Master Thesis:

‘Team performance within the context of sports; the influence of transformational leadership on team performance and the mediating role of team commitment’

Student: Djordi van Beek Student Nr: S759248 Adress: Demer 41A, 5611AP Eindhoven Contact: 0621491804 / [email protected] Faculty: Social and Behavioural Sciences Master Topic: Team Obligations and Performance Period: January 2010 – January 2011 1st Supervisor: R. Schalk 2nd Supervisor: A. Vossen 759248HRS.pdf I Preface This Master Thesis represents the final step in the process of becoming a Master of Science in Human Resource Studies. While studying at Tilburg University, I’ve come across numerous aspects of Human Resources of which the relationship between HRM and the commercial aspects (profit) in organizations has been a major aspect of interest. During the study I’ve realized that the department of Human Resources in an organization often has difficulties of becoming a full strategic partner, as the commercial aspects (profit) usually have priority for the organization. As a healthy environment for employees might be a key determinant for an organization’s success, the opportunity of studying this topic has stimulated me while accomplishing this study. Also the possibility of studying this topic in a sports setting has been beneficial as sport has always been a very important aspect of my personal life and limited research has been conducted for the domain of sports. First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor Rene Schalk for his time, guidance and support throughout the process of this thesis. In addition, I would like to thank my co-students for their support and pleasant cooperation while conducting the data necessary to finalize this study. Finally, when reflecting on the process of this thesis, I would like to thank my family and my friends for their support and encouragement not only while conducting this thesis, but throughout the entire program of HRS.

2 II Abstract

This study intends to clarify a model in a sports setting, in which transformational leadership influences team performance directly and indirectly through the mediating effect of team commitment. More specifically, on the basis of relevant literature this model proposes that team performance will be higher when a leader is perceived as more transformational by the team members. In addition, the model also proposes that this relationship is mediated by the team member’s commitment to the team. Cross-sectional survey research has been conducted among 122 football players playing for respectively 10 teams registered in District Zuid I of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond [KNVB] (2010). Both a subjective measure, perceived team performance by team members, as well as an objective measure, mean number of points earned per game [PPG], has been used for measuring team performance. The results of this study indicate that transformational leadership is indeed a good predictor for team performance, as the effect of transformational leadership was found to be significant on both measures for team performance. This indicates that team performance will be higher when a leader is perceived as more transformational. Moreover, mixed results were found for the expected mediation effect in which team commitment mediates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and team performance. Path analysis and Sobel tests were used to test the mediation effect and subsequently, team commitment was found to partially mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and the subjective measure for team performance. However, a similar mediation effect of team commitment on the relationship between transformational leadership and the objective measure for team performance (PPG) could not be confirmed.

Keywords: Transformational leadership, team commitment, team performance.

3 III Table of Contents

I Preface 2

II Abstract 3

III Table of Contents 4

1. Introduction 5

2. Theoretical Background 7 2.1 Transformational Leadership and Team Performance 7 2.2 Team Commitment and Team Performance 9 2.3 Transformational Leadership and Team Commitment 11 2.4 Transformational Leadership, Team Commitment and Team Performance 12

3. Method 13 3.1 Procedure 13 3.2 Population, Sample and Response 14 3.3 Statistical analyses 16 3.4 Instruments 19

4. Results 24 4.1 Correlation analysis 24 4.2 Regression analyses 26

5. Conclusion / Discussion 33 5.1 Findings 33 5.2 Limitations 35 5.3 Future Research 36 5.4 Practical Recommendations 37 5.5 Concluding Remark 38

6. References 39

Appendix I: Scales 43

Appendix II: Questionnaire 45

Appendix III: Factor Analyses 49

4 1 Introduction On Wednesday the 23 of September 2009, approximately two hundred directors, managers, entrepreneurs and coaches from the business and sports industry gathered for a congress concerning ‘teams’ in the prestigious Porsche Centre in Leusden. Special guest speaker at this event was Guus Hiddink, master of managing teams in international football. Like no other, he has managed to lead various and diverse football teams to numerous successes. Hiddink has obtained unexpected high results with the national football teams of consecutively South Korea, Australia and Russia. Especially his success with the national team of South Korea is being seen as extraordinary, as Hiddink reached the semi-finals with this qualitative insignificant team during the World Cup of 2002 and defeated amongst others football giant Brazil. In his biography is stated that Hiddink is always able to create a carefully aligned individual approach to each team member’s needs (Meijer, 2010). Successful leaders, such as Hiddink, are able to create a team that achieves higher performance than the sum of individuals are capable of. By stimulating, amongst other aspects, team commitment, Hiddink’s teams have been able to defeat qualitative better opponents and obtain exceptional high team results. According to Bass et al. (2003) transformational leaders inspire their team members in order to become more effective in pursuing collective goals and to exceed performance expectations. Transformational leaders translate their ambition into challenging collective goals and encourage team members to accept them. The literature on testing transformational leadership theory has provided general support for the relationships between transformational leadership and performance (Bass, 1998; Avolio, 1999). For example, research has demonstrated that perceived transformational leadership is associated with increased performance in various work settings, such as the Navy (Yammarino & Bass, 1990), banks (Howell & Avolio, 1993) and other organizational settings. In addition, transformational leadership theory has received most empirical attention within organizational settings. Therefore it might be interesting to see whether this model could be shown to be valid in other contexts, such as sports. Transformational leadership to date has mainly focused on direct effects, however other research suggests that transformational leadership affects performance indirectly through several mediating variables. In this study, we try to identify a mediating effect and predict that transformational leadership affects team performance indirectly through team commitment. According to Becker & Billings (1993) team commitment is defined as the perceived level of commitment by members of a team towards the team of which they are a part. According to research, commitment has seemed to decrease in both societal and organizational contexts over the last

5 couple of years (Schalk, Den Hartog & van der Velde, 2002). Although some have questioned the relevance of commitment in an era of downsizing (Baruch, 1998), most researchers believe that commitment has always been a meaningful concept to study. In addition, the use of work teams has increased in organizational settings and the focus within organizations has been more and more on work teams and performance on team level (Bishop & Scott, 2000). Moreover, several studies have found that specific team commitment correlated positively with team performance (Bishop & Scott, 1997; Scott & Townsend, 1994). However, the process by which transformational leaders can exert their influence, through mediating variables, on follower’s team performance has not been adequately addressed in the literature (Bono & Judge, 2003; Yukl, 1998, in Givens, 2007). Clearly there is a need for better understanding how transformational leadership influences work-related attitudes such as team commitment in order to develop a more complete understanding of the workings of transformational leadership (Bass, 1999). The main objective of the present study is to propose and test a model in a sports setting in which transformational leadership affects team performance indirectly, through the mediating effect of team commitment. Research on transformational leadership has been widely investigated across a broad range of organizations and causal links to several measures of commitment and performance have been hypothesized. However, limited research has been conducted for the domain of sports. In addition, this research is intended to contribute to the existing literature into the context of sports and contribute new knowledge and understanding of these relationships. Although there are differences between organizational teams and sport teams, understanding these relationships in a sports context might be useful for research and practice in HR, given the frequency of the use of teams in organisational settings and the focus within organizations more and more on work teams and performance on the team level (Bishop & Scott, 2000). Based on the findings above, the following research question derives:

‘Does transformational leadership, as perceived by the team members, have an effect on team performance and is this relationship mediated by team commitment?’

In the theoretical framework the variables transformational leadership, team commitment and team performance and the relationships are further explained based on existing literature. In addition, each relationship will be followed by a hypothesis that represents that relationship. On the basis of the literature and the first three hypotheses, the conceptual model and the corresponding hypotheses, 4a and 4b, have been formulated (Figure 1).

6 2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Transformational Leadership and Team Performance The theory of transformational leadership was developed by Bass (1985) and has received considerable attention since then (Bass, 1998). Bass differentiated between the dynamics of transactional leadership and transformational leadership. In transactional leadership, leader-follower relationships are based on a series of exchanges or bargains between leader and follower. Bass (1985) posited that transformational leadership on the other hand enables followers to transcend their self-interest and perceptions of own limitations in order to become more effective in pursuing collective goals and to exceed performance expectations (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003). Transformational leaders translate their ambition into challenging collective goals and encourage team members to accept them. In addition, transformational leaders support team members in working toward these goals, such as by acting as a role model, showing concern for them as individuals and encouraging teamwork (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). Empirical evidence generally supports Bass’s (1985) fundamental proposition that transformational leadership is more effective than transactional leadership in predicting follower’s outcomes, such as team performance (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998). Moreover, over 35 studies have reported positive relationships between transformational leadership and follower performance (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Research has demonstrated that more specifically perceived transformational leadership is also associated with increased performance in various work settings, such as the Navy (Yammarino & Bass, 1990), banks (Howell & Avolio, 1993) and several other settings. Moreover, as transformational leadership theory has received most empirical attention within organizational settings and exceptionally in military settings (Bass et al., 2003), it might be interesting to see whether a similar model could be shown to be valid in other contexts, such as sports. In addition, relatively few of the studies covered in a meta-analysis studying the relationship between transformational leadership and effectiveness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) examined the impact on team-level performance. Similar as in these studies, this study seeks to explain the performance of teams. In addition, teams are those units in which (a) members share functionally interrelated tasks and are collectively responsible for end products, (b) individual team members have the variety of skills necessary to perform tasks that are the collective responsibility of the team, and (c) members receive feedback and evaluations that are given in terms of team performance (Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986). Team performance has been measured in a various ways and numerous criteria are mentioned for

