Strategies of Football and Tennis Coaches in the UK

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Aim of the Study
Objectives
Literature Review Chapter
Research Gap
Reference List

Aim of the Study

The aim of the study is to identify leadership strategies used by football and tennis coaches in the UK and the motivations behind the selection of these strategies.

Objectives

To identify the coaching leadership styles used by football and tennis coaches
To compare the motivations for using coaching leadership style in football and tennis
To uncover the effect of the coaching leadership styles on player satisfaction
To develop possible suggestions for improving the current situation

Literature Review Chapter

Leadership Strategy

The leadership strategy used by a coach has an impact on the performance and satisfaction of the team members. According to Ferrar et al. (2018), leadership is a behavioral process where the leader influences others to achieve the set goals. The importance of this definition is that it places special emphasis on the intentions of the leader (achieving the set goals) while mentioning the necessity for interactions between team members and the leader. In defining the nature of effective leadership Heidari et al. (2019) state that it involves an understanding of the motivations of team members and should target to minimize potential losses of productivity. However, Collins and Durand-Bush (2014) believe that this can be achieved when the leader develops team cohesion, therefore, allowing the team to operate at its potential. Consequently, cohesion depends on the relationship between the team members and the coach.

One common theme in all leadership styles is the ability of the leader to have a positive impact on group dynamics by following the objective of the team. In this sense, Heidari et al. (2019) argue that the act of leadership seeks to influence others to follow the leader. Konter et al. (2019) further concluded that effective leadership is best achieved through methods such as manipulation, coercion, and persuasion. However, Ferrar et al. (2018) insist that there must be respect and an understanding of the power dynamics between the follower and the leader. It means that all parties must acknowledge the power balance between them. Furthermore, every action involved in successful leadership is political because there is always room for coercion.

General Approach to Leadership Theories

Several articles have been written about leadership, with some claiming that it can be achieved through heredity and others by experience. Nawaz and Khan (2016) describe leadership as a sophisticated concept in modern times. In the past, leaders were differentiated from their followers using words like the chief, king, or head of state. However, Anderson et al. (2017) argue that the definition of a leader was only introduced into the Oxford English Dictionary in the first half of the nineteenth century but was aligned with political influence and control. The word has, therefore, gained prominence in modern languages in recent times. Considering that there are many definitions of leadership today, social scientists have developed leadership theories to accommodate the varying definitions. Nawaz and Khan (2016) classify these theories into three approaches:

Trait Theories

Much of the research on leadership during the early twentieth century focused on the identification of the traits which defined leaders. According to Nawaz and Khan (2016), trait theories sought to answer questions such as what an effective leader looked like rather than how they lead. Based on this approach, Mills and Boardley (2017) suggested that successful leadership requires an individual to have a certain personality, which makes him or her lead in every situation. Given this perspective, the author states that good leaders are rather born than made. In this regard, it was thought that leaders who succeeded in particular contexts were likely to equally succeed in every situation (Nawaz and Khan, 2016). This means that successful leaders possess a set of common traits, such as self-confidence, intelligence, and self-assurance.

There have been attempts to use the trait approach for identifying successful coaches in sports. Billsberry et al. (2018), for example, profiled a typical coach as a leader who is independent in thinking, authoritarian, and emotionally mature. However, social scientists supporting the approach lost favor after World War II, when a review of trait-related leadership studies was conducted and only a couple of personality traits were found to be consistent (Peachey et al., 2015). According to the authors, this was not enough evidence to show that successful leaders had similar sets of leadership traits. Another review by Mills and Boardley (2017) made similar conclusions relative to sports leadership. Given the turn of events, there have been a reduced number of research articles on trait leadership.

Behavioral Theories

Owing to the failure of the trait approach, researchers began using behaviors to define a leader. In this sense, the behaviors of successful leaders were examined. Contrary to the trait approach, the behavioral approach asserted that leaders were made, rather than born (Mills and Boardley, 2016). The focus, therefore, shifted to the leadership style instead of what the leader looked like. Behaviorist scientists such as Keegan et al. (2014) argue that everyone has the potential of becoming a leader as long as they learn from the behaviors of other leaders. Based on behavior, the authors classify leaders as either autocratic or democratic. On the other hand, Turnnidge and Côté (2019) classified leaders as permissive or directive, while Mills and Boardley (2016) used task or people, oriented behaviors. It means that the behavioral dimension focuses on concepts related to the actions of leaders.

