The Coach As a Leader

THE COACH AS A LEADER

DARREN ABDILLA

Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the UEFA PRO Diploma 2015- 2017 in the Malta Football Association Technical Centre

Tutor: STEPHEN GRIMA

Table of Contents

Table of Contents i

Abstract iii

List of tables iv

List of figures v

List of abbreviations vi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

1.1 Background...... 2 1.2 Roles of the Football Manager...... 7 1.3 Relationship between a coach and a leader...... 9

Chapter 2: Defining Leadership 10

2.1 Leadership defined...... 10 2.2 Early leadership research...... 12 2.3 Approaches to leadership...... 15

Chapter 3: A sport specific approaches to leadership 16

3.1 A leadership behaviour model...... 16 3.2 A multi dimensional model of leadership...... 20 3.3 Hardiness and mental toughness...... 23 3.4 The Coach-Athlete relationship...... 25

Chapter 4: Leadership scale for sport 26

4.1 Theoretical background 27 4.2 The leadership scale for sport...... 30

Chapter 5: Key Study 36

5.1 Methods 36 5.2 Selection of the participants 36 5.3 Instruments 36 5.4 Assumptions 37 5.5 Limitations 37 5.6 Results 38 5.7 Discussion 41

Chapter 6: Conclusion 46

References 47 Appendices 51

______

Abstract

This dissertation reviews research on leadership in sport and considers the implications of this work in relation to the complex task of effective football management. Trait, behavioural and interactional models of leadership are discussed and applied to football management. The importance of sport specific models and research is also highlighted.

The second purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship among preferred and perceived leadership and to investigate the differences among the foreign and Maltese players of football teams in preferred leadership and perceived leadership. The five leader behaviours which were measured were: training and instruction, social support, positive feedback, democratic behaviour, and autocratic behaviour.

iii

List of tables

1. Average years in job of sacked manager 4 2. Permanent managers in Premier League and their average length of tenure 5 3. Roles of a football manager 8 4. Traits and skill of leadership 13 5. Items for training and instruction 32 6. Items for democratic behaviour 33 7. Items for autocratic behaviour 34 8. Items for social support 34 9. Items for positive feedback 35 10. Descriptive statistics of the subscales of the LSS 38 11. Descriptive statistics of the subscale of the LSS by nationality 38 12. Descriptive statistics of all the questions of the LSS 39

List of figures

1. Leadership behaviour model 17 2. Multidimensional model of sport leadership 28 3. Perceived and Preferred behaviour on training & instruction subscale 41 4. Perceived and Preferred behaviour on democratic behaviour subscale 42 5. Perceived and Preferred behaviour on autocratic behaviour subscale 43 6. Perceived and Preferred behaviour on social support subscale 44 7. Perceived and Preferred behaviour on positive feedback subscale 45

List of abbreviations

LSS Leadership Scale for sport CBAS Coaching Behaviour Assessment System

vii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Coaches can have a great influence on their athletes. The type and amount of influence you will have on your players is determined by your personal skills.

You significantly affect your athletes’ motivation to achieve and the enjoyment they receive from playing football. Mutual respect for each other and the longer you are together with your players will increase the influence you have on them. (Janssen & Dale, 2002)

They identified that the three major roles of the coach are:

• The Coach as a Leader • The Coach as a Teacher • The Coach as an Organiser

To have a positive and lasting impact on the athletes you coach, you need to be effective as a leader, teacher, and organiser; encourage and support your players; coach enthusiastically, and express genuine concern for the athletes’ total well-being.

Your role becomes more important when you consider that the influence you have on your players extends well beyond the contact you have with them in the football environment.

Page 1

1.1 Background

In football as in other sports, the position of a coach represents a stressful and turbulent occupation where individuals are publicly held responsible for a team’s performance. In 2014- 2015, more than half of the 92 coaches that started the English professional league season had been fired by the end of the season, thus reflecting the precarious nature of the position.

The 'life expectancy' of a Premier League coach has been drastically cut since the new-look competition began in 1992-93. On the opening day of that season, the 22 bosses had been in their jobs for an average of 3.24 years, or 1,184 days to be precise. Five of them had been in their jobs for more than five years, from George Graham at Arsenal and Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United, to Steve Coppell at Crystal Palace, Joe Royle at Oldham and Brian Clough at Nottingham Forest. Only one current Premier League manager has been in his job more than three years, let alone five, and that's Arsenal's Arsene Wenger.

As things stand in October 2015, the 18 current bosses are averaging 2.28 years each in their jobs, and if the freakishly long-serving Wenger is removed from that equation, then the average plummets to 1.29 years, or 473 days each.

What used to be a job with a reasonable expectation of years to get it right has become an occupation where each anniversary in the post is a big milestone. When managers were sacked in the 1992-93 season, they had been in their jobs an average of 2.6 years each. Last season the corresponding figure was 1.91 years and in 2013-14, when 12 Premier League managers were axed, not including those who left of their own volition, it was 1.22 years.

Getting the sack is now part of parcel of being a Premier League coach as Brendan Rodgers, holidaying in Spain as he recovers from the boot at Liverpool, knows only too well.

But it is only part of the story. Not all managers are forced to leave, and in fact resignations are part of the bigger picture, often to fill a job vacated by someone else getting sacked.

To illustrate the changing nature of sackings over time, Table 1 illustrates the official figures for Premier League sackings from the League Managers' Association, and data from OPTA for each manager who has been sacked.

Page 2

It shows the number of sackings by season, and the average time each sacked manager had been in his job. Over the course of the Premier League as a whole, 133 managers have been sacked, averaging just over two years each in their jobs.

Manchester United and Arsenal are the most secure employers over the period as a whole with just three managers each, averaging more than seven and a half years; both are skewed of course by long-serving bosses in Ferguson and Wenger.

Only managers who have been in charge for at least part of one Premier League season are counted in this table. Chelsea have had fifteen of them, with an average stay of a year and a half each. That hasn't prevented serial success.

The most sackings were in 2013-14 when Paolo Di Canio, Martin Jol, Andre Villas-Boas and David Moyes were all among the axed, after a little more than a year in their posts on average.

The fewest sackings in a season have been three, twice.

Page 3

Table 1 : Average years in job of sacked manager in England

Average years in job of Season PL Sackings sacked manager 1992-93 5 2.60 1993-94 5 2.00 1994-95 9 2.52 1995-96 3 1.77 1996-97 5 3.15 1997-98 3 1.73 1998-99 5 1.18 1999-00 5 1.31 2000-01 6 2.57 2001-02 6 2.68 2002-03 6 2.85 2003-04 5 2.64 2004-05 5 3.32 2005-06 3 1.67 2006-07 5 2.55 2007-08 7 1.31 2008-09 4 0.59 2009-10 5 1.62 2010-11 6 1.37 2011-12 5 2.50 2012-13 8 2.81 2013-14 12 1.22 2014-15 8 1.91 2015-16 2 1.95

Page 4

Table 2: The number of permanent managers at each of the 47 clubs in Premier League history and their average length of tenure of each of those.

Premier League managers by club since 1992-93 Ranked by longest average stay: Permanent managers only

Rank Club Managers in PL Average Years 1 Man United 3 7.65 2 Arsenal 3 7.58 3 Sheffield United 2 5.40 4 Ipswich 2 5.06 5 Birmingham 2 4.74 6 Stoke City 2 4.65 7 Barsnley 1 4.10 8 Charlton 4 4.06 9 Wimbledon 2 3.90 10 Reading 3 3.52 11 Blackpool 1 3.46 12 Middlesbrough 5 3.41 13 Liverpool 7 3.34 14 Wolverhampton 3 3.22 15 Watford 3 3.07 16 Bournemouth 1 2.99 17 Wigan 4 2.97 18 Everton 8 2.88 19 Bolton 6 2.85 20 West Ham 10 2.30 21 Hull City 3 2.30 22 Coventry 4 2.27 23 Aston Villa 10 2.26 24 Oldham 1 2.25 25 Man City 10 2.13 26 Derby 5 2.06

Page 5

27 Burnley 3 2.01 28 Sunderland 10 2.00 29 Leicter City 8 1.98 30 Blackburn 10 1.96 31 Leeds United 6 1.96 32 Norwich City 8 1.85 33 Fulham 8 1.76 34 Newcastle 13 1.75 35 Swasea 3 1.73 36 West Brom 9 1.68 37 Cardiff City 2 1.62 38 QPR 6 1.61 39 Tottenham 15 1.59 40 Sheffield Wednesday 5 1.53 41 Chelsea 15 1.52 42 Swindon 1 1.47 43 Nottingham Forest 5 1.36 44 Bradford City 3 1.31 45 Southampton 14 1.31 46 Portsmouth 7 1.16 47 Crystal Palace 8 1.12

Page 6

1.2 The Roles of the Football Manager

The process of managing people whether in sport or business is a complex task and requires a sympathetic appreciation of the multi-dimensional roles required. Traditionally, a coach has a prescribed number of roles, which typically includes a planned, coordinated and integrated program of athlete preparation. In contrast, the modern football manager must acknowledge the importance of his role from a business or financial perspective (Perry, 2000).

