Essay:

Essay details:

  • Subject area(s): Business
  • Price: Free download
  • Published on: 21st September 2019
  • File format: Text
  • Number of pages: 2

Text preview of this essay:

This page is a preview - download the full version of this essay above.

THE CORRELATION BETWEEN LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ATHLETE MOTIVATION AMONG SEKOLAH MENENGAH KEBANGSAAN DATO’ LELA PAHLAWAN ATHLETES

Raja Zulkhairil Ikram Raja Adzhar*, Shaharuddin Abd Aziz, Jaffry Zakaria

Faculty of Sport Science and Coaching,

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim Perak, Malaysia

*[email protected]

Abstract

The study was conduct to examine the relationship between the perceive leadership style of the coach by athlete and the athlete motivation of individual and team sport athlete of SMK Dato’ Lela Pahlawan, Padang Serai Kulim in the age of 13, 14, & 16 years old based on gender. Respondents of the study consisted of athlete (N = 60) representing individual and team sport. The translated version of The Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS), (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) and the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS), (Pelletier et al., 1995). The LSS version used is the player's perceive coach leadership style. The findings show that there are the order of leadership style of the perceive trainers for motivate the athlete, male had higher level of leadership coaching style training and instruction (r = .573, p <.05), democracy (r = .544, p <.05), social support (r = .401, p <.05) and positive feedback behavior (r = .429, p <.05). Meanwhile female had higher level of leadership coaching style on training and instruction (r = .390, p <.05) and social support (r = .414, p <.05). In conclusion, the success of an athlete also depends on the approach used by the coach. Therefore, the coach needs to be sensitive to the desire and tendency of the athlete successful.

Keywords: The Multidimensional Leadership Model, Coach Leadership Behavior, athlete Motivation,

Introduction

The success of an athlete at both any levels is influenced by various factors. One of the factor is a coach that act as a leader to the athletes and it is often rise and is the concern of all parties regardless of the athlete, management team of a sports organization or sports enthusiast. This leadership issue also plays an important role and directly affects the athlete's motivation and somehow it might affect the performance and excellence of an athlete. In recent years, various issues related to coaching have shocked our country. One of them is the issue of Lim Teong Kim's sacking as head coach of Malaysia's Under 16 squad (B-16) by the Ministry of Sports Malaysia after the Malaysian campaign ended in the B-16 Championship of the Asian Football Confederation AFC) 2018 ago. The team at that time was struggling to prepare for the Malaysia Team to qualify in World Cup.  

Leadership has a considerable meaning in today's sporting era (Sofian, 2003). It is an issue that is often discussed and is the concern of all parties regardless of the athlete, management team of a sports organization or sports enthusiast. This leadership issue also plays an important role and directly affects the performance and excellence of an athlete. According to Wildman, (2006), effective leadership is an important element and should be demonstrate in order to improve the performance of a team. Indirectly, this shows that the performance of a team and the winning of the team in a tournament or competition is not merely the quality and superiority of the athlete, but the collaboration of a group of individuals working in teams.

Motivation is an important element in developing athletic performance in sports. Motivation is the influence of developments on behavioral variables such as persistence, learning and performance, and as a result of social environment development. study by Shaharudin, (2005), among others are the intrinsic factors of athlete, moral support from the family, better skill performance and leadership style of guidance. A study by Alvarez et al., (2009) notes that significant relationships between athletic leadership and motivational leadership styles are also external factors that cause outstanding athletes such as coaching, recognition and appreciation factors given by certain parties. Finally, amotivation is intended as a feeling of less motivation. The study by Vallerand et al., (1992) states that this condition occurs as athletes experience an unwanted or disappointing experience that results in disappointment. When this happens to someone then there is no motivation. This suggests that when people can not see the correlation between their actions and the results of these actions, the motivation is to occur.

A theory that has the relation with coach leadership behavior and motivation is human motivation and personality development known as Self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000). (Vallerand et al., 1992) the finding was those who are amotivated experience feeling of inadequacy will lead to disappointment that they cannot control. Therefore, aims of this study are to view the relationship between coach leadership style and athlete motivation between gender and to see the most influential factors between coach leadership style in athlete motivation aspect between gender.

