THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COACHES’ … RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COACHES’ LEADERSHIP STYLES, TEAM...

IRJC

International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research

Vol.1 Issue 11, November 2012, ISSN 2277 3630

1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COACHES’ LEADERSHIP STYLES,

TEAM COHESION AND TEAM SUCCESS: THE CASE OF PREMIER

LEAGUE SOCCER CLUBS IN ETHIOPIA

SISAY MENGISTU ALEMU*: M. SYAM BABU**

*Research Scholar, Andhra University, Department Of Physical Education, Visakhapatnam

**Director of Physical Education and Secretary, Sports Board, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam

______________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to examine the relationship between coaches' leadership styles and team

cohesion in Ethiopian premier league soccer clubs. 180 players who participated in Ethiopian

premier league soccer competition completed the demographic questionnaire, leadership scale

for sport (LSS) and group environment questionnaire (GEQ). The LSS contained 40 items that

measured five dimensions of leadership behaviors and the GEQ with 18 items assessed two

dimensions of group cohesion. Results showed a significant positive relationship between

coaches' behaviors of training and instruction, democratic behavior, and social support with

group cohesion. There was no significant relationship between positive feedback and autocratic

behaviors with group cohesion. Comparison of coaches' leadership styles demonstrated that

coaches exhibited higher training and instruction and lower autocratic behavior. In addition,

findings showed significant relationship between group cohesion and team success and the

coaches of successful teams exhibited higher training and instruction behaviors. In summary, the

effect of coaching behaviors on group cohesion and team success apparently demonstrated the

importance of using the appropriate leadership styles.

KEYWORDS: leadership behavior, team cohesion, success

______________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

In any sports competition, an individual athlete or a team would participates targeting better

performance for achieving success. The likely success of an athlete or a team is the result of better

preparation and hard efforts. It is obvious that an individual athlete or a team preparation for

successful sports performance requires multi-dimensional considerations that include physiological,

psychological, technical, and other aspects.

Johson (n.d) asserted that winning in many sports is not a matter of physical dominance alone, but

rather it is attributed to a combination of physical, psychological and technical preparations. It is on

the basis of such convincing argument that sport clubs of different events around the globe have

included sport psychologists as part of their winning team. Research findings showed that those

athletes or team players having psychological skills in trainings and competitions have better self-

efficacy and sports performance (Lowther, Lane, & Lane, (2002)). As the same authors noted, this is

IRJC



2

mainly due to the fact that several psychological skills, for example, relaxation, emotional control, or

goal setting, used in trainings and competitions are associated with high self-efficacy and successful

performance.

The success of a team mainly depends on the behavior of members or players of that particular team.

The two components of such behaviors of individuals attached to the team are leadership and team

cohesion. At the same time, behaviors of individuals in a team are not isolated, they are interrelated.

One‟s action, decision or behavior of an individual or group in a team may affect others and their

behavior too. Hence the present study aimed to identify the relationship between leadership styles, team

cohesiveness, and performance in Ethiopian premier league soccer clubs. The rationale behind this

study was, as to the researcher knowledge, there is no a sing le research in this area that address the

coach leadership style and team cohesion in Ethiopian premier league soccer clubs.

Review of related literature

No one denies that psychological preparations and trainings are more complex and challenging in team

sports as they require more collective efforts, group interactions and cohesions, and motivation. As a

result, it is commonly agreed that sport psychologists can enhance performance by enhancing

psychological skills (Murphy and Tammen, 1998; Weinberg & Gould, 1995). As far as soccer

trainings and competitions are concerned, some of the potential psychological variables that

significantly determining performance and success of a soccer team include coach‟s leadership styles

and team cohesion, among others.

