Pawar et al.: Leadership behavior preferred by individual sports athletes
Serbian Journal of Sports Sciences
2009, 3(3): 99-104, www.sjss-sportsacademy.edu.rs
UDC 796.4:[005.322:316.46-053.81-055.1
ISSN 1820-6301
ID 169141004
Serb J Sports Sci 3(3): 99 -104
Original article
Received: 30 Jan 2009
Accepted: 27 Jun 2009
AN ANALYSIS OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR PREFERRED BY INDIVIDUAL
SPORTS ATHLETES AT INTER-UNIVERSITY-LEVEL
Ranjeet Singh Pawar1, Ravindra Kumar Yadav2 & Raj Kumar Sharma3
C.V. Raman University, Kota-Bilaspur (C.G.), INDIA.
2R.D. University, Jabalpur (M. P.), INDIA.
3S.A.I Training Centre Digvijay Stadium, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), INDIA.
1
Abstract The purpose of the study was to assess the leadership preference of inter-university level
male athletes involved in individual sports; and to discover the difference in preferred leadership
among inter-university level athletes involved in individual sports. Four hundred and nine male
athletes from individual sports (Track and Field=146, Gymnastics=142, and Cross Country=121),
who represented their respective universities in individual sports and games, i.e. Gymnastics, Cross
Country, and Track and Field at various inter-university competitions, and who volunteered to participate
in the study, were selected as the subjects. Their age ranged from 18 to 25 years. The Leadership Scale
for Sports developed and prepared in 1994 by P. Chelladurai was used to measure five dimensions of
leader behavior preferred by male athletes involved in individual sports. Means, standard deviations, and
the F-ratio were computed to establish the significance of the differences among the athletes regarding
the five dimensions of leader behavior of preferred leadership. The level of significance was set at p
<0.05. The data analysis revealed that the male players from the individual sports group had similar
preferences in all the leader behavior dimensions.
Key words: Preferred leadership, individual sports, inter-university level
INTRODUCTION
Leadership is an ability that causes other people to become aware of the person attempting to lead, to
recognize the information or idea which he is trying to present, and to move or act on the basis of the
idea toward some predetermined end. In the context of this research, leadership means well trained,
experienced and educated teachers of physical education who assist the students institutionally and
professionally within the physical education program [4].
Leadership might broadly be considered "the behavioral process of influencing individuals and
groups toward set goals" which is interpersonal in nature, entails a high degree of direct interaction
with the athletes, and bears directly on the motivation of the team members. This definition is useful
because it encompasses many dimensions of leadership. In sport and exercise, these dimensions include
decision-making processes, motivational techniques, giving feedback, establishing interpersonal
relationships, and directing the group or team confidently [1].
To understand the psychological dimensions of athletics, one must plumb a critical actor on the
stage (the coach). Throughout the years, the coach has been portrayed in many ways, at times as
dogmatic and tough but able to imprint quality into their athletes [3].
Generally, coaches and athletes have tended to agree on what they would consider a
successful coaches' personality pattern to be. Their model is an outgoing, stable individual who would
to a degree dominate the sports situation and the athletes in his or her charge. They also believe that
the coach should be highly intelligent, realistic, practical, confident, and secure yet inventive, willing to
99
Pawar et al.: Leadership behavior preferred by individual sports athletes
Serb J Sports Sci 3(3): 99 -104
break with tradition, able to make decisions, and self-sufficient. Athletes seem to believe that a coach
should be a person who could be leaned upon in competitive crises; coaches believe the person
should be able to organize and control athletes [10].
Athletes, when queried, have reported that what they like best about effective coaches is the
freedom from sarcasm with which they run their practices, along with effective skill teaching and
conditioning procedures used. Athletes also like coaches to relate equally well to, and to spend equal
amount of time with both the more talented as well as the less effective players. Athletes doing
individual sports seem to have more intense feelings about their coaches than the athletes in team
sports, as perhaps the latter are able to "lay off" some of their feelings to the others on the team, while
in individual sports the athletes must deal with their mentor in a direct one-to-one manner [9].
One major dimension of coaching behavior involves complex and sometimes controversial
interactions between the coach and athletes (and their parents) to the extent and of the kind of social
support which is expected of the coach toward his/her athletes. Some sports, like gymnastics and
track and field, where the coach works basically on a one-to-one relationship with his/her athletes, will
usually foster a more personal and supportive role by the coach than in team sports [9].
The interaction process between athletes and coaches has always been considered to be a
determinant factor of sports performance, for its repercussion at the behavioral, cognitive and emotional
aspects. Because of the importance given by the athletes to the relationship with their coaches, they report
meaningful thoughts and dreams centered in the coaches. However, this coach-athlete relationship may be
disturbed by a number of factors, such as incompatibilities between their personalities. The co-operation
between the coach and the athlete is the psychological basis of coaching individualization. Indeed, coaches
decision depend on their interpretation and cognition, but they deeply interfere in sport and personal life of
their athlete with positive or negative consequences. In fact, the coaches; working methods and
interpersonal style have impact upon their athletes since the earlier stage of these ones’ evolution. The
structuring of their adaptive skills will have expression in their performance and everyday life.
