Lecture 3 - Multi-dimensional model of leadership

Question 1

Outline the development of the Multi-Dimensional Model of coach leadership

Answer 1

Developed from Chelladurai & Carron (1978)

Argued previous models only focused on one element, either: 1. The leader, 2. the member, 3. the situation
- so they took these 3 components and looked at them together

looked at 3 types of behaviour: 1. actual, 2. preferred, 3. required behaviour

Combined 4 models:

1. Fielder (1967): Cotingency Model of leadership effectiveness
2. Evans (1970) and House (1971) Path-goal theory of leadership
3. Osborne & Hunt (1975) Adaptive-reactive theory of leadership
4. Yukl (1971) discrepancy model of leadership

Question 2

What were the 4 models that the Multi-Dimensional Model combined?

Answer 2

Combined 4 models:

1. Fielder (1967): Cotingency Model of leadership effectiveness
2. Evans (1970) and House (1971) Path-goal theory of leadership
3. Osborne & Hunt (1975) Adaptive-reactive theory of leadership
4. Yukl (1971) discrepancy model of leadership

Question 3

What were the 3 types of leadership behaviour they looked at?

Answer 3

1. Actual behavior
   - behavior done irrespective of norms or followers preferences
   - influence by leader competences: skills, experience, confidence, ability
2. Preferred Behaviour
   - behavior that followers would like to see in the leader
   - influence by the group, what they would like to see
3. Required Behaviour
   - behavior expected of them on a more formal basis
   - may be dictated by strategy or organisation system
   - certain situations require certain behaviours

Question 4

Outline the actual model

Answer 4

a) Has 3 groups of antecedents
1. Situational Characteristics, 2. Leader characteristics, 3. Member characteristics

b) These individually influence The 3 types of behaviours
1. Situational Characteristics -> Required & preferred
2. Leader characteristics -> Actual
3. Member characteristics -> preferred & required
- whoever the members are will show whats required - e.g. wouldnt swear at kids

c) these then feed into the 2 branches of consequences:
1. Team/ Individual Performance
2. Athlete satisfaction

d) these can then reverse influence actual behaviour
- performance and player satisfaction will change how leader actually behaves

There are then 4 congruency hypotheses

Made a few changes in

Question 5

Outline the 3 antecedents as the first part of this model

- expand with reading

Answer 5

Antecedents, the thing that comes before leader behavior – leader behavior is a consequence
There are 3 groups
1. Situational Characteristics
-environment conditions (team sport? Individual sport?)
-number of people in the squad, how many on the field/ bench
-Time constraints of match
-strengths of opposition
-Social-Cultural Characteristics (of the sport, like how loud should crowd be? Football vs wimbledon) and more broadly

2. Leader Characteristics – who they are, age gender too
   - Skill
   - Qualifications
   - Personality
   - Experience
3. Member Characteristics – who the members are
   - Age
   - Gender
   - Personality
   - Motivation
   - Competence
   - experience etc

Question 6

Outline the 4 congruency hypotheses

Answer 6

1. Actual behaviour matches with: required, and preferred
   - means performance will be good, and satisfaction will be high
   - both outcomes are high
2. Actual behavior matches with: required, but not preferred
   - performance will be high, but satisfaction will be low
3. Actual behavior matches with: preferred, but not required
   - performance wont be very good, but satisfaction will be high
4. Actual behavior does not match with: preferred or required
   - performance will be low, and satisfaction will also be low

Question 7

How did Chelladurai (2001) change the model?

Answer 7

They added 2 things:

1. The concept of transformational leadership - influences the leader in question
2. Actual behaviour can change member characteristics and situational characteristics (if they have a transformational leader themselves)

Question 8

Outline how transformational leadership fits in this model

Answer 8

• Where the leader transforms their followers and makes them change
• Can influence the leaders below them, e.g. assistant coach
• Can influence the characteristics of the leader an antecedent – e.g. experience, skill and competence
• Eventually, this will influence their actual behaviour
• Can also influence situational characteristics and member characteristics

Question 9

How can actual behaviour change situational and member characteristics

Answer 9

Actual behaviour can actually reciprocally influence 2 of the antecedents: Situational and member characteristics

1. Situational - leader behaviours can change these by introducing a new mission for the group
2. Member - leader behaviours can change these by inspiring them more, giving them a goal, changing their attitude

Question 10

Whats meant by transformational leadership

- problem with it?