The coaches leadership styles, team cohesion, motivation, and coach effectiveness have been

mentioned as integral components of sport psychology by leading practitioners, scholars, and

organizations (e.g. Bollettieri, 2001; Weinberg, 2002). Most researches on coaching effectiveness have

assumed that coaches greatly influence athletes‟ performance, behavior, psychological, and emotional

well-being. Regarding to this, Horn (2002) stated that the behavior of coaches directly influences the

motivation, team cohesion, and perceived success, achievement behavior of athletes and overall

success of the team. In many sports, “the behavioral changes of the athletes are considered to be the

direct result of the coach‟s leadership” (Barrow, 1977, p.232).

Consequently, a soccer coach leadership style has a great impact on individual performance. Coaches

usually give an instruction to the soccer player on how to understand and employ a strategy and

evaluate the performance of athletes (Turman, 2008). The coach‟s primary objective is to develop both

the physical and psychological aspects of an athlete‟s performance. As Wiese-Bjornstal, LaVoi &

Omli ( 2009) found out a coach should also foster a climate around the team that affects athlete

development and creates an atmosphere conducive to an optimal athlete, as well as team performance.

Overall, the coach influences the player‟s knowledge of the game, skill level, and team cohesion

through his or her actions (ibid).

It is becoming a global phenomenon to use sport psychology as part of the winning soccer team both

at national and international levels. In the sport psychology research literature, leadership has been

studied primarily in terms of coaching leadership and its effects on player‟s performance (Chelladurai

& Carron, 1983; Chelladurai, 1984; Horne & Carron, 1985; Riemer & Toon, 2001; Ipinmoroti, 2002).

Investigation of leadership behavior and the effects of leadership in athletes are crucial to understand

the performance of sport teams as an organization. Continuous investigation about coaching leadership

style and team cohesion can facilitate the improvement of coaching performance and the evaluation of

effectiveness of coaching leadership on athletic performance because effective coaching behavior has

been shown to be an important determinant of team cohesion and team success (ibid).

IRJC



3

The relationship between coach leadership styles and team cohesion has been described by different

researchers in different time at deferent sports. Regarding to this, Carron& Brawley (1993) mentioned

that leadership and cohesion are key elements to the development of effective groups and the method

that the leaders used to promote and create high level of team cohesion have dramatic effects on the

way a group performs. The coach behaviors and team cohesion have positive relationships in various

research works. Fisher, Mancini, Hirsch, Proulx, and Staurowsky (1982) conducted behavioral

observations of coaches during practices using group environment questionnaire for athletes to assess

team climate and satisfaction and found out that those coaches whose team reported high in team

cohesion and less in satisfaction shows many behavioral differences.

In relation to team cohesion and coach behavior, Westre & Weiss (1991) also examined the

relationship between athlete perceived coaching behavior and team cohesion in high school football

teams. The findings revealed that those coaches who were perceived as providing more positive

reinforcement, social support, and democratic behaviors by their athletes had more cohesive teams.

Other studies also discovered that the relationship among perceived coach leadership behaviors and

team cohesion have consistently shown that those coaches employing a democratic, supportive style

using positive feedback and sufficient training and instruction are more likely to foster a cohesive

team environment in soccer (Maby, 1997; Westre & Weiss, 1991) and baseball and softball (Gardner,

Shields, Bredemeier, & Bostrom, 1996; Shields, Gardner, Bredemeier, & Bostrom, 1997). In addition

to this, Shields (1997) found that coaches‟ self-rated leadership behaviors were related with team

cohesion and team performance.

Team cohesion or integration, is one of the consequences that are related to coaches behaviors.

Cohesion can be categorized in two dimensions: task cohesion (the degree of commitment to common

goals or tasks) and social cohesion (the group attractive, the rate of interest of members to each other

and their satisfaction in the group) (Chelladurai & Carron, 1983).

Team cohesion and performance have been extensively researched in an attempt to quantify the

strength and direction of their relationship. Early studies established the cohesion-performance

relationship, though agreement about which factor is driving this relationship (i.e., cohesion affecting

performance or vice versa) has not yet been reached (Carron, 2002). Subsequent studies have also

investigated moderating variables of team cohesion in an effort to devise strategies to help develop

team cohesion and thus influence performance. Early researches have focused on exploring

moderating variables of the cohesion-performance relationship with athletes and the competitive level

of the team.