7 measuring the performance or effectiveness of teams. However, due to several distinctions and criteria concerning team performance, no explicit universal definition of team performance has been stated in literature (Campbell, Gasser, & Oswald, 1996). As a result, while team performance is often treated as a unitary construct (Dunphy and Bryant, 1996; Wageman et al., 2005, in van Woerkom & Croon, 2009), diverse output indicators can be used for measuring team performance. In this paper, we distinguish the concepts of quality and effectiveness as indicators of team performance. Effectiveness refers to an absolute level of attainment of goals and expectations (Hoegl and Gemuenden, in van Woerkom & Croon, 2009) and quality depends on the satisfaction of internal or external customers with the value of the products or services that are provided by the team (Spencer, 1994, in van Woerkom & Croon, 2009). In this study, performance of sport teams will be measured by a subjective measure as well as an objective measure. The subjective measure is defined as the perceived assessment of team performance by individual team members. This emphasizes the affective aspect of team performance, which has been less used in previous research. According to Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp and Gilson (2008), more research focusing on the (self-reporting) affective aspect of team performance is needed. In addition, sport teams are seen as well- suited for studying team performance, by looking at the win-percentages of (mostly Baseball) sport teams (Roberts, Pratt, Weymes, & Gilson, 1998). However, contrary to Baseball, Football also includes draws. Therefore, this study measures team performance objectively by its mean number of points earned per game [PPG] as an index of overall performance (van Calster, Smits, & van Huffel, 2008). Therefore, based on the findings stated above, we expect the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1(a): A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to higher scores on subjective team performance.

Hypothesis 1(b): A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to higher scores on objective team performance.

8 2.2 (Affective) Team Commitment & Team Performance Just how transformational leadership affects team performance only recently has begun to attract more empirical attention. Various studies suggest that transformational leadership affects performance indirectly through several mediating variables. For example, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found a mediating role of self-efficacy beliefs in their experimental study. Other research pointed to the mediating effects of intrinsic motivation (Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001). In this study, we identify a similar mediating effect and predict that transformational leadership affects team performance indirectly through (affective) team commitment. Reichers (1985) has pointed out that the concept of commitment refers to acceptance of the goals and values of an organization. Although various conceptualizations have been used to measure organizational commitment (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979), the instrument developed by Meyer & Allen (1991) has been frequently used in research. Consistent with their understanding of organizational commitment as a multidimensional construct, Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed a Three-Component Model, including: affective commitment (AC), continuance commitment (CC), and normative commitment (NC). Existing research in organizational commitment literature have widely linked team commitment and team performance and more specifically, research suggests that affective commitment is linked significantly and more strongly with a broader range of outcome measures than continuance and normative commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, in Allen & Meyer, 1996). However, in one meta-analysis researchers were unable to report sufficient linkage between affective team commitment and objective measures of organizational performance (Ross and Offerman, in Meyer 1997). According to Allen & Meyer (1996) affective organizational commitment is the extent to which people experience a sense of identification and involvement with an organization and its goals. Theory and research has mainly focused on organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). However, according to a meta-analysis by Mathieu & Zajac (1990) there seems to be only a weak relationship between organizational commitment and performance. Several studies have indicated that team commitment might be a better predictor of behaviour aspects than organizational commitment (Becker, 1992; Becker & Billings, 1993). However, so far only a few studies have focused on commitment specific to a team, department, division or work unit. According to Becker (1993) team commitment is defined as the perceived level of commitment by members of a team towards the team of which they are a part. Moreover, the use of work teams has increased in organizational settings and the focus within organizations has been more and more on work teams and performance on the team level (Bishop & Scott,

9 2000). Organizations more often believe that teams are able to enhance individual productivity by giving employees a more active role in decision-making and a greater opportunity to be involved in their work. However, a team’s success appears to be dependent on the level of employee’s commitment to the team (Bishop & Scott, 1997). Previous investigations have underlined the usefulness of investigating the effects of specific rather than broad commitment measures. With respect to teams, for example Bishop & Scott (1997) found empirical support for a positive relationship between team commitment and performance. Moreover, research by Becker & Billings (1993) revealed that more specific forms of commitment accounted for additional variance in amongst others prosocial organizational behaviour. Secondary analysis of these data showed that workers who were primarily committed to their local work group instead of the whole organization displayed the most prosocial organizational behaviour (Becker & Billings, 1993). In addition, of the three components Meyer & Allen (1991) distinguish, affective organizational commitment also appears to be most closely related to the definition of team commitment by Becker (1993). When team members are committed to goals and values of their team and have emotional attachments to the team and its members, it seems likely that they would engage in behaviours that would be beneficial to the team. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 2(a): Team members that are more committed to the team are likely to score higher on subjective scores for team performance.

Hypothesis 2(b): Team members that are more committed to the team are likely to score higher on objective scores for team performance.

10 2.3 Transformational Leadership and (Affective) Team Commitment Affective commitment has also been found to correlate positively with transformational leadership (Meyer et al., 2002). Prior research suggests that experiences, personal and organizational factors serve as antecedents to organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1997). One such organizational factor that is considered a key determinant of organizational commitment is leadership (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1979). In addition, Angle and Perry, in Mowday, Porter, & Steers (1982) noted that individual commitment to an organization does not automatically result in a dependable or hardworking employee. Without the proper leadership and motivation, commitment by itself would not result in organizational effectiveness. In particular, there is considerable research available suggesting that transformational leadership is positively associated with organizational commitment in a variety of settings and cultures (Judge & Bono, 2001). Research (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; Shamir & Howell, 1998) suggests that transformational leaders are able to influence followers’ commitment by promoting higher levels of intrinsic value associated with goal accomplishment and by creating a higher level of personal commitment to a common vision, mission and goals. Therefore, we expect the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to more committed team members.

11 2.4 Transformational Leadership, (Affective) Team Commitment and Team Performance As stated above, commitment has been found to predict team performance and also transformational leadership has been found to predict performance outcomes (Meyer, et al., 2002). Moreover, according to research by Barling and Kelloway (2001) transformational leadership has been found to lead to higher levels of organizational commitment and has been associated with higher performance. This study intends to propose and test a model in a sports setting, in which transformational leadership affects team performance indirectly, through the mediating effect of team commitment. On the basis of the literature and the corresponding hypotheses the conceptual model has been established (Figure 1). In addition, two additional hypotheses have been formulated. These hypotheses, 4a and 4b, each reflect the entire conceptual model, but concern a different measure of team performance respectively a subjective measure and an objective measure.

Hypothesis 4(a): A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to more committed team members, which subsequently is likely to lead to higher scores on subjective team performance.

Hypothesis 4(b): A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to more committed team members, which subsequently is likely to lead to higher scores on objective team performance.

Figure 1: Conceptual Model + (Affective) Team Transformational

Commitment Leadership

+

+ Team Performance - Subjective - Objective

12 3 Method

This study tests an explanatory model in a sports setting. As limited research exists concerning sport teams, this study intends to contribute to the literature on the role of transformational leadership on team performance, as well as to the literature on transformational leadership and team commitment. Given the frequency of the use of teams in organizational settings, understanding these constructs within sport teams might be useful.

3.1 Procedure In this study, a quantitative method for collecting data was selected in order to obtain information from a large number of individuals, using questionnaires filled in by individual football players (Baarda, De Goede & Kalmijn, 2000). A quantitative method is recommended, as this study relies on fixed questionnaires in which the nature of the events is constant for each respondent to obtain a reliable measure of the market (Bryman, 2004). In addition, this study has a cross-sectional design based upon data collection at a single moment in time (Bryman, 2004). All the variables were studied on the individual level and data was collected approximately in the period of May until the last week of June, at what point all Dutch amateur football competitions had come to an end. To obtain the sample, 200 questionnaires were distributed to the coaches of 20 selected teams by using own personal contacts to select and approach football teams and members of those teams. The sample design used in this study is cluster sampling. In cluster sampling, the total population is divided into groups and a sample of the groups is selected. Next, the required data is collected from the individuals within the selected group. This also indicates that data in this study is nested and this study might have a multi-level structure as both teams and individuals are important in data collection. In addition, the procedure for data collection was convenience sampling as the participants were selected through personal contacts of the researchers. Convenience sampling is a type of non-probability sampling which involves the sample being drawn from that part of the population that is readily available and conveniently accessible. However, research that uses a convenience sampling procedure cannot scientifically make generalizations about the total population from this sample, because the data would not be representative for the population. In addition, research was conducted only in those competitions registered in District Zuid I of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond [KNVB] (2010), which represent a specific spatial area, namely Zuid Oost Brabant in the Netherlands. However, to obtain a more random sample survey, a systematic sampling

13 method was used to put all available and approachable teams in an ordered list and randomise the selection of teams. The coaches were asked to ensure that the questionnaires would be completed by regular members of their team during the season 2009-2010. To avoid social desirability regarding the answers, the questionnaires were preceded by a clarification in which was stated that the data would be treated confidentially and for the purpose of this study only. In order to ensure anonymity, participants were able to return the completed questionnaires by using an included self-addressed envelope or return the questionnaire by e- mail.

