JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 1980. 2, 34-45

Dimensions of Leader Behavior in Sports:Deveiopment of a Leadership Scaie

p. ChelladuraiUniversity of Western Ontario

S. D. SalehUniversity of Waterloo

Three different samples (total N = 485) participated in the development andrefinement ofthe Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS). A five-factor solutionwith 40 items describing the most salient dimensions of coaching behaviorwas selected as the most meaningful. These factors were named Training andInstruction, Democratic Behavior, Autocratic Behavior, Social Support,and Positive Feedback. Internal consistency estimates ranged from .45 to .93and the test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .71 to .82. The relativestability of the factor structure across the different samples confirmed thefactorial validity ofthe scale. The interpretation ofthe factors established thecontent validity of the scale. Finally, possible uses of the LSS were pointedout.

Although the concept of leadership has been discussed frequently and variousleadership theories have been casually referred to in the sport literature, there hasbeen a lack of consistent thrust in the study of leadership in sports (Loy,McPherson, & Kenyon, 1978). This is both unfortunate and surprising. Therelevance of leadership theory to sports becomes readily apparent when sportsteams are viewed in a formal organizational context. Ball (1975), for example,noted how sports teams fit the general description of formal organizations. Morespecifically, he pointed out that sports teams are characterized by (a) an unequiv-ocal identity, (b) an exact roster of members including a roster of positions orstatuses, (c) a planned program of activity and a division of labor to achievespecified goals, and (d) procedures for replacing members and for transfer ofmembers from one position to another.

The authors wish to thank Dr. Albert V. Carron and Dr. Ian Spence for their helpfulcomments in the preparation of this paper. This study could not have been completedwithout the kind co-operation ofthe coaches and the athletes ofthe various varsity teams,and the generous assistance ofthe local contacts. We express our sincere gratitude to themall.

Requests for reprints and/ or copies ofthe LSS should be addressed to P. Chelladurai,Faculty of Physical Education, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

34

LEADERSHIP SCALE 35

If sports teams are viewed as formal organizations, then, the coach's role maybe equated to that of management (see Sage, 1974). The many and variedmanagerial functions of the coach include planning, organizing, budgeting,scheduling, recruiting, public relations, leadership, etc. Of these, leadership,defined by Barrow (1977) as "the behavioral process of influencing individualsand groups toward set goals" (p. 232), is the most significant because otherfunctions are performed away from the actual coaching context and can beperformed by other individuals in the organization. Because the leadershipprovided by the coach is mainly instrumental in enhancing the motivational stateof the group (House, 1971) and because, in turn, the motivational state of thegroup is the ultimate basis of performance effectiveness, research in leadershipprocess in sports may significantly contribute to the understanding of sportperformance.

To date, most studies of leadership in sports have focused on the personalityof the coach (e.g.. Sage, 1975), or the coach's decision style—autocratic versusdemocratic (e.g., Lenk, 1977). Some studies have examined the application ofFiedler's (1967) Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness to the sportsituation (e.g.. Bird, 1977). And, finally, a recent and promising approach has asits focus the analysis of the varying behaviors of the coach which are appropriateto the different athletic situations (Chelladurai & Carron, 1978; Chelladurai &Saleh, 1978). In fact, Chelladurai (1978) has proposed a MultidimensionalModel of Leadership which specifies that the effectiveness of leader behavior(i.e., the coaching behavior) is contingent on its congruence with the preferencesof the members as well as the dictates of the situational characteristics.

Although theoretical attempts to develop leadership models for sports areworthwhile, the clarity and cogency of any theory cannot be established withoutadequate leadership instruments. In fact, the elaboration of any theory entails anobligation to measure its constructs or to specify behavioral manifestationswhich can be adequately measured. Otherwise, theoretical formulations onlyyield a proliferation in terminology, instead of fulfilling a promise of empiricaladvance. Although the need for systematic research to identify and describe thedimensions of leader behavior in coaching and the need to develop valid scales toassess coaching behavior have been stressed (e.g., Cratty, 1973), there has beenno attempt in this direction.