It has been observed that the differences in personal characteristics would influence what kind
of coaching behaviors the athletes prefer, for instance gender has been found to be an important
determinant of preferred leadership.
Personality is also a significant determinant of preferred leadership. Challadurai and Saleh [8]
reported that those high on cognition structure (i.e. the need for more information and structure in an
environment) preferred more training and instructions while the more impulsive athletes preferred
more social support. On the other hand, athletic motivation for participation (affiliation-, task- or self-)
and instruction versus extrinsic motivation were correlated with preferred leader behavior.
Kim et al [12] found that Korean athletes involved in individual sports, combative sports, and team
sports differed among themselves in all dimensions except in preferred training and instruction. Terry [17]
found that there were no differences in preferred leadership among different nationalities. He noted that
"the three viable subject groups (Canada, United States, and Great Britain)” all share similar cultural
backgrounds and sporting ideologies. Chelladurai and Saleh [8] found that the congruence between
preferred and actual behavior in the dimensions of autocratic behavior and positive feedback effected
satisfaction with the coach in a curvilinear manner. Chelladurai [7] found that among basketball players,
discrepancy scores in all dimensions were significantly related to satisfaction with leadership. Corroborating
these findings, Home and Carron [11] reported that discrepancies in training and instruction, social support
and positive feedback were significant predictors of satisfaction with leadership. The higher the ratings of
the coach's behavior in these dimensions related to preferences, the higher the satisfaction with
leadership. Schliesman [15] found that perceived democratic behavior and social support were
positively related to general satisfaction with leadership. Also discrepancy scores in training and
instruction, social support, and positive feedback were also significantly related to satisfaction.
The purpose of the study was to assess the leadership preferences of inter-university level male
athletes in different individual sports. It was hypothesized that inter-university level male athletes in
individual sports would differ significantly in their leadership preferences.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
SAMPLES
Four hundred and nine male athletes engaged in individual sports (Track and Field = 146, Gymnastics = 142,
and Cross Country = 121) who represented their respective universities in a variety of sports i.e. Gymnastics,
Cross Country, or Track and Field in various inter-university competitions, and who volunteered to participate
100
Pawar et al.: Leadership behavior preferred by individual sports athletes
Serb J Sports Sci 3(3): 99 -104
in the study were selected as the subjects. The age of the subjects ranged from 18 to 25 years. The
training age (sport experience) of the male athletes ranged from 8 to 11 years; they had also won
medals in national competitions, and represented India in international competitions.
INSTRUMENTATION
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) by Chelladurai [5] was used to assess the leadership behavior
preferred by the subjects. The 40-item LSS measures the five dimensions of leadership behavior, i.e.
Training and instruction, Democratic behavior, Autocratic behavior, Social support and Positive
feedback. The athletes' preferences for specific leader behavior displayed by the coach were
assessed by using the preference version of LSS. The sample item read, e.g., “I prefer my coach to
see to it that athletes work to capacity". Each statement described specific behavior exhibited by the
coach. For each statement there were five alternatives - 1. Always (100% of the time); 2. Often (about
75% of the time); 3. Occasionally (50% of the time); 4. Seldom (about 25% of the time); 5. Never (
0.00%). The scoring of each of the items was as follows; Always = 5, Often = 4, Occasionally = 3,
Seldom = 2, Never = 1. The sum of the scores on the items in a dimension was divided by the number
of items in that dimension to derive the dimension score for a subject.
The purpose of the study was explained to the subjects. The directions were read out at
dictation speed to make the subjects understand what exactly they were required to do. There were no
right or wrong answers. There was no time for the completion of the questionnaire but the subjects
were instructed not to ponder too long over any questions. All the subjects were instructed to respond
to the questionnaire independently. Once the instructions were clear, the questionnaire was distributed
to the respondents along with the writing material. As soon as a group of athletes completed the
questionnaire, the questionnaires were collected. It was verified that no response was left unanswered.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics were computed for the individual sports groups, i.e. Gymnastics, Track and Field
and Cross Country, separately for the five dimensions of preferred leadership behavior.
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a single independent factor (Male athlete) in the
individual sports groups was computed along with five dimensions of leadership behavior as the set of
the dependent variable in order to find out the significance of the difference among individual sports
groups and among different sports within each group separately. The data pertaining to this are
presented in Table 1.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The descriptive statistics of preferences on five dimensions of leader behavior of inter-university level
male players in individual sports is shown in Table 1. The mean score of the five dimensions of leader
behavior as preferred by the individual sports group at inter-university level are shown in Figures 1 to 3.