While some theorists have attempted to distinguish the difference between a manager and a leader by emphasizing the organizational role of the manager and the vision and direction provided by leaders (Weinberg & Gould, 2003), the role of the football manager (see table 3) clearly encompasses elements of both.

According to Beech (2002), the consensus is that management implies leadership, but that leaders need not necessarily be managers. He suggests that the role of a manager is to maximize the output of the organization by organizing, planning, staffing, directing and controlling; and that leadership is just one aspect of the directing function. Since football management is essentially a role that is likely to include leadership and coaching responsibilities, research evidence from both leadership and coaching domains will be reviewed.

Page 7

Table 3 : Roles of the football manager (Perry,2000)

Core Responsabilities * First team selection * Method of play * Assembly, maintenance of a playing squad

Prime Tasks * Club coaching policy * Player discipline, fitness, and well-being * Appointment of assistant staff * Attendance at board meetings * Media dealings

Contributory Tasks * Salary/contract of players * Club scouting policy * Club youth policy * Preparing match program notes * General public relations/sponsorship dealings

Page 8

1.3 Relationship between a coach and a leader

Appointing the right manager is vital for the future success of professional sports teams. Research evidence strongly supports the notion that there is a direct link between coach / leader behaviour and athletes’ performances and behaviours (see Horn, 2002). From an applied perspective, those individuals who are responsible for appointing managers would be well advised to consider the extant literature, theories and research concerning leadership which is the focus of this review. The degree to which a manager offers ‘human capital’ to a club (the level of previous success and experience) may be crucial in determining which managers are appointed by clubs to new positions (Audas, Dobson, & Goddard, 1997), but this might not always be the best selection procedure if managers have a dominant style that is incongruent with players’ preferences and situational factors. It appears that effective management behaviour necessarily varies across specific contexts as the characteristics of the players and the environment change (Chelladurai, 1978).

Those individuals who are already, or who are aspiring to be in managerial positions within football may be encouraged, to reflect on their own characteristics, behaviours and interactions with other club staff, and where necessary seek to change in order to enable greater productivity. Many professional football managers have emanated to their positions following playing careers. While this undoubtedly provides an applied understanding of how professional football clubs operate, some potential limitations exist such as relying on past traditions and ways of doing things, rather than amalgamating these experiences with updated research knowledge and scientific principles.

Page 9

Chapter 2: Defining Leadership

2.1 Leadership defined

Barrow (1977) defined leadership as “the behavioural process of influencing individuals and groups towards set goals” (p.232). This definition is important because it places emphasis on the vision of a leader (i.e. goals, objectives) while also highlighting the necessary interaction between the leader and group members. Effective leadership will encompass an understanding of motivation and is likely to minimize any loss of productivity through the development of both task and group cohesion, allowing a group to operate at, or close to its potential. Indeed, Carron and Chelladurai (1981) found that cohesion was dependent upon player and coach relationships. Loehr (2005) stressed that the common theme of effective leadership is the “positive impact that individuals can have on group dynamics relative to a team objective” (p.155).

The act of leadership attempts to influence and convert others into ‘followers’ and may be achieved through a variety of mechanisms such as coercion, persuasion and manipulation. Leadership requires an understanding or respect for the power dynamic between the influencer and the follower. The relationship recognizes that every act between the two parties is a ‘political act’ with potential for coercion.

Researchers have suggested that the interpersonal dynamics at play between player and coach are complex (Bloom, Schinke, & Salmela, 1998; Martens, 1990) and this complexity is also likely to extend to player and manager relations. Managers unable to communicate effectively with their players may inadvertently exacerbate problems due to a lack of understanding from their perspective. Perceptions and interpretation of information conveyed by the manager may have its origins in the formative stage of an individual’s development . To improve the intellectual exchange between player and manager it may be necessary to integrate specialist sports psychology consultants into the team to facilitate reflection from both parties.

To understand leadership it is important to transcend the superficial and retrospective lay- perspective which tends to define success in terms of winning.

Page 10

For some football clubs with limited resources, success might be defined in terms of maintaining their status (i.e. avoiding relegation to a lower division). According to Weinberg and Gould (2003), leaders typically have two functions: (i) to ensure the demands of the organization (club) are satisfied by the group effectively meeting its targets and (ii) to ensure the needs of group members are satisfied.

Clearly, those individuals who are responsible for appointing leaders / managers need to ensure that the visions and targets of both the club and potential leader are compatible and that the qualities of the leader and group members (players) are not incongruent.

Page 11

2.2 Early leadership research

The early research into leadership effectiveness was conducted outside of sports settings (usually business, military or education) and tended to use one of two approaches (Horn, 2002). The trait approach assumed effective leadership was founded on innate personality dispositions rather than a function of learning and explicitly supposed that great leaders were born and not made. In contrast, the behavioural approach posited effective leadership to be a function of a leader’s dominant behaviours. The assumption was that an individual could learn to be an effective leader by adopting behaviours that other successful leaders used (i.e. leaders were made and not born).

Both the trait and behavioural approaches to studying leadership rested upon the premise that a set of universal traits or behaviours could be identified that would reliably discriminate between successful and unsuccessful leaders. Eventually such research began to permeate sports. For example, Penman, Hastad, and Cords (1974) tested the degree of correlation between coaching success (male, interscholastic head football and basketball coaches) and authoritarianism. Penman et al. (1974) found that more successful coaches, in comparison to less successful coaches, exhibited more authoritarianism.

Research that followed took similar approaches to investigate the relationship between effective leadership and traits or behaviours such as decision-making style and creativity (Pratt & Eitzen, 1989). Some theorists even forwarded coaching profiles that were supposed to be characteristic of successful coaches.

Although Pratt & Eitzen considered traits such as authoritarianism, tough-mindedness, independent thinking, emotional maturity and realism as important characteristics, it is apparent that these theorists produced no evidence to support their profile (Weinberg & Gould, 2003).

In hindsight, both the trait and behavioural approaches were over-simplified positions and it was too optimistic to expect a single set of traits or behaviours to be able to discriminate between successful and unsuccessful leaders. While these approaches failed in their main objectives (no single set of traits or behaviours have been consistently found to characterize effective leaders), the research that tested these conceptual models undoubtedly advanced the knowledge base and led to more complex theoretical models and research designs.

Page 12

Two of the main problems with the trait approach to studying leadership is that traits are not necessarily easy to measure, and that over time, an almost limitless list of positive adjectives have been forwarded as important leadership traits. However, Stogdill (1974) summarized the contribution of trait approaches to the study of leadership (see table 4) by listing those traits and skills that have been found more frequently in related research. These traits and skills are not specific to sport and should not be considered as essential pre-requisites, but rather as potentially useful leadership characteristics. It is important to note that the absence of such traits does not necessarily preclude an individual from being a successful leader.

Table 4: Traits and skills of leadership (Stogdill,1974)

TRAITS SKILLS

* Adaptable to situations * Intelligent * Alertness to social environment * Conceptually skilled * Ambition (achievement oriented) * Creative * Assertiveness * Diplomatic * Cooperation * Fluent speaker * Decisiveness * Knowledgeable about group * Dependability * Organized * Dominance * Persuasive * Energy * Socially skilled * Persistence * Self-confidence * Stress tolerance * Willingness to take responsibility

Behavioural research outside of sport has managed to categorize what leaders do, into two areas; consideration and initiating structure (see Weinberg & Gould, 2003). Consideration reflects the relationships between the leader and followers to involve factors such as friendship, mutual trust, warmth, building rapport and communication. Initiating structure is based upon the establishment of rules, regulations and operating systems that are designed to move a group

Page 13 towards pre-established goals. In non-sport settings it appears that successful leaders score highly in both consideration and initiating structure.