Methodology

The sample consisted of 64 respondents, athletes which consist of athlete ages of 13, 14 & 16 years old from the Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Dato' Lela Pahlawan, Padang Serai, Kedah that were involved in. Based on the gender, there were 32 males and 32 females. The researchers used two questionnaires in this study, the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) by Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) and the Sports Motivation Scales (SMS) by Pelletier et al., (1995). The data were analyzed using software Statistic Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 23 through the findings of each part of questions that related to the objectives, including descriptive statistics, Independent – Samples T-Test and Pearson Correlation. The Independent – Samples T-Test and Pearson's Correlation Coefficients were significant at the 0.05 level.

Results

Figure 1: Compare the mean score of the coaching leadership dimension received by athletes between male and female athletes

Coach Leadership Dimension F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Democratic Dimension Equal variances assumed .898 .347 2.030 62 .047 .34028 .16763 .00519 .67537

Equal variances not assumed 2.030 61.987 .047 .34028 .16763 .00518 .67537

Social Support Dimension Equal variances assumed 1.591 .212 .991 62 .326 .14844 .14981 -.15103 .44790

Equal variances not assumed .991 60.765 .326 .14844 .14981 -.15115 .44803

Autocratic Dimension Equal variances assumed 1.850 .179 .248 62 .805 .05625 .22684 -.39719 .50969

Equal variances not assumed .248 51.978 .805 .05625 .22684 -.39894 .51144

Positive feedback Dimension Equal variances assumed 2.500 .119 1.653 62 .103 .32500 .19666 -.06813 .71813

Equal variances not assumed 1.653 57.989 .104 .32500 .19666 -.06867 .71867

Training and instruction Dimension Equal variances assumed 2.686 .106 .407 62 .685 .06731 .16521 -.26294 .39755

Equal variances not assumed .407 57.448 .685 .06731 .16521 -.26346 .39808

An independent sample-t-test analysis is used to compare the mean score of the coaching leadership dimension received by athletes between male athletes and female athletes. Based on figure 1, the test shows the value of democratic dimension t (64) = .347 is significant. The results showed that there was no difference in the mean score on the democratic dimension of the athlete received between male athletes (M = 3.86, SD = .675) and female athlete (M = 3.52, SD = .666). The value of social support dimension t (64) = .212 is significant. The results showed that there was no difference in the mean score on the social support dimension of the athlete received between male athletes (M = 3.46, SD = .555) and female athlete (M = 3.31, SD = .640). The value of autocratic dimension t (64) = .179 is significant. The results showed that there was no difference in the mean score on the autocratic dimension of the athlete received between male athletes (M = 1.89, SD = .680) and female athlete (M = 1.83, SD = 1.088). The value of positive feedback dimension t (64) = .119 is significant. The results showed that there was no difference in the mean score on the autocratic dimension of the athlete received between male athletes (M = 3.84, SD = .675) and female athlete (M = 3.52, SD = .884). Finally, the value of training and instruction dimension t (64) = .106 is significant. The results showed that there was no difference in the mean score on the autocratic dimension of the athlete received between male athletes (M = 4.11, SD = .560) and female athlete (M = 4.04, SD = .748).

Figure 2: Compare the mean score of the athlete motivation aspects received by athletes between male athletes and female athletes

Motivation aspects F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Extrinsic Motivation Equal variances assumed .000 .992 -.297 62 .767 -.09115 .30662 -.70406 .52177

Equal variances not assumed -.297 57.543 .767 -.09115 .30662 -.70501 .52272

Amotivation Equal variances assumed .373 .544 -.597 62 .553 -.39844 .66795 -1.73364 .93677

Equal variances not assumed -.597 44.032 .554 -.39844 .66795 -1.74457 .94769

Intrinsic Motivation Equal variances assumed 2.480 .120 .443 62 .660 .10938 .24715 -.38466 .60341

Equal variances not assumed .443 59.098 .660 .10938 .24715 -.38515 .60390

Based on figure 2, an independent sample-t-test analysis is used to compare the mean score of the athlete extrinsic motivation aspects received by athletes between male athletes and female athletes the test shows the value of t (64) =.992 is significant. The results showed that there was no significant the mean score on the athlete extrinsic motivation aspects received between male athletes (M = 5.21, SD = 1.093) and female athlete (M = 5.67, SD = .872). The mean score of the athlete amotivation aspects received by athletes between male athletes and female athletes the test shows the value of t (64) =.544 is significant. The results showed that there was no significant the mean score on the athlete amotivation aspects received between male athletes (M = 4.17, SD = 1.605) and female athlete (M = 4.57, SD = 3.420). Finally, the mean score of the athlete intrinsic motivation aspects received by athletes between male athletes and female athletes the test shows the value of t (64) =.120 is significant. The results showed that there was no significant the mean score on the athlete intrinsic motivation aspects received between male athletes (M = 5.78, SD = 1.093) and female athlete (M = 5.67, SD = .872).