According to Moradi (2004), team cohesion is an essential factor that changes a collection of

individuals into a team and contributes a lot in developing team performance and a good feeling of

satisfaction between the members. Team cohesion includes task cohesion and social cohesion. Social

cohesion indicates the amount of interpersonal attraction among group members, i.e., the extent that

the group allows individuals to reach their desired goal. Task cohesion also includes practical

assessment of the level of athlete and team coordinated efforts that show to what extent each team and

its members achieve its goals (Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer, 1998).

IRJC



4

Carron (1982) presented a conceptual model of cohesion in sport teams based on the assumption that

there are many factors related to group cohesion or prediction of it. One of these factors is leadership.

Based on the model, coaches' behavior (training and instruction, social support, and positive

feedback), coach's decisions (democratic and autocratic), interpersonal relationships between the

coach and players and the relationship between coach and team (in reaction to the situations in which

the team is under pressure) is influential on sport teams cohesion.

Regarding to the relationship between leadership styles of coaches and team cohesion, different

researchers such as Chaw and Bruce (1999) in research on various sport teams, Murray (2006) in

research on football and baseball players, Ramzaninezhad and Hoseini (2009) in research on the

professional League club football players in Iran and Moradi (2004) in his research on professional

basketball players reported that social cohesion and task cohesion had significant positive relationship

to training and instruction, democratic, social support and positive feedback leadership styles .On the

other hand , it was also reported social cohesion and task cohesion had a significant negative

relationship to the autocratic leadership style ( ibid ). Similarly, Murray (2006) reported that successful

football teams have higher task cohesion. With regard to difference in sport performance between task

and social cohesion, Ramzaninezhad & Hoseini (2009) have showed that those teams who had a higher

level of task cohesion were more likely to be successful than those teams who are social oriented. In

relation to coach leadership style and team cohesion, Wester and Weiss (1991) in their research on male

high school football players have found out task cohesion and social cohesion had significant positive

relationship between training and instruction, democratic, social support, and positive feedback

leadership styles. Similarly, Peace and Kozub (1994) in their research on girl‟s high school basketball

teams showed that task cohesion had a significant positive relationship to coaches‟ leadership styles

while social cohesion had no relationship with leadership styles.

METHOD

Participants

Based on the criterion obtained from the last three years club competition results from the Ethiopian

Football Federation, three categories of club status were identified. There were 14 clubs in Ethiopian

premier league soccer competition in 2009 to 2011. Accordingly, those clubs whose results fall

between 1-3 were considered „successful‟, clubs who ranked between 6 - 8 were considered „less

successful‟, and clubs who were ranked the last three (12-14) were considered „unsuccessful‟. Then,

all male players in the successful, less successful and unsuccessful category were selected purposely

for the study which makes the total participant 180.

Measures

The study used a questionnaire to measure three constructs, including player‟s demographic

information, leadership scale for sport (LLS) which was adopted from Chelladuri & Saleh (1980) and

the Group Environment Scale Questionnaire (GEQ) adapted from Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley

(1985). The study participant filled in the demographic information that asked the players to report

their age, years of experience in playing soccer, perceived leadership of their coach and team

cohesion.

