Master Thesis Human Resource Studies

The relationship between leadership, group cohesion and team performance in professional cycling teams

Name: Carola Groeneveld

Student ANR: 209019 1st Supervisor: Prof. Dr. M. Schalk 2nd Supervisor: Dr. M. Verhagen Project theme: Team obligations and performance Preface This master thesis is part of the final process in order to graduate for my master degree in Human Resource Studies at Tilburg University. Before this master I studied a bachelor Business Studies at the faculty of Economics at the same university. During this bachelor I developed great interest in the human part of business and economics. I was curious and wanted to get a better understanding of the most important and valuable assets of a company, the employees. Therefore I continued my master at the Social and Behavioural Sciences faculty. During my working and cycling career I was especially interested in the way how teams and people work together and in what way a manager or a coach can have influence on this and the final result. Accordingly it is obvious why this topic for research was chosen. Next to that, limited research concerning team obligations and performance was conducted within the sports context. Since cycling is one of my greatest passions and because of the fact that cycling teams are competing in a complex team environment, this thesis became even more interesting to write.

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor René Schalk for his great support, advice and patience during this whole process. In addition, I want to thank my beloved family, dear friends and my great colleagues for their support, motivational speeches and most of all their endless faith in me. It was of indispensable help and motivated me to finish this master thesis.

2

Abstract This study examines the relationship between leadership, group cohesion and team performance within a sports context. Based on previous relevant literature this study hypothesized that transformational leadership is positively related with group cohesion and team performance. Accordingly autocratic leadership was hypothesized to be negatively related with group cohesion and team performance. Next to that, group cohesion was hypothesized to be positively related with group cohesion. A cross-sectional survey research has been conducted among 56 international professional cyclists, cycling for 13 different teams and representing several nationalities by filling out a questionnaire. Additionally, six semi-structured interviews were conducted among cyclists and sports directors. Data was analysed by making use of descriptive statistics and hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Results could not indicate a positive relationship between transformational leadership and group cohesion or team performance. Next to that, a negative relationship between autocratic leadership with group cohesion and team performance could not be significantly confirmed. Finally, the positive relationship between group cohesion and team performance was partially supported.

Keywords: transformational leadership, autocratic leadership, group cohesion, team performance

3

Table of Contents

Preface 2 Abstract 3 1. Introduction 5 2. Theoretical Framework 8 2.1 Cycling Context 8 2.2 Leadership and Group Cohesion 9 2.3 Group Cohesion and Team Performance 10 2.4 Leadership and Team Performance 11 2.5 Conceptual Model 12 3. Method 13 3.1 Description of Test Subject 13 3.2 Procedure 14 3.3 Statistical Analysis 14 3.4 Instruments 15 3.5 Control Variables 17 3.6 Intraclass Correlations 18 3.7 Interviews 18 4. Results 20 4.1 Correlation Analysis 20 4.2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis 21 4.3 Interviews 25 5. Conclusion and Discussion 31 6. References 35 Appendix A: Leadership Scale for Sports 38 Appendix B: Group Environment Questionnaire 49 Appendix C: Factor Analyses 40 Appendix D: CQ Ranking 42

4

1. Introduction “There is no ‘I’ in TEAM”, is a commonly used saying, though it is a fact that a team is a group of a certain number of individuals. One might not always be aware of it, but teams are visible and active in our everyday life: in the supermarket, at work, on the road, at television and so on. A clear example where teams play an important role is in the sports world. Soccer, volleyball, rugby, hockey and basketball are all examples of team sports. At first sight it might sound strange but even cycling is considered to be a team sport. In contrast to soccer, only one individual can win the race, but if you take a further look at how this one (wo)man’s victory is accomplished, one may notice that this victory is an accumulation of the efforts of all the riders of the team. This team performance is best visible during a bunch sprint, when all teams try to set up their own sprint train in order to bring their sprinter in the perfect position to win the race. The cycling team cooperates closely, but only one wins, which means that the cyclists have to deal with a trade-off between individual goals and team goals. But how is it possible to create a successful team, when only one man can climb the podium instead of the whole team? According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993) a team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves accountable. In general, the objective of a team is to improve the overall performance, thus the result of a team should be more than just the sum of all the individuals. Being a member of a team means displaying loyalty to the goals and efforts of the team. Sometimes this might mean sacrificing personal achievements in favour of that of the team (Ellis & Dick, 2003). Arbitrarily putting people together with the best skills, exceptional qualities and a shared common goal is not simply a rule for success. Good examples of this are the national soccer teams. The Netherlands has been blessed with a number of world class soccer players in the past and during some years the Netherlands was even assumed to be one of the best teams in the world, if one looks at the individual qualities of the players. However, despite a lot of great performing individual players The Netherlands has not always been that successful. Obviously it takes more than just selecting the best players in order to create a successful team. During the recent soccer World Cup, Louis van Gaal showed that even with players which seem not that great on an individual level, you can create a well performing successful team. It was obvious to everyone that there was a great team spirit among the players and the staff. The national coach and several players mentioned this all the time during the World Cup event. Louis van Gaal says: ‘Success is all about managing expectations. Discipline is key, not coincidence, the people as a whole are part of the same team with the same goal. The best team wins, not just the best players.’ (Christern, 2014). After Louis van Gaal, Guus Hiddink took over the job of national coach. Hiddink is known for his coaching qualities, especially when it comes to working with national teams which are not high listed on the world ranking. Some may remember how he led the national team of South-Korea to the semi-finals of the world cup in 2002. Considering the individual qualities of the team nobody expected that South-Korea would reach the semi-finals. Apparently, Guus Hiddink possesses the talent to create a team which is greater than the sum of its individual team members by increasing the group cohesion of the team. However his latest results with the national soccer team of the

5

Netherlands, with more or less the same players as Louis van Gaal worked with, were not that successful. It seems obvious that a coach and his way of leadership can have great influence on the team individuals and their performance. It might even appear that not every leadership style is successful on every kind of group setting. The relationship between leadership and group cohesion has been described by a number of researchers (Carron, 1978; Gardner et al, 1996; Shields, 1997; Bredemeier & Bostrom, 1996; Widmeyer et al, 1993). Leadership and group cohesion are central to the development of many groups, the way leaders create and retain high levels of group cohesion can have a strong effect on the way a group performs. Previous research investigated the relationship between leadership behaviour and group cohesion in several different contexts, such as the military context (Bartone & Kirkland, 1991), therapeutic context (Antonuccio et al, 1987) and the organizational context (Podsakoff & Todor). The latter two studies confirm that both consideration and initiating structure leadership behaviour facilitate group cohesion. Shields et al. (1997) provided support for the relationship between leadership and group cohesion in team sports. They found that high task cohesion is fostered by a leadership style that is strong in training and instruction, social support, democratic behaviour, positive feedback and avoids autocratic decision making. Furthermore Westre & Weiss (1991) and Pease & Kozub (1993) also found a positive relationship between leadership behaviour and task cohesion. The literature on group cohesion has provided general support for an effect of team cohesiveness on team performance (Widmeyer et al, 1993). However, according to Mullins (1996) cohesive groups will not necessarily always deliver higher productivity or quality. High levels of group cohesion might lead to increased effort being placed on the social interaction between group members at the expense of performance priorities. In contrast, Ellis and Dick (2003) believe that cohesive groups will generally outperform all others. Previous research (Shields, 1997; Carron et al, 1985; Ntoumanis & Agelonidis, 2004; Ramzaninezhad, 2009; Hoigraard et al; 2006) has mainly focused on highly interdependent team sports such as soccer, volleyball, baseball and softball. The aim of this thesis was to investigate if the same relationships can be found in cycling. The members of a cycling team are more independent and are themselves responsible for training and completing the tasks within a race. Cyclists rarely train together as a team; most of them have personal training coaches, instead of having supervised team trainings on a regular base. Most of the things that happen outside the races is on an individual basis. This specific individual aspect of cycling is what makes it interesting to investigate the relationship between leadership, group cohesion and team performance in cycling teams. Due to the fact that these concepts have been rarely investigated in this kind of context, this research will contribute to the literature about leadership, group cohesion and team performance.

The results of this study aim to provide leaders with new insights about how to create group cohesion and a successfully performing team. It provides leaders with information about how athletes think and perceive a certain kind of leadership and what kind of an effect this has on group cohesion and team performance. Looking to the high use of teams and work groups in organizations, the results of this

6 research might be useful for business life in general in order to create more successful and highly productive teams. The team processes and team roles within a cycling team can be compared with similar teams in a business setting. Teams with independent, self-responsible, and interdependent members also exist in organizations. Therefore the results of this research are not only relevant for the world of sports, but can be useful for the business world as well. Viewing leadership, group cohesion and team performance from a different perspective might lead to new approaches for creating and leading effective and successful teams.

Based on these considerations the research question is as follows:

‘To what extent has leadership an influence on group cohesion and to what extent does group cohesion influence team performance of professional cycling teams?’

This paper will proceed with the theoretical framework, which provides insight into the relations between leadership, group cohesion and team performance. Furthermore, the method, results and conclusion will be presented.