There have been, of course, a number of leadership behavior instrumentsused in previous research in other organizational settings—the Leader BehaviorDescription Questionnaire (Halpin, 1957), the Supervisory Behavior DescriptionQuestionnaire (Fleishman, 1957a), the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (Fleish-man, 1957b), and the revised LBDQ-Form XII (Stogdill, 1963). However, it isalso necessary to verify whether the dimensions identified in these instruments—initiating structure and consideration—as well as the specific items are relevantto the sports context. The dimensions may not be pertinent because sport-as-an-organization is unique in the following ways: First, in athletics the organizationalmembers spend a disproportionate number of hours in training for a competitionof about 1 hour. This is in contrast to the industrial and business situation where

36 CHELLADURAI AND SALEH

the training period is much shorter in duration. A second distinguishing charac-teristic of team sports is that the organizational rewards, namely winning, isdenied to at least one of the contestants. Thus, the members of a team continu-ously strive for a reward with the realization that they may be deprived of it eitherthrough superior performance of the opponents or pure chance. Finally, therelatively brief existence for a team is yet a third distinguishing characteristic.Members of an athletic team are assembled for only about 3 to 6 months.

There have been two studies conducted to identify the salient dimensions ofleader behavior in sports. Danielson, Zelhart, and Drake (1975) administered aquestionnaire containing 140 items modified from the original Leader BehaviorDescription Questionnaire (Hemphill & Coons, 1957) to 160 junior and seniorhigh school hockey players. The results of the factor analysis and multidimen-sional scaling led the authors to conclude that "when perceived coaching behav-iors are grouped on the basis of co-occurrence, the number of underlyingdimensions is between 8 and 20" (Danielson et al., p. 332). Chelladurai and Saleh(1978), using 160 students enrolled in physical education degree programs at aCanadian University, derived and used a leadership scale consisting of fivefactors of coaching behavior.

Although these two studies do represent a promising start, unfortunately,neither of the studies presented evidence of the reliability and validity of thescales used. Moreover, the samples were limited and therefore, may not give anadequate indication of coaching behavior in different types of sports. The presentpaper is an attempt to deal with the above mentioned problems by refining theLeadership Scale for Sports (LSS) used by Chelladurai and Saleh (1978). Thisrefinement consisted of determining the reliability and validity of this revisedLSS scale.

Method

In the first stage of the development of the LSS (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978),160 students (males = 80, females = 80) enrolled in physical education degreeprograms at a Canadian university responded to a questionnaire containing 99items chosen and modified from existing leadership scales: Leader BehaviorDescription Questionnaire (Halpin, 1957), Supervisory Behavior DescriptionQuestionnaire (Fleishman, 1957a), Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (Fleish-man, 1957b), and Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII (Stog-dill, 1963). Each item in the LSS was preceded with the phrase, "The coachshould . . ."; and five response categories were provided: always, often, occa-sionally, seldom, and never.

These data were factor analyzed using the principal factoring with iterationand varimax rotation as outlined by Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, and Bent(1975). Of the several solutions extracting different numbers of factors, a five-factor solution was found to be the most meaningful. The factors were labeledTraining, Democratic Behavior, Autocratic Behavior, Social Support, and Re-warding Behavior. Items (A'̂ = 37) were selected to represent these five dimen-

LEADERSHIP SCALE 37

sions of leader behavior on the basis of their high loading on one factor (.40 ormore) and low loadings on any other factor (.30 or less).

Subsequently, it was noted that none of the 99 items in the original pooltapped the behavior of the coach in teaching the skills and strategies of the sport.Although the term "training" connotes a certain degree of teaching, none of theitems in the dimension of Training Behavior reflected the teaching behavior ofthe coach. Hence, in the second stage of development of the LSS, seven moreitems were included to tap the "instruction" behavior of a coach. Further,because Social Support is a dimension of leader behavior that is close to thetraditional "Consideration" (Halpin & Winer, 1957) and because Social Supportis a direct correlate of leader's orientation toward interpersonal relations (Fiedler,1967) six more social support items were included. With the addition of these 13items, the revised scale was increased to 50 items.

In the revised version, the response categories were quantified in order topresent a common frame of reference to all respondents. Accordingly, theresponse categories of "often," "occasionally," and "seldom" were anchored at75%, 50%, and 25% of the time, respectively.