IRJC



5

The Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) was administered with the aim of assessing athletes‟

perceptions of their coaches‟ leadership style and behaviors along five different dimensions was used

in this study. The LSS consists of 40 items that asked the athlete to indicate the degree to which his

coach exhibited the type of behavior described in the individual items. The response format consists

of a five-point Likert-type scale (always, often, occasionally, seldom or never) with numbers

representing athletes‟ perceptions that their coach exhibited that type of behavior. The 40 individual

items in the LSS were divided into five subscales with each subscale representing a particular type of

coaching leadership style or behavior. The five sub scales were: autocratic behavior subscale,

democratic behavior subscale, training and instruction subscale, social support subscale and the

positive feedback subscale

The Group Environment Questionnaire was administered to measure athletes‟ perceptions of their

team‟s cohesiveness. The GEQ had 18-items that assess two different aspects or dimensions of group

cohesion, namely task cohesion and social cohesion. The athletes‟ responded based on a Likert scale

that range from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

Both the LSS and GEQ had a proven content, concurrent, predictive, factorial and construct validity

(Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998; Chelladurai, 1993; and Horn, 2002). Moreover, pilot testing to check the

internal consistency of the various scales were computed. The internal consistencies for the various scales

were presented in table 1 below. For the leadership scale, the reliability ranges from .853 for the training

and instruction behavior to .654 for the autocratic one. For the team cohesion scale the internal

consistency were .953 and .662 for the social and task cohesion respectively. See table 1 below

IRJC



6

Table 1: Scale reliability for the LLS and GEQ

Results

The participants‟ age ranged from 21 to 32 years of age with a mean age score of 26.98 yrs and a

standard deviation of 2.24. The mean score of players‟ playing experience of soccer was 6.0

with a standard deviation of 2.1.

The first objective was to find out the relationship between coach leadership style and team

cohesion. In this study, team cohesion was categorized into task and social cohesion. Table 2

below displayed the relationship between coach leadership style and task cohesion.

Table2: Pearson Correlation between coach leadership style and task cohesion

** Significant at .01

* Significant at .05

Cronbach’s alpha

Training and instruction .853

Democratic Behavior .821

Autocratic Behavior .654

Social support .693

Positive feedback .702

Task cohesion .662

Social cohesion .953

Training &

instruction

Democratic

behavior

Autocratic

behavior

Social

support

Positive

feedback

Task

cohesion

.299** .277** -.124 .261** .143

IRJC



7

As indicated in table 2, task cohesion had a statistically significant positive relationship with

training and instruction (r= .299, p<.01), democratic (r=.277, p <.01), and social support (r=.261,

p <.01). Though autocratic and feedback leadership style had a negative and positive relationship

respectively (r=-.124, p>.05, r=.143, p>.05) with task cohesion, they did not have a statistically

significant relationship.

The findings related to the relationship between coach leadership style and social cohesion was

presented in table 3 below.

Table 3: Pearson Correlation between coach leadership style and social cohesion

** Significant at .01

* Significant at .05

As shown in table 3, social cohesion had a statistically significant positive relation with training and

instruction (r=.237, p<.01), democratic style (r=.270, p<.01) and social leadership style (r=.192*, p<.05).

On the other hand, autocratic and feedback leadership style did not have any relationship with social

cohesion.

In this research it was also investigated to find out which coaching leadership styles as perceived by

players were the most common in Ethiopia premier league. As indicated in figure 1 below the soccer

coach in Ethiopia exhibited training and instruction leadership style more than the others style (Mean =

40.4, SD= 11.7) followed by the democratic style (Mean = 24.9, SD= 8.3) and social support (Mean =

21.9, SD =6.4). On the other hand, the Ethiopian coaches exhibited the positive feedback (Mean = 15.7,

SD =4.4) and autocratic style (Mean = 13.2 SD =2.9) least. (See graph 1 below).

Training &

instruction

Democratic

behavior

Autocratic

behavior

Social

support

Positive

feedback

Social

cohesion

.237** .270** -.016 .192* .058

IRJC



8

Figure 1: Comparison of coach leadership styles

An attempt was also made to see whether there are differences on team success (categorized as

successful, less successful and unsuccessful teams) by coach leadership styles. In this regard, it

was found out that successful team exhibited a higher score on training and instruction ( Mean =

50.2 ,SD = 9.8), democratic leadership style ( Mean = 30.5 ,SD = 7.9) , social support style (