3.2 Population, Sample and Response

3.2.1 Population The total population consists of approximately ‘3640 football players being part of one of the 182 selection teams that participate in one of the four highest amateur football competitions, Hoofdklasse, Eerste klasse, Tweede klasse, Derde klasse, registered by the KNVB (2010)’. On average, each team consists of approximately 20 members. In addition, according to the Cochran’s formula for the determination of the sample size, for a population of 4000 a minimum sample size of 119 is required, when using continuous variables and an alpha significance level a priori set at 5% (Pallant, 2005). In this study, amateur selection teams were used instead of professional teams, because they are less difficult to approach. Nonetheless, members of amateur selection teams were still expected to have a similar motivation to perform and were therefore expected to answer questions especially concerning team commitment and team performance seriously. In addition, a selection team is the highest team within a football club and in general a selection team meets at least three times a week. In addition, teams participating in one of the four highest amateur competitions registered by the KNVB (2010), require a trainer certified with the course Trainer / Coach 1, which guarantees that all trainers involved in this research are qualified trainers.

3.2.2 Sample and Response The sample population in this study includes ‘all selection football players being part of a football team that is specifically participating in one of the four highest amateur competitions, Hoofdklasse, Eerste klasse, Tweede klasse, Derde klasse, registered in District Zuid I of the KNVB (2010). 200 questionnaires were distributed to the coaches of 20 selected teams. A total of 122 individuals of respectively 10 teams participated in this research, leading to an

14 overall response rate of 61%. The questionnaires were returned in relatively even proportions divided over the selected teams. According to the data, all respondents were male. The average age of the respondents was approximately 25.73 years and the age of the participants varies between 18 en 41 years. The average team tenure of the respondents was 3.5 years and respondents were found to have an average coach tenure of 1.78 years. The average team size was found to be 21.98 members per team. However, the participating teams differed relatively highly from team size as the number of team members per team varies from 15 to 40. Finally, the average number of games participated by the respondents was found to be 17.43. This variable was used in order to determine whether respondents were a regular member of the team or had only occasionally (less then 10) been part of the team. The composition of the sample is shown in table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Demographical Characteristics

Demographical Characteristics Mean S.D. Age (in years) 25.73 3.914 Member - Team Tenure (in years) 3.50 2.760 Member - Coach Tenure (in years) 1.78 0.948 Team Size (in members) 21.98 6.201 Number of Games Participated 17.43 5.377

15 3.3. Statistical Analyses All statistical analyses resulting from this study were conducted using the following software: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences [SPSS], version 16.0. Explorative factor analysis was conducted in order to reassess the internal validity and variability of the observed variables and scales and to examine the underlying item structure of each variable and to determine whether the number of components and the corresponding component loadings were conform to what was expected on the basis of the related theory (Pallant, 2005). With this technique can be verified whether the expected categorization of the scales for transformational leadership, team commitment and team performance is correct. This method is the most appropriate, as this method intends to determine if the number of factors and the factor loadings of measured (indicator) variables conform to what is expected on the basis of pre-established theory. Although the scales, respectively the five-item AC scale for team commitment by Jak & Evers (2010), the seven-item GTL scale for transformational leadership by Carless, Wearing and Mann (2000) and the nine-item subscale for team performance by van Woerkom and Croon (2009), have all been tested and found to be reliable and valid in previous research, principal components analysis [PCA] was conducted since these scales were all used on a population different from their validation and confirmatory studies. In order to test whether factor analysis would be applicable, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy [KMO] was tested. All values were found to be higher than the required 0.6 and this analysis verified that the data was suitable for further factor analysis. The reliability of the scales was assessed in order to predict the quality for measuring the concepts and to test if the items were sufficiently consistent and measured the same concept (Bryman, 2004). The reliability of the scales were tested by using Cronbach’s alpha and, whereas the computed alpha coefficient can vary between 1 and 0, a value for Cronbach’s alpha equal or higher to 0.7 will be denoted as an acceptable level of the internal reliability of the scale (Pallant, 2005). During factor analysis, as well as the following correlation analysis and regression analyses, the data was checked for missing values and errors (Pallant, 2005). By using the frequency tables, the data was checked for missing values and errors and by excluding the cases of missing values pairwise, bias in the data was prevented. This option excludes respondents only in those cases that are necessary and missing data is required for the analysis. However, they will be included in any of the possible analyses for which the respondents do have the necessary data available (Pallant, 2005). In order to check the data for normality and check the data for outliers a descriptive statistics analysis was conducted. The data was checked for outliers by looking at the descriptives table. The means, standard

16 deviations and bivariate correlations were generated for all variables used in this study. Pearson’s correlation was used to describe the strength and direction of the linear relationship between the variables. In addition, the data was checked for possible multicollinearity. Multicollinearity is a statistical phenomenon in which two or more predictor variables in a multiple regression model are strongly correlated (with a value of 0.7 or higher), which in turn may rise problems in estimating the model parameters (Pallant, 2005). In addition, multicollinearity was checked by looking at the Variance Inflation Factor [VIF]. Any value for VIF above 10 would be a concern and indicates multicollinearity (Pallant, 2005). However, in this study no signs for multicollinearity have been found. The conceptual model predicts a direct effect between transformational leadership and team performance. In addition, the conceptual model also predicts a mediating effect, in which the antecedent independent variable ‘transformational leadership’ affects the dependent variable ‘team performance’ through the mediating variable ‘team commitment’. In order to test the relationships between the variables the process of path analysis has been followed and two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. As the path model includes a single-mediator, team commitment, two regression analyses were conducted. In the first analysis was team performance used as the dependent variable and in the second analysis was the model’s mediator team commitment used as the dependent variable. Hierarchical multiple regression indicates a sequential ordering of variables for regression in which the variables are entered into the analysis in a specified sequence on the basis of theoretical grounds in order to see their relative contribution to the solution (Pallant, 2005). This technique tests how much of the variance in the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variables. The procedure of hierarchical regression was followed in which at each stage in the process, after a new variable is added, a test is made to check if some variables can be deleted without appreciably increasing the residual sum of squares (RSS). In this study, the independent variable transformational leadership and the dependent variable team performance were added in block 1. Second, the mediator team commitment was added in block 2. Regressions were performed including and excluding control variables to detect the influence of the control variables. In addition, spurious effects were assessed by regressing dependent variables on the control variables with the intention of verifying if the relationship among the main variables in the model becomes insignificant due to the presence of such control variables (Pallant, 2005). The control variables were added in block 3 and were tested for significant influence on the research model. During this hierarchical regression we have used a selection of statistics. R Square [R²] was analyzed to find out how much of the variance was explained

17 and R² Change also indicates whether adding a new variable has a significant influence on the previous model. In addition, each regression model was tested for significance and the level of significance on which the hypotheses were confirmed or rejected was determined on five percent (0.05). Overall, two regression analyses were conducted for the hypotheses that concerned team performance as this dependent variable was measured by respectively an objective and a subjective measure. In the first regression analysis the dependent variable team performance was measured by a perceived assessment by individual team members. In the second regression analysis the dependent variable team performance was measured by the mean score of the team’s points earned per game [PPG] translated into an individual score assigned to the respondents of that particular team.

18 3.4. Instruments For this study a questionnaire was created out of three existing scales concerning the variables transformational leadership, team commitment and team performance. The questionnaire can be consulted in appendix II. Although the scales, respectively the five-item AC scale for team commitment by Jak & Evers (2010), the seven-item GTL scale for transformational leadership by Carless, Wearing and Mann (2000) and the nine-item subscale for team performance by van Woerkom and Croon (2009), have all been tested and found to be reliable and valid in previous research, principal components analysis [PCA] and reliability analyses were conducted since these scales were all used on a population different from their validation and confirmatory studies. This paragraph discusses the specific scale construction in this study.

3.4.1. Transformational Leadership. In this study, transformational leadership was measured by an existing version of the seven- item Global Transformational Leadership Scale [GTL] by Carless, Wearing and Mann (2000). This shortened and validated scale was preferred over the more widely used Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1995) because of its brevity and clear one- dimensionality. We have chosen the approach of using broad statements because we were more interested in a brief measure consistent with the theoretical conceptualisations of transformational leadership. However, GTL has been found to have a high degree of convergent validity with more established and lengthier questionnaires, such as the MLQ (Carless et al., 2000). Together the seven items of the Global Transformational Leadership scale [GTL] are designed to represent a global measure of transformational leadership. The items can be consulted in appendix I. Each item is written to capture each of the seven leader behaviours: (1) Communicates a clear and positive vision of the future, (2) treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development, (3) gives encouragement and recognition to staff, (4) fosters trust, involvement and co-operation among team members, (5) encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions assumptions, (6) is clear about his/her values and practises what he/she preaches, and (7) instills pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent. Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale measuring behavioural frequency (0 = rarely or never to 4 = very frequently). Explorative factor analysis by using an oblimin rotation has shown that the [GTL] measured only 1 component. The scale consists of seven items and yields a Cronbach’s alpha of .810. An example question of the scale is: ‘My leader fosters trust, involvement and co-operation

19 among team members’ A scale is presumed to be reliable, when Cronbach’s alpha is equal or higher than .70 (Pallant, 2005).