Situational Theories

Personality theories became ineffective in predicting the performance of groups. Contrary to the trait and behavioral perspectives of leadership theories, the situational approach assumes that no type of leader is better than the other (Kovach, 2018). The effectiveness of each leader depends on how they interact with every situation. According to Megheirkouni (2018), a situation referred to variables such as team behaviors, type and complexity of the task, and the size of the team. However, Kovach (2018) argues that there has been an irregular application of situational theories in sports. Researchers only focus on specific variables and how they influence leader behaviors rather than seeking to understand the leadership process.

A Sports Specific Approach

Two theoretical frameworks are commonly used in sports leadership studies. The cognitive-behavioral model was proposed by Smoll and Smith (Nelson et al., 2014). According to Jones et al. (2016), leadership depends on the difference in cognitive processes and situational factors that are believed to mediate the behaviors of coaches and the reactions of athletes toward the leaders. The second theoretical framework is the Multidimensional Leadership Model whose focus is on the congruence among the required, actual, and preferred behaviors (Nelson et al., 2014). The antecedents of the three leader traits are the nature of the situation and the characteristics of both the coach and team members.

The Cognitive-behavioral Model

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is known to produce lasting results in Psychology. Under this theory, the cognitive model concept is built upon the premise that the emotions and behaviors of individuals are determined by how they perceive events (Lee et al., 2015). In this sense, Jones et al. (2016) argue that the situation itself does not influence the feelings and reactions of people, but their interpretation of it which in turn generates emotions and affects their behaviors. The cognitive model links a person’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. According to Dixon et al. (2017), thoughts can be functional or dysfunctional, meaning that they have the potential of helping or disrupting the process of achieving goals. In his regard, they add that thought can produce desired or undesired emotions hence influencing positive or negative behaviors. However, Nelson et al. (2014) argue that the influence depends on the evaluation the person makes of the situation. The mechanism of the cognitive-behavioral model produces core beliefs, which form the description of the self.

The focus of the cognitive-behavioral model is on how personal, environmental, and behavioral factors interrelate. North (2017) indicates that these factors form a reciprocal causal network. In this sense, the three factors interact to produce various attitudinal consequences. Collins and Collins (2016) also state that the model acknowledges that human interactions take place in a dynamic environmental context, which influences the outcomes of the interactions. According to Dixon et al. (2017), when identical interactions are put in two different sports contexts (elite level sport and youth physical education), they will produce different outcomes. In explaining this observation, the authors state that the cognitive-behavioral model assumes all humans to be different and hence the differences in outcomes of their interactions. In this regard, the distinct outcomes produced by the identical set of interactions are affected by the personality of the individuals involved.

Personal experiences in life affect how people give meaning to the situational state. Didymus and Fletcher (2017), therefore, indicate that an individual may interpret or reinterpret the situation as favorable or dangerous. Coaches thus have to learn various ways of identifying, evaluating, and responding to the thoughts and beliefs of team members (Dixon et al., 2017). Having identified the thoughts, the leader must carry out an analysis to determine their validity for the respective context and finally develop a course of action. However, Weaver and Simet (2015) believe that a realistic evaluation of the situation will end up modifying the thought, enhancing emotions, and producing functional behaviors relative to the sport’s setting. The application of CBT by coaches in sports ensures that athletes can identify and evaluate their thoughts to improve the resultant emotions and try to produce the desired behaviors.

