Burnout Among Elite Soccer Coaches

7/27/2019 Burnout Among Elite Soccer Coaches

1/14

Burnout Among Elite Soccer CoachesSSren HjSlmOrebro U niversity, SwedenGOran Kentta

The Sw edish School of Sport and Health Sciences, SwedenPeter Hassm^nan

Stockholm U niversity, SwedenUniversity of Southern Queensland, Australia

andHenrik Gustafsson6r eb ro University, Sweden

Burnout was investigated in a population of men coaching either men or women at theelite club level in Sweden. Out of 53 presently active top-level soccer coaches, 47 volun-teered to participate. Results indicate that 71% of the coaches in the Premier league forwomen, compared to 23% of the coaches in the Premier league for men, experienced moder-ate to high levels of Emotional Exhaustion as measured by the Maslach B urnout Inventory.One possible explanation for this difference is that only 10% of the coaches respo nsible forteams in the Premier league for women had full time appointments, as compared to allcoaches respon sible for teams in the Prem ier league or men. The latter group also had moresupport staff, on average six people, whereas those coaching wom en only had four peopleavailable. In addition, leadership dem ands seem to vary between female and male teams,which together with less support and time-constraints place coaches in the Premier leaguefor wom en at a relatively higher risk or burnou t than coaches in the Premier league for men.

Address Correspondence To: Professor Peter Hassm^n, Department of Psychology,Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sw eden. Phone: +46-8-16 36 84 , Fax: +46-8-15 9342, E-mail: [email protected]


2/14

416 /Journal of Sport Beitavior, Voi. 30, No. 4Coaching can be very rewarding but also very demanding and frustrating; this may

explain why 35 % of coaches in USA Swimming stop coaching each year (Raedeke, 2004). As agroup , elite coaches are more visible to the general public in comparison to lower level coach essuch as high school or college coaches. Not surprisingly, the stressful situation and risk forburnout among elite coaches also attracts attention in the media, often as a result of a well-known coach suddenly d eciding to quit due to self-reported high level of stress and emotionalexhaustion. D espite these highly visible cases, prevalence rates of bumo ut am ong elite coach esare scarce in the research literature (Ra edeke, 20 04 ).Bumout as a concept was first described in the scientific literature during the 1970s(Freudenberger, 1974; Maslach, 1976) and has since then becom e a recognized phenomenon inmany cultures and settings, including the athletic community. Possibly the first mentioning ofbum out w ithin the athletic domain, but outside academia, was in the published self-biographyof world famous m iddle-distance runner G under Hagg, who noted: "I am not bum ed out, but Iam ill" (Hagg, 1952, p. 47) as a response to media criticizing a drop in his running performance.Initially, however, the study of bumout was limited to human services and helping profes-

sions; it was even suggested that continuously working in emotionally charged situationswith people in distress was a necessary prerequisite for bum out to occur (M aslach, 1982). Thissuggestion was later modified when the focus shifted from stress arising from interpersonalcontacts to stress developing when a mismatch exists between the perceived demands of thesituation and one's capab ilities and resources for meeting those dem ands. The individual mayconsciously observe this stress or it may remain unnoticed for a long time. Regardless, theindividual may gradually start to feel emotionally drained, and begin to change her or hisattitude towards the job and co-workers. If this mismatch becomes chronic, bumout maydevelop (Maslach, 1998; Maslach & Leiter, 2000; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).

Six key-types of person-job mismatches have been identified as potential sources ofbum out. T hese are: work overload, lack of control, lack of reward, lack of social support andcommunity, lack of faimess, and value conflict (M aslach & Leiter, 1997). Two of these, workoverload and lack of reward, have also been associated with coach bumout (Capel, 1986;Cap el, Sisley, & Deser train, 1987; Vealey, Udry, Zimmerman, & Soliday, 1992). This is hardlysurprising when considering that coaching, apart from everything else, involves a great deal ofclose relationships, with the coach -athlete relationship frequently labeled as the most intenseand dem anding relationship within the sporting world (Jowett & Crock erill, 2003 ).The com plexity and extraordinary deman ds placed on the coach are vividly conveyed inthe following passage: "Coaches are performers, educ ators, administrators, leaders, planners,motivators, negotiators, man agers, and listeners, but they are also peo ple" (G iges, Petitpas, &Vemacchia, 2004 , p. 43 1). Comm on coaching duties, such as travel planning, public relations.