Sport specific research has examined the behaviours of successful coaches and reported moderate levels of consistency. For example, both Tharp and Gallimore (1976) used case studies to examine the behaviours of elite basketball coaches. Findings revealed that these coaches were engaged in giving instructions (what to do and how to do it – sometimes using short modelled demonstrations) and encouraging effort and intensity. A qualitative study that employed in-depth interviews with seventeen elite gymnastics coaches (Cote, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, & Russell, 1995) also found an emphasis on supportive, technical and corrective feedback. Ultimately, researchers such as Smith, Smoll and Curtis (1979) showed that leadership behaviours could be learned by using a coaching workshop to increase coaches’ positive behaviours and decrease their negative behaviours when coaching children. These findings showed a direct relationship between coaching behaviours and players’ evaluative reactions, however, the study did not assess performance variables such as win / loss records, and was not related to elite performers.

Page 14

2.3 Approaches to leadership

The failure of both the trait and behavioural approaches ushered the emergence of various situational based leadership theories such as Fiedler’s (1967) contingency model. Such theories stressed the importance of interactions between the leader, group members and the situation. On this basis, the particular traits and behaviours of an effective leader are believed to vary in accordance with environmental (situational factors). Fiedler argued that task-oriented leaders (those whose primary focus is on achieving goals, and performance related variables) are likely to be most effective in either very favourable or very unfavourable situations. In this case, a task-oriented football manager who would prioritize performance goals over developing positive interpersonal relations is likely to be a more effective leader than a relationship oriented manager, in the context of a team fighting to avoid relegation.

Another interesting, but rather limited approach to the study of leadership in sport was provided by Grusky (1963). Grusky’s group structure model (initially applied to professional baseball) proposed that players who occupied more central positions, and thus performed more dependent and coordinative tasks that necessitated interaction with others, were more likely to develop essential leadership skills and ultimately were more likely to become managers. Examination of baseball records confirmed Grusky’s hypothesis as catchers and infielders did become managers more often than pitchers or outfielders. Grusky’s findings were also supported by subsequent research (Gill & Perry, 1979) but as Gill (2000) suggests, the work did not extend far beyond Grusky’s initial propositions. Despite this, applying these same propositions to the study of association football would certainly provide a new perspective and perhaps allow further examination of the processes by which former players emanate to managerial positions and the success achieved by past players compared to managers who did not play professional football.

Despite the appeal of situational theories such as Fiedler’s and other interactional approaches to the study of leadership, when sport specific research emerged, the results provided minimal support to theories derived from outside sport contexts (Horn, 2002). Some theorists have suggested that the main problem with attempting to transpose general theories of leadership to sports settings is the failure to consider the unique characteristics of sports teams (Chelladuria & Carron, 1978; Terry & Howe, 1984).

Page 15

Chapter 3: Sport specific approaches to leadership

Two significant theoretical frameworks have been advanced for the study of leadership in sport settings (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995). Smoll and Smith (1989) and their associates have proposed one approach. They posited a cognitive - behavioural model of leadership which specifies individual difference variables, situational factors, and cognitive processes assumed to mediate overt coaching behaviours and athletes’ reactions to them (Smith, Smoll & Curtis, 1978, 1979; Smith, Smoll, Curtis & Hunt, 1978; Smoll & Smith, 1980,1989).

The second approach is exemplified by Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of Leadership that focused on the congruence among three leadership behavioural states: required, actual, and preferred. The antecedents of these three states of leader behaviours are the characteristics of the situation, the leader, and the members (Chelladurai, 1978, 1990, 1993; Chelladurai & Carron, 1978).

3.1 The leadership behaviour model

Smoll and Smith (1989) proposed the leadership Behaviour Model that is based upon situation specific behaviours of the leader. The models central process is defined with lines leading from coach behaviours to player perception of coach behaviours to player perception of coach behaviours to player responses. This model stipulates that the ultimate effects of coaching behaviours are mediated by the meaning that players attribute to them. In other words, cognitive and affective processes serve as filters between overt coaching behaviours and youngsters’ attitudes toward their coach. Thus, this model measured and defined relationship existing between a) what coaches actually do, b) how these behaviours are perceived and recalled by their players, and c) children’s attitudinal responses to the total situation (Smoll & Smith, 1989).

In the model, coach individual difference variables include such factors as goals, intentions, perceptions of self/athletes, and gender. Player individual difference variables include such things as age, gender, and perceptions about coach, motivation, anxiety, and self-confidence. Situational factors include such things as nature of sport, competitive level, success/failure, and team cohesion. Coach behaviour is influenced by the coach’s perception of the individual athlete. A coach may treat an athlete who exhibits low self-confidence or high anxiety differently from other athletes.

Page 16

Figure 1: Leadership behaviour model

In order to observe and code coaching behaviours Coaching Behaviour Assessment System (CBAS) was developed by Smith, Smoll, and Hunt (1977). The CBAS permits the direct observation and coding of coaches’ leadership behaviours during practices and games (Smoll & Smith, 1989).

The observed behaviours are reactive and spontaneous in nature. The CBAS includes twelve categories that are divided into two classes of behaviours and spontaneous.

Reactive behaviours are coach reactions to player or team behaviours. Spontaneous behaviours are initiated by the coach and do not occur in response to a player behaviour.

Page 17

1. Reactive Behaviours

Responses to desirable performance.

a. Reinforcement: a positive, rewarding reaction to a good play or good effort. b. Non reinforcement: failure to respond to a good performance.

Responses to Mistakes

a. Mistake - contingent encouragement: encouragement given to player following a mistake. b. Mistake - contingent technical instruction: instructing and demonstrating to player how to correct a mistake he or she has made. c. Punishment: a negative reaction, verbal or non-verbal following mistake. d. Punitive technical instruction: technical instruction following a mistake given a punitive or hostile manner. e. Ignoring mistakes: failure to respond to a player mistake.

Responses to Misbehaviour

a. Keeping control: reactions intended to restore or maintain order among team members. 2. Spontaneous Behaviours

Game-Related a. General technical instruction: spontaneous instruction in the techniques and strategies of the sport (not following a mistake). b. General encouragement: spontaneous encouragement that does not follow a mistake. c. Organization: administrative behaviour that sets the stage for play by assigning duties or responsibilities.

Game - Irrelevant a. General communication: interactions with players unrelated to the game (Smoll & Smith, 1989).

Page 18

The CBAS has been the most widely studied system for observing and documenting coaching behaviours in youth sports. Research with the CBAS has revealed a number of interesting relationships. When they are working with the youth sport athletes, the dominant behaviours of coaches are positive reinforcement, general technical instructions, and general encouragement. The behaviours of keeping control and administrating punishment are perceived by players to occur much more often than they usually do. Another interesting finding is that coaches of youth sport teams spend a great amount of their time providing technical instruction and feedback to low-expectation youth than to high-expectation youth (Cox, 1998).

Page 19

3.2 A multidimensional model of leadership

While research and theories from non-sports settings provided useful frameworks for understanding leadership (Horn, 2002), specific approaches that reflected the unique demands of sports settings were required. In response, Chelladurai (1978, 1990, 1993) developed the multidimensional model of leadership to provide a conceptual framework that allowed leadership effectiveness to be studied in the sports domain. Chelladurai proposed that effective leadership is dynamic and is based on a complex series of interactions between leader, group members and situational constraints. The model suggests that positive outcomes (performance and satisfaction) will occur when there is congruence between the leaders actual behaviour (i.e. either organizing practices or providing positive feedback), the group members preferred leadership behaviour (i.e. preference for a highly organized, supportive leader) and the behaviour that is required in relation to the situation. In addition, behaviour does not occur in a vacuum, and factors such as leader and member characteristics will influence both the actual behaviour of the leader and group preferences for leadership behaviours. The challenge for football managers is to show flexibility in adapting their dominant leadership style to suit specific leadership situations, and with large squads of highly paid players, to keep everyone satisfied.

In essence, Chelladurai’s (1978, 1990, 1993) model stresses the importance of ‘fit’ or ‘alignment’ - with high levels of satisfaction and performance predicted when there is congruence between actual, required and preferred behaviours. Therefore, when discrepancies occur, it would seem that leaders are faced with important dilemmas – to carry on without making significant changes and to expect (or encourage) others to be more accommodating; to remove barriers (i.e. problem players or other coaching staff who are creating disharmony); or to be more flexible (which may prove decidedly difficult for controlling, authoritarian managers).