Answer 10

• Someone who goes above and beyond their self-interest to develop their followers
• Inspire, encourage and stimulate others to exceed minimally expected standards

X - Although its agreed upon that it is is beneficial, no can agree on how it should be operationalized
- Or what the specific behaviours make up transformational leadership

Question 11

What are Arthur, Hardy & woodman (2012) 3 core components of Transformational leadership
- so although it was initially hard to oeprationalise, these researchers tried to so

Answer 11

Tried to operationalise transformational leadership
Hardy looked at transformational leadership in the British Army, then started to look at sport and olympic athletes. Wrote it down to these 3 components
1. Vision – Creating inspiration vision of the future
- has to create an inspirational vision of the future for their followers
2. Support – providing necessary support to achieve the vision
- needs to provide support to achieve this vision
3. Challenge – providing challenge to achieve the vision
- needs to challenge them to achieve it, cant be too easy

Create Vision> Support > Challenge

They argued these 3 core components:

• could be explained by which ever leader behavior they do
• The behavior the leader does will lead to either vision, support or challenge
• These are the kinds of things we need to do to inspire our followers and be a transformational leader

Question 12

What did Bass et al argue you should add to this model

- a criticism of the multi-dimensional model

Answer 12

Bass et al
- Noticed that in all these models of leadership, and all the ones that mention transformational leadership that inspiration was rarely mentioned- so they argued inspiration should be added to this model

Question 13

What are the 3 behaviours that lead to vision

- proposed by Arthur et al (2012)

Answer 13

1. Inspirational Motivation
   - Developing & articulating a positive vision of the future
   - Inspiring others to achieve that vision
   - Expressing belief that they can achieve this
2. Appropriate Role Modelling
   - Lead by example, behavior has to be consistent with their values
   - If leader doesn’t belief in it, why should we do it?
3. Fosters Acceptance of group goals
   - Leader Behaviour aimed to promote cooperation among followers
   - Getting them working together towards a common goal
   - Developing teamwork, team cohesion and group dynamics

Question 14

What are the 3 behaviours that lead to Support

- proposed by Arthur et al (2012)

Answer 14

1. Individual Consideration- recognize individual differences- Demonstrate concern for development of followers- open lines of communication, 1 on 1 communication
2. Contingent Reward- Positive reinforcement for appropriate follower behavior- reward and acknowledge appropriate behavior

Question 15

What are the 3 behaviours that lead to Challenge

- proposed by Arthur et al (2012)

Answer 15

1. Intellectual Stimulation- Create environment that nurtures creative and proactive innovative thinking- stimulate follows, they become creative, and you nurture this creativity
2. High performance expectations- Leader behaviours demonstrate expectations for excellence in followers- demonstrate as expected

Question 16

What are limitations about this model, as it is theoretical?

Answer 16

X – don’t know why transformational leadership was added, they didn’t give a reason
- no conceptual evidence
X – difficult to measure these individual constructs and their relationships between everything
- or measure if we have forgotten something
- first thing you would need to do is operationalise it, then develop a way of measuring it
- hard to measure each of the different arrows

Question 17

Outline the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS)

• Chelladurai & Saleh (1980)
• as a method of measuring Multi-dimensional

Answer 17

Chelladurai & Saleh (1980)

• Questionnaire of 40 items
• Asesses 5 dimensions of leadership

1. Training & instruction (13 items)
2. Positive feedback/ rewarding behaviour (5 items)
   - first two measure ‘task-orientated’
3. Democratic Behaviour (9 items)
4. Autocratic Behaviour (5 items)
   - next two measures ‘coaches decision making style’
5. Social Support (8 items)
   - measures ‘Creating friendly & positive group climate’

Can be used to measure 3 things:

1. Athlete preferences for coach behaviours
2. Athlete perceptions of actual coach behaviours
3. Coaches perceptions of their own behaviours- often blissfully unaware, so this is important

Question 18

Outline how each of these 5 dimensions of the LSS (Chelladurai & Salleh, 1980) are operationalised

Answer 18

1. Training & Instruction
   - emphasizing hard work, instruction of skills, techniques and tactics, strategies
2. Positive feedback
   - Reinforce athlete by recognizing and reward good performance
3. Democratic Behaviour
   - allow greater participation in decisions pertaining to group goals, practice methods, tactics
   - open and willing to listen and take on board ideas
4. Autocratic Behaviour
   - Independent devision making, stresses personal authority
   - decision is the coaches, no one can question it, do what I say
5. Social Support
   - Concerned for welfare of individual athletes, positive group atmosphere, interpersonal relationships

Question 19

What has research found about individual differences as an antecedent?