The revised questionnaire was then administered to a different sample of 102physical education students (males = 45, females = 57) and to a male sample of223 varsity athletes (81 basketball players, 62 wrestlers, 57 track and fieldathletes, and 23 oarsmen) from different Canadian universities. The physicaleducation students responded to the questionnaire in a class setting. For theathletes, a member of the faculty of physical education (or the athletic depart-ment) was contacted and requested to help in the collection of data. The set ofquestionnaires was sent to the contact who administered, collected, and returnedthem to the investigator. In most instances the administration was in a groupsetting, although in the case of a few wrestlers, the questionnaire was directlymailed to their home address.

The physical education students were asked to indicate their preference forspecific leader behavior in relation to their favorite sport. The athletes were askedto express their preference in relation to the sport in which they were currentlycompeting. In addition, the athletes responded to a version of the scale in whichthey recorded their perceptions of the actual behavior of their current coaches.For the preference version, the items were preceded by "I prefer my coach to. . ."; and for the second version, the items were preceded by "My coach. . ."Thethree sets of data from physical education students' preference, athletes' prefer-ence, and athletes' perception were factor analyzed separately. The technique ofprincipal factoring with iteration (Nie et al., 1975) which was used in the originalversion of the LSS was also used in analyzing the revised scales.

Results and Discussion

Because the second stage of the study was an attempt to confirm the factorstructure predicted by the earlier factor analysis, five factors were extracted fromeach set of data. It must be pointed out that the five factors account for only

38 CHELLADURAI ANDSALEH

limited amount of variance in each data set: 41.2% for physical educationstudents' preferences, 39.3% for athletes' preferences, and 55.8% for athletes'perceptions.

From the three solutions certain items were selected to constitute each factor.The criteria for selection of these items were (a) the item should have its highestloading on the same factor in all three solutions, and (b) its loading should behigher than .3 in at least two of the solutions. This procedure resulted in a total of40 items: 13 items for training and instruction, 9 items for democratic behavior, 5items for autocratic behavior, 8 items for social support, and 5 items for positivefeedback (see Table 1).

Schriesheim and Kerr (1977), in their critical analysis of the existing leader-ship scales, noted the difficulty of comparing data derived through the four dif-ferent Ohio State scales even though they are purported to measure the same twodimensions of leader behavior—Initiating Structure and Consideration. Thisdifficulty is caused by the fact that these Ohio State scales contain different sets ofitems. Our present procedure of selecting the items with the highest loading in allthree solutions alleviates this problem and allows for the comparability of datacollected from different groups (e.g., physical education majors and athletes) andbetween preferred and perceived leader behavior.

Internal Consistency and ReliabilityAs an index of internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha was calculated for each

subscale. These coefficients are presented in Table 2 and are considered accepta-ble. Though the coefficient was lower for Autocratic Behavior preferred by theathletes (.45) it was adequate for the other two sets of data. It should also benoted that the other coefficients are generally higher in the case of the athletes'perception of leader behavior than in the other two data sets.

For the estimation of test-retest reliability, 53 of the physical educationmajors responded to the revised questionnaire a second time after an interval of 4weeks. The composite factor scores (i.e., the sum of the selected items in eachfactor) were used to calculate the reliability coefficients. These reliability coeffi-cients were adequate and ranged from .71 (Social Support) to .82 (DemocraticBehavior).

Factorial ValidityOne method of establishing validity of a scale is to administer the scale to

different samples and to verify if the factor structure remains stable across thesesamples (Kerlinger, 1973). Thus, the expectation was that five factors similar tothose of the first stage (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978) would be extracted from thedata of the second sample of physical education students and from the twoversions of the scale administered to the athletes. Table 1 shows that the factorstructure is very similar across the three analyses—a finding which lends supportto the suggestion that the factor structure is stable. The items and factors werealso similar to those extracted in the earlier study (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978).

LEADERSHIP SCALE

Table 1—Items and Factor Loadings In Three Solutions

Training and instruction

See to it that every athlete is workingto his capacity.

Explain to each athlete the techniquesand tactics of the sport.

Pay special attention to correctingathlete's mistakes.

Make sure that his part in the team isunderstood by all the athletes.