Mean = 25.4 ,SD = 5.7) and positive feedback (Mean = 18.2 ,SD =4.4 ) than both the less

successful and unsuccessful teams . On the other hand, there were no differences on team

successes with regard to autocratic leadership styles (Mean = 14.2, SD =2.8). (See table 4)

Table 4: Coach Leadership styles by Team success

Variables

Leader ship styles

Training and

instruction

Democratic

Behavior

Autocratic

Behavior

Social support Positive

feedback

Mean SD Mea

n

SD Mea

n

SD Mea

n

SD Mean SD

Successful 50.2 9.8 30.5 7.8 14.2 2.8 25.4 5.7 18.2 4.4

Less successful 39.1 12.6 26.9 7.3 14.0 3.5 23.0 5.3 16.1 5.0

Unsuccessful 42.1 12.2 25.5 8.2 13.5 2.9 22.7 6.3 16.1 4.5

Total 44.0 12.4 27.6 8.1 13.9 3.1 23.7 5.9 16.9 4.7

IRJC



9

Similarly team cohesion with team success was cross tabulated. The findings revealed that those

teams who were successful and less successful scored higher than the unsuccessful ones on

measure of team cohesion task. Similarly, on measure of team cohesion social those teams who

were successful and less successful exhibited higher scores than the unsuccessful ones.

Table 5: Team cohesion by team success

Variables

Team cohesion

Task Social

Mean SD Mean SD

Successful 31.3 3.6 17.7 5.8

Less successful 31.4 4.0 17.7 5.7

Unsuccessful 29.8 4.6 17.0 6.0

Total 30.8 4.1 17.4 5.8

Discussion

The objectives of the research was to find out coaches‟ leadership styles as related to team

cohesion in premier league soccer clubs of Ethiopia. Moreover , the research attempted to

investigate which coaching leadership styles as perceived by players were the most common in

Ethiopia premier league and whether there are differences on team success (categorized as

successful, less successful and unsuccessful teams) by coach leadership styles and by team

cohesion.

To this end it was found out that Ethiopian premier league soccer players perceived training and

instruction coaching behavior, democratic and social support had a statistically significant

positive relationship with task cohesion. On the other hand, the relationship between autocratic

and feedback leadership style with task cohesion were not statistically significant though

autocratic leadership style exhibited negative relationship. This finding is consistent with the

findings of Moradi (2004) and Murray (2006). In his research on professional basketball players,

Murray reported that task cohesion had a significant positive relationship to training and

instruction, democratic and social support leadership styles. However, in this research unlike that

of Murray it was found out that no significant relationship between positive feedback and task

cohesion. Similarly, with regard to social cohesion it was found out that players perceived

IRJC



10

training and instruction coaching behavior, democratic and social support had a statistically

significant positive relationship with social cohesion but a non significant relationship to

autocratic and feedback leadership style though autocratic leadership style exhibited negative

relationship . The findings of this research corroborate with the findings of Moradi (2004) and

Murray (2006). However, with regard to the relationship between positive feedback and social

cohesion, there was a positive but no significant relationship unlike that of Murray (2006)

Regarding to perceived coach‟s leadership styles, the result of this study showed that coaches

exhibited a higher leadership style in training and instruction followed by democratic behavior,

social support, positive feedback and low in autocratic behavior. The findings of this research are

in agreement with the findings of Bennet and Manuel (2002).

With regard to differences among team success on team cohesion, it was discovered that the

successful and the less successful teams had higher level of task and social cohesion than

unsuccessful ones. In this regard, Ramzaninezhad & Hoseini (2009) have also reported that

teams who have high level of task and social cohesion tend to be more successful than teams

who exhibited low level of task and social cohesion.

Conclusion

The objective of the study was to find out the relationship between coach leadership styles,

team cohesions and team success as perceived by Ethiopian premier league soccer players. To

this end data were collected from 180 Ethiopian premier league players through a questionnaire.