Based on figure 3, an independent sample-t-test analysis is used to compare the mean score of the coach leadership style received by athletes between male athletes and female athletes the test shows the value of t (64) = 58.406, p = .110 is insignificant. The results showed that there was no difference in the mean score on the leadership style of the athlete received between male athletes (M = 3.4335, SD = .0400) and female athlete (M = 3,2460, SD = .51621).  

Figure 3: Compare the mean score of the coaching leadership style received by athletes between male athletes and female athletes

Coach Leadership style F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Equal variances assumed

Equal variances not assumed 5.787 .019 1.623 62 .110 .18745 .11552 -.04346 .41837

1.623 58.406 .110 .18745 .11552 -.04375 .41866

Figure 4: Compare the mean score of the athlete motivation received by athletes between male athletes and female athletes

Motivation F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

Equal variances assumed

Equal variances not assumed .065 .800 -.413 62 .681 -.12674 .30672 -.73986 .48639

-.413 53.947 .681 -.12674 .30672 -.74168 .48821

Based on figure 4, an independent sample-t-test analysis is used to compare the mean score of the athlete motivation received by athletes between male athletes and female athletes the test shows the value of t (64) =.800 is significant. The results showed that there was no significant the mean score on the leadership style of the athlete motivation received between male athletes (M = 5.0538, SD = .96108) and female athlete (M = 5.1806, SD = .1.44457).

Figure 5: Pearson correlation between overall coach style in the athlete with overall athlete motivation base on gender

Athlete gender Coach leadership style Motivation

Male Coach leadership style Pearson Correlation 1 .621**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Motivation Pearson Correlation .621** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Female Coach leadership style Pearson Correlation 1 .504**

Sig. (2-tailed) .003

Motivation Pearson Correlation .504** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .003

N=64

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Figure 5 on Pearson product moment correlation analysis shows that there is a moderate and significant positive relationship between leadership style and athlete motivation for male students (r = 0.21, p = 0.000, p <0.05). While for female students, the analysis also showed that there was a moderate and significant positive relationship between leadership style and athlete motivation (r = 0.504, p = 0.003, p <0.05).

Figure 6: Pearson correlation between coach dimension in the athlete with athlete motivation based on gender

Athlete gender Athlete motivation

Male Training and Instruction Dimension Pearson Correlation .573**

Sig. (2-tailed) .001

Democracy Dimension Pearson Correlation .544**

Sig. (2-tailed) .001

Autocracy Dimension Pearson Correlation .065

Sig. (2-tailed) .723

Social Support Dimension Pearson Correlation .401*

Sig. (2-tailed) .023

Positive Feedback Dimension Pearson Correlation .429*

Sig. (2-tailed) .014

Female Training and Instruction Dimension Pearson Correlation .390*

Sig. (2-tailed) .027

Democracy Dimension Pearson Correlation .316

Sig. (2-tailed) .078

Autocracy Dimension Pearson Correlation .250

Sig. (2-tailed) .168

Social Support Dimension Pearson Correlation .414*

Sig. (2-tailed) .018

Positive Feedback Dimension Pearson Correlation .296

Sig. (2-tailed) .100

N=64 (32=male , 32=female)

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Based on figure 6, the findings show that there is a positive and significant relationship between coach leadership style among athletes for training dimension and instruction with athlete motivation for male (r = .573, p <.05). Meanwhile, the findings also found that there was a positive and significant correlation between democratic dimension and athlete motivation for male (r = .544, p <.05). In addition, the findings also showed positive and the correlation between social support dimension and athlete motivation for male (r = .401, p <.05). Finally, the study also showed that there were positive and significant relationships between positive feedback dimensions and athlete motivation for male (r = .429, p <.05). Female findings show that there are only two that show a positive and significant relationship between coach leadership style among athlete. The first finding is a low positive and significant relationship between coach leadership style among athletes for training dimension and instruction with athlete motivation for female (r = .390, p <.05). In addition, the second findings was a low positive and significant correlation between social support dimension and athlete motivation for female (r = .414, p <.05).