3/14

Coach Burnout.../ 417

fund raising, and managing relationships with their coaching staff fiirther add to the multitudeof factors potentially being perceived as stressful. Within the context of sport, coaches repre-sent the population that best fit into the framework of provider-recipient originally suggestedto be a crucial element in the process of bumout, thereby indicating that coaches are primecandidates for bum out (Da le & W einberg, 1990; Giges et al., 2004).

In contrast to the staggering number of studies examining bumout in various occupa-tional settings (Schaufeli & Buunk, 20 01), a more limited number of studies have examinedbumout among athletic coaches. A recent systematic review on bumout among coaches re-ported 23 studies including 6460 coaches (Goodger, Gorely, Lavallee, & H arwood, 20 06). Thesestudies are highly homogenous with regard to research designs (92.7 % cross-sectional), coachpopulations (95.1% of the sample are US coaches), and instmments used (95.4% used theMBI). In terms of competitive level, coaches included in these 23 studies represent varioussub-elite levels such as high schools (24.5% ), colleges (65 .8% ), and at the club level (7.3% ),with a striking absence of elite level coaches (2.4% non-identified).

Bumout scores presented so far do not indicate that coaches are at a higher risk ofbumout than many other professions. Some studies even present bumout scores that havebeen interpreted as low (Caccese & Mayerberg, 1984; Capel et al., 1987; Dale & W einberg,1989; Price & Weiss, 2000; R aedeke, 2004; Raedeke, Granzyk, & Warren, 2000). Other studies,however, have reported moderate to high levels of bumout w hen compared with data based onnorms for educators established by M aslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996). The educator surveyis typically em ployed in coach bumo ut research and has been validated w ith a minor changein the original instmment, i.e., re-wording teacher-student to coach-athlete (Kelley, 1994; Kelley,Ekiund, & Ritter-Taylor, 1999; Kelley & Gill, 1993; Vealey et al., 1992).One explanation given for coaches not reporting as high levels of bumout as could beexpected is the unique opportunities for gratifying and rewarding experiences present in theworld of sport. The rewards may help combat the negative effects of stress (Caccese &May erberg, 1984). But it has also been argued that comparing mean bum out sco res betweencoaches and other populations may be misleading (Vealey et al., 1992). The first review oncoach bumout in sport, therefore, strongly emphasized the need to report frequency data inorder to establish incidence rates (Dale & W einberg, 1990). Percentages between 13 % and 26%were reported when a sample of 201 female and 640 male coaches representing 10 differentsports were investigated (Vealey et al., 1992). Subsequent pro gress has, however, been limitedafter this review was published, and the incidence of bumout in the sport domain remainslargely unknown, especially in non-US populations (Ra edeke, 200 4). The exclusive focus onUS populations is a serious limitation in t6rms of a cross-cultural perspective. However, themost critical issue limiting a more comprehensive understanding of coach bumout is theabsence of elite coaches in previous research (G oodger et al., 200 6).


4/14

418/Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 4Thu s, one purpose in this study is to examine the prevalence o f bumo ut in a well-defined

group of elite coaches. A secondary purpose is to compare incidence rates and bumout scoresin coaches responsible for either female or male team s. Traditionally, com parisons h ave b eenconducted between female and male coaches in order to examine gender issues. In this study,a somewhat different approach is taken by instead comparing male coaches responsible foreither female or male soccer teams playing in the highest division for men and wom en resp ec-tively.Method