7

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Cycling Context Professional cycling is different than most of other professional team sports, the construction of a cycling team is quite complicated, therefore some background information about the cycling world will be given. Within a cycling race there is only one rider who wins instead of the whole team, though this win is considered to be a team effort, since the whole team is supposed to work for this one rider in order to cross the finish line first. Teams are mostly organized with a team manager, a couple of sports directors, mechanics, soigneurs and on average a number of 25 cyclists per team. However during a race only up to a maximum of nine riders per team can compete within a given race. This means that the composition of a team can be very different for any race and can vary highly throughout the season. It even happens that a cycling team competes in two races at the same day, which means that there are two different teams competing in a different race, each team with nine riders and their own sports director. To understand the complexity and the challenges within a cycling team the different roles will be explained. On top of the cycling team is the team manager, he oversees the team’s commitments, sponsorships, general operations and takes care that all the right people are in place. The team manager however has no direct impact on what happens during the race, or neither decides about team tactics before the race, he has no coaching role. The sports director is the one who decides about the strategy and team tactics during and before the races. He is also the one who decides which riders will race in a given race. The sports directors drive in cars behind the peloton during the race. In some of the professional races the riders are equipped with communication devices, so that the sports director and the riders can communicate with each other. In other races, the riders need to return to the team car in order to discuss with their sports director. The sports director tells the riders what to do and can be considered as a coach, therefore we concentrate on this role when the talk about leadership. However there is not one sports director, since there are so many races, a team normally consists of two to four sports directors. Which means that the riders have to deal with different sports directors during the season. Within the team each rider has their own tasks and responsibilities. The different roles of the riders basically consist of a team captain, a leader and domestiques. The team captain is the one who tells the other riders what to do during the race, he coaches, takes care about the tactics and has the responsibility to change the tactics during the race if the sports director is not around. The team captain is most of the time not the best rider of the team and is not necessarily a winner, but is someone who takes responsibility, is able the make quick decisions and takes care of the team process. The leader is the one who everybody is working for, he is supposed to win for the whole team. The leader can be a cyclist who goes for the general classification in a stage race or has any other specialism, like climbing or sprinting, which makes him the best rider in chance of winning the race. A domestique is also known as a ‘helper’ or a ‘worker’, the domestiques support and help the leader. The domestiques need to drop

8 down their own aspirations of winning, they are supposed to do everything in order to let their leader win. The specific role of a rider within a race can also vary during the season. In a given race a rider can be the leader, while in another race this same rider can be a domestique.

2.2 Leadership and Group Cohesion During the years there have been many studies on leadership. The perspectives on leadership have changed over time and the process has been described in terms of attitudes, styles, authority, interaction, and influences of the leader (Yukl, 2002). Since leadership is a highly studied topic, many definitions have been formed. Haslam (2004) states that leadership is commonly defined as the process of influencing others in a manner that enhances their contribution to the realisation of group goals. Bass (1990) developed the following definition ‘Leadership style is defined as actors or behaviours exhibited by the mentor which influences protégés.’ Well known leadership theories are trait theory, the behavioural approach, the contingency approach and Bass’ theory about transactional and transformational leadership (Haslam, 2004). Most research has been primarily focused on the behaviours of leaders. According to research done at the Ohio State University by Fleishman, generally most leadership behaviours can be placed within two broad categories: consideration and initiating structure. Consideration structure relates to a leaders willingness to look after the interests and welfare of those they lead and also to trust and respect them (Haslam, 2004). This dimension seems to emphasize a deeper concern for group members needs and includes such behaviour as allowing subordinates more participation in decision making and encouraging more two-way communication and teamwork (Fleishman & Harris,1962). Initiating structure relates to the leaders capacity to define and structure their own and their followers roles with a view to achieving relevant goals. These kind of leaders are more task-orientated, give instructions, establish rules and regulations, channels of communications, procedural methods and well-defined patterns of organization that facilitate group goals and objectives (Haslam, 2004). Antonuccio (1987) as well as Podsakoff & Todor (1985) found support that both consideration and initiating structure behaviours facilitate group cohesion. However, some literature suggests that professional athletes prefer an autocratic style of leadership (Crust & Lawrence, 2006). Where the coach is seen as an authoritarian dominant enforcer of discipline to obtain improvements in the (individual) performances and is characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Authoritarian mechanisms refer to the direct management of efforts, such as instructions and formal rules and procedures that may include a regulatory framework for how tasks are carried out (Netland et al, 2012). Within sport settings leadership behaviour has been most frequently studied in the light of Chelladurai and Carron’s (1978) Multidimensional Model of Leadership. Based on previous theories the main proposition of the MML is that athletes’ performance and satisfaction are a function of the congruence among required, actual and preferred leadership. Chelladurai and Carron defined five specific dimensions of leadership behaviours in the sport context on the consideration and initiating structure: training and instruction, democratic behaviour, autocratic behaviour, positive feedback and social

9 support. These dimensions are operationalized in the Leadership Scale for Sports, which is a frequently used instrument in recent research to measure leadership within a sport context. Group cohesion is defined by Lott and Lott (1965) as the property which is inferred from the number and strength of mutual positive attitudes among members of the group. While Bollen and Hoyle (1990) define group cohesion as an individuals sense of belonging to a particular group and his or her feelings of morale associated with membership in groups. Research on group cohesion within a sport context has been predominantly based on Carron et al’s (1985) conceptual model of group cohesion. According to this model, group cohesion consists of four aspects. Individual Attraction to the Group Task (ATG-T) is a measure of individual team members feeling about their personal involvement with the group task, productivity, goals and objectives. Individual Attraction to the Group Social (ATG-S) is a measure of individual team members feelings about personal involvement, desire to be accepted and social interaction with the group. Group Integration Task (GI-T) is a measure of the individual team members’ feelings about the similarity, closeness and bonding within the team as a whole around the group’s task. Group Integration Social (GI-S) measures the feelings about the similarity, closeness and bonding within the team, but for the group as a social unit. Gardner et al (1996), found all five coaching behaviours to be related with both task and social dimensions of group cohesion. Where the leadership behaviours training and instruction, democratic behaviour, positive feedback and social support relate with transformational leadership, while autocratic behaviour is related with autocratic leadership. Based on previous literature the following hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 1a: Transformational leadership is positively related with group cohesion.

Hypothesis 1b: Autocratic leadership is negatively related with group cohesion.

2.3 Group Cohesion and Team Performance Cohesion is a factor that has often been connected to team performance. Most of the time the terms ‘cohesion’ or ‘cohesiveness’ are used to describe a group in which the members all work together for a common goal or one where everyone is ready to take responsibility for group chores (Cartwright, 1968). Empirical research indicated that higher group cohesion was associated with successful sport performance to be related in a number of sports including basketball (Carron et al, 2002), soccer (Murray, 2006) and baseball (Boone et al, 1997). Most research states a positive relationship between group cohesion and performance. For example, Gardner et al (1996) showed that group cohesion is hypothesized to positively influence performance and success. Carron et al (2002) demonstrated a strong positive relationship between cohesion and team success. The results showed that there were no differences between the cohesion-to-success and the success-to-cohesion relationship. Moreover, Netland et al (2012) states a positive relationship between group cohesion and team performance within the cycling context. In contrast, Grieve (2000) found that performance has more impact on cohesion than cohesion has on performance. Next to this, Fox (1984) found no significant relationship

10 between cohesion and success and he showed that there is a conflicting relationship between cohesion and success, since both positive and negative relationships has been found. However, Ramzaninezhad et al (2009) found that successful teams tend to be more cohesive than less successful teams, which suggests a form of causality. There are different views on the concept of team performance and the measurement of team performance. In previous literature team performance was described in forms of productivity, efficiency, employee satisfaction (Cohen & Bailey, 1997) and number of wins (Murray, 2006). Next to that team performance was measured both objectively and subjectively. Since this research takes place within a sports context, team performance will be objectively measured based on the points gathered during a stage race. All together, the following hypothesis was derived:

Hypothesis 2 Higher group cohesion is related to higher team performance.

2.4 Leadership and Team Performance As noted before, leadership plays an important role in creating successful teams. Previous research stated that when teams are used effectively and are provided with proper training, teams could lead to increased production, morale, creativity and innovation (Dionne et al, 2004) in several settings (Kahn, 2003; Shields et al, 1997). Main focus in previous research is on the relationship between transformational leadership and team performance, for example Waldman (1994) discussed improving multi-functional team innovation processes through reliance on transformational leadership, while Bass (1994) discussed improving team decision making skills through the use of transformational leadership. Additionally, Atwater and Bass (1994) presented a general conceptualization of how transformational leadership may interact with and influence team factors like cohesion and conflict management. More specifically, Kahai et al (2000) showed that transformational leaders have a positive influence on group performance because they are more able in overcoming social loafing among group members. Dionne et al (2004) linked transformational leadership with teamwork processes, such as cohesion, communication and conflict management, which eventually lead to higher team performance outcomes. Furthermore Avolio and Yammarino (2002) found empirical evidence of direct effects of transformational leadership on performance, while mediated effects through cohesion were found by amongs others Bass et al (2003) and Carless et al (1995). Nonetheless there is not much known about the leadership impact on performance within sport settings. Literature within the sports domain emphasized that a higher quality manager leads to higher winning percentages and players tend to play better.

As described before, Chelladurai and Carron (1978) defined five specific dimensions of leadership behaviour in sports which were operationalized in the Leadership Scale for Sports. Making use of this instrument and based on previous research to measure the leadership behaviour, the following hypotheses were formed:

11

Hypothesis 3a: Transformational leadership is positively related with team performance.

Hypothesis 3b: Autocratic leadership is negatively related with team performance.

2.5 Conceptual model: Figure 1 provides the conceptual model of this study is. In this schematic overview the expected relationships between the explanatory variables transformational leadership, autocratic leadership, group cohesion and team performance are presented.

Transformational Leadership + + Group + Team Cohesion Performance _

_ Autocratic Leadership

Figure 1: Conceptual model

12

3. Method Since this study aimed to examine the way certain relationships are explained, an explanatory research design will be used. A quantitative method was adapted in order to collect data and test the model and the research hypotheses. Since data were collected only once, this research can be considered to be cross-sectional. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were done with four riders and two sports directors in order to gain further and more fundamental insight in the relationships between the variables.