It is interesting to note that some football managers appear to be ‘recycled’ following previous failures and eventually succeed in certain types of situation (i.e. in relegation battles) but are less effective or less able to adapt their style to more positive situations (and vice versa). Weinberg and Gould (2003) make a similar observation when referring to NBA coach Doug Collins, whose autocratic and emotional style appeared to be most effective in providing direction for young, unpredictable teams. However, when Collins failed to adapt his style as the teams matured, this autocratic approach was seen as a liability and, in two similar situations, Collins was fired after making a positive initial impact. Clearly, such anecdotal observations do little to advance knowledge of leadership, but it is evident that research in this area is warranted

Page 20 given the potential applied importance of knowing which types of leaders suit particular situations and why.

Before briefly reviewing some of the research that has tested the accuracy and usefulness of the multidimensional model of leadership, it is important to acknowledge that the most widely used measure in this regard, has been the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) which was developed by Chelladurai and Saleh (1978, 1980). The LSS has received extensive testing and generally good psychometric support (Chelladurai, 1993; Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998) and measures five dimensions of leadership which incorporate instructive behaviors, decision- making style, and motivational tendencies.

A number of replicable research findings appear to be important when reviewing the literature concerning the multidimensional model. First, it appears that generally, as athletes grow older and more mature, that a greater preference for an autocratic and supportive style of leadership emerges (Horn, 2002). These preferences might reflect older athletes becoming more serious about their performances and more goal-oriented. Interestingly, Chelladurai and Carron (1983) suggested that the relationship between age and preference for autocratic style may occur because athletes become ‘socialized’ into preferring less responsibility in a social system (sport) that is generally an autocratic enterprise.

Although there are more similarities than differences in the preferred leadership behaviours of men and women, there is some evidence that males prefer more instructive behaviours and an autocratic style of leadership (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978; Terry, 1984). Interestingly, there is evidence that participants in highly interactive team sports such as basketball, football or volleyball prefer more autocratic leadership than do participants from co-acting sports such as swimming or bowling (Terry & Howe, 1984; Terry, 1984). Finally, Weiss and Fredrichs (1986) found a relationship between poorer team performance and frequency of social support which probably indicates that losing teams need more social support from leaders in order to sustain motivation.

In general, research evidence has supported the predictions of the multidimensional model (see Horn, 2002), that indicate when there is congruence between required behaviour, actual leader behaviour and group preferences, that increased group performance and satisfaction will result. In contrast larger discrepancies between actual, preferred and required behaviours are likely to produce less satisfaction and influence performance negatively.

Page 21

More recently, researchers (Chelladurai & Doherty, 1998) have used the LSS to investigate the decision-making styles of coaches. While both the democratic and autocratic styles of decision-making have inherent strengths and limitations, Chelladurai and Doherty (1998) stressed that the appropriateness of autocratic or democratic styles varied with the problem situation. Also, labelling styles in absolute terms implies that there is no middle ground, when past researchers have indicated that blends of autocratic and democratic styles do exist , and it is not unreasonable to suggest that flexible managers can use the styles interchangeably as the situation dictates. In professional football, where large squads of players are involved, it is likely that more autocratic styles will predominate by necessity, as Chelladurai and Doherty (1998) point out, democratic styles are less effective for complex problems and are more time consuming.

Martens (1990) took a composite view of leadership theories and research when suggesting that there are four components of effective leadership: leader’s qualities, leadership styles, follower’s qualities and situational factors. The interactions between these four factors are predicted to determine leadership effectiveness.

One highly successful American football coach, Vince Lombardi, was famed for his fiery temper and the demands he placed on players. However, it appears that in an applied sense, Lombardi understood the need to be flexible, and to deal with people as individuals, even within a team setting. Shaap (1968) report that Lombardi developed a great understanding of his players and knew which players required more positive reinforcement, and which would respond to greater levels of criticism.

Page 22

3.3 Hardiness and mental toughness

In light of the high levels of stress that are associated with football management, it is interesting that a number of the traits listed by Stogdill (1974) (see table 2) appear to be associated with the concepts of hardiness and mental toughness (i.e. achievement oriented, persistence, self- confidence, stress tolerance etc.). For example, the work of existential psychologists (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa, Maddi, & Khan, 1982) led to greater understanding of the stress-illness relationship, and the cognitive mechanisms that allow individuals to function efficiently and tolerate highly stressful situations without becoming ill. Kobasa (1979) found that executives who were exposed to highly stressful environments but remained healthy (as opposed to those who became ill) were characterized by a set of distinct cognitive attributes which has been described as the hardy personality. The three dimensions of hardiness as highlighted by Kobasa (1979) reflect: Commitment (as opposed to alienation which reflects an individual’s ability to feel deeply involved or committed to the activities in their lives); Control (as opposed to powerlessness involves decisional control, or the ability to autonomously choose between various coping strategies in order to deal with stress; and cognitive control, the ability to appraise stressful events as being part of an ongoing life plan, thus deactivating their jarring effects); and Challenge (as opposed to security is the anticipation of change rather than stability as the norm, and the interpretation of change as a challenge or chance to grow, rather than as a threat). These three dimensions appear to act as a buffer to stress (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa et al., 1982).

Maddi (2004) suggested that hardiness represents an operationalisation of existential courage; that is, without courage, individuals may revert to habitual past choices and behaviours (holding on to what is already known and familiar) rather than seeking out new, and perhaps more relevant alternatives. There is a tendency to stagnate without reflection and actively seeking out new possibilities. This concept can easily be transferred to football management where a cursory glance at professional managers in England quickly reveals a distinction between those who have applied scientific principles to training and embraced new developments in sports science, as opposed to those who have more rigid, set ideas about how things should be done, which is usually rooted in past traditions.

In more sports specific research, Clough, Earle and Sewell (2002) developed the concept of the hardy personality by adding Confidence as a further dimension to produce their own concept

Page 23 of mental toughness. Alongside this, Clough et al. developed an instrument that appears to be a valid and reliable measure of mental toughness (Clough et al., 2002; Crust & Clough, 2005) that is known as the MT48. Clough et al. state that:

"Mentally tough individuals tend to be sociable and outgoing; as they are able to remain calm and relaxed, they are competitive in many situations and have lower anxiety levels than others. With a high sense of self-belief and an unshakeable faith that they control their own destiny, these individuals can remain relatively unaffected by competition or adversity." (p. 38)

The ability to function effectively, not just in terms of remaining healthy, but also in terms of decision-making and remaining clear and logical in thought when experiencing adversity, would intuitively be an important characteristic of a football manager. That would appear to include keeping players focused on what is important and connecting with team members’ core values (Loehr, 2005). Recent research has shown that mental toughness is positively correlated with performance of endurance tasks (Crust & Clough, 2005); negatively correlated with perceptions of exertion in conditions of high intensity exercise; and predicts those individuals who are more likely to be able to bounce back (show resilience) after negative feedback (Clough et al., 2002). Although research into mental toughness is still at an early stage and has mostly focused on the sports performer, extending such research to incorporate football managers would clearly enhance knowledge of what some researchers have described as arguably one of the most important psychological attributes in achieving.

Interestingly, recent research has shown that hardiness can be learned, and that hardiness training with managers can lead to increased job satisfaction, lower levels of stress, strain, anxiety, disgust and blood pressure (Maddi, 1987; Maddi, Khan, & Maddi, 1998). These researchers developed a training program that involved business managers learning how to (a) cope effectively with stressful circumstances, (b) give and get assistance and encouragement in social interactions, (c) engage in the self-care that supports effective coping and social support, and (d) use the feedback from these activities to deepen their hardiness attitudes. Extending hardiness and mental toughness research to football managers should be encouraged since it is apparent that some managers thrive on the pressures of the job while others succumb to the stress and appear ill at ease.

Page 24

3.4 The coach-Athlete relationship

Although no scientific studies have examined the relationship between association football managers and players, recent research has developed a clearer understanding of important features of successful coach-athlete relationships. Jowett and colleagues (Jowett, 2001; Jowett & Cokerill, 2002; Jowett & Ntounamis, 2004) have explored the reciprocal nature of such relationships, giving particular emphasis to affective, behavioural and cognitive factors. This research has focused on how coaches and athletes influence each other and the interdependency that is evident. Initially, Jowett and others highlighted the importance of the three C’s of closeness, commitment and complementarily to coach-athlete relations (Jowett, Paull, Pensgaard, Hoegmo, & Riise, 2005).

