Sports Psychology Feedback Discussion

Feedback to this classmate discussion:

Leadership studies focus on what makes great leaders and understanding the psychology of a leader. The infamous leaders often lead by example or have famous quotes and pep speeches, and this is what they will be known for. Each of the leadership theories either deals with traits or behaviors which are classified by personality versus observable behaviors (Cox, 2012). On this scale are specific or more universal behaviors that make up the major personality theories that makeup what goes into a great leader, and these are trait theory, behavior theories, Fiedler’s contingency theory, and situation-specific behavior theories. Fiedler would study the personality traits that were situation specific which remain relatively constant throughout life, while the situation-specific behavior theorists emphasized behavior that changes from situation to situation (Cox,2012). I haven’t personally experienced any of these leadership skills in athletics, but I have definitely observed some of these patterns in my work in school life. The situation-specific behavior path-goal theory was the most effective for me. My favorite thing about this theory is that the emphasis is placed on the athlete or employee in my case and the coach or manager provides the tools to help athletes and employees to reach their short-term and long-term goals (Cox, 2012). The least effective theory for me would be the universal trait theory or “great man” theory since it emphasized the traits needed to be a great leader (Cox,2012). In my experience leaders in this position can tend to be overqualified or even a bit full of themselves since they can come into the mindset of being born for the role. I believe if I was a leader I would use the universal behavior theory as a transformational leader. My reason for this is that behaviors can be taught, and leaders in this position learn how to react best in certain situations with an emphasis on the individual or athlete (Cox, 2012).

Chapter 16
Leadership and Communication
in Sport
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
© 2012 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Leadership and Communication
in Sport
• Leadership Theory Classification System.
• Situation Specific Sport Models of Leadership.
• Predicting Coaching Outcomes from Coaching
Efficacy and Competence.
• Coach-Athlete Communication and Compatibility.
• Player Position, Leadership Opportunity and
Stacking.
16-2
Leadership Theory Classification
System (figure 16.1)
• Behling and Schriesheim’s Leadership
Classification Scheme:
1. Characteristics of Leaders
a. Traits
b. Behaviors
2. Generality
a. More Universal
b. More Specific
16-3
Categories of Leadership
Theories
• Universal Trait Theories
• Universal Behavior Theories
• Specific Situation Trait Theories
• Specific Situation Behavioral Theories
16-4
Universal Trait Theories of
Leadership
• “I think there are people God put on this
earth to be natural-born leaders and Gary is
one of them” (Matt Simon’s assessment of
Gary Pinkel, newly hired football coach,
University of Missouri-Columbia; Matter,
2000, p. B1)
16-5
Universal Behavior Theories of
Leadership
• Leadership behaviors can be learned, while
personality traits cannot.
• Universal behaviors of successful leaders
derived from Ohio State and Michigan
Studies:
– Consideration
– Initiating Structure
16-6
Consideration
• Leader behavior that is indicative of friendship,
mutual trust, respect, and warmth towards
subordinate.
• Equivalent Leadership Styles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Relationship Motivated
Democratic
Egalitarian
Employee Oriented
Transformational
16-7
Initiating Structure
• Focus is upon clearly defining the relationship between
leader and subordinate, and in establishing well defined
patterns of organization, channels of communication, and
methods of procedures.
• Equivalent leadership Styles:
1. Task Motivated
2. Autocratic
3. Authoritarian
4. Production Oriented
5. Transactional
16-8
Situation-Specific Trait Theories
of Leadership
• Fiedler’s Contingency Model is the best example
of this type of leadership theory (Figure 16.3).
• Performance effectiveness is contingent on:
1. Situation Favorableness
2. Personality of the Leader
a. Relationship motivated leader
b. Task-motivated leader
16-9
Situation-Specific Behavior
Theories of Leadership
• Path-goal Theory
• Life Cycle Theory
• Situation-Specific Sport Models of
Leadership
16-10
Path Goal Theory
• The function of the leader is to provide a
“well lighted path” to assist the followers in
achieving their goals.
• The leader rewards subordinates for goal
attainment, points out pitfalls for success,
and increases the opportunities for
subordinate satisfaction.
• The leader is a facilitator.
16-11
Life Cycle Theory
• The two possible leadership behaviors are
relationship behavior (consideration) and
task behavior (initiating structure).
• The appropriate leadership style will depend
upon the situation and upon the followers
level of maturity.
• Generally speaking, the need for task
behavior decreases with increased maturity.
16-12
Situation Specific Sport Models
of Leadership
• Smith’s Sport Personality (trait)
Contingency Model.
• Situation-Specific Sport Behavioral
Models:
1. Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of
Leadership.
2. Smoll and Smith’s Leadership Behavioral
Model.
16-13
Smith’s Sport Personality
Contingency Model
• Model describes how a leader’s personality
interacts with the situation to determine a
coaching behavior response.
• The coaches personality characteristics and
environmental situation are filtered through
a five-element filtering system to determine
behavioral response.