3.1 Description of Test Subjects Research was conducted among a sample of international professional male cyclists. A cycling team consists on average of 25 riders per team, however during a race only up to a maximum of nine riders per team can compete within a given race. Data were collected during the ‘Eneco Tour’, which took place from the 17th till 24th of August in 2010. The Eneco Tour is an international cycling race with six stages, a prologue and an individual time trial, in Holland and Belgium. The Eneco Tour is certified as an UCI Pro Tour Race, which means that all 18 Pro Tour teams are obliged to participate in this race. Additionally, the organisation can assign teams by their own choice. The study population is based on a total of 37 professional teams, both PRO Tour and Professional Continental teams. Based on an average of 25 riders for each team, a population of approximately 925 individual professional cyclists is formed. Twenty one professional international teams with each 8 riders participated in the Eneco Tour. In total the target population consisted out of 168 cyclists, distributed over 21 teams.

All teams are professional cycling teams, meaning that they are licensed as an official professional cycling team by the UCI as such and that the cyclists are under contract. In total 33 nationalities participated in the race, while the teams originated from eleven different countries. Twenty teams were willing to cooperate and distributed questionnaires to the riders. One team, with mostly French riders, was willing to cooperate, but since the questionnaire was not available in French the sports director decided not to give the questionnaire to his team, since the knowledge of the English language was at a low level. Finally 160 questionnaires were distributed. However, only 13 teams returned the questionnaires. In total 56 cyclists filled in the questionnaire, which is a response rate of 36 percent. Per team between 3 and 8 members completed the questionnaire, with an average of 4,3 respondents per team. The age of the respondents was between 20 and 38 years, with an average of 26,4 years old. Since research was done within professional cycling teams for men, all participants are male. On average the participating cyclists had 4,8 years’ experience as a professional cyclist, raced for 2 teams during their career and were a member of their current team for 2,62 years.

13

Table 3.1 Sample Composition (N=56) Variable Mean SD Age 26,43 3,949 Experience 4,8 3,724 Team membership (in years) 2,62 2,273 Total number of teams as employer 2 1,176

3.2 Procedure Before the first day of the race, during the inscription and administration procedure, I personally gave the questionnaires to all the sports directors and explained the purpose of this study and asked for the team’s participation. In addition, the introduction letter stated the purpose of this study and emphasized that all answers would be treated confidentially. The sports directors were instructed to return the questionnaires the next day during the prologue in Steenwijk or at the start before the second stage in Sint Willebrord and the fifth stage in Roermond. All sports directors were approached personally in order to put some pressure on handing in the questionnaires and emphasize the importance of the questionnaires for the research.

3.3 Statistical Analysis In order to generate statistical analysis of this study, the program SPSS was used. All variables except the objective team performance were studied on an individual level. The objective team performance was measured with group statistics assigned to the individual cyclists.

First of all the data was checked for missing values and errors by using frequency tables. The option ‘Exclude cases pairwise’ was chosen to deal with the missing values. This option only excludes persons if the data for a required specific analysis is missing. Which makes the rest of the data of that person still useful for other analyses. After that descriptive analysis was conducted in order to get an insight about the background of the sample population. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed to examine the underlying structures, internal validity and variability of each variable, to determine if the number of factors and the component loadings of the measured variables were conform to what was expected on the basis of pre-established theories. The factor analysis resulted in the factors transformational leadership, autocratic leadership and group cohesion. Before factor analysis was conducted, the items were examined whether they met the KMO (Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin) index. All values should be higher than 0.6. If this was not the case items were deleted. The reliability of the scales was tested with Cronbach’s Alpha. Cronbach’s Alpha allows for testing whether the items of scale are consistent and measure the same concept. A Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.6 was considered acceptable.

14

Since the variables were tested on an individual level it is interesting to evaluate the group level characteristics, therefore the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were calculated. It is interesting to know the ICC’s since the respondents belong to different teams. By looking into this, one may check whether the individual scores can be aggregated to the team they belong to. ICC 1 and ICC 2 were calculated for the variables transformational leadership, autocratic leadership and group cohesion. Also descriptive statistics analysis was conducted on the variables in order to check for outliers. Next to the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations, multicollinearity was checked. Multicollinearity is a situation in which two or more variables are very closely linearly related (Field, 2009). A correlation of 0.7 or higher would indicate multicollinearity. Since all values were below 0.7, no signs of multicollinearity were found.

In order to test the hypotheses, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was carried out to each of the variables in the model. Multiple regression analysis is used to predict an outcome by a linear combination of two or more predictor variables (Field, 2009). Based on the theoretical expectations and the conceptual model, the independent variable(s) and the control variables were entered in blocks. The first (and second) block contained the independent variable(s) and the control variables were added in the next block. The conceptual model predicts a direct effect between the type of leadership and group cohesion. Therefore group cohesion was used as a dependent variable in the first regression analysis. In the second analysis, team performance was used as the dependent variable. Regression was performed for both transformational leadership and autocratic leadership. The control variables were added to assess if the relationship between the variables would become insignificant due to the presence of these control variables (Pallant, 2005). R² and R² change were analysed to see the how much of the variance of the model was explained by the variables. The regression models were tested for significance, the significance level was set on five percent. Finally, the hypotheses were confirmed or rejected on basis of the results of the regression models.

3.4 Instruments A questionnaire was composted by making use of two existing scales concerning the variables leadership and group cohesion. In the following section it will be explained how the different scales were constructed. The variables were tested with principal component analysis and a reliability analysis. The outcomes of the factor analysis can be found in appendix C.

Leadership The concept of leadership was measured by making use of the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) developed by Chelladurai & Saleh (1978), which can be found in appendix A. The LSS contains 40 items that ask athletes to indicate the frequency with which their coach engages in specific types of coaching behaviour. Item responses are based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’. Scores for each scale are produced by summing the item responses and dividing by the number of items in that category. Following from the Multidimensional Model of Leadership (Carron & Chelladurai,

15

1978) five dimensions will be measured: training and instruction (items 1 to 13), democratic behaviour (items 14 to 22), autocratic behaviour (items 23 to 27), social support (items 28 to 35), positive feedback (items 36 to 40). However, after applying factor analysis on the data we opted for a two-factor solution, concerning the variables transformational leadership and autocratic leadership. Factor analysis did not show a clear underlying structure for the five dimensions stated in previous literature. After removing the autocratic behaviour items 23 to 27 and item 35, the transformational leadership scale has a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0,937, since the KMO value is 0,614 and Bartlett’s test is significant (p= 0,000) the scale is considered to be appropriate. For the autocratic behaviour scale the items 23 to 27 were considered. We removed item 24, since this item had a low correlation with the scale (corrected item-total correlation <0,3) and the Cronbach’s Alpha would increase if this item was deleted. The finale scale for autocratic behaviour, involving items 23, 24, 26 and 27 got a KMO value of 0,595 and p=0,000 for Bartlett’s test. The reliability increased after removing item 24 up to 0,696. Though the KMO value is smaller than 0,6 we still want to take the autocratic scale into consideration, since the Cronbach’s alpha value is higher than 0,6 which was considered to be acceptable.

Group Cohesion The four group cohesion dimensions were measured by a modified version of the Group Environment Questionnaire, which can be found in appendix B. This questionnaire measures the cohesiveness of a team and is widely used for measuring cohesion among sport teams (Carron et al, 1985). The questionnaire consists of 18 items, responses are made on a 9-point Likert scale that ranges from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Previous literature showed that the GEQ measures four aspects, divided into two dimensions.  Individual Attraction to Group – Task: items 2, 3, 6 and 8  Individual Attraction to Group – Social: items 1, 3, 5 and 7  Group Integration – Task: items 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18  Group Integration – Social: items 11, 13, 15 and 17

Scores for each scale are computed by summing the relevant item values and dividing by the number of items in that category. Reliability tests in previous research (Carron et al, 1985) resulted in Cronbach’s alpha’s 0.75, 0.64, 0.70 and 0.76 respectively. Six items of the questionnaire were reversed before carrying out factor analysis, since they were formulated in a negative way, while all other items were questioned in a positive way. After analysing the factor analysis it was chosen to continue with a one-factor solution, despite the proposed four dimensions based on previous literature. The results of the factor analysis did not show a clear underlying structure and factor loadings differed strongly from the existing GEQ dimensions.

16

Based on the one factor solution, there was no need to delete any of the items. The group cohesion scale has a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.774, a KMO value of 0.611 and is significant on Bartlett’s test (p=0.000) , therefore the scale is considered to be appropriate.

Team performance In previous research a number of criteria has been used for measuring team performance. Since team performance is a complex concept to measure, there is no clear definition (Campbell et all, 1996). Beal et al (2003) state that the criteria can be classified into several different views or variables of performance, such as performance as outcome or performance as behaviour. Performance as outcome can be seen as ‘the result of what has been done’ (e.g. group sales, productivity or win records), while performance as behaviour is ‘the process of doing’ (e.g. satisfaction of team members). Since sport teams are mostly judged on their number of successes or their ranking within a specific league, the team performance of the cycling teams will be objectively measured by their Cycling Quotient Team Ranking (www.cqranking.com). This way of measuring team performance is in line with the common indicators of team performance, such as productivity. The rules, categories and point scales according to the CQ Ranking can be found in Appendix D. The CQ value of a team is equal to the sum of the individual CQ values of all riders in that team. CQ-Points are awarded in all races on the UCI calendar during the season 2010. The Eneco Tour is ranked as a 2.PT category race, points that can be gathered for the CQ ranking during this race can be found in appendix D. On basis of their ranking, it is possible to make a distinction between successful and less successful teams on basis of the points they gathered during the season of 2010. Next to this, a comparison of the teams between team performance can be made, only based on the points gathered during the Eneco Tour. These points are based on the stage results and the general classification. This last option will be included, since the data is only gathered from the team members that participated in this specific race, while the points gathered for to final team CQ ranking, is based on the points of the complete team. Since data needs to be studied on an individual level, it means that the respondents of the same team will have the same score on team performance.