Instruct every athlete individually inthe skills of the sport.

Figure ahead on what should be done.Explain to every athlete what he should

and what he should not do.Expect every athlete to carry out his

assignment to the last detail.Point out each athlete's strengths and

weaknesses.Give specific instructions to each

athlete as to what he should doin every situation.

See to it that the efforts arecoordinated.

Explain how each athlete's contributionfits into the total picture.

Specify in detail what is expected ofeach athlete.

Democratic BehaviorAsk for the opinioaof the athletes on

strategies for specific competitions.Get group approval on important

matters before going ahead.Let his athletes share In decision

making.Encourage athletes to make sugges-

tions for ways of conductingpractices.

Let the group set its own goals.Let the athletes try their own way even

if they make mistakes.Ask for the opinion of the athletes on

important coaching matters.Let athletes work at their own speed.Let the athletes decide on the plays to

be used in a game.

Physicaleducationstudents

26

23

37

49

2628

43

48

47

59

63

49

70

62

53

71

3944

42

6840

Athletes

Preferred

44

54

55

58

5033

60

63

46

47

54

50

57

54

46

68

6234

41

5440

Perceived

70

71

69

66

6655

71

55

64

66

69

58

66

61

63

75

6250

48

7147

53 44 61

40 CHELLADURAI AND SALEH

Table 1 (cont'd.)

Physicaleducationstudents

Athletes

Preferred PerceivedAutocratic BehaviorWork relatively independent of the

athletes.Not explain his action.Refuse to compromise a point.Keep to himself.Speak in a manner not to be

questioned.

Social SupportHelp the athletes with their personal

problems.Help members of the group settle their

conflicts.Look out for the personal welfare of

the athletes.Do personal favors to the athletes.Express affection he feels for his

athletes.Encourage the athlete to confide in

him.Encourage close and informal relations

with athletes.Invite athletes to his home.

Positive FeedbackCompliment an athlete for his perform-

ance in front of others.Tell an athlete when he does a

particularly good job.See that an athlete is rewarded for a

good performance.Express appreciation when an athlete

performs well.Give credit when credit is due.

50473669

51

37523233

38

63666970

52

69

47

3347

28

55

5355

60

71

64

7455

56

47

3119

44

63

4736

63

79

59

7564

69

43

4950

43

55

3647

68

74

64

6669

It should be pointed out that the eigen values and variance of each factor weredifferent among the three solutions. However, the difference in the eigen valuesand associated variances are to be expected and should not be considered asevidence of instability of factor structure across situations. Since 40 of the 50items had the highest loadings in the same factors across the three samples, it canbe concluded that the factor structure is replicable.

Further Cattell's (1966) Scree test lends support for the present decision toextract five factors. Although the Scree test is somewhat outdated, it provides arough estimate of the maximum number of factors to be extracted. In general.

LEADERSHIP SCALE 41

Table 2—Internal Consistency Estimates (Cronbach's Alpha)

SubscaleTraining and

InstructionDemocratic

BehaviorAutocratic

BehaviorSocial

SupportPositive

Feedback

Physical educationStudents (A/ = 102)

Preferred

.76

.77

.66

.72

.79

Preferred

.83

.75

.45

.70

.82

Athletes{N = 223)

Perceived

.93

.87

.79

.86

.92

this test specifies that extraction of factors need not proceed beyond the pointwhere the percentage of variance explained by successive factors levels off. Thisleveling off occurred after the sixth factor in each of the three solutions asillustrated in Figure 1. The five-factor solution was preferred since it was moremeaningful than the six-factor solution. The eigen values of the factors in eachsolution exceeded the customary value of 1. It must be noted that factor analysisis a powerful though not the only method of establishing construct validity(Kerlinger, 1973, p. 468).

Content Validity Based on Factor InterpretationNot only was the five-factor solution stable but it was also found to be

meaningful. Each of these factors is described and interpreted below.Factor 1—Training and Instruction. The first factor. Training and Instruc-

tion, includes 13 items. It reflects one of the important functions of a coach—toimprove the performance level of the athlete. The coach trains and instructs theathletes to help them reach their maximum physical potential. He or she is alsoexpected to instruct them in how to acquire the necessary skills and to teach themthe techniques and the tactics of the sports. In addition, in the case of team sports,the coach coordinates the activities of the team members.