Coaches can also derive cognitive and behavioral techniques from the theory which they would use to help team members to manage internal thoughts and emotions in both practices and competitions. According to Lyle and Cushion (2016), athletes are likely to experience and interpret events, thoughts, and emotions differently as a result of expectations and past previous experiences. Furthermore, Arnold et al. (2016) found that athletes have different psychological stressors, which depend on their gender, the type of sporting activity, and their performance level. These authors argued that men and women produce different internal responses in terms of appraisals and coping strategies when they face organizational stressors. In a study that produced similar results, Didymus and Fletcher (2014) found that swimming coaches successfully used diaries to keep athlete records, which helped the athletes become aware and differentiate between their thoughts and emotions. However, in this study due to the long-term data gathering, it is difficult to know the criteria used by the swimmers to judge the effectiveness of their coping.

The leadership styles used by coaches in various sports have value on the performance of players. It means that coaching requires one to follow different leadership styles depending on the prevailing situation (Lyle and Cushion, 2016). The leadership behavior model conforms to these sentiments as it is based on situation-specific behaviors. According to Arnold et al. (2016), the central process of the model lies with the perception of the players regarding the behaviors of the coach as well as how the players respond to the coach’s leadership style. Weaver and Simet (2015) further state that the model stipulates that the meaning the players attribute to the leadership style employed by the coach is likely to have the ultimate effects of the choice of coaching behaviors. In other words, the attitudes toward the coach are a product of cognitive and affective processes. Given the various perspectives of the model, Heidari et al. (2019) conclude that it measures and defines the link between the role of the coach, the perception of the players regarding the coach, and the attitudinal responses of the players to the entire situation.

There are coach individual variables that help determine their behavior. Jones et al. (2016) mention factors such as intentions, perception of self and players, and gender. North (2017) also argues that player individual variables such as motivation, anxiety, age, gender, and confidence level can affect the behavior of the coach. On the other hand, situational factors include the nature of the sport (Didymus and Fletcher, 2017), team cohesion (Konter et al., 2019), the success of the team, and competitive level (Nelson et al., 2014). Dixon et al. (2017) observed that some coaches were treated athletes with low self-confidence differently from others. The Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS) was developed to help observe and code the behaviors of coaches (Turnnidge and Côté, 2019). CBAS allows for the observation of the leadership strategies used by coaches during practices and games. Based on the observations made, the coach can ascertain the effectiveness of the leadership strategies employed. The CBAS assesses both coach reactive and spontaneous behaviors towards team members.

Multidimensional Model of Leadership

The model is built upon three types of leader behaviors. First is the required behavior, which Cummins et al. (2017) describe as a set of prescriptions of the situation within which the leadership occurs. Jackson et al. (2014) also noted that the behaviors of leaders are mostly defined by situations such as the intended objectives, the type of task, and the socio-cultural context of the team. According to Bekiari and Balla (2017), the nature of the team, which contributes to the required behavior, is determined by aspects such as skill level, gender, and age. The second type of leader behavior is preferred behavior. Kao et al. (2015) describe this as the preferences of team members for a particular set of behavior such as social support and feedback. However, Cummins et al. (2017) believe that the preferences of team members are largely dependent on individual characteristics such as personality and ability to achieve the task at hand. Leaders, therefore, must abide by situational requirements and accommodate the preferences of all team members.

The Leadership Scale for Sport was developed to test the effectiveness of the Multidimensional Model of Leadership. According to Lyle and Cushion (2016), LSS measures all the aspects of leadership behaviors. These include the preferences of the team members, the perceptions of athletes regarding their coaches, and the perceptions of the coaches on their behavior (Jackson et al. 2014). In this regard, Bekiari and Balla (2017) proposed that coaches should consider using multiple leadership styles depending on differences in the characteristics of team members such as gender and educational background. The five dimensions used in the LSS are discussed hereafter:

Training and Instruction

The objective of the coach is to bolster the skill set of the team members. Koh et al. (2014) for example state that under this dimension, a strength coach can take the necessary steps to refine players’ running technique. Similarly, tennis players may be taken through newly introduced flexibility exercises by their trainers (Cummins et al., 2017). The focus of the training and instruction dimension is to explain the techniques and tactics involved in the exercises, therefore, providing a rationale for the reasons behind implementing the new concepts (Chiu et al., 2016). It ensures that the athlete is familiar with the training priorities for the particular sport.