3.5 Control Variables According to Glunk and Heijltjes (2009) age and tenure influence the mix of visible (age) and invisible (tenure) attributes of the team members, which can lead to performance implications. Therefore age and team tenure were included as control variables to control for factors that might influence the results of the study in a non-desirable way. Both were measured on a continuous scale. The respondents were asked about these variables in the first part of the questionnaire.

17

3.6 Intraclass Correlations All respondents have individually filled in a questionnaire, which means that all data is measured on the individual level. Since the individual answers can be influenced by the belonging to a team, it is necessary to look at whether the individual scores can be assigned to the team level. Therefore, the intraclass correlations (ICC) were calculated. A one-way Anova analysis was used to calculate the ICC’s in order to evaluate the group-level characteristics of the data. Two different ICC’s were calculated, ICC 1 represents the amount of variance in individual level responses that can be explained by 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 and is not influenced by group size or the number of groups. ICC 2 provides an estimate of the internal consistency reliability of the group means and are therefore affected by group size (Bliese, 2000). The results from the one- way Anova analysis were converted into ICC 1 and ICC 2 values, which are presented in table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Intraclass correlation coefficients on team level

Average Scale N group size ICC 1 ICC 2 F Sig Transformational leadership 56 4,3 0,56 0,85 6,53 0,000 Autocratic leadership 54 4,15 0,26 0,59 2,46 0,016 Group cohesion 54 4,15 0,09 0,30 1,42 0,196

According to Bliese (2000) ICC 1 values should measure a value between 0.05 and 0.20, while ICC 2 should measure a value over 0.5. The ICC 1 values for transformational leadership and autocratic leadership are relatively high, which indicates that a single rating from an individual is likely to provide a relatively reliable rating of the group mean. The ICC 1 of 0.56 for transformational leadership means that 56 percent of the variability in an individual’s rating of transformational leadership could be explained by its group membership. ICC 2 values for transformational and autocratic behaviour state that the reliability of the group means are good. If one looks at the values considering group cohesion we see that both ICC 1 and ICC 2 are low, which means that hardly any variance can be explained by belonging to a team. Next to that the significance value for group cohesion is 0.196, which is bigger than 0.05, indicating there is no statistically significance difference between the mean scores somewhere among the groups. All together, these results offer no support for aggregating the data to the group level, therefore multilevel analysis was not necessary.

3.7 Interviews In total six in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted. Four of them were professional cyclists, from four different teams, three different nationalities and all of them having a different role within the team, like a sprinter, general classification rider, team captain and a worker. The two sports directors that were interviewed were active for two different teams, with their nationalities from The Netherlands

18 and the USA. All of the subjects have been part of more than one team during their career and talked about their experiences over the years and across teams. The semi-structured interviews were administered personally by making use of a couple of subjects and questions. Since the interviews were semi-structured there was a possibility for the respondents to come up with other subjects of interest regarding the research question. The subjects and questions were based on the hypotheses and the conceptual model and contained topics like communication, cohesion, tactics, leadership, rewards, goal setting, team building and team performance. Examples of questions that were asked:  ‘What are the different roles and tasks within your team?’  ‘How does the team prepare before a race, who decides about the tactics?’  ‘How do you communicate before, during and after the race with your team members and the sports director?’  ‘How important is the team atmosphere and what initiatives are taken to create a good team atmosphere?’  ‘What happens if someone does not perform its tasks?’  ‘How are team members rewarded for a job well done?’  ‘Which qualities should a good sports director possess?’

19

4. Results In this section the results of this research will be displayed by means of a correlation analysis, hierarchical multiple regression and an overview of the results of the interviews that were conducted.

4.1 Correlation Analysis At first descriptive analyses was conducted to all variables in order to check for outliers or other irregularities in the data. The means, standard deviations and correlations were calculated. Additionally, the correlation analysis shows the bivariate correlations between the observed concepts and the control variables. Pearson’s correlation was used to describe the strength and direction of the linear relationship between the different variables transformational leadership, autocratic leadership, group cohesion and team performance. The Pearson correlation can range from -1 to +1. A value of +1 is the result of a perfect positive relationship between two or more variables. Conversely, a value of -1 represents a perfect negative relationship. The size of the absolute value provides an indication of the strength of the relationship. In social sciences, a correlation is regarded 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). Correlation provides an indication that there is a relationship between two variables. However it is important to realise that it does not indicate that one variable causes the other. Respectively the means, standard deviations and correlations between the concepts were generated for age, team tenure, transformational leadership (TL), autocratic leadership (AUTO), group cohesion (COH), team performance during the Eneco Tour (TP Eneco) and team performance during the whole season (TP Season). Table 4.1 shows the results.

Table 4.1 Correlation matrix (N=56) Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 26.09 4.42 1.00 2. Team Tenure 2.62 2.27 .54** 1.00 3. Transformational Leadership 3.63 0.53 0.12 .37** 1.00 4. Autocratic Leadership 2.81 0.61 0.00 -0.20 0.06 1.00 5. Group Cohesion 3.29 0.39 0.02 0.13 0.11 0.18 1.00 6. Team Performance Eneco 174.30 170.51 -0.12 0.03 -0.15 0.08 -0.06 1.00 7. Team Performance Season 7066.14 2424.67 -0.15 0.06 -.34* 0.09 0.16 .43** 1.00 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Overall, there are only few correlations significant. A correlation which is not significant indicates that there is no significant correlation between the variables. If we take hypotheses 1a and 1b into consideration, we see that both correlations are not significant. However it is remarkable to note that there is a small positive correlation (r = 0.18) between the variables of autocratic leadership and group cohesion, while in fact hypothesis 1b suggests a negative relationship.

20

Also for hypothesis 2 there was no significant correlation found. Even the direction of the correlation between group cohesion and team performance during the Eneco Tour (r = -0.06) and during the whole season (r = 0.16) differed. Finally hypothesis 3 shows a significant correlation between transformational leadership and team performance during the whole season (r = -0.34). However it states that there is a negative relationship, while in fact a positive relationship was expected. This also goes the other way around for the correlation between autocratic leadership and team performance, though both correlations are not significant it shows a very small positive number.

4.2 Hierarchical regression analysis Though there were only few significant correlations found, we still conducted a hierarchical regression analysis for further testing of the hypothesis, according to the conceptual model. Table 4.2 and 4.3 show the regression analysis on the dependent variable group cohesion. Table 4.4 and 4.5 show the regression analysis on the dependent variable team performance. Since the correlation analysis showed one significant correlation only for the team performance during the whole season, therefore it was chosen to only consider this variable of team performance during the whole season and we did not analyze the regression models for the team performance only during the Eneco Tour. Table 4.2 Results of hierarchical regression analysis on dependent group cohesion (N = 56) Model 1 Model 2 Variable β β Transformational leadership .107 .065

Age -.058** Team tenure .134 R2 .011 .023

Δ R2 .012

F .565 .361 Note. The regression coefficients shown are standardized regression coefficients (β). Statistical significance: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

The results of the regression analyses for hypotheses 1a with group cohesion as being the dependent variable are presented in table 4.2. Model 1 only includes the variable transformational leadership. In model 2 the control variables age and team tenure were added. Both models are not significant. The variable transformational leadership in model 1 explains 1.1% of the variance in group cohesion, which is not a statistically significant contribution. After adding the control variables in model 2, the model explains 2.3% of the variance, which means that the control variables add an additional 1.2% to the variance explained, which is not a statistically significant contribution.

21

Hypotheses 1a states that when a leader is perceived as transformational, the group cohesion will be higher. The results of the regression analysis in model 2, show a slightly positive beta coefficient β = .065, however this is not significant. Therefore hypotheses 1a, transformational leadership is positively related with group cohesion, is rejected.

Table 4.3 Results of hierarchical regression analysis on dependent group cohesion (N = 56) Model 1 Model 2 Variable β β Autocratic leadership .179 .224

Age -.101 Team tenure .225 R2 .032 .066

Δ R2 .034

F 1.620 1.110 Note. The regression coefficients shown are standardized regression coefficients (β). Statistical significance: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 4.3 show the results of the regression analyses for hypotheses 1b with group cohesion as being the dependent variable. Model 1 only includes the variable autocratic leadership. In model 2 the control variables were added. Both models are not significant. The variable autocratic leadership in model 1 explains 3.2% of the variance in group cohesion, however this is not a statistically significant contribution. After the control variables were added in model 2, the model explains 6.6% of the variance, which means that the control variables add an additional 3.4% to the variance explained, which is not a statistically significant contribution.

Hypotheses 1b states that when a leader is perceived as autocratic, the group cohesion will be decrease. However the results of the regression analysis in model 2, show a positive beta coefficient β = .224, which is contrary to the relationship which was suggested in the hypothesis. Moreover the beta coefficient is not statistically significant. Therefore hypotheses 1b, autocratic leadership is negatively related with group cohesion, is rejected.

22

Table 4.4 Results of hierarchical regression analysis on team performance during the whole season (N = 56) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Variable β β β Transformational leadership -.340* -.362** -.456**

Group cohesion .202 .173

Age -.293 Team tenure .362* R2 .116* .156 .183

Δ R2 .040 .092

F 6.425* 4.445* 3.797** Note. The regression coefficients shown are standardized regression coefficients (β).