Figure 7: Pearson correlation between coach leadership style in the athlete with athlete motivation aspect based on gender

Athlete gender Coach Leadership style

Male Intrinsic Motivation Pearson Correlation .406*

Sig. (2-tailed) .021

Extrinsic Motivation Pearson Correlation .475**

Sig. (2-tailed) .006

Amotivation Pearson Correlation .531**

Sig. (2-tailed) .002

Female Intrinsic Motivation Pearson Correlation .586**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Extrinsic Motivation Pearson Correlation .694**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Amotivation Pearson Correlation .208

Sig. (2-tailed) .254

N=64 (32=male, 32=female)

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Based on figure 7, the findings show that there is a positive and significant relationship between the intrinsic aspect of athlete intrinsic motivation and the coach leadership style for male (r = .406, p <.05). Meanwhile, the findings also found that there was a positive and significant relationship between the extrinsic of the athlete's motivation and the leadership style of the trainer (r = .475, p <.05). In addition, the findings also found that there were positive and significant relationships between the aspects of the athlete's amotivation and coach leadership style (r = .531, p <.05). The findings also found that there was a positive and significant correlation between the overall athlete motivation with coach leadership style (r = .520, p <.05). Female findings show that there is a positive and significant relationship between the intrinsic aspect of athlete intrinsic motivation and the coach leadership style for male (r = .586, p <.05). Meanwhile, the findings also found that there was a positive and significant relationship between the extrinsic of the athlete's motivation and the leadership style of the trainer (r = .694, p <.05) but there is no significant relationship between the extrinsic of the athlete's motivation and the leadership style of the trainer

Discussion

Based on the objectives of the study in this research, the findings show that there is a positive relationship between coach leadership style among athletes and athlete motivation. The findings also found that the five dimensions of coach leadership style of coach namely training and instruction dimensions, democratic dimensions, autocratic dimensions, and social support dimensions have links with athlete motivation. The finding of the study is a consistent relationship between coach and athlete which similar to the finding of the study by Buning, & Thompson, (2015) showed that coach communication with clear and direct influence the athlete motivation to perform. Another study finding showed it necessary to coach consider the mental and psychic characteristics of the athletes and with giving certain direction by (Nazaruddin et al., 2009). This finding reflects coach who must responsible to help the athlete to increase their athlete motivation specifically in technical, physical, technical and psychological dimension. Smoll and Smith (1989) suggested that when coaches perform their tasks as planned and athletes can understand what their coaches do and respond against the current situation in the training program through the Leadership Behavior Model. In addition, the relationship is also because coaches should play their part because athletes are composed of various personalities such as gender, level of involvement in sports.

This study indicated that male and female athletes Sekolah Menengah Dato' Lela Pahlawan, Padang Serai Kedah perceive had significant in training and instruction behavior, and social support coaching behavior. Sarpira et al. (2012) stated that athletes' performance has determined by the behavior of coaches in leadership style in order to improve the performance by choosing an appropriate leadership style which can lead to success or better performance. The success of a coach is to help the athletes to improve a wide skills range of skills and develop them, specifically in physical, technical, tactical, and psychological dimensions. (Nazaruddin et al., 2009) stated that it necessary to consider the mental and psychic characteristics of the athletes and give a certain direction by a coach. The element of the effectiveness of leadership especially coaches significant show helping the athlete perform better. It similar to the study founded that effective leadership is an important element and should be demonstrated in order to improve the performance of a team Wildman (2006).

This study showed the differences between male and female athlete on the coach behavior style and athlete motivation where male athlete perceived training and instruction behavior, Democracy behavior, social support behavior, and positive feedback behavior. The previous study showed the significant with positive feedback as one predictor of athletes' motivation is study by Ming, (2007) on the relationship between coaching leadership styles, team cohesion, and achievement motivation of basketball coaches showed that among the coaching leadership styles, positive feedback is the one predictor of athletes' achievement motivation. Meanwhile, in female athlete this study indicates the female athlete perceived more on training and instructional behavior and social support behavior. Similar to the previous study found female student-athletes had significantly greater preferences for training and instruction behavior and situational consideration that examined the differences of the student-athletes' preferred leadership behavior for their coaches based on gender by Joel et. al, (2004).