3.4.2. Team Commitment The 3-component model of commitment by Meyer and Allen (1990) is the most prevailing model of commitment. According to this model by Meyer and Allen (1990), affective commitment (AC), continuance commitment (CC), and normative commitment (NC) are the distinguishable components of commitment. Results of several confirmatory factor analyses in earlier research (e.g., Dunham, Grube, & Castenada, 1994; Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990) have generally supported this proposition. According to Allen & Meyer (1996), affective commitment (AC) is the extent to which people experience a sense of identification and involvement with an organization and its goals. Also, the items of the AC scale appear to be most closely related to the definition of team commitment by Becker (1993). Generally, the correlation between the AC scale and NC scale has been found to be relatively large and therefore interrelated (Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993). However, Jak & Evers (2010) developed a revised Dutch version of the scales, where the correlation between AC and NC appeared to be smaller than originally. In this study, team commitment will be assessed with the recently revised version of the five-item AC scale by Jak & Evers (2010). In addition, the items of the AC scale by Jak & Evers (2010) were modified by changing the referent from ‘organization’ to ‘team’, as this study examines a sports team environment instead of an organisational environment. An example item is: ‘I experience problems of this team as my personal problems’ and all items can be consulted in appendix I. Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Explorative factor analysis by using a varimax rotation has shown that the revised AC scale by Jak & Evers (2010) measured one component, based on corresponding factor loadings. The revised AC scale was found to yield a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.840 corresponding with the study results found by Jak & Evers (2010).

3.4.3. Team Performance In this study, team performance was measured by respectively an objective and a subjective measure. First, team performance was measured subjectively by a perceived assessment of team performance by individual team members. This emphasizes the affective aspect of team performance, which has been less used in previous literature. According to Mathieu,

20 Maynard, Rapp en Gilson (2008) there is more research needed that focuses on the affective aspect (self-reporting character) of team performance. In this study, an existing scale by van Woerkom and Croon (2009) is applied for measuring team performance. More specifically, the concepts of quality and effectiveness used by van Woerkom and Croon (2009) are distinguished as indicators of team performance. Effectiveness refers to an absolute level of attainment of goals and expectations (Hoegl and Gemuenden, 2001) and quality depends on the satisfaction of internal or external customers with the value of the products or services that are provided by the team (Spencer, 1994). The scale originally consists of 17 items which measure the aspects of effectiveness, quality, efficiency and innovativeness of a team. The aspect of effectiveness was measured with a five-item scale adapted from Zellmer-Bruhn and Gibson (2006). Quality was measured with a four-item scale adapted from Lai et al. (2004). Efficiency was measured with a scale developed by van Woerkom and Croon (2009) and also Innovativeness was measured with a scale developed by van Woerkom and Croon (2009). Factor analysis, PCA with varimax rotation, on all items of the four scales was performed by van Woerkom and Croon (2009). This resulted in the decision by van Woerkom and Croon (2009) to merge the scales of effectiveness and quality into a new subscale labelled ‘effectiveness’ since the items from the effectiveness and quality scale loaded on the same component. In this paper, the concept of team performance will be measured by using only the nine items of the merged scale ‘effectiveness’ that measure effectiveness and quality. As noted, the aspect of effectiveness accounted for five items in the scale and the aspect of quality accounted for four items in the scale. In addition, the items of the ‘effectiveness scale’ by van Woerkom and Croon (2009) were modified by changing the referent from ‘diensten / producten’ to ‘resultaten’ and otherwise from changing the referent from ‘klanten’ to ‘supporters’. An example item of the scale is ‘Our team accomplishes its goals’ and all items can be consulted in appendix I. Participants respond using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1= entirely disagree, 7= entirely agree), in which higher scores associate with higher team performance. Explorative factor analysis by using a varimax rotation confirmed that the nine items of the scale ‘effectiveness’ by van Woerkom and Croon (2009) measured only one component, based on corresponding factor loadings. The scale ‘effectiveness’ was found to yield a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.925 also corresponding with the results of the study done by van Woerkom and Croon (2009). However, one item had a relatively low inter-item correlation and a Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted higher than the Cronbach’s alpha of the total scale ultimately leading to a new Cronbach’s alpha of 0.935. On the basis of these statistical rules, this item was deleted from the scale as it resulted in a higher

21 reliability of the scale. Second, team performance was measured objectively by the mean score of the team’s points earned per game [PPG] (van Calster, Smits, & van Huffel, 2008). Overall, sport teams are seen as well-suited for studying team performance, by looking at the win-percentages of (mostly Baseball) sport teams (Roberts, Pratt, Weymes, & Gilson, 1998). However, in contrary to Baseball, Football also includes draws. In addition, when using win- percentages as an indicator for performance, all draws will be not included in the data. Therefore, this study measures team performance objectively by its mean number of points earned per game [PPG] as an index of overall relative performance.

3.4.4. Control Variables Several demographical control variables were selected to describe the sample, whereas several other control variables were chosen based on relevant literature. All control variables were selected assuming that they would have an influence on the relationships in question. Therefore, collecting such data allows us to statistically control for these variables. The demographical control variable included in this study were age and number of games participated. Age was measured on a continuous scale by one item in the questionnaire, respectively: ‘What is your age?’. It is expected that older members may be more affected with the team than youthful members due to generational characteristics (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). In addition, Hedge, Borman, and Lammlein, (2006) support the idea that young workers tend to be less concerned with how the relationship evolves since they are likely to have more opportunities in the future in contrary to the older workers. Number of games participated was also measured on a continuous scale by one item in the questionnaire: ’How many games have you played for this team in this season?’ This variable was included in order to find out whether true participation contributes to the feeling of being committed to the team. Several control variables were included in the study on the basis of literature en these were respectively team tenure, coach tenure and team size. The concepts of team tenure, coach tenure and team size were measured by one item each. According to research, tenure in general was found to have a significant effect on performance (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). In addition, performance was found to be highest when team members experienced a longer tenure with their team. This facilitates coordination and control and helps to overcome initial problems (Gamero, Gonzalez-Roma & Peiro, 2008). Literature shows that team size also affects performance (Gamero et al., 2008). Team tenure was measured on a continuous scale and refers to the participants’ tenure in years with the team. Coach tenure was also measured on a continuous scale and refers to the number of years the participant has been part

22 of a team managed by the coach. Team size was obtained by asking the individual respondents how many selection players their team included.

3.4.5. One-way Analysis of Variance Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) determines to what extent data is nested. In addition, when data is too strongly nested problems in estimating the model parameters may rise. As the dataset consists of respondents nested within several teams, it is interesting to check the ICCs whether there are differences in scores between the teams. ICC(1) estimates the amount of variance in individual level responses that can be explained by the group level properties, or the degree to which a measure varies between versus within groups and determines whether scores are influenced by group size or number of groups (Bliese; Bliese & Halverson, in Loenen, 2007). ICC(2) values evaluate the internal consistency reliability of the group means and are therefore affected by group size. According to Bliese (1998, as cited in Loenen, 2007) larger groups and higher ICC(1) values result in more reliable estimates (i.e., higher ICC(2) values). Moreover, ICC(1) values should measure a value between 0,05 and 0,20 and ICC(2) values should measure a value over 0,5 (Bliese, in Loenen, 2007). Results from the One-way analysis of variance are converted into ICC(1) and ICC(2) values (Table 3.2). On the basis of the results, the ICC(1) values for the variables team commitment, subjective performance and objective performance are insufficient. Therefore, data for these constructs could not be aggregated to the group level (Van Veldhoven, in Loenen, 2007).

Table 3.2: Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (N=122)

Variable ICC1 ICC2 F Sig Transformational Leadership 0,180 0,722 3,595 0,001 Team Commitment 0,240 0,794 4,854 0,000 Team Performance 0,457 0,910 11,096 0,000

23 4 Results

4.1 Correlation Analysis A correlation analysis has been conducted to calculate the bivariate correlations between the observed concepts and the control variables. More specifically, Pearson’s correlation was used to describe the strength and direction of the linear relationship between transformational leadership, team commitment and the two measures of team performance. However, the correlations do not indicate a causal relationship between variables. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes of the study. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) can take on only values from -1 (negative) to +1 (positive). The size of the absolute value provides an indication of the strength of the relationship. In social sciences, a correlation is regarded as small when accounting for a correlation of 0.29 or lower, medium when 0.3 to 0.49 and high when 0.5 or higher (Pallant, 2005). Respectively the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations between the concepts were generated for respectively ‘points per game (PPG)’, team performance, transformational leadership, team commitment and the control variables ‘age’, ‘team tenure’, ‘coach tenure’, ‘team size’ and ‘game participation’.

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation coëfficients (N=122) Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Team Perf (PPG) 1.37 0.40 1 2. Team Perf (Subject) 4.71 1.10 .42 1 3. Transformational L 2.70 0.61 .28 .28 1 4. Team Commitment 3.50 0.81 .25 .38 .27 1 5. Age (years) 25.70 3.91 .07 .04 -.08 -.03 1 6. Team Tenure (years) 3.50 2.74 .10 .12 -.01 .13 .65 1 7. Coach Tenure (years) 1.78 0.94 -.14 -.11 -.25 -.24 .22 .05 1 8. Team Size 21.98 6.17 -.03 -.26 .05 -.07 -.14 -.00 -.11 1 9. Participation (games) 17.43 5.35 .18 -.01 -.02 .14 -.01 .20 .10 .01 1

Note: Bold printed correlations are significant at the 0.05 level (one-tailed) Bold printed and underlined correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (one-tailed) Note: Transformational leadership was measured on a 5-point likert scale; Commitment was measured on a 5- point likert scale; team performance was measured on a 7-point likert scale.