Statistical significance: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

The results of the regression analyses with team performance as being the dependent variable are presented in table 4.4. Model 1 only includes the variable transformational leadership. Variable team cohesion was added in model 2 and in model 3 the control variables were included. All three models are significant. The variable transformational leadership in model 1 explains 11.6% of the variance in team performance. After adding team cohesion in model 2, the model explains 15.6%, which means that the variable team cohesion adds an additional 4% to the variance explained, which is not a statistically significant contribution (Sig. F change > 0.05). Finally, after controlling for age and team tenure, the model explains 18.3% of variance, which is not a statistically significant contribution.

The results in table 4.4 show a direct positive significant effect (β = .173) of group cohesion on the dependent variable team performance. This indicates that when group cohesion is higher, the team performance will increase. However this is not a significant contribution. Therefore, hypothesis 2, group cohesion is positively related with team performance, is rejected.

Hypotheses 3a states that the more transformational a leader is perceived the higher the team performance should be. However the results of the regression analyses in table 4.4 show an opposite effect than what was expected from the hypothesis. According to model 3 there is a significant negative effect of transformational leadership on team performance (β = -.456, p < .01). This negative relationship is consistent with the significant relationship found in the correlation analysis. Therefore hypotheses 3a, transformational leadership is positively related with team performance, is rejected. Which means that there is no positive relationship between transformational leadership and team performance.

23

Table 4.5 Results of hierarchical regression analysis on team performance during the whole season (N = 56) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Variable β β β Autocratic leadership .087 .059 .106

Group cohesion .153 .124

Age -.263 Team tenure .206 R2 .008 .030 .081

Δ R2 .022 .051

F .371 .745 1.009 Note. The regression coefficients shown are standardized regression coefficients (β).

Statistical significance: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 4.5 shows the regression of autocratic leadership on team performance. Model 1 only includes the variable autocratic leadership. Variable team cohesion was added in model 2 and in model 3 the control variables were included. All three models are not significant, which means that the models do not add any contribution in explaining the dependent variable. The variable autocratic leadership in model 1 explains 0.8% of the variance in team performance. After adding team cohesion in model 2, the model explains 3%. Finally, after controlling for age and team tenure, the model explains 8.1% of variance, which is not a statistically significant contribution.

Hypotheses 3b states that when a leader is perceived as autocratic, the team performance will decrease. In contrast to what the hypothesis suggests, all models show a positive relationship between autocratic leadership (β = .106 for model 3) and team performance. However due to the fact that these models in the regression analysis are not significant, hypothesis 3b, autocratic leadership is negatively related with team performance, is rejected.

24

4.3 Interviews The results of the interviews will be discussed per topic of leadership, group cohesion and team performance by quoting and interpreting some of the statements of the respondents. Quotes of the respondents are labeled with a ‘C’ for cyclists and ‘SD’ for sports directors.

Leadership The respondents all underscored that there are different roles within the team. Not only is there a distinction between the sports director and the riders, but there is also a specific role and task for each of the team members. This role and task specification normally happens before the race during a meeting, where the sports director sets out the tactics.

Within the team everyone has their own specific task, you can not have a team with only leaders or domestiques. It is important that everyone carries out their task in order for the leader to win. (C1)

Before the race we make a plan with the sports director, he is leading in this. However everything can happen during the race, therefore you need a couple of riders within the team who can anticipate on different scenario’s and can make fast decisions. (C4)

I decide about the tactics before the race. I choose one rider who takes responsibility and makes decisions during the race. When there really is a problem during the race and they do not know what to do, they come to me and I take the decision. (SD2)

The task of the sports director is to set out the tactics and how to handle the cooperation challenge within the team. Authoritarian mechanisms are used to facilitate this cooperation. This clear role specification and task orientated way of leadership is accepted and valued by all of the respondents. It seems that too much democracy is not accepted and that an authoritarian leadership style is present. The respondents underscored this authoritarian style:

The sports director is above the riders, so he has the obligation to think about the tactics and communicate this with the riders in order to give them instructions about what to do. (C3)

If every cyclist would give his own opinion, it will become a mess. It just works best if the sports director gives clear instructions. One person has to set out the plan and that is the sports director, or the team captain during the race. As long as there is a plan and clear commands. (C2)

The sports director needs to be the leader. In that sense, he is above us, we are the riders and he is the mastermind. He needs to give us instructions and commands in order to get to a good performance. (C1)

25

I like it best when there is a clear division of tasks before we start a race. I think the riders need this to perform well. Also, riders should not moan about it, but accept it and carry out their task during the race. (C2)

The sports director is the boss. If he has a plan, than it is not for everybody to change this plan. Hierarchy plays a part here. The best riders, they can discuss, but for the other ones, they basically just wait for the orders. (C4)

You need to find a fine line between leadership, being their boss and being their friend. I do not think you can get too close with the riders, but you need to keep your authority in order to be able to give them instructions and commands. Honesty, being straightforward, clarity and credibility are very important for being a good leader. (SD1)

Some respondents emphasized the importance of the team captain in general, and specifically with respect to decision making during the race. It seems that before the race the sports director sets out the tactics, while during the race the team captain is the most important one to make decisions about the tactics to follow.

The sports director gives the instructions before the race and during the race the team captain takes the decisions. He can if necessary change the plan and needs to anticipate quickly. (C1)

There is a sports director who gives advices, but we also have a team captain in the team. The team captain takes most important decisions during the race. (C2)

During the race we are free to change the tactics when the situation changes. But the sports director also says when we need to close the gap and he also gives specific names who needs to do this job.(C3)

In sum, both riders and sports directors state that it is necessary that one person, the sports director, sets out a plan and decides about the tactics upfront. Giving specific tasks and commands to the riders is needed, so that everyone knows what to do. It becomes clear that autocratic behavior and an initiating structure is commended and accepted here. However, during the race the sports director has little impact and only limited ways to communicate with the riders. Therefore the team captain is given responsibility during the race to carry out the plan, but can also adjust the plan and tactics in case the situation of the race changes.

26

Group cohesion The biggest challenge within cycling is to find a way of dealing with the individual goals of one rider and the collective goals of the team. It is highly possible that these goals are contradictory. However, the respondents emphasized that in order to achieve success, you must learn to cooperate. It is almost impossible to succeed without a well-functioning team.

It is like a chain, all riders are a link, if one link does not work properly than the whole chain will block. (SD1)

If you are not a strong bonded team, you can not achieve big team performances. Cycling is a team sport, you should do it all together, so the whole team needs to function properly. We work on this very hard during training camps. (C1)

The best situation is when everyone gets along with each other, the sports director, the riders and the staff. If you work for someone who you like, it is always much easier and you are willing to work harder than when you need to carry out tasks for someone who you don’t like, then you will work less hard. (C4)

The most important thing is the atmosphere in the team, so that everyone deals well with each other. That is my main job, to take care that everyone can work together for one common goal. (SD2)

The respondents commonly agreed upon that group cohesion is necessary to achieve a good team performance. But how do the teams and the sports directors create this cohesion? Some teams are known for their team building activities like survival camps in the hope to create group cohesion and a strong relationship between the team members. Some of the respondents indeed underscored that these kind of activities might help to create team cohesion. However most of them acknowledge that it is a long and difficult process and that it is also a matter of putting the right people together.

You can not really create that, you need to have the right riders that fit together. The sports directors choose the riders for the team and also looked into this. That the guys should fit into the team. That is the bottom line I think. (C3)

The social part is very important to create a strong team. We are a strong team because we always stick together, also during diner and everything. I have the feeling of being part of a family, which makes racing much more fun. (C1)

Teambuilding is good, but you can not create a real close relationship within a week. That has to develop during the races and the season. Every new rider has to prove himself and has to sacrifice himself, they have to do everything for the team. After that it’s ok, I know I can work with you. (C4)

27

As a sports director it is a matter of being a good personality and being open and honest. And you need to have fun together. It needs to be a fun challenge to reach a common goal. (SD2)

Three words that were mentioned frequently by the respondents were ‘trust’, ‘sacrifice’ and ‘appreciation’. Cohesion is particularly important for team members in order to be willing to sacrifice for each other. With good group cohesion, it may be easier to get everyone to work together towards the same goal. Cohesion within cycling is especially important because the winner gets all the attention, while other team members’ contributions are less visible (Netland et al., 2012). Next to that, cohesion is also pointed out as an important prerequisite for dealing with critical incidents in a timely manner, like in a bunch sprint.

Everything is about trust, otherwise you will start doing stupid things. Especially a sprinter needs to blindly trust his team mates. It is all about small things and it is crucial that everybody understands each other and reacts in the right way without thinking. (C1)

In races where we do not have communication devices it is even more important to work with a team captain. Due to this, the cooperation between the individual riders gets bigger, you need to stay close together during the race. Because of that, the group cohesion also gets more important. When things went well and you decided this together, you will pat each other on the back. Before, when there was communication, then it was a decision of the sports director, who took all the credits himself. Without communication it is more up to the riders and then you are even more proud. (C2)

It is important that there is an atmosphere where everybody wants to prove that they are there for a reason and sacrifice themselves for the common goal. It is more easy to create a good team morale with people who are friends and get along well. The riders ánd staff, that is also very important. Also a soigneur does a better job when he feels appreciated. If everybody feels a bit responsible for the results and they feel that they are appreciated and valued, they will sacrifice themselves and do the maximum of what they will do. (C4)

You do not have to be friends in order to do your job. You just have to know what is your role and specific task. If this gets appreciated and valued, than it is ok to put aside your individual goal. (C3)

Another part of group cohesion that was pointed out was the feeling of having an obligation to others on the team. Next to that, some respondents emphasized that there is a kind of a natural social control system among the riders.