The Training and Instruction factor in the context of sport is similar to theCompetitive Training factor identified by Danielson et al. (1975). It is alsosimilar to the Instrumental Leadership dimension outlined by House and Dessler(1974) which essentially consists of role clarification, coaching, and coordination.

Factor 2—Democratic Behavior. The factor of Democratic Behavior is com-posed of nine items. It reflects the extent to which the coach permits participationby the athletes in decision making. These decisions may relate to the setting ofgroup goals and/or the ways in which these goals are to be attained.

Factor 3—Autocratic Behavior. Autocratic Behavior, a factor with fiveitems, indicates the extent to which a coach keeps apart from the athletes andstresses his or her authority in dealing with them. In such situations, it is expectedthat the coach would demand strict compliance with his or her decisions.

42 CHELLADURAI AND SALEH

30

25

QLU

z0.X

u

20

15

ucc

10

ATHLETES'PERCEPTION

ATHLETES' \PREFERENCES

_L I1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10

FACTOR

Figure 1 —Percent variance expiained by successive factors.

It is of interest to note that the dimensions of Democratic and AutocraticBehavior refer to the decision style adopted by the leader whereas the otherdimensions refer to the substance of the behavior. The emergence of the dimen-sions of Democratic and Autocratic Behavior is consistent with the distinctionmade in organizational behavior research between the decision style adopted bythe leader and the content of his or her decisions (e.g.. House & Dessler, 1974).

Factor 4—Social Support. Whereas the training and instructing behavior istask oriented and the democratic and autocratic behaviors reflect the decisionmaking approaches adopted by the coach, the Social Support factor (eight items)refers to the extent to which the coach is involved in satisfying the interpersonal

LEADERSHIP SCALE 43

needs of the athletes. The coach's behavior may directly satisfy such needs or thecoach may create a climate in which the members mutually satisfy their interper-sonal needs. It should be noted that social support is provided independently ofmember performance.

This factor is similar to the Support factor in other leadership scales (Bowers& Seashore, 1966; House & Dessler, 1974). Danielson et al. (1975) in their studyof coaching behavior identified a similar dimension which described sociallyoriented behavior outside the athletic situation.

Factor 5—Positive Feedback. The factor of Positive Feedback includes fiveitems. Athletic competitions, in general, are zero-sum games in which victory isattainable by only one of the contestants. An athlete, or team may perform at themaximum potential and yet lose a competition. Further, in team sports, contri-butions by certain positions may go unnoticed and unrecognized. It is thereforeimportant for the coach to express appreciation and to compliment the athletesfor their performance and contribution.

Positive feedback from the coach is crucial in maintaining the motivationallevel of the athletes. Oldham (1976) found that it was one of the motivationalstrategies that predicted leader effectiveness. The path-goal theory (House &Dessler, 1974) posits that the effectiveness of leadership is related to the extentthat the leader provides "rewards necessary for effective and satisfying perform-ance that would otherwise be lacking in the environment" (p. 31). This factor wasoriginally labeled as "Rewarding Behavior" (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978).

Although Social Support and Positive Feedback are two aspects of thetraditional dimension of "Consideration," a distinction must be made betweenthem. Social support behavior is not contingent on individual performance andis provided outside of the athletic context (Danielson et al., 1975) whereaspositive feedback behavior depends on the athlete's performance. Positive feed-back can be motivational only if it is contingent on performance.

In summary, the LSS consists of one direct task factor (Training and Instruc-tion), two decision-style factors (Democratic and Autocratic Behavior), and twomotivational factors (Social Support and Positive Feedback). Although the fiveselected factors do not explain all of the total variance in the three sets of data,'the LSS provides the researcher with a valuable tool that has advantages overother proposed factor structures (e.g., Danielson et al., 1975). These dimensionsare consistent with the path-goal theory of leadership (House & Dessler, 1974),they are conceptually distinct categories of coaching behavior, and each of thedimensions is relatively reliable. The LSS could be used profitably in the analysisof coaching behavior and its effectiveness. For instance, leadership theory andresearch suggest that leader behavior should be varied according to the situationand the needs of the individual. The appropriateness of specific coaching behav-iors could be assessed by administering the questionnaire to participants in

'An obvious limitation restricting the amount of explained variance in studies of thistype is that the number and type of item statements included in the initial pool may nothave been completely adequate.