24 Restricting this analysis to the correlations relevant for hypothesis 1a and 1b, a medium positive correlation significant at the 0.01 level (Pearson’s r = .42, p < .01) between the constructs of the objective measure for team performance ‘Points Per Game (PPG) and the subjective measure for team performance ‘team performance’ is noteworthy. Furthermore, a small positive correlation (r = .28, p < .01) between transformational leadership and PPG is present as well as a small positive correlation (r = .28, p < .01) between transformational leadership and team performance both significant at the 0.01 level. These results are consistent with hypotheses 1a and 1b. Restricting this analysis to the correlations relevant for hypothesis 2a and 2b, a small positive correlation significant at the 0.01 level (Pearson’s r = .25, p < .01) between team commitment and PPG is noteworthy. Also a medium positive correlation significant at the 0.01 level (r = .38, p < .01) for the relationship between team commitment and team performance is noteworthy. These results are consistent with hypotheses 2a and 2b. Restricting this analysis to the correlations relevant for hypothesis 3, a small positive correlation significant at the 0.01 level (Pearson’s r = .27, p < .01) between transformational leadership and team commitment is noteworthy. The results are presented in the correlation matrix (Table 4.1).

25 4.2.1 Hierarchical Regression Analyses In this paragraph the results of the hierarchical regression analyses are presented. Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 3 were tested with hierarchical regression analyses and each hypothesis was confirmed or rejected on the basis of the corresponding results. The results of the regression analyses for hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 3 are shown in Table 4.2.1, Table 4.2.2 and Table 4.2.3. Table 4.2.1 presents the results of the hypotheses that concern subjective team performance, Table 4.2.2 presents the results concerning objective team performance (PPG) and Table 4.2.3 presents the results concerning the direct effect of transformational leadership on the mediating variable team commitment.

Hypothesis 1(a): A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to higher scores on subjective team performance.

Hypotheses 1a and 1b suggest that transformational leadership positively influences team performance. The results of the regression analyses, by examining the coefficients, show that the direct effect of transformational leadership on subjective team performance is significant (bèta = .175, p < 0.05). This is also consistent with the earlier reported significant positive correlation between transformational leadership and subjective team performance. Therefore, hypothesis 1a, a leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to higher scores on subjective team performance, can be confirmed. This indicates that when a leader is perceived as more transformational by the team members, the subjective team performance will increase. As shown in Table 4.2.1, all models were found to be significant. In the first model, only transformational leadership was included. The second model also includes the mediating variable team commitment. Finally, in the third model also the control variables were included. According to the results, model 1 explains 7.5% of the variance in subjective team performance. After entering team commitment in model 2, the model explains an additional 10%, which is a statistically significant contribution (Sig. F change < 0.01).

26 Table 4.2.1 Results Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Subjective Team Performance

Model (N=122) Bèta (β) Sig R² R² Change F-Value Sig 1 Constant ,000 .075 .075 9,295 0,003 Transformational Leadership .275 .003 2 Constant ,000 .175 .100 620,21 0,000 Transformational Leadership .186 .038 Team Commitment .329 .000 3 Constant ,002 .240 .064 4,867 0,000 Transformational Leadership .175 .041 Team Commitment .306 .001 Age -.048 .687 Team Tenure .128 .280 Coach Tenure -.004 .962 Team Size -.235 .008 Game Participation -.076 .393 Note: Bold printed coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level (one-tailed) Bold printed and underlined coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level (one-tailed)

Hypothesis 1(b): A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to higher scores on objective team performance.

The results of Table 4.2.2 show that the direct effect of transformational leadership on objective team performance was found to be significant (bèta = .234, p < 0.05). This is also consistent with the earlier reported significant positive correlation between transformational leadership and objective team performance. Therefore, hypothesis 1b, a leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to higher scores on objective team performance, can be confirmed. This indicates that when a leader is perceived as more transformational by the team members, the objective team performance will increase. As shown in Table 4.2.2, all models were found to be significant. In the first model, only transformational leadership was included. The second model also includes the mediating variable team commitment. Finally, in the third model also the control variables were included. According to the results, model 1 explains 8% of the variance in objective team performance. After entering team commitment in model 2, the model explains an additional 3,3%, which is a statistically significant contribution (Sig. F change < 0.01).

27 Table 4.2.2 Results Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Objective Team Performance

Model (N=122) Bèta (β) Sig R² R² Change F-Value Sig 1 Constant ,000 .080 .080 9,931 0,002 Transformational Leadership .283 .002 2 Constant ,002 .114 .033 402,7 0,001 Transformational Leadership .232 .013 Team Commitment .190 .041 3 Constant ,726 .157 .043 2,868 0,009 Transformational Leadership .234 .014 Team Commitment .152 .117 Age .148 .239 Team Tenure -.050 .691 Coach Tenure -.095 .332 Team Size -,001 .988 Game Participation .186 .050 Note: Bold printed coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level (one-tailed) Bold printed and underlined coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level (one-tailed)

Hypothesis 2(a): Team members that are more committed to the team are likely to score higher on subjective scores for team performance.

Hypothesis 2(b): Team members that are more committed to the team are likely to score higher on objective scores for team performance.

According to the findings as presented in Table 4.2.1, hypothesis 2a, team members that are more committed to the team are likely to score higher on subjective scores for team performance, can be confirmed. The results show that the direct effect of team commitment on subjective team performance is significant (beta = .306, p < 0.01). This indicates that when a team includes team members that are more committed to the team, the subjective team performance will increase. Moreover, the direct effect of team commitment on objective team performance was found not to be significant (bèta = .152, p > 0.05). The results show that the direct effect of team commitment on objective team performance is still significant in the second model (beta = .190, p < 0.05). However, when controlling this effect for the control variables in model 3, the effect of team commitment on objective team performance becomes no longer significant. Therefore, hypothesis 2b, team members that are more committed to the team are likely to score higher on objective scores for team performance, is rejected.

28

Hypothesis 3: A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to higher committed team members.

The third hypothesis states that the independent variable transformational leadership also has a direct effect on the mediating variable team commitment. According to the findings presented in Table 4.2.3, hypothesis 3, can be confirmed, indicating that a team that includes a leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour is likely to have higher committed team members. The results of this regression analysis show that the direct effect of transformational leadership on team commitment is significant (bèta = .212, p < 0.05). As shown in Table 4.2.3, all models were found to be significant. Moreover, model 1 explains 6.5% of the variance in team commitment and includes only transformational leadership. After entering the control variables in model 2, the model explains an additional 11%, which is a statistically significant contribution (Sig. F change < 0.01).

Table 4.2.3 Results Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Team Commitment

Bèta Sig R² R² Change F-Value Sig Model (N=122) (β) Sig 1 Constant ,000 ,073 ,065 8,977 0,003 Transformational Leadership .270 .003 2 Constant ,000 .156 .110 3,360 0,004 Transformational Leadership .212 .022 Age -,099 .428 Team Tenure -.198 .142 Coach Tenure .181 .039 Team Size -,097 .286 Game Participation .126 .176 Note: Bold printed coefficients are significant at the 0.05 level (one-tailed) Bold printed and underlined coefficients are significant at the 0.01 level (one-tailed)

29 4.2.2 Path Analysis and Sobel Test Moreover, a mediation effect is examined in hypotheses 4a and 4b in which the hypothesized model indicates that team commitment mediates the effect of transformational leadership on the two measures of team performance. The hypothesized model was further analyzed by the means of path analysis. In order to perform path analysis, the results from the preliminary analyses, with both measures for team performance as dependent variable (Table 4.2.1 and Table 4.2.2) as well as the model’s mediator team commitment as dependent variable, were analyzed (Table 4.2.3). Finally, a Sobel test was conducted to find out whether the results from the path analysis are significant.

Hypothesis 4(a): A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to more committed team members, which subsequently is likely to lead to higher scores on subjective team performance.

. Transformational .212* Team .306*** Subjective Leadership Commitment Team Performance

Figure 4.1: Path model for mediation effect of team commitment on the relationship between transformational leadership and subjective team performance. * p < .05 *** p < .001

Hypothesis 4a describes the mediating effect of team commitment on the positive relationship between transformational leadership and subjective team performance. Based on the results of the preliminary hypotheses, shown in Table 4.2.1 and Table 4.2.3, the mediation path model and corresponding coefficients are displayed in Figure 4.1. Table 4.2.3 shows a significant direct effect of transformational leadership on team commitment (bèta = .212, p < 0.05). Moreover, Table 4.2.1 shows a significant direct effect of team commitment on subjective team performance (bèta = .306, p < .001). By adding the mediator team commitment in the second model, both transformational leadership and team commitment become significant predictors of subjective team performance. According to Barron & Kenny (1986) these findings support a partial mediation. Adding the control variables in model 3 has no effect on the significance of the preliminary results. Looking at the R Square, model 1 explains 7.5% of the variance. By adding team commitment in the second model, model 2 explains an

30 additional 10 %. This is a significant contribution (Sig. F change = .000). Finally, a Sobel test was conducted to test if the mediation hypothesis is significant. The Sobel test examines whether the product of the unstandardized regression coefficients of the multiple regression analysis of transformational leadership and team commitment on team performance are significant. According to the results of the Sobel test (Z-value = 1.998, p < 0.05) hypothesis 4a can be confirmed. This indicates that leaders, who are perceived as more transformational, influence the commitment of the team members positively, which in addition results in a higher subjective team performance as experienced by the team members.