If you are not doing your job during the race you will be addressed to that, by the riders but also by the sports director. (C1)

28

The pressure from the riders is more important to me than the pressure from the sports directors. Everyone is watching each other, you will get support and comments from your team mates, like some internal control system. (C2)

Doing your job is also a social question, because it is hard to really get friends with someone you feel who is not working as hard. That is a kind of social control. If you do not see anybody sacrificing themselves in the front, then you think ‘Well there is nobody there anyway so it is not only my responsibility. I am not the one who is doing it wrong.’ But if you are the only one who is not in the front, you will feel guilty and sacrifice yourself one more time for the team. (C4)

In sum, the interviews suggest that the riders and sports directors value group cohesion. They acknowledge that it is important in order to get a well-functioning team, which cooperates together for a common goal. However, they all admit that it is hard to really create this group cohesion. Specific subjects that were highlighted and mentions as important variables of being part of a good group atmosphere were trust, appreciation, sacrifice and social control.

Team performance In order to achieve a great team performance it seems necessary that some riders put aside their own individual goals in favour of that of the team’s common goal. As stated before, this is one of the biggest challenges within a cycling team, since only one rider of the team can take the win and receives a great deal of attention.

There can not be total democracy in a team, because every rider wants to have the best possible situation for themselves .That is also the clash between the independent and the team aspect of the sport. Of course you want the team to win, but you also want some good results yourself. (C4)

We made an agreement that even when you do not agree with the tactics or the plan, you just do what the sports director or captain says. After the race during the evaluation you can express your own thoughts, but during the race you need to execute your tasks for 100%. At that moment you are subordinate to your sports director and captain. (C1)

Therefore, a main issue is to get the team to agree to work towards the same goal and to make sure that everyone on the team understands the goal and the consequences of the goal. From the respondents it is emphasized that appreciation plays an important role in this.

It is very important for the team morale and the pure workers, that everyone feels appreciated. Especially for the contract negotiations. Because when they know they need to show some results for a new contract, they are less willing to work for the leaders. They need to feel confident if they do their job, especially when this does not give them good personal results. This is really the most

29

important thing if you want a strong team spirit where everybody is doing their maximum for one or two persons. (C4)

Some respondents admitted that it happened that some riders did not do the job which they were assigned to. Especially when there is more than one rider in the team who can win the race it gets more difficult to get all of the team members doing the right thing for that one person. However, when someone is not doing the things he should do, he will get told.

When a rider is not doing his job properly, we will discuss this with the sports director, but preferably first with the rider himself. However a lot of times that is not possible. Then we will have a team meeting in the evening where we will discuss this. (C1)

When someone did something without discussing it, he will get chided for. (C2)

Tension between the work that needs to be done for the team and the desire to achieve a good result for yourself is definitely present. Next to appreciation, there is also a reward system in order to stimulate team performance. Generally, the price money gets equally divided among the riders. In some cases, the winner of the race even organises an extra reward for his team members. However, in the extreme case, when a rider did not finish the race, despite he was in good condition, he will not share in the price money.

You acknowledge your team members’ work just by saying it, and this aspect is really important to keep a strong team. But also by giving the price money to the team and not taking it yourself. When I won a big classic race, I bought a watch for everybody on the team. But most important thing is showing your respect to appreciate their work. Especially the team captain should never forget to do that. (C3)

If a rider does not perform well and is not able to do his job for the team, he will not share in the price money. This is getting decided by the sports director and team captain. The team captain will discuss it with the other riders and he will indicate this to sports director. If the sports director agrees, this rider will not get his share. If you are participating in a stage race and you need to step out, due to illness, a crash or whatever, you will share in the price money until the stage you were still in the race. (C1)

Overall it becomes clear that it is nearly impossible to achieve a great team performance without some riders having to sacrifice their own individual chances. Cooperation problems may have big consequences on how a team performs. Getting all the team members agreed upon and working for the same goal, might be the biggest challenge within a cycling team.

30

5. Conclusion and Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between leadership, group cohesion and team performance in a cycling context. A total of 56 professional cyclists of 13 teams filled in a questionnaire. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted among four professional cyclists and two sports directors. Based on previous research it was expected that there would be a positive relationship between transformational leadership and group cohesion. A negative relationship was expected between autocratic leadership and group cohesion. Both hypotheses were not confirmed, however. The results of correlation and regression analysis were not significant, and therefore a relationship between leadership and group cohesion was not supported. Moreover, in contrast to the expectations based on previous studies, there was a positive relationship between autocratic behaviour and group cohesion. The interviews provided evidence that group cohesion gets underscored as being an important aspect in being a successful team, but did not highlight what kind of leadership would facilitate group cohesion. Secondly, group cohesion was expected to be positively related to team performance. This hypothesis was partially supported. A positive, however not significant, relationship was found. All interviewed respondents stated that they indeed believe that group cohesion contributes to good team performance. In their view, group cohesion is necessary in order to be able to be loyal to the goals and efforts of the team and even sometimes this means sacrificing personal achievements in favour of the team, which is in line with Ellis & Dick (2003). Especially in cycling teams it appears to be a big challenge to find a way of dealing with the individual and collective goals, since there is only one rider who gets the win, instead of the whole team. Finally, based on previous research, this study also expected a positive relationship between transformational leadership and team performance. However, this hypothesis had to be rejected. In the correlation and the regression analysis a negative significant effect was found between transformational leadership and team performance, indicating that the more a leader shows transformational behaviour, the lower the team performance is. On the other hand, a negative relationship between autocratic behaviour and team performance was expected. Based on the results this hypothesis had to be rejected, since there was no significant direct effect. The interviews showed that autocratic behaviour, an initiating structure and a task oriented way of leadership is present and valued by both riders and sports directors in order to achieve good team performance. They all state that it is necessary that one person, the sports director and or the team captain, sets out the tactics and gives specific instructions to all of the team members.

The complex context of the cycling world made this research interesting, but also difficult to generalize. There are several factors making the cycling context a complex environment to study with reference to leadership, group cohesion and team performance. The cycling sport is different from any other team sport, since for most team sports it goes that the whole team wins and gets all the rewards and attention, while in cycling only the individual winner gets on the podium. Cycling is a special sport, in the way that it seems an individual sport, however teamwork is highly involved. In cycling only one man can

31 cross the finish line first, which means all the other ones lose. However a lot of teamwork preceded this one man’s victory, which means that team members have to sacrifice themselves for the common goal, while not even winning themselves. Of course, everybody would like to win a race, especially when one needs to earn a new contract, though the common goal should always be bigger than the individual goal. It is obvious that a rider with a lot of victories has a better bargaining position for a new contract than a domestique rider. The biggest challenge within cycling is to find a way of dealing with the individual goals of one rider and the collective goals of the team. It is highly possible that these goals are contradictory, this makes it even more complicating to achieve a great team performance. Next to this, the fact that a team consist of 25 riders and several sports directors, while only nine riders and one sports director can compete within a race makes it hard to speak about one team for the whole season. The team composition changes all the time, which makes it difficult to research one given team over a longer period of time. Besides, the riders have to deal with different sports directors, team members and different roles during the season. The fact that a team consists of more than one sports director makes it even more complicated. There is not one fixed coach or leader during the season who tells the riders what to do. It might be possible that one rider is satisfied and performs well with one sports director, while they underperform with another sports director and this might be the other way around for a different rider. Also, a rider can be considerd to be a leader in the beginning of the season and is expected to win a race, while in another race he is expected to be a domestique. This continuous change of environment, people and expectations might be conflicting and confusing for the team members. All these factors make it hard to study teams within the cycling context. In theory it might look like a team, but in practice it is a continuously changing team. Taking leadership into consideration, there is another conflict. In races where communication devices are not allowed, it seems that the team captain has more impact on the team tactics and team performance than the sports director. It is questionable who is more of a leader in this case, the team captain or the sports director. A good team captain could be able to make up for weak leadership of the sports director.

It is important to realize that this study contains a number of weaknesses and limitations, hindering the generalizability of the results and corresponding conclusions. The most important limitation is the research population and the sampling method. The sample size consisted of 56 cyclists. Next to that a convenience sampling method was used, which is a non-probability sampling technique where subjects are selected because of the ease of their availability or access. This makes the sample not representative for the total population, which leads to a limitation of the generalizability of the results. A cross-sectional design was chosen, which means that all data was collected at one single point in time, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions on causality. It might be possible that cyclists are influenced by their current performance during the Eneco Tour, which is known as reversed causality. It is possible that team members are more positive about certain variables in times of good performance. Another limitation is the way how the variable team performance was measured. Since the team

32 performance was only measured objectively by means of the CQ ranking of the team, and not in a subjectively way by means of a questionnaire, all individual team members received the same result for the variable team performance. This made it more difficult to make a distinction between the results on an individual level. Measuring team performance on both an objective and subjective way might have resulted in different conclusions. Also, the way the questionnaires were distributed and collected might have led to social desirable answers. Although it was clearly emphasized in the introduction of the questionnaire that all answers would be treated confidential, the respondents may have had the feeling that their sports director would read it, since he distributed and collected the questionnaires. Finally, the team members of the team during the Eneco Tour were only put together for this race. The team members did not prepare together specifically for this race. However this is a given problem within the cycling context.