Closeness refers to feelings and perceptions that appear to be a function of interpersonal factors such as liking, trust, and respect. Open channels of communication, voicing of needs, effective problem-solving, acceptance and appreciation characterize closeness. Importantly, such qualities as trust and respect have been associated with successful coaching (Janssen & Dale, 2002), while their absence is linked to less harmony and less support.

Commitment appears to reflect oneness of thought between coach and athlete, and is defined as an intention to maintain and optimize relations (Jowett et al., 2005). When performances fall below expectations, commitment can guard against retaliation by promoting accommodation, and this is characterized by flexibility when change is necessary. A lack of commitment has been shown to be linked to criticism, communication breakdown and a lack of common goals (Jowett, 2003).

Complementarily, the third C, reflects a positive working environment where coach and athlete work together to attempt to improve performance. Jowett et al. (2005) suggest that complementarily has been found to relate to both high levels of performance and greater satisfaction with the relationship. Recently, Jowett et al. (2005) proposed a forth factor, co- orientation, which still requires further investigation, but reflects coach and athlete perceptions of how the other perceives them. Extending this research to incorporate manager and player relationships would certainly help to extend knowledge of interpersonal relations within football.

Page 25

Chapter 4: Leadership Scale for Sports

4.1 Theoretical Background

One of the most popular scales to measure coaching behaviour (presented in five dimensions) is the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) by Packianathan Chelladurai and Shoukry D. Saleh (1980). This instrument has been widely used and employed in sports leadership research for more than 30 years. Its reliability and validity have also been re-evaluated several times. This chapter presents the theoretical background behind the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS), the process of the development of this instrument and the review of the research.

Leadership is an issue widely discussed in psychology. Most conventional definitions of leadership refer to one of three mainstream approaches: the ones taking into account managerial traits, leadership behaviours or the situation that, along with various management skills, influences the effectiveness of leadership (Brown, 2001; Oyster, 2000).

In sports psychology, the most commonly cited definition of leadership is the one by Barrow (1977 in: Williams, 2010). It looks upon leadership as a process of influencing actions of individuals and organized groups in view of specific goals in such a way as to ensure the attainment of these goals. This definition proves very useful due to the fact that it underlines various aspects of leadership. From among these aspects, those relevant to the sports setting are: decision-making, motivating group participants, giving feedback, establishing interpersonal relationships and managing a group or team (Weinberg & Gould, 2007).

Many different approaches towards research on leadership have been assumed over the years. The first that dominated the research in that field was the concentration on constant personality traits as determinants of effective leadership. Later on, researchers shifted their focus to leadership behaviours. This paved the way for the assertion that leadership can be learned. Finally, the combination of these two approaches gave rise to the interactional perspective (Brown,2001)

One of the theories referring to the interactional approach is the Multidimensional Model of Leadership by Chelladurai. It has been most widely recognized by sports psychology researchers, because it is inseparably connected with the requirements concerning the sports environment. The model is not a simple adaptation of the earlier psychological theories – it has

Page 26 been strictly adjusted to fit the needs of sports (Chelladurai,1978; Carron, hausenblas & Eys, 2005; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986).

In a sports environment it is the coach who is the formal leader of the group. This is why most sports research on leadership concentrates on this approach to the subject (Chelladurai, 1978; Smith, Smoll & hunt, 1977; Weinberg & Gould, 2011; Williams,2010; Beauchamp & Eys, 2008; Carron, hausenblas & Eys, 2005).

A good sports leader is a coach who daily provides his athletes with adequate technical preparation, shows them support and influences their motivation in order to implement the vision of victory. So, nowadays the coach is, in a way, an expert whose task is to lead the athlete to reach the full extent of his or her capabilities and achieve the best results possible. It is therefore important to stress that the coach is responsible not only for the physical, technical-tactical and theoretical-methodical preparation and the development of motor coordination, but also for the formation of a suitable motivation level and exerting a pedagogic influence on the contestants. Directly related to this is the fact that the coach spends enormous amounts of time with the athlete, becomes dedicated to him or her, and oftentimes develops emotional ties with him or her. The coach is the person who knows the athlete the best. This is what makes the topic of leadership so important and crucial in the sports environment and is also the reason why conducting and continuing research on this subject is so vital and necessary.

As mentioned above, the approach by Chelladurai focuses purely on sports settings. Effective leadership is described as a function of the traits of the persons entering the relationships, i.e. the coach and the athletes, and of the situation (Chelladurai & Carron,1978). According to Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of Leadership (shown in Figure 1), the athletes’ satisfaction and performance are perceived as a result of interaction between three categories or types of coaching behaviours: the required behaviour, the actual behaviour and the behaviour preferred by the athletes or group. Subsequently, the preliminary factors for these three types of the leader’s behaviours are seen as consisting of three separate categories: the characteristics of the situation, of the leader and of the team members (Chelladurai & Carron, 1978).

Page 27

Figure 2: Multidimensional model of sport leadership

Antecedents Leader behaviour Consequences

1 4 Situational Required characteristics behaviour

2 5 7 Leader Actual Performance characteristics behaviour and satisfaction

3 6 Member Preferred characteristics behaviour

According to Chelladurai, coaching behaviour can result from the enforced organizational demands. The required coaching behaviour is understood as recommended, desired and valued attitudes and behaviours enforced by situational factors, such as: size and formal structure of the group, social norms, organizational goals, the task of the group, or even the level of technology that can be used in the training process (Chelladurai & Carron, 1978).

When taken into account, the combination of these situational variables is often perceived as imposing certain limitations on the set of behaviours viewed as appropriate for a leader. Sometimes these variables also provide the coaches with guidelines concerning behaviours that they should engage in. hence the coaching behaviour has to adhere to the established norms that arise as a result of the influence of various situational variables.

The coaching behaviour preferred by the trainees refers mainly to preferences concerning instructions and guidance given during the training process, the offered social support and the type and frequency of the provided feedback (Chelladurai, 2007). According to Chelladurai, the preferred behaviour results both from situational factors and, above all, from the athletes’ traits together with their personalities (i.e. the need for achievements and affiliation, cognitive strategies) – as well as the individual ability of the respective athletes to tackle the task at hand.

Page 28

The reason for including situational variables as factors influencing the coaching behaviour preferred by group members is the fact that both athletes and coaches live in a similar social environment. Initially it was suggested that the influence of situational variables on athletes is constant. Nevertheless, it is also believed that it can undergo changes with respect to individual differences in personality and abilities of the respective trainees (Chelladurai & Carron, 1978; Chelladurai, 2007).

The last category of coaching behaviours is the actual behaviour, determined directly by personality, social skills and previous experiences of the leader. It is also indirectly influenced by the athletes’ preferences concerning the way of managing the team as well as the behaviour required by the given situational factors (Chelladurai & Carron, 1978).

Chelladurai’s model stresses the importance of the degree of consistency of the established three leadership behaviours. This is due to the fact that this consistency influences the athletes’ performance and results, as well as their contentment and satisfaction with the work of the coach (Chelladurai, 1978, 2007, 2012; Cheladurai & Carron, 1978). For that reason, it is very important for the coaches to be aware of their trainees 'expectations concerning the preferred coaching behaviours

Page 29

4.2 The Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS)

In 1980, Chelladurai and Saleh developed a questionnaire and named it the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS). Initially this instrument was created in order to verify the adequacy of the Multidimensional Model of Leadership developed by Chelladurai. What is important is the fact that this scale has also been created because at that time there was no parallel instrument measuring coaching behaviors that would take into account the specific character of the sports environment and be closely adapted to it (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980).

The Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) is a questionnaire made up of forty items that are divided into five subscales. Thirteen items relate to Training and Instruction, nine items relate to Democratic Behaviour, five items relate to Autocratic Behaviour, eight items relate to Social Support, and five items relate to Positive Feedback.

These five dimensions of leader behaviour were defined by Chelladurai (as cited in Chelladurai, 1990). i) Training and Instruction refers to the behaviour of the coach that is directed towards improving the performance of athlete's. These behaviours include instructing athletes in the skills, techniques, and tactics of their sport, and organising and coordinating activities. ii) Democratic Behaviour relates whether the coach allows athletes to participate in important coaching decisions associated with group goals, practice methods, game tactics and strategies. iii) Autocratic Behaviour refers to the authority and independent decision making of the coach. iv) Social Support is related to the coach's concern for the welfare of his/her athletes, creating a positive environment and interpersonal relationships with athletes. v) Positive Feedback refers to the coach's behaviour of reinforcing athletes and recognizing and rewarding good performances.