Hypothesis 4(b): A leader that shows more transformational leadership behaviour, as perceived by the team members, is likely to lead to more committed team members, which subsequently is likely to lead to higher scores on objective team performance.

. Transformational .212* Team .152 Objective Leadership Commitment Team Performance

Figure 4.2: Path model for mediation effect of team commitment on the relationship between transformational leadership and objective team performance. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Hypothesis 4b describes the mediating effect of team commitment on the positive relationship between transformational leadership and objective team performance. Based on the results of the preliminary hypotheses, shown in Table 4.2.2 and Table 4.2.3, the mediation path model and corresponding coefficients are displayed in Figure 4.2. This hypothesis describes the possible mediating effect of team commitment on the positive relationship between transformational leadership and objective team performance (PPG). The results of the hierarchical regression analysis on objective team performance (Table 4.2.2) have shown that the direct effect of team commitment on objective team performance is not significant. Transformational leadership as well as team commitment both significantly predicts objective team performance in both model 1 and model 2. However, by adding the control variables in the third model, team commitment becomes no longer significant and this indicates a spurious effect of team commitment on objective team performance. In addition, looking at the R

31 Square, adding team commitment in the second model, model two explains only an additional 3.3 percent. This is a significant contribution (Sig. F change = .041). Due to these results, hypothesis 4b is rejected.

32 5 Conclusion and Discussion Findings, conclusions, limitations, recommendations for further research and practical recommendations are presented in this chapter. The purpose of this study was to contribute to the literature on transformational leadership, (affective) team commitment and team performance, more specifically to extend the existing research into the context of sports and in this way contribute new knowledge and understanding on these relationships. Although there are distinct differences between organizational teams and sport teams, understanding the studied relationships in a sports context might still be useful for research and practice in HR, given the frequency of the use of teams in organisational settings and the focus within organizations more and more on work teams and performance on the team level (Bishop & Scott, 2000). On the basis of relevant theory, hypotheses were stated for the relationships between the constructs in the hypothesized model. The hypothesized model itself was examined by two mediating hypotheses in which was expected that leaders, who are perceived as more transformational, influence the commitment of the team members positively which subsequently results in a higher subjective as well as an objective team performance. All hypotheses were formulated to answer the following research question:

‘Does transformational leadership, as perceived by the team members, have an effect on team performance and is this relationship mediated by team commitment?’

5.1 Findings The results obtained from the scales, respectively the five-item AC scale for team commitment by Jak & Evers (2010), the seven-item GTL scale for transformational leadership by Carless, Wearing and Mann (2000) and the nine-item subscale for team performance by van Woerkom and Croon (2009), were all found to be consistent with the validation studies for these instruments, showing sufficient reliabilities and inter-item correlations. On the basis of previous research, this study expected that a higher level of transformational leadership behaviour would increase the performance of a team, both subjectively (perception of team members) as well as objectively (Points Per Game). The findings of this study have once more indicated the relevance of transformational leadership in relation to team performance. The results obtained from the correlation analysis as well as the simple regression analyses have lead to the confirmation of the assumptions in which transformational leadership positively influences subjective and objective team performance as stated in hypotheses 1a and 1b, indicating that that teams, in which members experience more transformational

33 leadership, tend to have higher team performance outcomes. Moreover, the results have also lead to the confirmation of hypothesis 2a. The confirmation of this hypothesis is consistent with previous research presented earlier (Meyer et al.; 2002) and indicates that teams, in which members are more committed to the team, show higher subjective team performance outcomes. However, the results have also lead to the rejection of hypothesis 2b, indicating that team commitment does not have a significant direct effect on the objective measure of team performance (PPG). When the effect of team commitment on objective team performance is controlled for the control variables the effect becomes no longer significant, indicating spuriousness in this relationship. Based on earlier research, this study also expected a positive effect of transformational leadership on the mediating variable team commitment, as presented in hypothesis 3. According to the results this hypothesis could also be confirmed, indicating that members of a team that experience more transformational leadership by their coach appear to be more committed to their team. Finally, mixed results were found for the expected mediation effect in which team commitment mediates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and team performance. More specifically, hypothesis 4a proposed a mediating effect of team commitment on the positive relationship between transformational leadership on the subjective measure for team performance and was found to be significant through a partial mediation. Therefore, hypothesis 4a was confirmed. However, hypothesis 4b proposed a similar mediation effect of team commitment on the positive relationship between transformational leadership on the objective measure for team performance (PPG) and this effect was found not to be significant. Preliminary results in this study have shown that the direct effect of team commitment on objective team performance (PPG) was found not to be significant, as presented in hypothesis 2b. As a result, extending this relationship through a hypothesized causal mediation model could not be supported and hypothesis 4b was therefore rejected. The non significant results for both hypothesis 2b as well as 4b were unexpected, as most of the literature found linkages between team commitment and team performance (Meyer et al.; 2002). However, similar non significant results have been reported in a previous meta-analysis considering independent measures of overall performance as researchers were unable to report sufficient linkage between affective team commitment and objective measures of organizational performance (Ross and Offerman, in Meyer 1997). Further analysis of the data in this study revealed that only low correlations were present for objective team performance (PPG) and team commitment. A practical explanation for not being able to significantly confirm the relationship between team commitment and the objective measure for team performance might be that the objective

34 measure for team performance (PPG) only measures the number of points that a team has assembled during a season. However, teams differ in their ranking expectations and goals and the objective measure does not take this relativity into account. When two teams have assembled the same number of points during a season, it is very possible that the perception of transformational leadership and team commitment in both teams might be very different. For example, as a low quality team might have had a great season with high committed team members, whereas a high quality team has had a poor season with low committed team members.

5.2 Limitations Unfortunately, the study contains a number of weaknesses and restrictions hindering the generalizability of the results and corresponding conclusions. The main weakness of this study surely is the cross-sectional method in which it has been conducted. All obtained data followed from a self-report survey conducted at a single point in time, leading to a limitation in generalization as the results from a longitudinal study would probably produce different results. In addition, a convenience sampling method was used to obtain the sample which is a type of non-probability sampling that involves the sample being drawn from that part of the population that is readily available and convenient accessible. However, research that uses a convenience sampling method cannot scientifically make generalizations about the total population from this sample, because the data would not be representative for the population. In addition, also the research population is a consideration in this study, as a sample size of only 122 respondents might be a quite weak basis to build on. Next, the results of the One- way Analysis of Variance indicate that this study may have a multi-level structure. More specifically, ICC(1) values indicate that the dataset indeed consists of respondents nested within several teams and in general, there are better ways and methods to conduct a multi- level study as opposed to the method used in this study. Also, the way the questionnaires were being returned to the researchers might have influenced the obtained data. The questionnaire was preceded by an instruction in which was stated that the participants were able to hand in the questionnaire to their supervisor. Therefore, the data might have been influenced by social desirability in the answers of the participants towards their coach specifically concerning the questions concerning transformational leadership. Moreover, as data was collected at the end of the season, the possibility of reverse causality should be considered, indicating that the perception of the leaders’ characteristics is influenced by the performance (Charbonneau et

35 al., 2001). For example, team members of successful sport teams might be more positive about their coach. Moreover, when reflecting on two similar teams, teams that have recently been successful might get higher scores assigned by the team members than teams that were successful in an earlier stage of the season. More specifically, both teams have earned the same amount of points, but the perception of the members of both teams might be different.

5.3 Future Research Despite shortcomings, this study might be an indication for further research to be conducted, thereby contributing to further clarification of the impact of the relationships between transformational leadership, team commitment and team performance. Based on this study’s results and limitations, several recommendations for further research should be considered. On the account of the cross-sectional design, results of this study are more of theoretical than of practical use. Although this study offers a hint of the existing relationships that are present, a longitudinal research is required in order to establish strong causal relationships for the sports domain. Moreover, the results of the One-way Analysis of Variance have shown that this study probably has a multi-level structure. More specifically, ICC(1) values indicate that the dataset consists of respondents nested within several teams and in general, there are better ways and methods to conduct a multi-level study as opposed to the method used in this study. In general, also the control variables should be better studied and implemented in future research, in order to examine the actual relationships and exclude spuriousness. More specifically, it is possible that different demographic percentages or categories might produce different results. In this study, for example a short term relationship of less than two years between the leader and the team members has been noted. Therefore, future research with different characteristics of the research population, and for example higher coach tenure, is recommended. A positive aspect of this study is the fact that the dependent variable team performance is measured by a subjective as well as an objective measure giving a rather complete report on team performance outcomes. For example, the objective measure for team performance (PPG) only measures the number of points that a team has assembled during a season. However, teams differ in their rank expectations and goals and the objective measure does not take this relativity into account. When two teams assembled the same number of points, it is very possible that the perception of the performance in both teams was very different. For example, a low quality team might have had a great season, whereas a high quality team has had a poor season. A practical

36 recommendation for future research might be to include only teams that are equal in their ranking expectations and team goals. In general, subjective and objective measures for team performance should be used together and should more often be combined in further research, perhaps with different and more extensive scales and more specifically in a study considering a larger sample population.