Data gathered through a questionnaire might have a limitation of indicating appropriately

players‟ perceived behavior of their coaches. Moreover, the study employed correlational design

which also limit to establish the cause and effect of variables. In spite of these limitations, the

study came up with the following major points.

Task cohesion had a statistically significant positive relationship with training and

instruction, democratic and social support while autocratic and feedback leadership style

had a non significant negative and positive relationship respectively.

Likewise, social cohesion had a statistically significant positive relation with training and

instruction, democratic style and social leadership style while autocratic and feedback

leadership style exhibited a non significant negative and positive relationship

respectively.

The soccer coach in Ethiopia exhibited training and instruction leadership style more

than the others style followed by the democratic style and social support while the

positive feedback and autocratic style were the least ones.

Successful team exhibited a higher score on training and instruction , followed by

democratic leadership style, social support style and positive feedback than both the

IRJC



11

less successful and unsuccessful teams while there were no differences on team successes

with regard to autocratic leadership styles

Successful and less successful scored higher than the unsuccessful ones on measure of

task cohesion. Similarly, on measure of social cohesion those teams who were successful

and less successful exhibited higher scores than the unsuccessful ones.

Implications

The study investigated the relationship between coach leadership styles, team cohesions and

team success as perceived by Ethiopian premier league soccer players. In the light of the findings

of the study, the following recommendations were forwarded.

A coach should promote training and instruction leadership style , democratic leadership

style, social support style and positive feedback behavior among his team.

A coach should also promote a culture of both type of cohesion, namely task cohesion

and social cohesion among his team.

A rigorous study including observational method should be done in the future to pinpoint

the appropriate leadership style and team cohesion .

REFFERENCES

Barrow, J. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual framework.

Academy of Management Review, 2, 231-251.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: The

Free Press.

Carron, A. V. (1982) Cohesiveness in Sport Groups: Interpretations and Considerations,

Journal of Sport Psychology, v. 4, p. 123-138.

Carron, A. V.; BRY, S. R.; EYS, M. A. (2002.)Team cohesion & Team Success in Sport,

Journal of Sport Science, v. 20, p. 119-26,

Carron, A. V.; Colman, M. M.; Wheeler, J.; Stevens, D. (2002)Cohesion and Performance in

Sport: A Meta Analysis, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, v. 24, p. 168-188,.

Carron A. V.; Widmeyer, W. N.; Brawley, L. R. (1985.) The development of an Instrument

to Assess Cohesion in Sport Team: The Group Environment Questionnaire, Journal of Sport

Psychology, v. 7, p. 244-266,

Chaw, M.; Bruce, H. (1999) Leadership and cohesion in sport teams. Journal of Sport

Psychology, v.10, p. 102-111.

Chelladurai, P. (1978). A contingency model of leadership in athletics. Unpublished Doctoral

dissertation, Department of Management Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada.

Chelladurai, P.; Saleh, S. (1980) Dimensions of Leader Behavior in Sports: Development of

Leadership Scale, Journal of Sport Psychology, v. 2, p. 34-35,.

IRJC



12

Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership

behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 27

Chelladurai, P.( 1985) Sport Management, Micro Perspective, London, Ontario, sport

Dynamics,.

Chelladurai, P. (1986). Applicability of the Leadership Scale for Sports to the Indian context.

Proceedings of the VII Commonwealth and International Conference on Sport, Physical

Education, Dance, Recreation and Health, Sports Science Section (pp. 291 296). Glasgow,

Scotland: Management Committee.