Page 30

Each item is preceded with a phrase, for example "The coach should…", "I prefer my coach to…", "My coach…", or "In coaching…", depending the scale's purpose in the particular study (either Required Leader Behaviour, Preferred Leader Behaviour, or Actual Leader Behaviour, respectively).

The five response categories of the LSS are Always, Often, Occasionally, Seldom, and Never, where "often" is equal to 75% of the time, "occasionally" is equal to 50% of the time, and "seldom" is equal to 25% of the time (Chelladurai, & Saleh, 1980).

Page 31

Table 5. Items for training and Instruction ( Training Behaviour)

Training and Instruction 1 See to it that every athlete is working to his capacity. 1 2 3 4 5 2 Explain to each athlete the techniques and tactics of the sport. 1 2 3 4 5 3 Pay special attention to correcting athlete's mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 4 Make sure that his part in the team is understood by all the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 5 Instruct every athlete individually in the skills of the sport. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure ahead on what should be done. 1 2 3 4 5 7 Explain to every athlete what he should and what he should not do. 1 2 3 4 5 8 Expect every athlete to carry out his assignment to the last detail. 1 2 3 4 5 9 Point out each athlete's strengths and weaknesses. 1 2 3 4 5 Give specific instructions to each athlete as to what he should do in every 10 1 2 3 4 5 situation. 11 See to it that the efforts are coordinated. 1 2 3 4 5 12 Explain how each athlete's contribution fits into the total picture. 1 2 3 4 5 13 Specify in detail what is expected of each athlete. 1 2 3 4 5

According to Chelladurai & Saleh (1978) factor one was named ‘Training Behaviour" as it focused on the training process to improve athlete’s performance. In the second stage of the development of the LSS Chelladurai & Saleh (1980) changed the name of this factor to Training & Instruction as it was similar to Danielson et al.’s Competitive Training Factor (as cited in Chelladurai & Saleh) and House & Dessler’s Instrumental Leadership Dimension (as cited in Chelladurai & Saleh). It incorporates how the coach’s behaviour is directed towards improving athlete’s performance.

Page 32

Table 6. Items for Democratic Behaviour

Democratic Behaviour 14 Ask for the opinion of the athletes on strategies for specific competitions. 1 2 3 4 5 15 Get group approval on important matters before going ahead. 1 2 3 4 5 16 Let his athletes share in decision making. 1 2 3 4 5 Encourage athletes to make suggestions for ways of conducting 17 1 2 3 4 5 practices. 18 Let the group set its own goals. 1 2 3 4 5 19 Let the athletes try their own way even if they make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 20 Ask for the opinion of the athletes on important coaching matters. 1 2 3 4 5 21 Let athletes work at their own speed. 1 2 3 4 5 22 Let the athletes decide on the plays to be used in a game. 1 2 3 4 5

Chelladurai & Saleh (1978) named the third factor 'Democratic Behaviour' as it related to the democratic style of leadership. Democratic Behaviour refers to the coach allowing athletes to be involved in the decision making process on important matters (Chelladurai & Saleh). That is, athletes are encouraged to voice their opinions and participate in decision making on significant issues.

Democratic Behaviour and Autocratic Behaviour are both related to the decision making style of the coach, which are consistent with the research and literature of House & Dessler, House & Mitchell, Schriesheim et al., and Yukl, (as cited in Chelladurai and Saleh, 1978).

Page 33

Table 7. Items for Autocratic Behaviour Autocratic Behaviour 23 Work relatively independent of the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 24 Not explain his action. 1 2 3 4 5 25 Refuse to compromise a point. 1 2 3 4 5 26 Keep to himself. 1 2 3 4 5 27 Speak in a manner not to be questioned. 1 2 3 4 5

The second factor was named "Autocratic Behaviour" as it referred to the tendency of the coach to stay distant from the athletes and make decisions for them (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978). That is, the coach keeps to himself and doesn’t allow the athletes to participate in the decision making for the team or themselves.

Table 8. Items for Social Support

Social Support 28 Help the athletes with their personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5 29 Help members of the group settle their conflicts. 1 2 3 4 5 30 Look out for the personal welfare of the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 31 Do personal favors to the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 32 Express affection he feels for his athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 33 Encourage the athlete to confide in him. 1 2 3 4 5 34 Encourage close and informal relations with athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 35 Invite athletes to his home. 1 2 3 4 5

Chelladurai & Saleh (1980) considered the fourth factor to be similar to the Support factors in Bowers & Seashore’s and House & Dessler’s leadership scales and research by Cartwright & Zander, Mitchell, and Danielson (as cited in Chelladurai & Saleh 1978). Therefore, it was named ‘Social Support’. It refers to the behaviour of the coach that is directed towards the personal needs of athletes.

Page 34

Table 9. Items for Positive Feedback

Positive Feedback 36 Compliment an athlete for his performance in front of others. 1 2 3 4 5 37 Tell an athlete when he does a particularly good job. 1 2 3 4 5 38 See that an athlete is rewarded for a good performance. 1 2 3 4 5 39 Express appreciation when an athlete performs well. 1 2 3 4 5 40 Give credit when credit is due. 1 2 3 4 5

The fifth factor was named "Rewarding Behaviour" as the items were similar to the ‘recognition’ dimension of Hemphill & Coons Leader Behaviour Questionnaire (as cited in Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978), and referred to rewarding athletes for their efforts and performance. It was then renamed "Positive Feedback" by Chelladurai & Saleh (1980) in the second stage of the construction of the LSS as it related to the need of the coach to compliment athletes and give positive feedback on their performances to maintain motivation.

Page 35

Chapter 5: Key Study

5.1 Methods

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship among preferred and perceived leadership, their congruence and satisfaction with leadership, and the second purpose of this study was to investigate the differences among the foreign and Maltese players in preferred leadership and perceived leadership. Below I will outline the methods and procedures used to investigate congruence hypothesis and the differences between the foreign and Maltese players in preferred and perceived leadership and satisfaction with leadership.

5.2 Selection of the Participants

The subjects of the study were 71 male players from 4 different Premier League clubs (Hibernians, Gzira, Pembroke, Valletta). The athletes consisted of 43 Maltese players and 28 Foreign players.

Coaches of the selected teams were contacted to obtain permission to meet the athletes, informed them of the nature of the study and invited them to participate in this study. When permission was given, appointments were scheduled to meet with athletes. Players filled LSS to determine their preference for and perception of leadership behaviours of their coaches and their satisfaction with leadership behaviours of their coaches.

5.3 Instruments Preferred and perceived versions of Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1980) Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS) were used to assess the leader behaviours. These 40-item scales measure 5 dimensions of leadership behaviour: training and instruction behaviour (13 items), democratic behaviour (9 items), autocratic behaviour (5 items), social support behaviour (8 items), and positive feedback behaviour (5 items) through both a preference (“I prefer my coach to...”) and a perceived version (“my coach to...”) version. The items are assigned a score between 1 and 5 (1= never, 5 = always).

Page 36

5.4 Assumptions

The following assumptions were made regarding this study: i) It was assumed that the participants answered the surveys honestly and truthfully. ii) It was assumed that the subjects completed Leadership Scale of Sport (LSS) unbiased and truthfully

5.5 Limitations

The following items were identified as limitations for this study: i) This study was limited to 4 Maltese Premier league clubs ii) Results of the study were limited to the answers of the subjects to the LSS applied.

Page 37

5.6 Results

Table 10. Descriptive statistics of the subscales of the LSS.

All players Perceived Preferred 1. Training and Instruction 0.75 0.89 2. Democratic Behaviour 0.56 0.76 3. Autocratic Behaviour 0.63 0.65 4. Social Support 0.65 0.71 5. Positive Feedback 0.61 0.91 The results of study indicated that players preferred more positive feedback (0.91) and training and instruction (0.89) than any other leadership behaviour. The least preferred was an autocratic behaviour (0.65).

Table 11. Descriptive statistics of the subscales of the LSS by nationality.