Despite several limitations and shortcomings, this study can provide a contribution to the recent literature. The scientific relevance of this study is most importantly the context in which it was conducted. Hardly any research has been done within the cycling context or with reference to teams within an organization which are composed the same way as a cycling team, which means of continuously changing compositions. Next to that the unexpected results give new insights in the relationship between leadership, group cohesion and team performance within a complex setting, especially when there is a big tension between the individual and collective goals. However further research is recommended considering the results and the way the data was obtained in this study. First of all a bigger sample size is recommended in order to create greater generalizability of the results. Together with this a longitudinal research is required to verify the causal relationships in a better way. This would also lead to downgrade the presence of reversed causality. Another aspect which could be studied is the role of the team captain. As became clear from the interviews, the team captain plays a very important role within the team, especially during the race. It could be possible that the team captain owns more influences on how the team behaves and performs than the sports director. Finally as mentioned before, it is recommended to measure team performance both objectively and subjectively in order to give a better and more specific insight in this variable. By measuring team performance subjectively, the data is better to analyse on an individual level. Besides the objective performance, where only the number of points is taken into account, teams and team members differ in their expectations and goals for a given season. A team with the same amount of points can have a total different feeling and perception of their current team performance. A low quality team, with for example less good individual riders and less financial resources, might have had a great season, while a team with the same amount of CQ points, but with better riders and more financial resources, might have had a very disappointing season. Therefore it is recommended to both measure objective and subjective team performance in future research. Since team compositions continuously change during the season it is recommended for future research to focus on a specific fixed team, during a specific race. For example, focusing on a team who

33 prepares and races the Tour de France. This race is so important, that a limited number of riders is pre- selected and follows a specific preparation together prior the event. Due to this pre-selection and preparation, we can speak in this situation more about a fixed team with a very specific common goal. In this way the test results might me more applicable and generalizable.

The practical relevance of this study can be found in the fact that, although there are differences between sports and organizational teams, understanding the studied relationships in this specific complex context might be useful in an organizational setting. It is likely that in some organizations a more or less same situation exists, where individual goals clash with organizational goals and where one have to cope with continuously changing team compositions. It might be that in these situations a more autocratic or at least initiating structure of leadership should be used in order to achieve the common goal. Especially in situations where stress and a fast changing environment exist. Nonetheless, paying attention to the leadership style and leader characteristics might lead to higher team performance. Organizations should be aware that not every leadership style is applicable and successful to every team or every situation. Although I did not find statistical evidence for a relationship between group cohesion and team performance, in the interviews it was clearly stated that a combination of trust, value and appreciation is highly of influence on the willingness of the team members’ cooperation, commitment and scarification. Organizations should be aware that when team members feel trusted, valued and appreciated they are more likely to engage in behaviour that is beneficial for the team. Especially HR departments and managers should take this into account when evaluating, judging and rewarding an employee.

In conclusion, this study emphasizes the importance of looking into leadership behaviour in relationship with group cohesion and team performance. It shows that these relationships are complex, especially within the cycling context and that transformational leadership is not applicable for every situation.

34

6. References

Antonuccio, D.O., Davis, C., Lewinsohn, P.M., Breckenridg, J.S. (1987). Therapist variables related to cohesiveness in a group treatment for depression. Small Group Behavior, 18, 57-564

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the Components of Transformational and Transactional Leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizatonal Psychology, 72, 441-462

Bass, B.M. (1990). ‘Stogdill’s handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research’. New York Free Press

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), Predicting Unit Performance by assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 2, 207-218

Bliese, P.D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69, 479-504.

Boone, K. S., Beitel, P., Kuhlman, J. S. (1997). The effects of the win/loss record on cohesion, Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 125

Campbell, J.P., Gasser, M.B. and Oswald, F.L. (1996). The substantive nature of performance variability. Individual differences and behaviour in organizations, 258-299

Carron, A. V. (1978). Role behavior and the coach-athlete interaction. International Review of Sport Sociology 21, 215-234.

Carron, A.V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981a). The dynamics of group cohesion in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 123-139.

Carron, A.V. and Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesion as a factor in sport performance. International Review of Sport Sociology, 16, 2-41.

Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W.N. and Brawley, L.R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244- 266

Carron, A.V, Bry, S.R., Eys, M.A. (2002). Team cohesion & team success in sport. Journal of Sport Science, 20, 119-126

Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness, in D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed.). New York: Harper &; Row.

Chelladurai, P.& Saleh, S. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of Appled Sport Sciences, 3, 85-92

Christern, M. (2014). Louis van Gaal. Wat managers van zijn methode kunnen leren. Retrieved from http://www.nrcq.nl/2014/07/07/louis-van-gaal-wat-managers-van-zijn-methode-kunnen-leren

35

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.

Crust, L. & Lawrence, I. (2006). A Review of Leadership in Sport: Implications for Football Management. The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(4), 28-48.

Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E., Spangler, W.D. (2004). Transformational leadership and Team Performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 2, 177-193

Ellis, S., & Dick, P. (2003). Introduction to Organizational Behaviour. London, McGraw- Hill.

Farrand, S. (2014). Tinkoff-Saxo head to Africa to climb Mount Kilimanjaro. Retrieved from http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tinkoff-saxo-head-to-africa-to-climb-mount-kilimanjaro

Fleishman E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15, 43-56.

Gardner, D. E., Shields, D. L., Bredemeir, B. J., Bostrom, A. (1996). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and team cohesion among baseball and softball players. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 367-381.

Glunk, U., & Heijltjes, M.G., (2009). Changes in the top management team: Performance implications of altering team composition.

Grieve, F.G., Whelan, J.P. and Meyers, A.W. (2000). An experimental examination of the cohesion- performance relationship in an interactive team sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12, 219-235

Guzzo, R.A. and Shea, G.P. (1992). Group Performance and intergroup relations in organizations. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 268-313

Haslam, S.A. (2004). ‘Psychology in Organizations, The Social Identity Approach’. London, SAGE Publications Ltd.

Hoigaard, R., Säfvenbom, R., Tonnessen, F.E. (2006). The relationship between group cohesion, group norms and perceived social loafing in soccer teams. Small Group Research, 37, 217-232.

Kahn, L.M. (1993). Managerial Quality, Team Success and Individual Player Performance in Major League Baseball. Industrial & Labor Relations Review. 46 (3), 531

Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Lott, A.J. and Lott, B.E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as inter personal attraction: a review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychology Bulletin, 64, 259-309

Mullins, L. (1996). Management and Organizational Behaviour. Pitman

Murray, N. P (2006). The Differential Effect of Team cohesion and Leadership Behavior in High School Sports, Individual Differences Research, 4, 216-225

Netland, K.O., Schei, V., Sverdrup, T.E. (2012). The winner takes all: a qualitative study of cooperation on cycling teams. Scandinavian Sport Studies Forum 3, 189-209

Ntoumanis, N., & Aggelonidis, Y. (2004). A psychometric evaluation of the Group Environment Questionnaire in a sample of elite and regional level Greek volleyball players. European Physical Education Review, 10, 261-278

36

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., & Todor, W.D. (1985). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and group processes and productivity. Journal of Management, 11, 55-73.

Ramzaninezhad, R., Keshtan, M.H., Shahamat, M.D., Kordshooli, S.S. (2009). The relationship between collective efficacy, group cohesion and team performance in professional volleyball teams. Brazilian Journal of Biomotricity, 3, 31-39.

Shields, D.L.L., Gardner, D.E., Bredemeier, B.J.L., Bostro, A. (1997). The relationship between leadership behaviors and group cohesion in team sports. The Journal of Psychology, 131(2), 196-210.

Westre, K., & Weiss, M. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 41-54.

Widmeyer, W. N., Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R. (1993). Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, L. K. Tennant (Eds.) Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 672-692). New York: Macmillan.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

37

Appendix A Leadership Scale for Sports:

My sports director… 1. Sees to it that every cyclist is working to his capacity. 2. Explains to each cyclist the techniques and tactics of the sport. 3. Pays special attention to correcting cyclist’s mistakes. 4. Makes sure that his part in the team is understood by all the cyclists. 5. Instructs every cyclist individually in the skills of the sport. 6. Figures ahead on what should be done. 7. Explains to every cyclist what he should and what he should not do. 8. Expects every cyclist to carry out his assignment to the last detail. 9. Points out each cyclist’s strengths and weaknesses. 10. Gives specific instructions to each cyclist as to what he should do in every situation. 11. Sees to it that the efforts are coordinated. 12. Explains how each cyclist’s contribution fits into the total picture. 13. Specifies in detail what is expected of each cyclist. 14. Asks for the opinion of the cyclists on strategies for specific races. 15. Gets group approval on important matters before going ahead. 16. Lets his cyclists share in decision making. 17. Encourages cyclists to make suggestions for ways of conducting practices. 18. Lets the group set its own goals. 19. Lets the cyclists try their own way even if they make mistakes. 20. Asks for the opinion of the cyclists on important coaching matters. 21. Lets cyclists work at their own speed. 22. Lets the cyclists decide on the strategies to be used in a race. 23. Works relatively independent of the cyclists. 24. Does explain his action. 25. Refuses to compromise a point. 26. Keeps to himself. 27. Speaks in a manner not to be questioned. 28. Helps the cyclists with their personal problems. 29. Helps members of the group settle their conflicts. 30. Looks out for the personal welfare of the cyclists. 31. Does personal favours for the cyclists. 32. Expresses affection he feels for his cyclists. 33. Encourages the cyclist to confide him. 34. Encourages close and informal relations with cyclists. 35. Invites cyclists to his home. 36. Compliments an cyclist for his performance in front of others. 37. Tells an cyclist when he does a particularly good job. 38. Sees that an cyclist is rewarded for a good performance. 39. Expresses appreciation when an cyclist performs well. 40. Gives credit when credit is due.