16-14
Smith’s Sport Personality
Contingency Model (cont.)
CAPS Filter
Personality
Situation
1. Encoding
2. Expectations
3. Goals/Values
4. Emotions
5. SelfRegulation
Behavioral
Response
16-15
Smith’s Sport Personality
Contingency Model (cont.)
• Behavioral Signature – Coaches have a
behavioral signature that is a function of their
personality, the situation, and the cognitiveaffective personality system (CAPS) filter.
• Personality Paradox – Even though the coach’s
personality does not change, the dynamic CAPS
process does not always yield the same behavioral
response, even though situations may be similar.
16-16
Chelladurai’s Multidimensional
Sport Model of Leadership
• Leadership effectiveness is believed to be a
function of congruence between three
different perspectives of leadership
behavior:
– Prescribed Leader Behavior
– Actual Leader Behavior
– Preferred Leader Behavior
16-17
Chelladurai’s Multidimensional
Sport Model of Leadership (cont.)
• Ideal coaching behavior occurs when all three
types of leadership behavior agree with each other
(prescribed, actual, & preferred).
• The three types of leadership behavior may be
determined by administering the Leadership Scale
for Sport (LSS) to athletes (actual & preferred)
and to coaches (prescribed).
16-18
Smoll & Smith’s Leadership
Behavioral Model
• The central core of the model is that player
perception mediates the relationship between
coach behaviors and player response.
• Various other variables influence the core
mediational relationship:
– Coach individual difference variables
– Player individual difference variables
– Coach perceptions of player’s attitudes
– Situational variables.
16-19
Smoll & Smith’s Leadership
Behavioral Model (cont.)
As illustrated in figure 16.7, the Central
Process of the Model is as shown below:
Coach
Behavior
Player
Perception
Player
Response
16-20
Smoll & Smith’s Leadership
Behavioral Model (cont.)
• Related to the Leadership Behavioral Model
is the:
1. Coaching Behavior Assessment System
(CBAS).
2. Coach Effectiveness Training (CET) program.
16-21
Coaching Behavior Assessment
System (CBAS)
• The CBAS features trained observers recording and
coding 12 actual coaching behaviors.
• Types of Behaviors recorded:
A. Reactive Behaviors when:
1.
2.
3.
Player performs well
Player makes mistake
Player misbehaves
B. Spontaneous Behaviors that are:
1.
2.
Game related
Game irrelevant
16-22
Main Findings of CBAS Related
Research
• The dominant behavior of coaches are
positive reinforcement, general technical
instruction and encouragement.
• Coaches do not allocate more time to the
better athletes.
• Little relationship between behaviors
actually exhibited by coaches and coaches’
perceptions of their own behaviors.
16-23
Coach Effectiveness Training
(CET) Program
• Purpose of CET is to teach youth coaches
how to engage in positive team building.
• The positive “sandwich approach” to
effective coaching:
– Compliment
– Future oriented instruction
– Compliment
16-24
Predicting Coaching Outcomes from
Coaching Efficacy and Competence
• Definition of Coaching Efficacy.
• Measuring Coaching Efficacy and Coaching
Competence.
• Conceptual Model of Coaching Efficacy
and Competence.
16-25
Definition of Coaching Efficacy
• Coaching efficacy is “the extent to which
coaches believe they have the capacity to
affect the learning and performance of
athletes.” (Feltz et al., 1999).
16-26
Measuring Coaching Efficacy
• Coaching efficacy may be measured using
the 24-item, four factor, Coaching Efficacy
Scale (CES):
1. Game strategy.
2. Motivation.
3. Technique.
4. Character building.
16-27
Measuring Coaching
Competence
• Coaching Competence is measured from the
perspective of the athlete.
• Coaching Competence Scale (CCS) – By changing
the stem, the CES is retooled to measure coaching
competence.
a. CES coach question – “How confident are you
in your ability to…”
b. CCS athlete question – “How competent is your
head coach in his ability to…”
16-28
Conceptual Model of Coaching
Efficacy and Competence
Sources of Coaching
Efficacy/Competence
Information
Coaching Efficacy
Dimensions
1. Coaching Experience.
1.
2.
3.
4.
2. Prior Success.
3. Perceived Skill of
Athletes.
4. School/Community
Support.
Game Strategy.
Motivations.
Technique.
Character Building.
Outcomes
1. Coaching Behavior.
2. Player/Team
Satisfaction.
3. Player/Team
Performance.
4. Player/Team
Efficacy.
16-29
Coach-Athlete Compatibility and
Communication
• Communication and the Coach-Athlete
Dyad.
• Communication and Assertiveness Training.
• Jowett Model of Coach-Athlete
Relationship.
16-30
Communication and the CoachAthlete Dyad
• Quality of Communication and the presence
of Rewarding Behavior define the
difference between compatible and
incompatible coach-athlete dyads.