Autocratic behavior

Autocratic leaders tend to ensure that athletes are less involved in decision-making regarding their training. According to Chiu et al. (2016), coaches are likely to use strategies such as commands and punishments to facilitate the fulfillment of training plans and activities. However, Weaver and Simet (2015) criticize autocratic leadership based on the premise that the coach develops training plans with no input from team members. In this sense, the autocratic behavior dimension portrays a coach who uses their judgment to decide on what the athlete needs.

Democratic behavior

The democratic behavior dimension allows athletes to participate in decisions affecting their training. Soyer et al. (2014) consider it to be a means for coaches to respect the rights of team members. Koh et al. (2014) also concluded that democratic behavior by coaches allowed players to set their own goals and contribute to their training program. Given this form of leadership, the participants feel important to the success of the team.

Positive Feedback

The positive feedback dimension reinforces athletes by acknowledging them for their successes. In so doing, the coaches are likely to maintain high motivational levels within the teams.

Social Support

Social support is a humanistic dimension that seeks to address athletes’ interpersonal needs. In this case, Billsberry et al. (2018) argue that the coach should remain sensitive to players and help with solving their issues. However, Cummins et al. (2017) assert that coaches require a high degree of emotional intelligence, which involves understanding the players’ emotional makeup and handling them in a manner that conforms to their emotional reactions. Given this ability, coaches can effectively oversee the implementation of this dimension.

In the past, researchers used theories from non-sports settings to develop frameworks that helped to understand leadership in sports. However, Kao et al. (2015) argue that researchers faced the task of identifying specific approaches which reflected the unique needs of sports settings. The multidimensional model of leadership was therefore developed in response to the tedious efforts associated with other theories (Cummins et al., 2017). It provides a conceptual framework allowing for the study of leadership effectiveness within the sports context. The effectiveness of the multidimensional model of leadership depends on the relationship between the coach and team members, the structure of the task at hand, and the power position (Chiu et al., 2016). Additionally, Moen et al. (2014) indicate that situational factors also influence the effectiveness of the coach. In an analysis of athlete preferred behaviors, Collins and Collins (2016) found that good leaders were flexible and were expected to adopt coaching behaviors that fit the context of different players. Similar observations were made by Heidari et al. (2019), who concluded that the majority of coaches adapt their behaviors to match athletes’ preferred behaviors. In such cases, the team members were more inclined toward the coach, satisfied, and performed better.

behavior does develop in isolation but rather through the influence of antecedent factors such as leader and group preferences. In the case of football, Megheirkouni (2018) found out that leaders face the challenge of adapting to one dominant leadership style with the potential of satisfying all leadership situations. Additionally, the authors links such challenges with a large number of highly paid players, making it difficult to keep everyone satisfied. On the contrary, the multidimensional model of leadership stresses the significance of ‘fit’ with high satisfaction levels with individual performance (Anderson et al., 2017). Therefore, the occurrence of discrepancies put to question the ability of coaches to handle important dilemmas such as whether to carry on without making changes and encourage other team members to accommodate those slow at adapting to changes. In this regard, the coach must be able to decide whether to remove barriers including players creating disharmony, or to become more flexible, which may not work for authoritarian managers.

Preferred leadership behaviors tend to present more similarities than differences in men and women. However, Mills and Boardley (2017) found that males preferred their coaches to have more instructive behaviors, which calls for an autocratic leadership style. These variations are also evident in different types of sports. In the study by Mills and Boardley (2016), the participants in football, which is a highly interactive sport preferred more autocratic leadership behavior contrary to co-acting sports such as swimming and tennis. On the contrary, Weaver and Simet (2015) found frequent use of social support by coaches as a way of sustaining motivation resulted in poorer team performance in interactive sports. The various researches give evidence of a relationship between required behaviors, preferred and actual behaviors, and the impact of each on athletes’ performance and satisfaction. In this regard, Cummins et al. (2017) argue that larger discrepancies between the three forms of behaviors can produce less satisfaction and result in poor performance. The LSS, is, therefore, largely used to investigate the motivations of coaches’ decision-making styles.