5.4 Practical Recommendations The sports industry has become more involved in commercial business associations over the years and professional sport clubs itself are more focused on profit and business nowadays. For example, sport coaches such as Guus Hiddink are very popular in the role of guest speaker at business events. Findings offer theoretical implications for team oriented settings, since a relation between transformational leadership behaviour and team performance outcomes has been established. Although this study examines the effect on team performance in the context of sport, HR managers should be aware that similar results might be expected in organizational work settings. By paying attention to leadership characteristics, (sport) organizations might be able to create higher performance outcomes. As stated earlier, the use of work teams has increased in organizational settings and the focus within organizations has been more on work teams and performance on the team level as they believe that teams enhance individual productivity. Organizations should keep in mind that, when recruiting, experts in leadership should be employed on the basis of transformational leadership characteristics, in order to guide the team and properly motivate and communicate with the team. In addition, although this study found mixed results for the role of team commitment, a team’s success still appears to be dependent on the level of commitment. When team members are committed to goals and values of their specific team and have emotional attachments to the team and its members, it seems likely that they would engage in behaviour that would be beneficial to the team. Given the frequency of the use of teams in organizational settings as well as applied settings such as sports, understanding the role of team commitment within teams is particularly important for research and practice in HR. For example, team-oriented activities, such as training or workshops, should be taken into consideration in order to stimulate and improve the emotional affiliation and commitment of the individuals to the team.

37 5.5 Concluding Remark Findings from this study confirm that transformational leadership is a good predictor of team performance. Also, significant positive relationships between transformational leadership, team commitment and subjective team performance have been found. In addition, hypothesizing a causal model in which team commitment mediates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and subjective team performance was also found to be significant for the subjective measure of team performance. However, hypothesizing this same causal model, in which team commitment mediates the positive relationship between transformational leadership and objective team performance, was found not to be significant as the direct effect of team commitment on objective team performance could not be confirmed. Overall, this study provides a basis for further research as well as suggestions for future research by offering additional opportunities to further investigate the effects of transformational leadership and team commitment as well on team performance. Therefore, this study extends the literature that emphasizes the effect of transformational leadership and team commitment on performance measures. Moreover, the results indicate that these relationships are valid in a sports setting and therefore not limited to an organizational setting.

38 6 Reference List

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 7, 441–462. Baarda, D.B., Goede, M.P.M. de & Kalmijn, M. (2000). Basisboek enquêteren en gestructureerd interviewen. Praktische handleiding voor het maken van een vragenlijst en het voorbereiden en afnemen van (schriftelijke) interviews. Houten: Educatieve Partners. Barling, J., Weber, T. & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology 81, 827–832. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Baruch, Y. (1998). The rise and fall of organizational commitment. Human Systems Management, 17, 135–143. Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and others' leadership ratings of Naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 437-454. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J. & Atwater, L. (1996). The Transformational and Transactional Leadership of Men and Women, International Review of Applied Psychology 45(1), 5–34. Bass, B. M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Individual, Military, and Educational Impact Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244. Becker, T. E., & Billings, R. S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: An empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 177-190. Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (1997). Employee commitment and work team productivity. HRMagazine, 11: 107-111.

39 Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An Examination of Organizational and Team Commitment in a Self-Directed Team Environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 439-450. Bryman, A., (2004) Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, UK. Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The Substantive Nature of Job Performance Variability. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations (pp 258-299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J. & Mann, L. (2000). A Short Measure of Transformational Leadership, Journal of Business and Psychology 14(3), 389–405. Charbonneau, D., Barling, J. & Kelloway, K. E. (2001). Transformational Leadership and Sports Performance: The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31(7), 1521–1534. Gilson, C., Pratt, M., Roberts, K. and Weymes, E. (2001) Peak Performance, HarperCollins, London. Givens, R. J. (2007). Transformational leadership: The impact on organizational and personal outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(1). Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902. Jak, S. & Evers, A.V.A. M. (2010). Een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational commitment. Gedrag en Organisatie, 23, 158 - 171. Judge, T. & Bono, J. (2001) Five-factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology 85(5), 751–765. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768. Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36-51. Loenen, A. (2007). High Performance Work Practices, werkstress en prestatie: een onderzoek op afdelingsniveau. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.

40 Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. Meijer, M. (2010). Guus Hiddink: De coach die het succes weet af te dingen. Rotterdam, NL: Lemniscaat. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 61-89. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710-720. Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224 -247. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (version 12). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-270. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476. Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1078-1086. Schalk, R., Hartog, D. den, & Velde, M van der (2002). Psychologische contracten, binding en betrokkenheid. Gedrag en Organisatie, 15(6), 351-354. Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030.

41 Scott, K. D., & Townsend, A. M. (1994). Teams: Why some perform and others do not. HRMagazine, 39, 62-67. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). Motivational effects of transformational leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.

Shamir, B. & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 257-283. Van Calster, B., Smits, T., & Van Huffel, S. (2008). The curse of scoreless draws in soccer: the relationship with a team's offensive, defensive, and overall performance. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 4 (1), 1-22. Van Woerkom, M., Croon, M. (2009) "The relationships between team learning activities and team performance", Personnel Review, Vol. 38 (5), 560 – 577.

42 Appendix I: Scales

Transformational Leadership The Global Transformational Leadership scale [GTL] by Carless, Wearing and Mann (2000) will be used to measure transformational leadership. Participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale measuring behavioural frequency (0 = rarely or never to 4 = very frequently).

My leader: (1) Communicates a clear and positive vision of the future, (2) treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development, (3) gives encouragement and recognition to staff, (4) fosters trust, involvement and co-operation among team members, (5) encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions assumptions, (6) is clear about his/her values and practises what he/she preaches, (7) instills pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent.

Team Commitment The five-item AC scale by Jak & Evers (2010) will be used to measure ‘team commitment’. Participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

1. Ik ervaar de problemen van deze organisatie als mijn eigen problemen

2. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik echt bij deze organisatie hoor

3. Ik voel me emotioneel gehecht aan deze organisatie

4. Ik voel me als ‘een deel van de familie’ in deze organisatie

5. Deze organisatie betekent veel voor mij

43 Team Performance In this study the performance of sport teams is measured subjectively as well as objectively. The subjective measure is defined as ‘the performance of the team experienced by the individual team members’. This emphasizes the affective aspect of team performance, which has been less used in previous literature, especially in sport settings. According to Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp en Gilson (2008) there is more research needed that focuses on the affective aspect (self-reporting character) of team performance.

Team performance is objectively measured by using the mean number of points earned per game [PPG] as an index for overall relative performance (van Calster, Smits, & van Huffel, 2008).

For measuring perceived team performance a subscale by Van Woerkom and Croon (2009) is applied. This scale originally consists of 17 items which measure the effectiveness, quality, efficiency and innovativeness of a team. Participants respond using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1= entirely disagree, 7= entirely agree), with high scores associating with high team performance.

1. Anderen zeggen dat ons team goed presteert. 2. Anderen vinden dat ons team haar doelen bereikt. 3. Ons team weet haar doelen te bereiken. 4. Ons team voldoet aan de verwachtingen. 5. Ons team doet wat het moet doen. 6. Ons team heeft tevreden teamleden / supporters. 7. Ons team levert goede prestaties. 8. Ons team krijgt klachten over de kwaliteit van de geleverde prestaties / wedstrijden. 9. De manier waarop ons team werkt garandeert een goede kwaliteit van de prestaties / wedstrijden.

1 t/m 5 effectiviteit 6 t/m 9 kwaliteit

44 Appendix II: Questionnaire

Onderzoek naar uw beleving van teamprestatie. In het kader van onze studie Human Resource Management aan de Universiteit van Tilburg doen wij onderzoek naar uw beleving van teamprestatie in sport teams. Voor dit onderzoek ondervragen wij sporters die afgelopen seizoen (2009-2010) actief zijn geweest in een selectie-elftal binnen het amateurvoetbal. Naast het onderzoeken van teamprestatie zijn wij ook geïnteresseerd in hoe u tegen andere relaties binnen uw team aan kijkt.

Wij stellen het erg op prijs dat u aan het onderzoek wilt deelnemen. De vragenlijst kunt u in een gesloten envelop teruggeven aan de student (of aan uw trainer) van wie u deze hebt ontvangen.

De gegevens die u invult zullen vertrouwelijk behandeld worden, niemand behalve de onderzoekers krijgt uw antwoorden te zien. De gegevens worden gebruikt voor onderzoek en onderwijs.

In de vragenlijst vindt u stellingen waarover u uw mening kunt geven. Daarnaast vindt u een paar algemene vragen over uw persoonlijke situatie. Lees per onderdeel de bijbehorende instructie en omcirkel uw antwoord.

(Als u afgelopen seizoen niet actief bent geweest voor een selectie-elftal binnen het amateurvoetbal in de regio Noord-Brabant t/m de derde klasse, dan is deze vragenlijst niet voor u bedoeld).

Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt ongeveer 10 minuten.

Bij voorbaat dank namens het onderzoeksteam,

Philippe Claassen, Djordi van Beek en Paul van Manen 0623891699 [email protected]

45 Algemene vragen 1. Wat is uw geboortejaar? 2. Wat is uw nationaliteit? e 3. Wat is uw 2 nationaliteit? 4. Bij welke voetbalclub was u tijdens het seizoen 2009-2010 actief? 5. Hoe lang bent u al onafgebroken lid van het team? 6. Hoe lang duurt uw samenwerking met de huidige coach van het team? 7. Uit hoeveel spelers bestaat de selectie? 8. Hoeveel officiële wedstrijden heeft u dit seizoen gespeeld?