The Coaching ContextSweden has a population of 9 million people with a total of 228754 licensed soccerplayers (49942 girls/women and 178812 boys/men players). The Premier league for womenincludes 12 club-teams, whereas the Premier league for men has 14 teams, and the Secondhighest division for men includes 16 teams. All leagues include club-teams that are spreadacross the country, but with a concentration to the south of Sweden making travel demandssimilar across leagues (i.e., one-way b uss-transp ort to away games range between 1 to 8hours). Furthermore, each team typically play 10-15 friendly gam es during the pre-season and22-30 games during the competitive season that starts in April and finishes in late October(Premier league for wom en: 22 gam es with an average of 1110 spectators; Premier league formen: 26 games with 8642 sp ectators on average; Second league for men: 30 games with anaverage of 3091 spectators). All players in the Prem ier league for men can make their living fromsoccer (average salary 540 0 /month , which translates to 6800 U S$/m onth). The average salaryper month in the Second league for men is 1650 (2000 US$ /mon th), and 230 (300 US $) permonth in the Premier league for women. All teams regardless of league are considered to beeither semi-professional or professional based upon their financial resources (The SwedishSoccer Association, 200 5).ParticipantsAt the time of this study, there were a total of 53 individuals (52 men and 1 woman) whoactively regarded themselves as head coaches for an elite soccer team. Out ofthe total popu-lation, 47 men volun teered (89% ) to participate in this study. Am ong these, 13 were c oachin gin the Prem ier league for men, 14 in the P rem ier league for women, and 20 in the Second leaguefor men. In this study the criteria and definition of an elite coach is based upon the highperformance context that they coach in (Mallett & Co t6,2 00 6). Specifically, they coach profes-sional and semi-professional players at the highest national level. A large number of soccer


5/14

Coach Burnout. .. /419players at this level have experience ft-om playing intem ational soccer with national/club teamsfrom different countries (the leagues have both Swedish and foreign players).Procedure

The coaches were contacted by mail with a cover letter explaining the purpose of thestudy, and verifying that the researchers had approval from the Ethics Committee at OrebroUniversity. A questionnaire and a stamped retum envelope were also included. In order toensure that questions were answered as honestly as possible, the questionnaire was anony-mous and the coaches were informed that their participation was voluntary. The questionnairewas adm inistered to the coaches w ithin one week after the competitive season had ended. Thistimeframe was chosen with the purpose of capturing the experience of completing a full seasonof competitive soccer coaching. Specifically, participants were instructed to respond to thequestionnaire based on their feelings during the past six months. Three weeks after the ques-tionnaire was distributed, a rem inder was sent to those who had not yet retumed a Completedquestionnaire. The response rate from coaches who volunteered to participate in the presentstudy was 100% , accounting for 89% ofth e total population (47 out of 53).Measures

To measure bum out, a Swedish version (Maslach & L eiter, 2002) ofthe Maslach Bum outInventory Educators Survey (MBI-ES) was used (Maslach et al., 1996). The instrument wasmodified according to instructions in the manual and in accordance with previous researchexamining coach es (Kelley, 1994; Kelley & Gill, 1993). The change involved replacing "stu-dent" with "athlete", where a pplicable.The M BI-ES consists of 22 items factored into three subscales: Emotional Exhaustion (9items), Depersonalization (5 items), and Personal Accomplishment (8 items). The coaches ratedeach item on a seven-po int scale ranging from Ne ver (0) to Always (6). The Em otional Exhaus-tion subscale assesses feelings of being emotionally over-extended and exhausted by thework whereas the Depersonalization subscale m easures an unfeeling and impersonal responsetoward recipients of one 's service, care, treatment, or instruction. The P ersonal Accom plish-ment subscale assesses feelings of competence and successful achievement in the work withpeople (Maslach et al., 1996). Items are added together for a total score on each subscale.Importantly, bumou t as a syndrome is conceptualized as a continuous variable ranging from

low to mod erate to high. In line with population norms p resented by M aslach and colleagues(1996), a high degree of bumout was noted when a coach displayed high scores on both theEmotional Exhaustion and Depersonalization subscale, and a low score on the Personal Ac-complishment subscale.


6/14

420 / Journai ofSport Behavior, Vol. 30 , No. 4Statistical analyses

M eans and standard deviations were calculated and differences explored using Analy-ses of Variance (ANOV As) with post-hoc tests perform ed acco rding to the Scheffd-method.Demographic information were also collected, see Table 1.