Answer 19

• Males prefer coaches to be more autocratic YET more supportive than females
• Males & females perceive female coaches as more democratic and socially supportive
• Preferences for training & instruction (task-orientated) and social support (relationship orientated) varied with athletic maturity

Question 20

Outline Chelladurai & Carron (1983) as research into individual difference variables as an antecedent

Answer 20

Method:
Looked into age (individual difference variable) and how this interacted with preferences for training & instruction (preferred behaviours)

Findings:
1. They found preference for T&I is high in KS3, then drops in KS4, then lowest at A-Level times, but then goes miles back up at Uni
•Reasons for this:
- may have had the same coach throughout highschool, so by the end didn’t really need/ want instruction for that team
- when you get to uni and the team changes, you have to learn how to behave with this group

2. Also found that need for social support steadily increased throughout the ages:
   •Reasons:
   - as you move up school, pressure increases,
   - its not just about training, but about interest beyond sport context
   - as pressure increases, friends support each other more
   - especially at Uni

Question 21

Outline Dwyer & Fishcer (1990)

• looking at how athletes perceptions of leaders actual behaviour influenced satisfaction
• looked at consequences to do with satisfaction

Answer 21

Method:
How athletes (wrestlers) satisfaction was affected by perceptions of leaders behaviours
- satisfaction as a consequence

Found:

1. perceived higher levels of positive feedback and training & instruction = higher satisfaction
2. Lower perceived levels of autocratic behavior = higher satisfaction

Does it matter if athletes are satisfied, or is performance the only important thing?

Question 22

Outline Research into performance as a consequence

Answer 22

1. Horne & Carron, (1985)
   - As Perceptions of positive feedback increase, so does perceptions of own level of performance
2. Weiss & Friedrichs (1986)
   - Perceived Social Support strongest predictor of team win-loss record
   - BUT FOUND AS PERCEPTIONS OF THE COACHES BEING SOCIAL SUPPORTIVE WENT UP, WIN-LOSS GOT WORSE
3. Serpa et al (1991) – 1988 World Handball - Championships- 1st place team perceived more autocratic behavior, less positive feedback, social support and democratic behaviours than those in last place- CHALLENGES THE CONGRUENCY HYPOTHESIS AS THEY STILL HAD GOOD PERFORMANCE

Question 23

Outline research into the congruency hypotheses

Answer 23

FINDINGS ARE INCONSISTENT AND DONT REALLY BACK UP THE HYPOTHESIS

1. Serpa et al (1991) – 1988 World Handball - Championships- 1st place team perceived more autocratic behavior, less positive feedback, social support and democratic behaviours than those in last place- CHALLENGES THE CONGRUENCY HYPOTHESIS AS THEY STILL HAD GOOD PERFORMANCE
2. Riemer & Toon (2001)
   - Looked at if satisfaction increased when actual and preferred behavior was congruent- They found:SATISFACTION WAS NOT DEPENDENDENT ON IF ACTUAL AND PREFERRED BEHAVIOUR WAS CONGRUENT
   •Reasons for this:
   - Preferences may not be whats best: say I love a democratic coach, but need an autocratic coach to make them good
   - Elite athletes may not care about the relationship, just want them to perform well

Question 24

Outline research into Leadership, Motivation & commitment

Answer 24

1. Amorose & Horn (2000)
   - Athletes with Higher IM- perceived coaches as more training & instruction and high democratic behavior, low autocratic
2. Amorose & Horn (2001)
   - Over the season, those with increased IM- coaches exhibited lots of training and instruction behavior, less autocratic and social support
3. Andrew & kent (2007)
   - sport commitment related to coach leadership behaviours

Question 25

Outline research found about leadership & Team cohesion

Answer 25

1. Westre & Weiss, (1991)
   - Coaches perceived as engaging in higher levels of social support, training and instruction, positive feedback, democratic style
   - associated with higher team cohesion
2. Gardner et al (1996,2010)
   - Coaches perceived as high in training and instruction, democratic, social support, positive feedback, low in autocratic
   - had more cohesive teams

Question 26

What are evaluations of this model

Answer 26

X – congruence hypothesis – inconsistent research, some support, some challenge
X – need to look at performance, not just satisfaction
X – Unclear how valid and reliably the LSS is
X – Need to understand transformational leadership a bit more, like why it has been included