Mean Scores
Cross Country (N = 121 )
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
4.32
Training and
instruction
(T.I.)
3.09
3.03
Democratic
behavior
(D.B.)
Autocratic
behavior
(A.B.)
3.84
Social support
(S.S.)
4.01
Positive
feedback
(P.F.)
Leader Behavior Dimensions
Figure 1. Mean scores of inter-university level male Cross Country athletes on the five dimensions of leader behavior
101
Pawar et al.: Leadership behavior preferred by individual sports athletes
Serb J Sports Sci 3(3): 99 -104
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of preferences on five dimensions of leader behavior of inter-university
level male players in individual sports (Mean ± SD)
Leader Behavior Dimensions
Gymnastics
Cross Country
Athletics
(N = 121)
(N = 146)
(N = 142)
4.32 ± 0.52
3.09 ± 0.69
3.03 ± 0.93
3.84 ± 0.59
4.01 ± 0.72
4.38 ± 0.48
3.59 ± 0.61
2.90 ± 0.82
3.81 ± 0.59
4.00 ± 0.73
4.24 ± 0.51
3.58 ± 0.65
3.07 ± 0.84
3.72 ± 0.55
4.03 ± 0.67
1.Training and instruction (T.I.)
2. Democratic behavior (D.B.)
3. Autocratic behavior (A.B.)
4. Social support (S.S.)
5. Positive feedback (P.F.)
For the purpose of comparison among male athletes in individual sports and games, i.e. Gymnastics,
Track and Field, and Cross Country, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a single independent factor
of individual sports and games, with five dimensions of leader behavior was applied as a set of
dependent variables. The data pertaining to this are presented in Table 2.
Mean Scores
Track and Fields (N = 146 )
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
4.38
3.59
3.80
4.00
2.90
Training and
instruction
(T.I.)
Democratic
Autocratic
Social support
Positive
behavior (D.B.) behavior (A.B.)
(S.S.)
feedback (P.F.)
Leader Behavior Dimensions
Figure 2. Mean scores of inter-university level male Track & Field athletes on the five dimensions of
leader behavior
Gymnastics (N = 142)
6.0
5.5
Mean Scores
5.0
4.5
4.0
4.24
3.58
4.03
3.07
3.72
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Training and
Democratic
Autocratic
Social support
Positive
instruction (T.I.) behavior (D.B.) behavior (A.B.)
(S.S.)
feedback (P.F.)
Leader Behavior Dimensions
Figure 3. Mean scores of inter-university level male Gymnasts on the five dimensions of leader behavior
102
Pawar et al.: Leadership behavior preferred by individual sports athletes
Serb J Sports Sci 3(3): 99 -104
Table 2. An analysis of variance of preferences of inter-university level male players in individual sports on
leader behavior dimensions
Type of Behavior
Training & Instructions
Social Support
Positive Feedback
Autocratic Behavior
Democratic Behavior
Source of
Variance
Sum of
square
df
Mean
squares
Between Groups
within groups
Between Groups
within groups
Between Groups
within groups
Between Groups
within groups
Between Groups
within groups
1.43
105.67
0.95
136.37
0.07
203.67
2.24
314.97
0.02
171.54
2
406
2
406
2
406
2
406
2
406
0.71
0.26
0.47
0.34
0.03
0.50
1.12
0.78
0.01
0.42
F
2.74
1.41
0.07
1.45
0.02
*F.05 (2, 406) = 3.02
As can be seen from Table 2, the inter-university level male players of individual sports (i.e. Athletics,
Cross Country, and Gymnastics) did not differ significantly in their preferences in any dimensions of
leader behavior.
ANOVA revealed that the inter-university level male players involved in individual sports (i.e.
Track and Field, Cross Country and Gymnastics) did not differ in their preference on the five
dimensions of leadership behavior. Thus, the hypothesis that the athletes of individual sports (i.e. Track
and Field, Cross Country and Gymnastics) would differ in their leadership preferences was rejected.
Researchers found differing leadership preferences based on the game type. Challadurai [7]
found that athletes involved in individual sports (independent task) or closed sports such as swimming
(non-variable task) preferred more democratic behavior than their respective counterparts, who
preferred more autocratic behavior. Lindauer [13] examined the preferred leadership behavior of
athletes of individual and team sports and reported that individual sport athletes preferred a greater
degree of democratic behavior and positive feedback. In a study on student athletes from NCAA
university divisions I and II, Beem [2] concluded that athletes in golf, gymnastics, swimming, etc.