De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op de relatie met uw coach 0= zelden of nooit 1= In hoeverre bent u het eens met... 2= 3= 4= zeer vaak

7. Mijn trainer communiceert een duidelijke en positieve visie van de toekomst 0 1 2 3 4 8. Mijn trainer behandelt zijn staf en spelers als individuen, ondersteunt en moedigt hun ontwikkeling 0 1 2 3 4 aan 9. Mijn trainer geeft aanmoediging en erkenning aan zijn staf en spelers 0 1 2 3 4 10. Mijn trainer bevordert vertrouwen, betrokkenheid en samenwerking onder de teamleden 0 1 2 3 4 11. Mijn trainer stimuleert het zoeken van nieuwe oplossingen voor problemen en stelt vragen bij 0 1 2 3 4 onduidelijkheden 12, Mijn trainer is duidelijk over zijn waarden en oefeningen die hij verkondigt 0 1 2 3 4 13. Mijn trainer laat mijn trots en respect voor de andere teamleden toenemen en geeft mij het gevoel 0 1 2 3 4 dat ik alles aan kan Let op: De volgende vragen hebben andere antwoordcategorieën !! 14. Weet jij als speler hoe tevreden de coach over je is? 1 2 3 4

Altijd (4), Meestal (3), Zelden (2), Nooit (1) 15. Hoe goed begrijpt uw coach uw problemen en behoeften? 1 2 3 4

Volledig (4), Redelijk (3), Niet genoeg (2), Nooit (I) 16. Hoe goed herkent jouw coach je potentieel? 1 2 3 4

Volledig (4), Net zoveel als iedereen (3), Een beetje maar niet voldoende (2), Niet (I) 17. Afgezien van het feit hoeveel autoriteit jouw coach heeft, wat is de kans dat hij persoonlijk geneigd 1 2 3 4 is om zijn macht te gebruiken om jouw problemen op te lossen?

Zeker (4), Waarschijnlijk (3), Wellicht (2), Nee (I) 18. Nogmaals, afgezien van het feit hoeveel autoriteit jouw coach heeft, in hoeverre kan je erop rekenen 1 2 3 4 dat je coach je helpt wanneer je het echt nodig hebt?

Zeker (4), Waarschijnlijk (3), Wellicht (2), Nee (1) 19. Ik heb genoeg vertrouwen in mijn coach dat ik zijn beslissingen zal verdedigen en rechtvaardigen 1 2 3 4 als hij niet aanwezig is om dit te doen.

Zeker (4), Waarschijnlijk (3), Misschien (2), Waarschijnlijk niet (1) 20. Hoe zou je je werkrelatie met je coach karakteriseren? 1 2 3 4

Zeer effectief (4), Beter dan gemiddeld (3), Ongeveer gemiddeld (2); Lager dan gemiddeld (I)

46 De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op de samenhang binnen uw team 1= zeer oneens 2= In hoeverre bent u het eens met... 3= 4= 5= 6= 7= 8= 9= zeer eens 21. Ik geniet niet van het deelnemen aan sociale activiteiten van het team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22. Ik ben ontevreden over het aantal speeltijd dat ik krijg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 23. Ik ga mijn teamleden niet missen als het seizoen eindigt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 24. Ik ben ongelukkig met de winnaarsmentaliteit van het team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 25. Een aantal van mijn beste vrienden maken deel uit van het team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 26. Dit team geeft mij niet voldoende kansen om mijn persoonlijke prestatie te verbeteren 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 27. Ik geniet meer van andere sociale activiteiten, dan van de sociale activiteiten met dit team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 28. Ik hecht waarde aan de stijl van spelen van dit team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 29. Dit team is een van mijn meest belangrijke sociale groepen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30. Mijn team is verenigd in het proberen om de prestatiedoelen te bereiken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 31. Leden van mijn team gaan liever alleen uit dan samen als een team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 32. We nemen allemaal onze verantwoordelijkheid voor verlies of slechte prestaties van ons team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 33. Mijn teamleden doen zelden samen leuke dingen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 34. Mijn teamleden hebben tegenstrijdige aspiraties ten aanzien van de teamprestatie 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 35. Mijn team wil graag samen tijd besteden buiten het seizoen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 36. Als leden van ons team privé-problemen hebben, doet iedereen zijn best diegene te helpen zodat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 we er als team sterker uitkomen 37. Leden van mijn team komen niet samen buiten trainingen of wedstrijden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 38. Mijn teamleden communiceren niet vrijuit over ieder zijn verantwoordelijkheden tijdens wedstrijden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 of trainingen

De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op het vertrouwen in uw (hoofd)coach 1= zeer mee eens 2= In hoeverre bent u het eens met... 3= 4= 5= 6= 7= zeer mee oneens 39. De meeste teamleden vertrouwen en respecteren de coach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. Ik kan met de coach vrijuit praten over problemen die ik ondervind binnen het team, en ik weet dat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 de coach naar me zal luisteren. 41. Als ik mijn problemen met mijn coach gedeeld heb, weet ik zeker dat hij meedenkend en hartelijk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 zal reageren. 42. Ik deel vaak dingen met mijn coach. Ik kan mijn ideeën, gevoelens en verwachtingen volledig bij 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hem kwijt. 43. Ik zou het als een verlies beschouwen als de coach ergens anders zou gaan werken. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44. De coach is professioneel en toegewijd in zijn werk. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45. Gezien de coach zijn vroegere prestaties zie ik geen redden om aan zijn vakbekwaamheid te 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 twijfelen. 46. Ik kan erop vertrouwen dat de coach mijn taak als speler niet moeilijker maakt door slechte 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 coaching. 47. Andere spelers en leden van de trainingsstaf beschouwen de hoofd coach als betrouwbaar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

47 De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op de betrokkenheid binnen uw team 1= zeer oneens 2= In hoeverre bent u het eens met... 3= 4= 5= zeer eens 48. Ik ervaar de problemen van dit team als mijn eigen problemen 1 2 3 4 5 49. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik echt bij dit team hoor 1 2 3 4 5 50. Ik voel me emotioneel gehecht aan deze organisatie 1 2 3 4 5 51. Ik voel me als ‘een deel van de familie’ in dit team 1 2 3 4 5 52. Deze organisatie betekent veel voor mij 1 2 3 4 5

De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op de prestatie van uw team 1= helemaal mee oneens 2= In hoeverre bent u het eens met... 3= 4= 5= 6= 7= helemaal mee eens 53. Anderen zeggen dat ons team goed presteert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54. Anderen vinden dat ons team haar doelen bereikt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 55. Ons team weet haar doelen te bereiken 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 56. Ons team voldoet aan de verwachtingen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 57. Ons team doet wat het moet doen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 58. Ons team heeft tevreden supporters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 59. Ons team levert goede kwaliteit prestaties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60. Ons team krijgt klachten over de kwaliteit van de prestaties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 61. De manier waarop ons team werkt garandeert prestaties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 62. De manier waarop ons team werkt garandeert een goede kwaliteit voetbal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 63. Ons team besteedt de beschikbare trainingstijd goed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 64. Hoe goed vindt u de prestatie van uw team het afgelopen seizoen? 1 2 3 4 5 1= zeer slecht 5=zeer goed 65. Hoe effectief is uw team? 1 2 3 4 5 1= zeer slecht 5=zeer goed

Bedankt voor uw medewerking!

48 Appendix III: Factor Analyses

Table 1: Component Matrix Transformational Leadership.

Items Component 1

Mijn trainer behandelt zijn staf en spelers als ,786 individuen, ondersteunt en moedigt hun ontwikkeling aan. Mijn trainer geeft aanmoediging en erkenning ,768 aan zijn staf en spelers. Mijn trainer communiceert een duidelijke en ,705 positieve visie van de toekomst. Mijn trainer bevordert vertrouwen, ,682 betrokkenheid en samenwerking onder de teamleden. Mijn trainer is duidelijk over zijn waarden en ,663 oefeningen die hij verkondigt. Mijn trainer stimuleert het zoeken van nieuwe ,639 oplossingen voor problemen en stelt vragen bij onduidelijkheden. Mijn trainer laat mijn trots en respect voor de ,547 andere teamleden toenemen en geeft mij het gevoel dat ik alles aan kan.

Table 2: Component Matrix Team Commitment

Items Component 1

Ik voel me emotioneel gehecht aan deze ,853 organisatie. Deze organisatie betekent veel voor mij. ,852 Ik voel me als ‘een deel van de familie’ in dit ,828 team. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik echt bij dit team hoor. ,741 Ik ervaar de problemen van dit team als mijn ,671 eigen problemen.

49 Table 3: Component Matrix Subjective Team Performance

Items Component 1

Ons team voldoet aan de verwachtingen. ,904 Ons team weet haar doelen te bereiken. ,880 Ons team doet wat het moet doen. ,862 Anderen vinden dat ons team haar doelen ,845 bereikt. Ons team heeft tevreden supporters. ,839 Ons team levert goede kwaliteit prestaties. ,832 Anderen zeggen dat ons team goed ,739 presteert. De manier waarop ons team werkt ,697 garandeert prestaties. Ons team krijgt klachten over de kwaliteit ,415 van de prestaties.

50