Foreigners Maltese Perceived Preferred Perceived Preferred 1. Training and Instruction 0.63 0.91 0.87 0.89 2. Democratic Behaviour 0.51 0.67 0.61 0.84 3. Autocratic Behaviour 0.61 0.71 0.64 0.59 4. Social Support 0.59 0.65 0.70 0.77 5. Positive Feedback 0.53 0.89 0.69 0.92

The foreign players scored greater preference for training and instruction (0.91 vs. 0.89) than Maltese players while Maltese players scored greater preference to positive feedback (0.92 vs. 0.89) than foreign players. The least preferred with Maltese players was an autocratic behaviour (0.59), while for foreigners the social support(0.65) is the least preferred.

Page 38

Table 12. Descriptive statistics of all the questions of the LSS All Maltese Foreigners Question Perceived Preferred Perceived Preferred Perceived Preferred 1 0.73 0.85 0.81 0.84 0.64 0.86 2 0.69 0.95 0.89 0.95 0.49 0.95 3 0.73 0.92 0.82 0.87 0.63 0.97 4 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.94 0.78 0.95 5 0.81 0.86 0.88 0.86 0.74 0.86 Training 6 0.89 0.83 0.89 0.81 0.88 0.84 & 7 0.64 0.91 0.82 0.91 0.45 0.91 Instructions 8 0.79 0.93 0.95 0.93 0.62 0.93 9 0.77 0.97 0.83 0.97 0.71 0.96 10 0.71 0.87 0.86 0.84 0.56 0.89 11 0.71 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.58 0.84 12 0.69 0.87 0.89 0.85 0.49 0.88 13 0.77 0.97 0.92 0.96 0.62 0.98

14 0.66 0.81 0.70 0.90 0.62 0.72 15 0.52 0.81 0.62 0.84 0.42 0.77 16 0.58 0.78 0.63 0.86 0.53 0.70 17 0.70 0.80 0.74 0.85 0.65 0.74 Democratic 18 0.56 0.66 0.60 0.80 0.52 0.52 Behaviour 19 0.50 0.81 0.54 0.88 0.45 0.73 20 0.55 0.85 0.68 0.92 0.42 0.78 21 0.50 0.77 0.50 0.88 0.50 0.65 22 0.48 0.53 0.48 0.64 0.48 0.42

23 0.76 0.74 0.80 0.71 0.72 0.76 24 0.63 0.71 0.61 0.64 0.64 0.78 Autocratic 25 0.55 0.56 0.54 0.50 0.55 0.62 Behaviour 26 0.64 0.67 0.65 0.62 0.62 0.71 27 0.56 0.59 0.60 0.48 0.52 0.70

Page 39

28 0.70 0.87 0.55 0.82 0.84 0.91 29 0.74 0.86 0.70 0.88 0.78 0.84 30 0.67 0.89 0.48 0.86 0.86 0.92 Social 31 0.60 0.68 0.51 0.61 0.68 0.75 Support 32 0.75 0.66 0.75 0.50 0.74 0.82 33 0.68 0.71 0.70 0.62 0.66 0.79 34 0.84 0.76 0.83 0.61 0.84 0.90 35 0.20 0.27 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.24

36 0.62 0.87 0.64 0.91 0.60 0.83 37 0.62 0.90 0.74 0.92 0.49 0.88 Positive 38 0.35 0.89 0.46 0.88 0.24 0.90 Feedback 39 0.63 0.93 0.72 0.95 0.54 0.91 40 0.84 0.94 0.89 0.94 0.78 0.93

Page 40

5.7 Discussion

Training and Instruction

The Maltese players perceive their coach similar to what they prefer while foreign players perceive his style differently from what they prefer.

The study shows that Maltese players prefer that the coach will highlight their strength and weaknesses (Q9) and specify in detail what is expected from them (Q13) . The main difference between what they perceive and what they prefer lies in highlighting the strength and weaknesses (Q9) and to explain to every player what he should and what he should not do (Q7).

The foreigners also marked that their preferred coach should specify in detail what is expected from them(Q13) and to pay special attention to correcting mistakes(Q3). The main difference between what they perceive and what they prefer is in explaining to every player what he should and what he should not do (Q7) and to explain the technique and tactics of the sport

Figure 3: Perceived and Preferred behaviour on training and instruction sub scale

Training & Instructions 1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Perceived Preferred

Page 41

Democratic Behaviour

Both foreigners and Maltese prefer a more democratic coach than what they perceive.

The Maltese prefer more this kind of style than foreigners. They prefer their coach to ask for their opinion on certain strategies(Q14) and get their opinion on important coaching matters(Q20). The most discrepancies between what they perceive and what they prefer is found in letting them to work at their own speed (Q21) and letting the player try their own way even if they make mistake (Q19)

The foreigners would prefer their coach to ask for the opinion of the players on important coaching matters (Q20) and that their coach will get a group approval on important matters before going ahead (Q15). In fact the same questions attract the most difference between what they prefer and what they perceive.

Figure 4: Perceived and Preferred behaviour on democratic behaviour sub scale

Democratic Behaviour 1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Perceived Preferred

Page 42

Autocratic Behaviour

This style is more preferred by the foreigners than the Maltese players. It seems that the foreigners prefer that their coach will be more autocratic while the Maltese prefer that the coach will be less autocratic.

The foreigners prefer that the coach does not need to explain his actions (Q24) while the Maltese prefer that he do so.

Also the Maltese doesn't prefer that the coach speaks in a manner not to be questioned(Q27).

Figure 5: Perceived and Preferred behaviour on autocratic behaviour sub scale

Autocratic Behaviour 1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40 23 24 25 26 27

Perceived Preferred

Page 43

Social Support

Both foreigners and Maltese prefer a coach more supportive than they actually perceive.

The foreigners prefer their coach to look out for their personal welfare(Q30) and to help them with their personal problems.

The Maltese players would prefer their coach to help the group settle their conflicts(Q29).

Figure 6: Perceived and Preferred behaviour on social support sub scale

Social Support 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Perceived Preferred

Page 44

Positive Feedback

In this dimension it was evident that both local and foreign players prefer that their coach provides more positive feedback. Both set of players highlighted the fact that the coach should express appreciation when they perform well (Q39) and give them credit when it is due(Q40).

Figure 7: Perceived and Preferred behaviour on positive feedback sub scale

Positive Feedback 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 36 37 38 39 40

Perceived Preferred

Page 45

Chapter 6: Conclusions

This dissertation has reviewed leadership and coaching research in an attempt to assess the implications for football management. While it is easy to agree with Weinberg and Gould (2003) who state that, ‘Determining what makes effective sports leadership is clearly not a simple process’ (p. 213), by examining the theories and research findings from the coaching and leadership literature, it is possible to formulate a view of an effective football manager.

From trait approaches, there seems to be evidence of certain traits and skills that are not so much pre-requisites for success, but rather potentially useful characteristics. These appear to include traits such as adaptability, self-confidence, and persistence; as well as skills such as intelligence, creativity and knowledge of the group (Stogdill, 1974). From the behavioural perspective, it is evident that consideration and initiating structure are important parts of what leaders do. Sports specific research suggests that providing clear instructions and contingent positive reinforcement are also key behaviours

Further research is needed with the multidimensional theory of leadership in varying sport populations and with greater number of participants to identify other situational and behavioural factors associated with athletic performance.

Additionally, further research is needed to be made based on variables such as experience, age, gender, ability of players and so on in order to obtain further information concerning the variables that affect player performance. Also, further research should obtain additional information about coaches’ characteristics such as gender, experience, ability, and so on, because leader characteristics affect actual behaviour.

Players are important source of information to assess coaching behaviours. If coaching behaviour is important to the coach for players’ performance and satisfaction, player input should be sought as a source of documentation. In order to obtain genuine information, players and coaches should give full attention for future research in caching leadership. Therefore player input will be beneficial to the coach for understanding what players prefer and what behaviours the coach is actually exhibiting.

From this study it shows that although there are differences between Maltese and foreigners, certain aspects were clear for both set of players.

Page 46

References

Audas, R., Dobson, S., & Goddard, J. (1997). Team performance and managerial change in the English football league. Economic Affairs, 17(3), 30-36.

Barrow, J. (1977). The variables of leadership. A review and conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 2, 231-251.

Beech, M. (2002). Leaders or managers: the drive for effective leadership. Nursing Standard, 16,35-36.