showed greater preferences for democratic behavior. In open sports (a stable environment such as
golf), student athletes had significantly greater preferences for autocratic behavior than the athletes in
closed sports (i.e. changing environment such as tennis). In another study on individual sports,
combative sports and team sports by Kim et al [12], it was reported that the combative sports athletes
preferred more autocratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback from their coaches than did
the other groups. Furthermore, individual sports athletes preferred more democratic behavior from
their coaches than the other groups. The individual sports athletes included in this study expressed
the need for training and instruction and positive feedback from their coaches (Table I). The
preferences expressed by the athletes are not in congruence with the above-cited studies. It seems
that the inter-university athletes included in the study were more serious about their performance and
were more goal-oriented. Their coaches should aim at improving the athletes' performance by
emphasizing and facilitating hard and strenuous training, instructing the athletes in skills, techniques
and tactics of the sport. They should recognize and reward their good performance. This contrasting
result may be attributed to the fact that these athletes might not have been trained seriously and
regularly by a qualified coach. Indian culture and sporting environment may also be one of the
possible reasons for these leadership preferences. Riemer and Toon [14] suggest that the situation
differences between sports might determine the salience of leadership behavior, and that leadership
would be divergent among nations. Chelladurai et all [6] studied leadership in a cross-national setting
and found differences in leadership behavior and satisfaction with leadership among Canadian and
Japanese athletes that arose from cultural differences.
Future research might examine the aspects of Chelladurai's multidimensional model in order to
evaluate its relevance to Indian conditions. Further research on sports leadership should address the
103
Pawar et al.: Leadership behavior preferred by individual sports athletes
Serb J Sports Sci 3(3): 99 -104
factors that affect performance, such as age, training age / experience, level of participation, ability,
gender etc. along with the coach's characteristics, because the coach has the greatest influence on
the player's performance.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitation of the study, the following conclusion was reached: The players of different sports
including the individual sports group had similar preferences on all the leader behavior dimensions.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
It is recommended that coaches dealing with inter-university level male players may adjust their
coaching behavior according to the preferences expressed by the players.
Because of the lack of research evidence with regard to sports-specific leadership in the Indian sports
scenario there is an ample scope for researchers to address a number of potentially important areas.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Barrow, C. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual frame work. Academy of Management
Review., 2: 231-251. /as cited by S. Robert Weinberg and Daniel Gould, Foundation of Sports and Exercise Psychology
Campaign: Human Kinetics Publishers, (1995). p. 204./.
Beem, J. W. (2002). Preferred Leadership of NCAA Division I and II Student Athletes. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Florida.
Carron, A. V. (1980). Social Psychology of Sport. New York: Movement Publications.
Charles, A. B. (1982). Foundation of Physical Education. London: C.V. Mosby Company.
Chelladurai, P. (1994). Manual of Leadership Scale for Sport. U.S.A.: Ohio State University.
Chelladurai, P., Imamura, H., Yamaguchi, Y., Oinuma, Y., & Miauchi, T. (1988). Sports leadership in cross-national
setting: The case of Japanese and Canadian university athletes. J Sports Exerc Psychology., 10: 374-385.
Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behaviour and satisfaction
of athletes in varying sports. J Sport Psychology., 6: 27-41.
Challadurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Can J Appl Sport Sci., 3: 85-92.
Cratty, B. J., & Pigott, R. E. (1986). Students Projects in Sports Psychology. New York: Movement Publication INC.
Hendry, C. B. (1969). The assessment of personality traits in the coach swimmer relationship and a preliminary of
the further figure stereo type. Res Quart., 39: 543-551.
Home, T., & Carron, A. V. (1985). Compatibility in coach–athlete relationships. J Sport Psychology., 7(8): 137-149.
Kim, B. H., Lee, H. K., & Lee, J. Y., (1990). A study on the coaches leadership behaviour in sports. Unpublished
Manuscript, Korea Sports Science Institute, Seoul. /As Cited by Singer, R.N. et.al. Handbook of Research on Sport
Psychology, New York: McMillan Publishing Company, 1993., p. 653./.
Lindauer, J. R. (2000). A Comparison of Preferred Leadership Behaviour of College Athletes in Individual and Team
Sports. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.
Riemer, H. A. & Toon, K. (2001). Leadership and satisfaction in tennis – examination of congruence, gender and
ability. Res Quart Exerc Sports., 72: 243-256.
Schliesman, E. S. (1987). Relationship between the congruence of preferred and actual leader behaviour and
subordinate satisfaction with leadership. J Sport Behaviour., 10: 157 -166.
Shivers, J., & Shivers, S. (1963). Leadership in Recreational Service. New York: The MacMillan Company.
Terry, P. C. (1981). The coaching preferences of elite athletes competing at Universiade 83. Can J Appl Sport Sci.,
9: 201-208.
Address for correspondence:
Dr. Ranjeet Singh Pawar,
C. V. Raman University
Head of Physical Education
Kota-Bilaspur, INDIA
Phone – Mob.: 098 937 379 56
E-mail: [email protected]
104