Research Gap

The literature proposes that the decisions made by coaches affect the team process, hence the effectiveness of the teams. However, players and teams in both football and tennis have different needs, and so do their expectations for coaches’ behavior. Considering the definition of leadership which underpins the cognitive-behavioral model, a coach is expected to come up with coaching strategies that meet the needs of individual team members to accomplish group goals. This means that the effectiveness of a team can only be achieved by meeting the collective goals of all team members (Ferrar et al., 2018). However, the existing literature fails to address the fact that different sports provide unique problems and contexts. Ultimately the effectiveness of a coach is judged based on athletes’ wins and losses, even though these outcomes also rely on the performance of the opponent and the team’s performance (Megheirkouni, 2018). By examining differences in the goals of football and tennis, the research will judge the motivations of coaches based on the effectiveness of execution rather than the outcomes. Football and tennis have varying performance goals, but it remains unknown how coaches establish quality goals.

The effectiveness of handling issues relating to athletes by coaches depends on the selection of the appropriate leadership strategy. However, the literature fails to outline a defined criterion for coaches to choose among various leadership strategies but instead relies on judgment and quick thinking. While several studies exist on leadership models, the dominant theme is the relationship between leadership style and outcomes such as satisfaction and team harmony. However, there is limited research on the motivations behind the selection of different leadership strategies in different sports and the resultant effect on athletes’ commitment. Since English football has a good ranking globally compared to tennis, the findings of the current research can motivate clubs, coaches, and other participants in sporting activities to settle on more effective strategies. Therefore the research addressed the reasons behind the adoption of different leadership strategies for football and tennis and the impact of these choices on sportsmanship commitment in the UK.

Reference List

Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A. and Buckley, M. R., (2017). ‘What works for you may not work for (Gen) Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation’. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 245-260. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001

Arnold, R., Fletcher, D. and Daniels, K., (2016). ‘Demographic differences in sport performers’ experiences of organizational stressors’. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 26(3), pp. 348-358. doi: 10.1111/sms.12439

Bekiari, A. and Balla, K. (2017). ‘Instructors and students relations: argumentativeness, leadership and goal orientations’. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, pp. 128-143. doi: 10.4236/jss.2017.57009.

Billsberry, J. et al., (2018). ‘Reimagining leadership in sport management: lessons from the social construction of leadership’. Journal of Sport Management, 32(2), pp. 170-182. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2017-0210

Chiu, W., Rodriguez, F. M. and Won, D., (2016). ‘Revisiting the leadership scale for sport: examining factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling’. Psychological Reports, 119(2), pp. 435-449. doi: 10.1177/0033294116662880

Collins, J. and Durand-Bush, N., (2014). ‘Strategies used by an elite curling coach to nurture athletes’ self-regulation: a single case study’. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26(2), pp. 211-224. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2013.819823

Collins, L. and Collins, D., (2016). ‘Professional judgement and decision-making in adventure sports coaching: the role of interaction’. Journal of Sports Sciences, 34(13), pp. 1231-1239. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1105379

Cummins, P., O’Boyle, I. and Cassidy, T., (2017). Leadership in sports coaching: a social identity approach (1st Edition). London: Taylor and Francis.

Didymus, F. F. and Fletcher, D., (2017) ‘Effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention on field hockey players’ appraisals of organizational stressors’. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, pp. 173-185. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.03.005

Dixon, M., Turner, M. J. and Gillman, J., (2017) ‘Examining the relationships between challenge and threat cognitive appraisals and coaching behaviors in football coaches’. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(24), pp. 2446-2452. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1273538

Ferrar, P. et al., (2018) ‘Building high performing coach-athlete relationships: the usoc’s national team coach leadership education program (NTCLEP)’. International Sport Coaching Journal, 5(1), pp. 60-70. doi: 10.1123/iscj.2017-0102

Heidari, M., Ghasemi, S. and Heidari, R., (2019) ‘The effects of leadership and employment in technical capabilities of sport teams’. Journal of Humanities Insights, 3(2), pp. 75-80. doi: 10.22034/jhi.2019.80900