One indicator that emphasized in coaching in psychological is motivation. This study found that the style of coach leadership affects the athlete motivation between male and female are only affects the two factors motivating female athlete significantly, it is intrinsic motivation and high extrinsic motivation has a level compared to male athlete whose coach leadership style will significantly affect the intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and also amotivation. Therefore, the relationship of the coach exhibit to positive interpersonal relationships with athletes, to their convenience and the creation of the positive group atmosphere. The study by Frontiera, (2006) stated knowing the dimensions of leadership style helps coaches to plan and manage program training with more confidence, motivation, and at the same time, the athlete feels fun during program training. The factor refers to the extent to which the coach is to participate in satisfying the interpersonal needs of the athletes. A study by (Gunnarsson, & Þórisson, 2017) showed that the athletes who perceive their coaches to show the behavior of social support report higher intrinsic motivation. Self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000). It is a theory in the sense that it is made up of several theories which combined to offer a comprehensive understanding of human motivation and functioning. (MacDonald, 2010) stated that in sports especially every task has a source of motivation and it aimed at strengthening the desired practices and feeling of athletes. Therefore, in order to achieve the goals of the athletes and the teams, coaches need to identify appropriate leadership style to the athletes or to their team.

In the future, the study should be conducted through two approaches namely quantitative and qualitative (mixed method). Therefore, respondents with other information that can reinforce the findings can be used or presented as having appropriate channels. Apart from the questionnaire, respondents can channel information through interview methods or answer structural questions. In addition, the study should also be expanded by adding survey respondents from all state sports schools.

References:

Alvarez M, Balaguer I, Castillo I, Duda L, 2009. Coach autonomy support and quality of sport engagement in young soccer players. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 138-148.

Buning, M. M. and M. A. Thompson (2015). "Coaching Behaviors and Athlete Motivation: Female Softball Athletes' Perspectives." Sport Science Review 24(5/6): 345-370.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of Leader Behavior in Sports: Development of Leader Scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-35Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.  

Gunnarsson, M. P., & Þórisson, H. (2017). Intrinsic motivation of college athletes and football players in Iceland: Effects of coaches’ leadership style and determinants of intrinsic motivation

Joel W.B., Thomas S.S., William J.W. (2004), Preferred leadership of NCAA Div. 1 and Div II intercollegiate student – athletes, “Journal of Sport Behavior”, University of North Florida, vol. 27, pp. 1 –17.

MacDonald J, 2010. The role of enjoyment, motivational climate, and coach training in promoting the positive development of young athletes. Kinesiology & Health Studies Graduate Theses Queen’s Theses and Dissertation

Ming H, 2007. Exploring the relationship between effective coaching leadership, group cohension and achievement motivation in college basketball teams in Taiwan. MA Thesis, United States Sports Academy.

Nazarudin H, Fauzee O, Jamalis M, Geok K, Din A, 2009. Coaching leadership styles and athlete satisfactions among Malaysian university basketball team. Research Journal of International Studies, 9.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Briere, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports : The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68

Sarpira M., Khodayari A., Mohammadi S. (2012), The Relationship Between Leadership Coaching Style and Team Cohesion in Team and Individual Sports, “Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences”, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 297-302.

Shaharudin Abd Aziz. 2005. Perkaitan antara matlamat dan stail kepimpinan dengan pencapaian atlet Sukma Negeri Perak Di Kejohanan Sukma 2004. eWacana Penyelidikan UPSI, 13.

Smoll, F. L. & Smith, R.E. 1989. Leadership Behaviors in Sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social psychology, 19: 1522-1551.

Sofian Omar Fauzee. (2003). Penyelesaian masalah atlet melalui pendekatan psikologi. Cheras: Utusan Publication & Distributor. Sdn. Bhd.

Vallerand, R.J. & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-620.

Wildman, J. C. (2006). The athlete leader role: interaction of gender, sport type, and coaching style. University of North Texas.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

This essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, . Available from:< https://www.essaysauce.com/essays/business/2018-12-3-1543848412.php > [Accessed 08.03.21].