Results

The participating soccer coaches belonged to three different leagues and results aretherefore presented for each of these in order to contrast similarities and differences. Themajority of coaches had similar coaching experiences in terms of years of coaching (14-17years) and educational level (45-60 % held post-graduate degre es). Only one coach fi-om eachgroup reported work related sickness due to too much stress. The num ber of weeks on vaca-tion and at work per year was also similar across gro ups. However, a m ain difference betweenthe groups was related to the co aching situation. All of the coaches in the Premier league formen reported being on ftilltime coaching contracts. In contrast, only 10% of the women'sPremier league coaches and 50% of the men's Second league coaches reported being em-ployed ftilltime as coaches (see Table 1). Another difference with regard to available coachingresources is seen in the number of coaching staff, with more support available for thosecoaching men in the Premier league. These coaches were also somewhat older and more ofteninvolved in long-term relationships com pared to the other c oaches. However, the size of thestandard deviations suggests considerable within-group differences in all groups (Table 1).In Table 2, means and standard deviations for the bumout dimensions are shown andcompared to norms established by Maslach and co lleagues (1996 ). High scores on Em otionalExhaustion and Depersonalization, and low scores on Personal Accom plishment indicate highlevels of bumout. The scores reported by coaches in the Premier league for men, and theSecond division for men, were lower than those obtainedft-omcoaches in the Prem ier leaguefor women and also in relation to norms reported by Maslach and coworkers ( 1996 ).Frequency data are presented in Table 3 in order to provide information about the distri-bution of bumout scores across the three groups. Results indicate that a substantial propor-tion of coachesft^omall three groups experience moderate to high levels of bumout. Thosecoaching men in the Premier league reported less bumout than those coaching men in theSecond league, whereas coaches working with teams in the Premier league for wom en exp eri-enced higher levels of bumout compared to the other groups on two of the three subscales.Based on the norms established by Maslach and colleagues (1996) for educators, typicallyused to also describe coach b um out (Kelley et al., 1 999), 36% of the coaches working in thePremier league for women reported high levels of Emotional Exhaustion (compared to 0 and


7/14

Coach Burnout.. ./42115% in the two other groups respectively) and 29 % experienced high levels of problems (lowscores) related to Personal Accomplishment (compared to 8 and 10% respectively). Only thepercentages of coaches with high scores on the D epersonalization subscale were com parableacross all three groups (see Table 3). In addition, 7 out ofthe 8 coaches with high levels ofemotional exhaustion finished at the lower end in their respective league. Statistically, a signifi-cant overall difference w as detected between the groups for Emotional Exhaustion (F^ ^= 4.88,p .42) were identified.

Table 1Percentages, means (and standard deviations) for the demographic variables.

VariableAge in yearsPost-graduate educationLong term relationshipsFulltime coachingWork-time be sides coachTotal years as coachNum ber of support staffWorking hours/hard weekWorking hours/easy weekFree time hours/weekWorking weeks/yearVacation weeks/year

Men PremierLeague( = 1 3 )48(6.7)55%92%100%0%17(6.5)6.3(1.5)51(14.2)30(11.1)12(9.9)48(1.5)4(1.4)

Women PremierLeague( = 1 4 )41(7.3)45%57%14%45%14(6.9)4.1(1.8)36(14.3)22(10.5)11(7.6)45(6.8)4(1.9)

Men SecondLeague(n = 20)

43(6.5)60%80%50%25 %14(6.1)5.1(1.1)47(17.6)28(12.3)18(8.7)48(1.8)4(1.9)


8/14

422 /Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 4Table 2Means (and standard deviations) of bumout scores.Bum out variables

Emotional E xhaustionDepersonalizationPersonal Accomplish.

Men PremierLeague(n=13)

12.7(6.0)8.3 (4.2)38.2(6.7)

Women PremierLeague(=14)

21.9(7.9)9.0(5.8)32.7(6.2)

*Norm values by Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter (1996).

Discussion

Men SecondLeague(/r=20)

15.3(9.6)7.0(4.7)

35.6(4.6)

NormMean*

21.0(10.8)8.7(5.9)34.6(7.1)

One purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of bumout among Swedishelite soccer coaches across three different leagues at the highest level. Another purpose wasto examine whether coaching men or women results in different bumout scores. However,before discussing our findings it should be emphasized that comp aring bum out scores acrossdifferent popu lations and different cu ltures must be undertaken with caution (cf. Vealey et al.,1992). It is also stressed in the MBI-manual that available norms only should be seen asreference points for assessing a relative level of bumout in a given setting, and also that theavailable norms are based on North Am erican populations (M aslach et al., 1996). In com pari-son to the available (North American) norms, Swedish soccer coaches participating in thisstudy seem to be a reasonably healthy group. However, when the prevalence rates of bum outare examined m ore closely, it becomes obvious that a considerable prop ortion of the coac hesin the Premier league for wom en experience high degrees of bum out. M ore specifically, 36 % ofthem display high levels of Emotional Exhaustion, 5 0% score high on D epersonalization andalmost 30% report problems related to Personal Accomplishment. The incidence of bumoutfound among our coaches in the Prem ier league for wom en is therefore somewhat higher thanwhat Kelley and coworkers (1999) rep orted; they found that 17 to 32 % of their tennis coache sexperienced high levels of bumout. Even lower percentages were reported by Vealey andcollaborators (1992), with a range of 13 to 26% across gender and bumout dimensions. Incomparison, incidence rates of bumout among coaches in the Second league for men range


9/14

Coach Burnout... / 423between 10 to 15 % across bum out dimen sions, and between 0 and 15 % among the coac hes inthe Premiere league for men. The latter results are consistent with those of Raedek e (2004 ) whoreported low levels of burnout in a sample of swim coa ches. The high scores on the D eperson-alization subscale (varying between 38.5 and 6 5 % in the three groups) are not consistent withVealey et al . (1992 ), who have reported low to average scores on the Depersonalization subscale.One possible explanation to the relatively low scores on the bum out subscales, particu-larly for the coaches in the P remier league for men , is that individuals v ulnerab le to stress andbum out have left the coachin g profession well before reaching the elite level. This leaves onlythe "survivors" who have developed adequate coping skills to handle the extra pressurepresent at the top level of coaching. In line with this reasoning, it was noted that coaches

Table 3Percentages (and number of individuals) experiencing High, Moderate, and Low levels ofburnout, respectively.Bumout variables

EmotionalExhaustion

Depersonalization

PersonalAccomplishment

HighModerateLowHighModerateLowHighModerateLow

Men PremierLeague(=13)

0% (0)23% (3 )77% (10)38.5% (5 )54% (7 )7.5% (1 )69% (9 )2 3% (3 )8% (1)

Ladies PremierLeague(W=14)

35.5% (5 )35.5% (5 )29% (4 )5 0% (7 )28.5% (4)21.5% (3 )28.5% (4 )35.5% (6 )28.5% (4 )

Men SecondLeague(/7=20)

15% (3)30% (6)55%(11)65%(13)20% (4)15% (3)30% (6)60%(12)10%(2)

Note. Low, Moderate, and High classifications are based on the norms established forhigher education by Maslach and Jackson (1986) for the Maslach Bumout Inventory (MBI).Emotional Exhaustion: low < 16, average 17-26, high >27 scores.Depersonalization: high 14 sc ores.Personal Accom plishment: low 37 scores.


10/14

424 / Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 4active in the Second league display higher scores than those active in the Prem ier league -

possibly because Second league coaches had less experience (i.e., 3 years less) than theirPremier league colleagues. However, it has also been suggested that opportunities for satis-faction and reward available to coaches at the elite level would protect against stress relatedconsequences such as bumout (Giges et al., 2004; Raedeke, 2004), but this does not explainwhy coaches responsible for teams in the Premier league for women display higher bumoutscores than those coaching in the Premier league for m en.A m ore likely explanation pertains to available financial resources. W hereas the Prem ierleague for men increasingly becom es more com mercial and professional, this trend is weakerand slower in the Premier league for women and the Second league for men, respectively. TheSwedish Soccer Association reported that in 2005, the men's Premier league had a business

volume or economic turnover around 81 m (million Euro , which is the equivalent of 102millionUSS), the men's Second league 26 m (33 million U SS) and the wom en's Prem ier league 4.6 m(5.8 million U SS). This most likely explains why head coaches in the Prem ier league for mencommonly had 5-6 people supporting them whereas coac hes in the Premier league for wom enonly had 3-4 people available (these num bers do not, however, refiect the actual differencebecause support-people in the Premier league for men dev oted a larger percentage of their timethan did those supporting head-coaches in the Premier league for wom en).Another potentially important difference between the leagues is that all coaches in thePremier league for men were fiill-timecoaches, as comp ared to only 10% among women Premierleague coaches (and 50% among men Second league). Most ofthe coaches in the women'sPremier league worked 22-36 hours a week as part-time coaches and reported less than 11hours of free time per week. Individuals working part-time as soccer coaches and part-timesomewhere else may find themselves in constant conflict when having to deal with two differ-ent jo bs that each may call upon their undivided attention (cf. Capel et al., 1987). As also notedpreviously, workload is one factor that affects the level of bumout and the exhaustion dimen-sion in particular (Maslach et al., 2001). When people are unable to recover from work de-mands, especially if they also perceive confiicting roles (Maslach et al., 1996), the situationmay become critical.Apart from available resources and role confiicts, the coaching process itself couldpossibly explain why differences exist between coaches of female and m ale teams. The rela-tionship between the coach and the athletes/team is a comp lex process of com munication withmany problems involved (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003). It is possible that the demands on thecoach from teams with either men or women are different, and if the leadership style of thecoach does not agree with team preference, conflicts may develop. In studies investigatingthese issues, it has been shown that female student athletes preferred democratic coaching