16-31
Facilitating Coach-Athlete
Communication
1. Recognize individual differences among athletes.
2. Use a style of communication that is comfortable.
3. Be honest, sincere, and genuine, but never sarcastic.
4. Be generous with praise and encouragement.
5. Make sure nonverbal communication is consistent with
verbal communication (avoid mixed signals).
6. Exercise personal self-control at all times.
7. Be supportive and empathetic to athlete needs.
8. Openly discuss communication needs and shortcomings with
individual athletes, as well as with team as a whole.
16-32
The Compatible and Incompatible
Coach-Athlete Dyad
Compatible
Dyad
Coach
Athlete
1. Good Communication.
2. Rewarding Behavior
present.
Incompatible
Dyad
Coach
Athlete
1. Communication Lacking.
2. Rewarding Behavior
Absent.
16-33
Communication and
Assertiveness Training
• Miller’s Assertiveness Training Module:
1. Describe the situation to the athlete.
2. Tell how it affects the team.
3. Tell what you think should be done.
16-34
Volleyball Example of Miller’s
Assertiveness Training Module
1. “Your defensive assignment was to cover
the power angle of that spike.”
2. “When you follow through with your
assignment, it provides coverage necessary
for an effective team defense.”
3. “Focus your attention on your specific
assignment and trust your teammates to
take care of their assignments.”
16-35
Jowett Model of Coach-Athlete
Relationship
• 3 + 1 Cs Model of Coach-Athlete
Relationship.
• Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire
(CART-Q).
• Direct perspective versus meta-perspective
perceptions.
• The COMPASS model.
16-36
3 + 1 Cs Coach-Athlete
Relationship
• What are the 3 C’s in the model?
– Closeness (e.g., mutual respect & trust).
– Commitment (e.g., dedication & sacrifice).
– Complementarity (e.g., complement each other)
• What is the + 1 in the model?
• It is Coorientation or the degree of agreement
between coach and athlete on the three Cs.
16-37
Coach-Athlete Relationship
Questionnaire (CART-Q)
• Inventory developed to measure the 3 Cs +
1 of the coach-athlete relationship.
• Four versions of the CART-Q are created
and two are given to the coach and two to
the athlete:
– Direct perspective (e.g., I respect my coach).
– Meta-perspective (e.g., My coach respect me).
16-38
CART-Q Administration
(Continued)
• Four versions of the CART-Q illustrated in
the four quadrants of figure 16.11.
• Closeness, commitment, complementarity,
and coorientation are determined using five
contrasts as also illustrated in figure 16.11.
16-39
The COMPASS Model
• As an extension of the 3 +1 Cs model, the COMPASS model
identifies seven factors essential for a compatible coachathlete dyad.
– Conflict management
– Openness
– Motivation
– Positivity
– Advice
– Support
– Social networks
16-40
Player Position, Leadership
Opportunity, and Stacking
• Playing Position and Leadership
Opportunity.
• Playing Position and Stacking.
16-41
Playing Position and Leadership
Opportunity
• Research shows, particularly in professional baseball, that
athletes who play in certain central positions on the
playing field benefit from greater future leadership
opportunities.
• It has been demonstrated that former catchers and
infielders are selected to be major league managers more
often than athletes who played other positions.
• The issue of centrality of playing position is related to task
dependence and Propinquity.
16-42
What is Task Dependence and
Propinquity
• Task Dependence – Refers to interaction
between players of the same team.
• Propinquity – Refers to the observability
and visibility on the playing field. In
baseball and softball, the catcher is the most
visible and observable player on the team.
16-43
How Does Centrality, Task Dependence,
and Propinquity Relate to Leadership
Opportunity?
• Centrality means more than playing in the
middle of the field, it means playing in a
position of high task dependence and high
propinquity.
• Athletes who play in positions of team
centrality play leadership roles on the team
and also enjoy managerial opportunities in
the future.
16-44
Playing Position and Stacking
• Definition of Stacking.
• Research Evidence of Stacking.
• Declining Numbers of Black Players in
Major League Baseball of Concern.
16-45
Definition of Stacking?
• Stacking refers to the disproportionate
placement of blacks or minorities into
positions of low centrality relative to task
dependence and propinquity.
16-46
Research Evidence of Stacking
• Studies of centrality and racial segregation
have shown that minority players are
underrepresented in central positions, where
opportunities for leadership are greatest.
16-47
Declining Numbers
of Blacks in MLB
• In 2003, only 10 percent of MLB players
were African American. This was down
from 19% in 1995 and 27% in 1975.
• The 2005 Houston Astros did not have a
black player on their World Series roster.
The last time this had happened was with
the 1953 New York Yankees.
16-48
Possible Explanations for
Decline in Black Major League
Players
1. For financial reasons, many young black athletes are
denied access to instruction and groomed fields of play.
2. Few black role models currently exist in Major League
Baseball.
3. Baseball cannot match the “buzz” producing marketing
and excitement of football and basketball.
4. Baseball does not provide the opportunity for instant fame
and fortune of high profile football and basketball players
such as LeBron James with the Cleveland Cavaliers.
5. Other?
16-49