ A1 ,5667/1 Coaching e++icacy as a redictor o+ leadershi style in intercollegiate athletics1 !ournal o" %pplied Sport Ps&cholog&$ 1',:/$ :-::1 Tur#an$ P1 !1 ,566D/1 Athletes" erce tion o+ coach o0er use and the association *et0een laying status and s ort satis+action1 #ommunication Research Reports$ (3,?/$ 5<7M5;51 Tur#an$ P1 !1 ,5667/1 Coaches and cohesion: The i# act o+ coaching techniJues on tea# cohesion in the s#all grou s ort setting1 !ournal o" Sport )eha*ior$ (6,:/$ ;D-:6?1 Tur#an$ P1 !1 ,566;/1 Coaches" i##ediacy *eha&iors as redictors o+ athletes" erce tions o+ satis+action and tea# cohesion1 estern !ournal o" #ommunication$ $(,5/$ :D5M:<>1 estern !ournal o" #ommunication$

Tur#an$ P1 !1$ A Schrodt$ P1 ,566?/1 Ne0 a&enues +or instructional co##unication research: Relationshi s a#ong coaches" leadershi *eha&iors and athletes" a++ecti&e learning1 #ommunication Research Reports$ (1,5/$ :76M:?71 )atson$ R1 ,56::/1 In it to 0in it: Ho0 #oti&ated layers +eel to er+or# *ased on ercei&ed

COACH-PLAYER RELATIONSHIPS coaches co##unication co# etence1 +uman #ommunication$ 14,5/$ ;@M:6?1

16