44 CHELLADURAI AND SALEH

different sports (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978). The differences in the preferences(or perceptions) expressed by athletes of different teams in a sport could berelated to criteria of interest like satisfaction and performance (Chelladurai,1978). The distinction between the decision style ofthe leader and the substanceof his or her behavior holds promise for the matching of a decision style tospecific sports situations (Chelladurai & Haggerty, 1978). Because scales similarto the LSS are used in other fields, it would facilitate comparison with andextensions of research findings from those fields.

References

Ball, D.W. A note on method in the sociological study of sport. InD.W. Ball&J.W. Loy(Eds.), Sport and social order: Contributions to the sociology of sport. Reading, Ma.:Addison-Wesley, 1975.

Barrow, J.C. The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual framework. Academyof Management Review, 1977, 2, 231-251.

Bird, A.M. Development of a model for predicting team performance. Research Quar-terly, 1977,48,24-32.

Bowers, D.G., & Seashore, S.E. Predicting organizational effectiveness with a fourfactortheory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966,11, 238-263.

Cattell, R.B. The nieaning and strategic use of factor analysis. In R.B. Cattell (Ed.),Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

Chelladurai, P. A contingency model of leadership in athletics. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of Waterloo, Canada, 1978.

Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. Leadership. CAHPER Sociology of Sport MonographSeries, 1978.

Chelladurai, P., & Haggerty, T.R. A normative model of decision styles in coaching.Athletic Administration. 1978, 13, 6-9.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal ofApplied Sports Sciences, 1978, 3, 85-92.

Cratty, B.J. Psychology in contemporary sport. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1973.

Danielson, R.R., Zelhart, P.F., & Drake, D.J. Multidimensional scaling and factoranalysis of coaching behavior as perceived by high school hockey players. ResearchQuarterly, 1975, 46, 323-334.

Fiedler, F.E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.Fleishman, E.A. A leader behavior description for industry. In R.M. Stogdill & A.E.

Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: TheOhio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957. (a)

Fleishman, E.A. The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. In R.M. Stogdill & A.E. Coons(Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: The Ohio StateUniversity, Bureau of Business Research, 1957. (b)

Halpin, A.W. The leader behavior and effectiveness of aircraft commanders. In R.M.Stogdill & A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957.

Halpin, W.W., & Winer, R.J. A factorial study of the leader behavior description. InR.M. StogdillA A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1957.

Hemphill, J.K., & Coons, A.E. Development ofthe leader behavior description question-naire. In R.M. Stogdill & A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description andmeasurement. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research1957.

LEADERSHIP SCALE 45

House, R.J. A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1971,16,321-38.

House, R.J., & Dessler, G. The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a prioritests. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership.Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1974.

Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston, 1973.

Lenk, H. Authoritarian or democratic styled coaching? In H. Lenk (Ed.), Team dynamics.Champaign, II.: Stipes, 1977.

Loy, J.W., McPherson, B.D., & Kenyon, G. Sport and social systems. Reading, Ma.:Addison-Wesley, 1978.

Nie, N.H., Hull, C.H., Jenkins, J.G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D.H. Statistical packagefor the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Oldham, G.R. The motivational strategies used by supervisors: Relationships to effec-tiveness indicators. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 15,66-86.

Sage, G.H. The coach as management: Organizational leadership in American sport. InG.H. Sage (Ed.), Sport and American society. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley, 1974.

Sage, G.H. An occupational analysis of the college coach. In D.W. Ball & J.W. Loy(Eds.), Sport and social order: Contributions to the sociology of sport. Reading, Ma.:Addison-Wesley, 1975.

Schriesheim, C.A., & Kerr, S. Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal ofcurrent and future directions. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: Thecutting edge. Carbondale, II.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977.

Stogdill, R.M. Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire—Form XII.Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1963.

Manuscript submitted: 1/3/79Revision received: 12/19/79