Chelladurai, P.( 1990.) Leadership in sports, A Review, International Journal of Sport

Psychology, v. 21, p. 328-354,

Chelladurai, P.; Singer, R.; Murphey, M.; Tennant, L. K. (Eds.), (1993.) Handbook of

Research on Sport Psychology, 647-671, New York: Macmillan,

ChelladuraI, P. (1999.) Human resource Management in Sport & Recreation, USA, Human

Kinetics,

Dwyer, J. M., & Fischer, D. G. (1990). Wrestlers‟ perceptions of coaches‟ leadership as

predictors of satisfaction with leadership. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 511-517.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gardner, D. E.; Shields, D. L.; Bredemeier, B. J. (1996) The Relationship between

Perceived Coaching Behaviors and Team Cohesion Baseball and Softball Players, the Sport

Psychologist, v. 10, p. 367-381,

Gordon, A. M. D. (1986). Behavioral correlates of coaching effectiveness. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta, Canada.

Horne.T, & Carron, A.V. (1985). Compatibility in coach- athlete relationships. Journal of

Sport Psychology, Vol.7, 137-149.

Horn, T. S. (2002). Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Johnson, U. (n.d). “Sport psychology - Past, Present, and future: The Perceptions of Swedish

Sport Psychology Students”. Athletic Insight. On line journal of sport psychology. Retrieved

on July 17, 2009, from: http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol8Iss3/PastPresentFuture.htm

Lowther, J., Lane, A., & Lane, H. (2002). Self-efficacy and psychological skills during the

Amputee Soccer World Cup: Athletic Insight: Online Journal of Sport Psychology Vol 4(2)

Aug 2002, Retrieved on July 21, 2009.

Murray, N. P.( 2006) The Differential Effect of Team cohesion and Leadership Behavior in

High School Sports, Individual Differences Research, v. 4, p. 216-225,

Murphy, S., & Tammen, V. (1998). In search of psychological skills. In Advances in sport

and exercise psychology measurement (edited by J.L. Duda), pp. 195-209. Morgantown,

WV: Fitness Information Technology.

O‟Hair, D., & Wiemann, M. O. (2004). The essential guide to group communication. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin‟s.

Peace, D. G.; Kozub, S. A.( 1994) Perceived Coaching Behaviors and Team Cohesion in

High School Girls Basketball Teams, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, v. 16, p. 85-

83,

http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol8Iss3/PastPresentFuture.htm

IRJC



13

Penman, K., Hastad, D., & Cords, W. (1974). Success of the authoritarian coach. Journal of

Social Psychology, 92, 155-156.

Pratt, S., & Eitzen, D.S. (1989). Contrasting leadership styles and organizational

effectiveness: The case study of athletic teams. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 311-322.

Ramzaninezhad, R.; & Hoseini Kashtan, M. (2009.)The relationship between coach`s

leadership styles and team cohesion in Iran football clubs professional league. Brazilian

journal of Biomotricity,V.3, N.2, p.111-120,

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.

Shields, D. L. (1997.)The Relationship between Leadership Behaviors and Group Cohesion

in Team Sports, The Journal of Psychology, 131, 2, 196-210,

Terry, P., & Howe, B. (1984). Coaching preferences of athletes. Canadian Journal of Applied

Sport Sciences, 9, 188-193.

Turman, P. D. (2008). Coaches‟ immediacy behaviors as predictors of athletes‟ perceptions

of satisfaction and team cohesion. Western Journal of Communication, 72(2), 162-179.

Wester, K. R., Weiss, M. R.( 1991.) The Relationship between Perceived Coaching

Behaviors and Group Cohesion in High School Football Teams, the Sport Psychologist, v. 5,

p. 41-45.

Weinberg, R., & Gould, D. (1995). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M., LaVoi, N. M., & Omli, J. (2009). Child and adolescent development

and sport participation. In B. W. Brewer (Ed.), Handbook of sports medicine and science:

Sport psychology (pp. 97-112). West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Weiss, M. R., & Friedrichs, W. D. (1986). The influence of leader behaviors, coach

attributes, and institutional variables on performance and satisfaction of collegiate basketball

teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 332-346.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COACHES’ … RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COACHES’ LEADERSHIP STYLES, TEAM...

Documents

Transcript of THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COACHES’ … RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COACHES’ LEADERSHIP STYLES, TEAM...