38

Appendix B Group Environment Questionnaire

1. I do enjoy being part of the social activities of this team. 2. I am unhappy about the number of races I ride. 3. I am going to miss the members of this team when the season ends. 4. I am unhappy with my team’s level of desire to win. 5. Some of my best friends are on this team. 6. This team does give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance. 7. I enjoy other social events more than the social activities associated with my team. 8. I like the racing style in this team. 9. This team is one of my most important social groups. 10. Our team is united in trying to reach its performance goals. 11. Members of our team would rather socialize on their own than get together as a team. 12. We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team. 13. Our team members rarely socialize together. 14. Our team members have conflicting aspirations regarding the team’s performance. 15. Our team would like to spend time together in the off-season. 16. If members of our team have problems in practice, everyone wants to help them so we can get back together again. 17. Members of our team do stick together outside of trainings and races. 18. Our team members do communicate freely about each cyclist’s responsibilities during competition or practices.

39

Appendix C Factor Analyses

Factor Analysis Transformational Leadership (n=56) Items Factor 30. Looks out for personal welfare of the cyclists. ,732 33. Encourages the cyclist to confide him. ,731 39. Expresses appreciation when a cyclist performs well. ,720 29. Helps members of the group settle their conflicts. ,682 13. Specifies in detail what is expected of each cyclist. ,654 3. Pays special attention to correcting cyclist's mistakes. ,638 37. Tells a cyclist when he does a prticularly good job. ,634 10. Gives specific instructions to each cyclist as to what he should do in every situation. ,615 17. Encourages cyclists to make suggestions for ways of conducting practices. ,603 7. Explains to every cyclist what should and what he should not do. ,601 11. Sees to it that the efforts are coordinated. ,595 16. Lets his cyclist share in decision making. ,589 34. Encourages close and informal relations with cyclists. ,578 12. Explains how each cyclist's contribution fits into the total picture. ,575 14. Asks for the opinion of the cyclists on strategies for specific races. ,565 5. Instructs every cyclist individually in the skills of the sport. ,564 9. Points out each cyclists strengths and weaknesses. ,557 19. Let the cyclists try their own way even if they make mistakes. ,553 6. Figures ahead on what should be done. ,552 32. Expresses affection he feels for his cyclists. ,552 31. Does personal favours for the cyclists. ,552 8. Expects every cyclist to carry out assignment to the last detail. ,541 36. Compliments a cyclist for his performance in front of others. ,525 40. Gives credit when credit is due. ,525 28. Helps the cyclist with personal problems. ,522 38. Sees that a cyclist is rewarded for a good performance. ,510 20. Asks for the opinion of the cyclists on important coaching matters. ,504 4. Makes sure that his part in the team is understood by all cyclists. ,497 15. Gets group approval on important matters before going ahead. ,496 1. Sees to it that every cyclist works to his capacity. ,487 2. Explains to each cyclist the techniques and tactics of the sport. ,471 18. Lets the group set its own goals. ,464 21. Let cyclists work at their own speed. ,422 22. Lets the cyclist decide on the strategies to be used in a race. ,371 Eigenvalue 11,038 % Variance explained 32,466

40

Factor Analysis Autocratic Leadership (n=54) Items Factor 27. Speaks in a manner not to be questioned. ,836 26. Keeps to himself. ,815 25. Refuses to compromise a point. ,661 23. Works relatively independent of the cyclists. ,520

Eigenvalue 2,070 % Variance explained 51,759

Factor Analysis Group Cohesion (n=54) Items Factor 4. I am unhappy about my team's level of desire to win. ,610 14. Our team members have conflicting aspirations regarding the team's performance. ,570 18. Communicate freely about responsibilities ,569 10. Our team is united in trying to reach its perfromance goals. ,554 7. I enjoy other social events more than the social activities associated with my team. ,553 13. Our team members rarely socialize together. ,553 17. Members of our team do stick together outside of trainings and races. ,528 2. I am unhappy about the number of races I ride. ,526 15. Our team would like to spend time together in the off season. ,474 12. We all take responsiblity for any loss or poor performance by our team. ,455 16. If members of our team have problems in practice, everyone wants to help them so we ,436 can get back together again. 1. I do enjoy being part of the social activities of this team. ,393 6. This team does give me enough pportunities to improve my personal performance. ,374 11. Members of our team would rather socialize on their own than get together as a team. ,369 8. I like the racing style in this team. ,353 9. This team is part of my most important social groups. ,321 3. I am going to miss the members of this team when the season ends. ,318 5. Some of my best friends are in this team. ,302

Eigenvalue 3,817 % Variance explained 21,208 Items 2, 4, 7, 11, 13 and 14 were reversed before conducting factor analysis.

41

Appendix D Race Categories used for the CQ ranking

Code Category Races Stage Races GT1 Grand Tour - Category 1 Tour de France GT2 Grand Tour - Category 2 Giro d'Italia & Vuelta a España

Tour Down Under, Vuelta al Pais Vasco, Tour de 2.PT Small ProTour Stage Race Romandie, Volta a Catalunya, Dauphiné Libéré, Tour de Suisse, Eneco Tour, Tour de Pologne

Critérium International, Driedaagse van De Panne, 4 Jours de Dunkerque, Bayern Rundfahrt, Ronde van België, Tour de Luxembourg, Österreich- Stage Race 2.HC continental 2.HC Rundfahrt, Tour de Wallonie, Post Danmark calendar Rundt, Vuelta a Burgos, Volta a Portugal, Tour of California, Tour of Missouri, Tour de Langkawi and Tour of Qinghai Lake

Etoile de Bessèges, Tour Méditerranéen, Giro della Provincia di Grosseto, Ruta del Sol, Volta ao Stage Race 2.1 continental 2.1 Algarve, Tour du Haut Var, Giro di Sardegna, ... calendar and many others. Until 2004 defined as category 2.2 and 2.3. Stage Race 2.2 continental 2.2 Until 2004 defined as category 2.5. calendar Stage Race 2.2 continental 2.2U calendar U23 2.NC Stage Race Nations Cup U23 Source: http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/categories.asp?year=2010

42

CQ ranking point scale General Classification 2.PT & 2.2 & GT1 GT2 2.HC 2.1 2.NC 2.HIS 2.2U 1 600 500 240 160 110 50 25 2 460 375 180 120 83 38 19 3 380 315 145 98 66 30 15 4 320 270 132 88 58 26 12 5 290 245 120 80 50 23 9 6 260 220 108 72 44 20 7 7 230 195 96 64 38 17 5 8 200 170 85 56 33 14 3 9 180 152 74 48 29 11 2 10 160 134 63 40 25 9 1 11 140 116 55 35 21 7 12 130 107 49 30 18 5 13 120 99 44 27 15 3 14 110 91 39 24 12 2 15 100 83 34 21 10 1 16 94 78 31 19 9 17 88 74 28 17 8 18 82 71 25 15 7 19 77 68 22 13 6 20 72 65 20 11 5 21 67 62 18 10 22 65 60 16 9 23 63 58 14 8 24 61 56 12 7 25 59 54 11 6 26 57 52 10 5 27 55 50 9 5 28 53 48 8 5 29 51 46 7 5 30 49 44 6 5 31 47 42 5 5 32 45 40 5 5 33 43 38 5 5 34 41 36 5 5 35 39 34 5 5 36 37 32 5 5 37 35 30 5 5 38 33 28 5 5 39 32 27 5 5 40 31 26 5 5 41 30 25 5 5 42 29 24 5 5 43 28 23 5 5 44 27 22 5 5 45 26 21 5 5 46 25 20 5 5 47 24 19 5 5 48 23 18 5 5 49 22 17 5 5 50 21 16 5 5 >50 20 15 5 Source: http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rules.asp

43

CQ ranking point scale Stages

2.PT & 2.2 & GT1 GT2 2.HC 2.1 2.NC 2.HIS 2.2U Leader 20 18 10 8 6 3 2 1 80 70 40 25 20 8 4 2 50 40 25 15 10 4 2 3 35 25 15 10 5 2 1 4 25 15 10 5 3 5 15 10 5 3 6 10 7 3 7 5 5 2 8 3 3 1 9 2 2 10 1 1

In GT1-, GT2-, 2.PT- and 2.HIS-races, the same amount of points is awarded to the riders in the final points classification and the final mountains classification as to those in the stage results. Points for the race leader are awarded in all stages, except the last one.

Source: http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rules.asp

44

Rules CQ ranking CQ-Points are awarded in all races on the UCI calendar.

Individual ranking

 The CQ value of a rider is based on his results of the past 12 months. After a race, the points scored by a rider are added to his previous CQ value, while the points scored in that same race the previous year are substracted.  The previous rule keeps counting when the date of a race changes. This means that it is possible that some points are taken into account for a period longer or shorter than 12 months.  When a race is not organized in the course of a year, the points of the previous edition are substracted 52 weeks later.  Points scored in a stage race will be added to a rider's CQ value after the final stage.  When the result of a race is changed afterwards (doping sanction, disqualification,...), the changes will be taken into account immediately.  In a team time trial the points on the scale will be awarded to the team. For the individual ranking, these points will be divided by 4 and rounded downwards. The points will be awarded to all riders classified in the time that counts for the team classification.

Exception: In the ProTour TTT in Eindhoven all riders who finish receive points.

 In a duo time trial the points will be divided by 2 (and rounded downwards).  Ex-aequo's: o Inside the top-5: All riders receive the average amount of points. o Outside the top-5: All riders receive the amount of points corresponding to their position.

Team ranking The CQ value of a team is equal to the sum of the individual CQ values of all riders in that team.

Country Ranking The CQ value of a country is equal to the sum of the individual CQ values of the top 10 riders of that country.

Source: http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rules.asp

45