11/14

Coach Burnout... / 425

Styles and rate skill instruction and po sitive feedback as most im portant. Male student athleteson the other hand had significant greater preferences for more au tocratic behavior (Riemer &Toon, 2001; Wilson, 2004). In our study, five of the eight coaches scoring high on emotionalexhaustion were coaches in the woman's Premier league. Even though this is not conclusiveevidence, future studies investigating leadership style in relation to coach bumout in femaleand female teams are of great interest.

Factors inherent in the sporting environment may also be significant stress generators.Research has found that pressure to win, when com bined with an inability to win, is the reasonmost often cited when coaches are being dismissed from their duties (Humphrey, 1987; Taylor,1992). Only one study has, however, reported results on the relationship between win/lossrecord and b umo ut, finding no such relationship (Quigley, Slack, & Sm ith, 1987). It is neverthe-less noteworthy in this study that seven out of eight coaches reporting high degrees ofbumout on the emotional exhaustion subscale finished among the last teams in their respec-tive league. Some coach es therefore appear to be ill prepared to han dle defeat, or, altematively,the demands of handling defeat are taxing and a potential source of bumout. However, thiswas not explored in the present study, but seems w orth investigating in future stu dies, prefer-ably using qualitative methods.

Considering the relatively limited number of coaches participating herein, results mustbe interpreted with some caution. Despite this, it seems pertinent to stress the fact that thepresent study did include a clearly defined p opulation of elite soccer coach es, from which 89 %participated, w hich makes the results at least representative of elite soccer coaches in Sweden.One limitation of the present study, and most previous ones, is the cross-sectional researchdesign. It is therefore suggested that future research utilizes longitudinal appro aches in orderto study underlying causes, symptoms and consequences of coach bumout. Another area offuture research might focus on the organization of the soccer clubs. Present findings supportthe notion that contextual circumstances may play a role in the development of bumout evenwithin in the same sport, but the extent or pattem of this is not known. This warrants fiitureresearch not only examining differences between sports, but also within sports.In conclusion, male soccer coaches who coach woman are more susceptible to b umo utthan those coaching men. Differences in available support, economical resources, role con-flicts and conflicting time demands may at least partly explain why this is the case. Futurestudies should target the coaches and the views of the players (Woodman & Hardy, 2001),preferably also including the organization and social environment surrounding the teams.


12/14

426/Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 4References

Caccese, T. M., & M ayerberg, C. K. (1984). Gender differences in perceived bum out of collegecoaches. Journal of Sport Psycholog y, 6,279-288.Cape l, S. A. (1986 ). Psychological and organizational factors related to bum out in athletictrainers. Research Qua rterly for Exercise an d Sport, 57, 321-328.Capel, S.A., Sisley, B. L., & Desertrain, G S. (1987). The relationship of role conflict and roleambiguity to bumout in high school basketball coaches. Journal of Sport PsychologH 9, 106-117.

Dale, J., & W einberg, R. (1989 ). The relationship between coa che s' leadership style and b umout. The Sport Psychologist, 5 ,1 -13 .

Dale, J., & W einberg, R. (1990). Bum out in sport: A review and critique. Journal of AppliedSport Psychology, 2,67-83.Freudenberger, H. J. (1974 ). Staffbumo ut. Journal o f Social Issues, 30, 159-165.