Jackson, B., Gucciardi, D. F. and Dimmock, J. A., (2014) ‘Toward a multidimensional model of athletes’ commitment to coach-athlete relationships and interdependent sport teams: a substantive-methodological synergy’. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 36(1), pp. 52-68. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2013-0038

Jones, R. L., Edwards, C. and Viotto, I. T., (2016) ‘Activity theory, complexity and sports coaching: an epistemology for a discipline’. Sport, Education and Society, 21(2), pp. 200-216. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2014.895713

Kao, S. F., Chen, Y. F., Watson, J. C. and Halbrook, M., (2015) ‘Relationships between the congruence of required and perceived leadership behavior and satisfaction in athletes’. Psychological Reports, 117(2), pp. 391-405. doi: 10.2466/01.07.PR0.117c16z4

Keegan, R. J., Harwood, C. G., Spray, C. M. and Lavallee, D., (2014) ‘A qualitative investigation of the motivational climate in elite sport’. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(1), pp. 97-107. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.10.006

Koh, K. T., Kawabata, M. and Mallett, C. J., (2014) ‘The coaching behavior scale for sport: factor structure examination for Singaporean youth athletes’. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 9(6), pp. 1311-1324. doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.9.6.1311

Konter, E., Loughead, T. M. and Paradis, K. F., (2019) ‘Leadership power in footbal’. Football Psychology: From Theory to Practice, 127. doi: 10.4324/9781315268248-11

Kovach, M., (2018). ‘An examination of leadership theories in business and sport achievement contexts’. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 11(2), pp. 14. doi: 10.22543/0733.62.1215

Lee, Y. H., Chelladurai, P. and Kim, Y., (2015) ‘Emotional labor in sports coaching: development of a model’. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 10(2-3), pp. 561-575. doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.10.2-3.561

Lyle, J. and Cushion, C., (2016) Sport coaching concepts: a framework for coaching practice (2nd Edition). London: Taylor and Francis.

Megheirkouni, M., (2018) ‘Mixed methods in sport leadership research: a review of sport management practices’. Choregia, 14(1). doi: 10.4127/ch.2018.0126

Mills, J. P. and Boardley, I. D., (2016) ‘Expert premier league soccer managers’ use of transformational leadership behaviors and attitude towards sport integrity: an intrinsic case study’. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 11(3), pp. 382-394. doi: 10.1177/1747954116645011

Mills, J. P. and Boardley, I. D., (2017) ‘Advancing leadership in sport: time to ‘actually’take the blinkers off?’. Sports Medicine, 47(3), pp. 565-570. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0513-1

Nawaz, D. A. and Khan, I., (2016) ‘Leadership theories and styles: a literature review’. Leadership, 16(1), pp. 1-7. doi: 10.1108/978-1-78756-259-220181003

Nelson, L., Groom, R. and Potrac, P., (2014) Research methods in sports coaching (1st edition). London: Routledge.

North, J., (2017) Sport coaching research and practice: ontology, interdisciplinarity and critical realism (1st edition). London: Taylor and Francis.

Peachey, J. W., Zhou, Y., Damon, Z. J. and Burton, L. J., (2015) ‘Forty years of leadership research in sport management: a review, synthesis, and conceptual framework’. Journal of Sport Management, 29(5), pp. 570-587. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2014-0126

Soyer, F., Sarı, İ. and Talaghir, L. G., (2014) ‘The relationship between perceived coaching behavior and achievement motivation: a research in football players’. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, pp. 421-425. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.224

Turnnidge, J. and Côté, J., (2019). ‘Observing coaches’ leadership behaviors: the development of the coach leadership assessment system (CLAS)’. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 23(3), pp. 214-226. doi: 10.1080/1091367X.2019.1602835

Weaver, A. and Simet, K., (2015). ‘Intercollegiate athlete as student leader’. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2015(147), pp. 53-63. doi: 10.1002/yd.20143

Click Here To Order Now!