Bloom, G. A., Schinke, R. J., & Salmela, J. H. (1998). Assessing the development of perceived communication skills by elite basketball coaches and athletes. Coaching and Sport Science Journal, 2(3), 3-10.

Carron, A. V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesion as a factor in sport performance. International Review of Sport Sociology, 16, 21-41.

Chelladurai, P. (1978). A contingency model of leadership in athletics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Canada.

Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 328-354.

Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.),Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York: Macmillan.

Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1978). Leadership. CAPHER, Sociology of Sport Monograph Series A. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.

Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred leadership. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 371-380.

Chelladurai, P., & Doherty, A. J. (1998). Styles of decision-making in coaching. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: personal growth to peak performance (3rd ed., pp. 115-126). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Page 47

Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. A. (1998). Measurement of leadership in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.),Advances in sport and exercise psychology (pp. 227-253). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

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

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.

Clough, P. J., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002) Mental toughness: the concept and its measurement. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32-43). London: Thomson Publishing.

Crust, L., & Clough, P. J. (2005). Relationship between mental toughness and physical endurance.Perceptual & Motor Skills, 100, 192-194.

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

Gill, D. L. (2000). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise (2nd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Gill, D. L., & Perry, J. L. (1979). A case study of leadership in women’s intercollegiate softball.International Review of Sport Sociology, 14, 83-91.

Grusky, O. (1963). The effects of formal structure on managerial recruitment: A study of baseball organization. Sociometry, 26, 345-353.

Horn, T. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology, (2nd ed., pp. 309-354). Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics.

Janssen, J., & Dale, G. (2002). The seven secrets of successful coaches. Tucson, AZ: The Mental Game.

Jowett, S. (2001). The psychology of interpersonal relationships in sport: The coach-athlete relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Exeter, UK.

Page 48

Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An inquiry into hardiness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.

Larson, M. (1977). The rise of professionalism: a sociological analysis. New York: Harper and Row.

Loehr, J. (2005). Leadership: Full engagement for success. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The sport psych handbook (pp. 155-170). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Maddi, S. R., Khan, S., & Maddi, K. L. (1998). The effectiveness of hardiness training.Consulting Psychology Journal, 50, 78-86.

Martens, R. (1990). Successful Coaching. Champaign Illinois: Leisure Press.

Penman, K., Hastad, D., & Cords, W. (1974). Success of the authoritarian coach. Journal of Social Psychology, 92, 155-156.

Perry, B. (2000). The boss? The contemporary role of the football manager. In P. Murphy (Ed.),Singer and Friedlander’s review 1999-2000 season. London: Singer and Friedlander in association with the University of Leicester.

Pratt, S., & Eitzen, D. S. (1989). Contrasting leadership styles and organizational effectiveness: The case of athletic teams. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 311-322.

Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive- behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sports coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75.

Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Terry, P., & Howe, B. (1984). Coaching preferences of athletes. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 9, 188-193.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today, 9,74-78.

Page 49

The Mail Online October 7, 2015, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article- 3262584/Premier-League-managers-life-expectancy-Arsene-Wenger-going-strong-average-two- years.html

Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (3rd ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Weiss, M. R., & Fredrichs, W. D. (1986). The influence of leader behaviors, coach attributes, and institutional variables on performance and satisfaction of collegiate basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 332-346.

Page 50

Appendix A Research introduction to selected coaches

Dear Coach:

As part of my UEFA PRO Licence Diploma research thesis at the Malta Football Association Technical Centre, I'm conducting a questionnaire about leadership behaviour which is used to study the athletes' preference for specific leader behaviour and the athletes' perceptions of their coaches' behaviour. I am collecting data on men’s football players’ preferences for leadership behaviours to fulfil my thesis requirement. The study will examine the effect of Maltese and Foreign players’ preferred leadership behaviours.

In order to gather data on players’ leadership preferences, I will be using a brief questionnaire called the Leadership Scale for Sports. I have attached a copy of the survey questions so that you can see I am not asking about your specific coaching behaviours or styles.

Players’ answers are all anonymously provided, and the data will be reported collectively – no athlete, coach, or club will be identifiable. The importance of this study and its findings will be to the broader understanding of what the players prefer and perceive leadership.

While the leadership style of a coach is ultimately an individual decision, understanding the situational and personal characteristics that affect a player’s preference for certain coaching behaviours may be a useful tool for any coach.

Sincerely, Darren Abdilla

Page 51

Appendix B Research introduction to selected participants

My name is Darren Abdilla, currently the coach of Gzira United. I've been involved in coaching for the past 10 years.

As part of my UEFA PRO Licence Diploma research thesis at the Malta Football Association Technical Centre, I'm conducting a questionnaire about leadership behaviour. I'm using the Leadership Scale for Sport questionnaire by Chelladurai & Saleh which is used to study the athletes' preference for specific leader behaviour and the athletes' perceptions of their coaches' behaviour.

The Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) is a questionnaire made up of 40 items that are divided into 5 subscales. 13 items relate to Training and Instruction, 9 items relate to Democratic Behaviour, 5 items relate to Autocratic Behaviour, 8 items relate to Social Support, and 5 items relate to Positive Feedback.

I will appreciate if you could complete the following questionnaire. Any information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential

Respondents Details:-

Please mark as appropriate.

Nationality: Maltese

Foreigner

Age: 16 to 21

22 to 28

29 to 40

How to mark the questionnaire:-

Please circle your answer when every statement begins with "My coach...... " and square your answer when every statement begins with "I prefer my coach to....."

Page 52

Appendix C Leadership Scale for Sports

Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) Using the following scale, please circle a number from 1 to 5 to indicate your level of agreement with each statements regarding your COACH and square a number from 1 1 2 3 4 5 to 5 to indicate your level of agreement with each statements regarding your PREFERRED COACH Training and Instruction 1 See to it that every athlete is working to his capacity. 1 2 3 4 5 2 Explain to each athlete the techniques and tactics of the sport. 1 2 3 4 5 3 Pay special attention to correcting athlete's mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 4 Make sure that his part in the team is understood by all the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 5 Instruct every athlete individually in the skills of the sport. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure ahead on what should be done. 1 2 3 4 5 7 Explain to every athlete what he should and what he should not do. 1 2 3 4 5 8 Expect every athlete to carry out his assignment to the last detail. 1 2 3 4 5 9 Point out each athlete's strengths and weaknesses. 1 2 3 4 5 Give specific instructions to each athlete as to what he should do in every 10 1 2 3 4 5 situation. 11 See to it that the efforts are coordinated. 1 2 3 4 5 12 Explain how each athlete's contribution fits into the total picture. 1 2 3 4 5 13 Specify in detail what is expected of each athlete. 1 2 3 4 5 Democratic Behaviour 14 Ask for the opinion of the athletes on strategies for specific competitions. 1 2 3 4 5 15 Get group approval on important matters before going ahead. 1 2 3 4 5 16 Let his athletes share in decision making. 1 2 3 4 5 17 Encourage athletes to make suggestions for ways of conducting practices. 1 2 3 4 5 18 Let the group set its own goals. 1 2 3 4 5 19 Let the athletes try their own way even if they make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 20 Ask for the opinion of the athletes on important coaching matters. 1 2 3 4 5 21 Let athletes work at their own speed. 1 2 3 4 5 22 Let the athletes decide on the plays to be used in a game. 1 2 3 4 5 Autocratic Behaviour 23 Work relatively independent of the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 24 Not explain his action. 1 2 3 4 5

Page 53

25 Refuse to compromise a point. 1 2 3 4 5 26 Keep to himself. 1 2 3 4 5 27 Speak in a manner not to be questioned. 1 2 3 4 5 Social Support 28 Help the athletes with their personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5 29 Help members of the group settle their conflicts. 1 2 3 4 5 30 Look out for the personal welfare of the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 31 Do personal favors to the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 32 Express affection he feels for his athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 33 Encourage the athlete to confide in him. 1 2 3 4 5 34 Encourage close and informal relations with athletes. 1 2 3 4 5 35 Invite athletes to his home. 1 2 3 4 5 Positive Feedback 36 Compliment an athlete for his performance in front of others. 1 2 3 4 5 37 Tell an athlete when he does a particularly good job. 1 2 3 4 5 38 See that an athlete is rewarded for a good performance. 1 2 3 4 5 39 Express appreciation when an athlete performs well. 1 2 3 4 5 40 Give credit when credit is due. 1 2 3 4 5

Page 54