Giges, B ., Petitpas, A., & Vem acchia, R. (2004). Helping coaches m eet their own need s: Challenges for the sport psychology consultant. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 430-444.Goodger, K., Gorely, T , Lavallee, D., & Harwood, C. (2007 ). Bum out in sport:A systematicreview. The Sport Psychologist. 2/,127-151..

Humphrey, J. H. (1987). Stress in coaching. Springfield, IL: Charles C T hom as.HSgg, G. (1952 ). Gunder Hdggs dagbok, en varldsmdstares erfarenheter och trdningsrad[Gunder HSgg's diary, a W orldchampions experiences and training advises. In Swedish]. Stockholm, Sweden: Tryckeriaktiebolaget Tiden .Jowett, S., & C ockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic m edalists perspective of the athlete-co ach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, < 313-331.Kelley, B . C. (1994). Amo del of stress and bum out in collegiate coa ches : Effects of gend er andtime of season. Research Qua rterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 48-58.Kelley, B. C , Eklund, R. C , & Ritter-Taylor, M. (1999). Stress and bum out among collegiatetennis coaches. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21,113-130.Kelley, B . C , & Gill, D. L. (1993). An examination of personal/situational variables, stressappraisal, and bumout in collegiate teacher-coaches. Research Qua rterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 94-102.M allett, C , & Cot6, J. (2006). Beyond w inning and losing: Guidelines for evaluation highperformance coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 213 -221.Maslach, C. (1976). Bum ed-out. Human Behavior, 5, 16-22.Maslach, C. (1982). Bum out:A social psychological an alysis. In J.W. Jones (Ed.), The burnoutsyndrom e: Cu rrent research, theory, and interventions (pp. 30-53). Park Ridge, IL:London House.


13/14

Coach Burnout... /427Maslach, C. (1998). A multidimensional theory of bum out. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theory of

organizational stress (pp. 68-85). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Maslach, C , Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Masiach B urnout Inventory: Manual(3Tded.). Research edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Pre ss.Maslach, C , & Leiter, M. P. (199 7). The truth ab out burnout. How o rganizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Maslach, C , & Leiter, M. P. (2000). Bum out. In G Fink (Ed.), Encycloped ia of stress. (Vol. 1, pp .358-362). San Diego, CA: A cademic Press.Maslach, C , & Leiter, M. P. (2002 ). Att skapa engagemang och fbrhindra utbrSndhet. (Creatingcomm itment and preventing bum out). Stockholm, Sweden: Psykologifbrlaget.Maslach, C , Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job bumout. Annual R eview of Psychology, 52, 397-422.Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Relationships among coach es and bum out, coach behaviors, and athletes' psychological responses. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 391-410.Quigley, T, Slack, T, & Sm ith, G. (1987). Bumou t in secondary school teacher coaches. AlbertaJournal of Educational Research, 33, 260-274.Raedeke, T. D. (2004). Coach comm itment and bum out: A one-year follow-up. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 16, 333-349.Raedeke, T.D., Granzyk, T. L., & Warren, A. (2000). W hy coaches experience bu mo ut: Acommitment perspective. Journal of'Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 85-105.Riemer, H. A., & Toon, K. (200 1). Leadership and satisfaction in tennis: Exam ination of congruence, gender and ability. Research Q uarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72 , 243-256.Schaufeli, W., & Buunk , B. (2001). Affect generated by social comparison s among n urses highand low in burnout. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 1500-1520.Swedish Soccer Association (2 005). Analys av Herrallsvenskan, Dam allsvenskan ochSuperettans ekonomi 2005. (Analysis of M en's Premier League, W omen's PremierLeague and Men 's Second League economy, 2005). Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Soccer A ssociation.

Taylor, J. (1992). C oaches are people too: An applied model of stress managem ent for sportcoaches. Journal of Appiied Sport Psychology, 4, 27-50.Vealey, R. S., Udry, E. M., Zimmerman, V , & Soliday, J. (1992 ). Interpersonal and situationalpredictors of coaching bumout. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14 40-58.Wilson, W. J. (2004 ). Preferred leadership of NCA A division I and II intercollegiate student-athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27, 3-17.Woodman T , & H ardy, L. (2001 ). A case study of organizational stress in elite sport.Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13 , 207-238.


14/14

Burnout Among Elite Soccer Coaches

Documents

Transcript of Burnout Among Elite Soccer Coaches