Coaching Efficacy: The Leadership Efficacy Model

Abstract

This chapter introduces the leadership efficacy model applied to sports coaching. It is proposed in the model that leadership efficacy depends on the congruence between the conceptual cycle of leadership and the practical cycle of leadership and also by considering the leadership styles assumed by coaches and the moderating influence of the antecedent factors of leadership. This chapter discusses how these three elements of the model (leadership cycles, leadership styles, and the antecedent factors of leadership) apply to sports coaches and concur to explain their efficacy in leading athletes and teams. The model includes four hypotheses (congruence of leadership cycles, optimal leadership profile, favourability of conditions for leadership, and optimized congruence hypothesis of leadership) that will be presented according empirical finding about leadership and sports coaching. The final part of the chapter presents some practical implications of the model to the work of coaches.

Coaching Efficacy: The Leadership Efficacy Model

The leadership efficacy model, which was first named the Triphasic Model of Leadership Efficacy (Gomes, 2014a), proposes that leadership efficacy depends on the congruence between the conceptual cycle of leadership and the practical cycle of leadership and also considers the moderating influence of the antecedent factors of leadership. The model was triphasic due to the linear relation established among leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria. This new leadership efficacy model reinforces the cycles of leadership as a central element of leadership efficacy (triphasic relation) and recognizes the antecedents of leadership as moderators of leadership efficacy. However, the model introduces the styles of leadership (Gomes & Resende, 2014) and the concept of the “optimal profile of leadership” to explain the linear relations established among leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria.

The leadership efficacy model intends to explain coach efficacy by considering three main factors: leadership cycles, leadership styles, and the antecedent factors of leadership. The integration of these three factors helps us to understand the efficacy achieved by coaches, both at a subjective level (e.g., athletes’ satisfaction with leadership) and at an objective level (e.g., athlete and team performance). Figure 4.1 presents the leadership efficacy model.

Fig. 4.1

Leadership Efficacy Model

Leadership Efficacy Model

Leadership Cycles and the Triphasic Relation

Leadership cycles refer to the dynamic relations established between what coaches believe about their leadership (conceptual cycle) and what coaches effectively do when leading athletes and teams (practical cycles). The juxtaposition of both cycles increases leadership efficacy, particularly when these relations respect the athletes’ preferences for leadership behaviours and when the cycles are based on the optimal profile of leadership (as will be explained later).

Cycles are developed according to the linear relations among three factors: the philosophy of leadership, leadership practice/leadership in practice, and leadership criteria, named as triphasic relation (Gomes, 2014a). The philosophy of leadership refers to values, beliefs, assumptions, attitudes, principles, and priorities assumed by coaches and that influence both the practice and criteria of leadership. Leadership practice refers to specific behaviours assumed by coaches to fulfil their coaching philosophy. Leadership criteria include personal and professional indicators that help coaches monitor whether they are meeting the tenets of their philosophy and the practice of coaching.

In the leadership efficacy model, linear relations are assumed among the philosophy of leadership, leadership practice, and leadership criteria, meaning that efficient coaching starts by defining a leadership idea or goal (the philosophy of leadership) that is then translated into a specific plan of action (leadership practice) and ends in the formulation of subjective or objective indicators of the accomplishment of the ideas and behaviours (leadership criteria). For example, the coach may believe that “only hard work leads to success” (philosophy); this idea may influence the coach to use goal setting programmes to establishes the specific levels of effort and commitment of athletes during training sessions (practice); by the end of each week, the coach delivers to athletes the “athletic progress graph” through which they can monitor the performance achieved during training sessions in the areas of goal setting (leadership criteria). The coach will eventually begin by defining this leadership plan by thinking alone or by listening to all technical staff (and even the athletes) to establish the final plan (this is the conceptual cycle of leadership). Then, the coach presents the plan to the athletes, starting by inspiring the athletes to commit to the idea of “only hard work leads to success” (philosophy); next, the coaches explain and implement the plan during training sessions (leadership in practice); and finally, the coaches deliver the “athletic progress graph” to athletes (effectiveness criteria). This process is the practical cycle of leadership. Of course, both cycles are not independent or static. To the contrary, when the practical cycle begins, it is possible that the coach understands the need to make adjustments to the leadership plan to better achieve the intended coaching idea. This exchange between cycles is guaranteed by the feedback loop.

In sum, leadership cycles represent the “brain” of coach activity by including the “why” of being a coach (set of ideas that turns a certain person into a coach), the “how” of being a coach (set of specific behaviours that turns a certain person into a coach), and “how much” change is produced by the coach (set of indicators that convert the ideas and behaviours of a person into a coach). Figure 4.2 presents an example of the congruence established between the conceptual and practical cycles of leadership.

Fig. 4.2

Example of a leadership cycle

Leadership Styles

Leadership styles are the second component of the leadership efficacy model. Leadership styles refer to specific behaviours used by coaches to achieve a specific goal when leading athletes, teams, and organizations (and at a broader level, it can include communities and society). To establish a style of leadership, it is necessary to achieve four conditions:

• (a) Theoretical observation: styles of leadership correspond to specific behaviours that can be observed (and identified) when the coach is leading athletes and teams.

• (b) Theoretical variance: styles of leadership include different behaviours that share the same goal of leadership, and because of that, they can be organized together.

• (c) Theoretical independence: each style of leadership should be perceived similarly by the coach and the athletes and should be perceived distinctly from other sets of coaches’ behaviours.

• (d) Theoretical impact: styles of leadership achieve “usefulness” when it is possible to establish relations, positive or negative, with subjective or objective measures of leadership efficacy.

The leadership efficacy model includes three areas of leadership styles, transformational, transactional, and decision making, which are all capable of influencing the efficacy of coaching, particularly transformational styles.

Transformational Leadership

This style can be defined as the leaders’ tendency to produce major changes in the attitudes, beliefs, and values of followers to a point where the goals of an organization and the vision of the leader are internalized, and followers achieve performances beyond expectations (Bass, 1985). The leadership efficacy model integrates five transformational factors of leadership:

• (a) Vision: coaches’ ability to present an enthusiastic and optimistic vision of athletes’ futures.

• (b) Inspiration: coaches’ positive expectations and behaviours are directed towards promoting the success and continuous efforts of athletes.

• (c) Instruction: coaches’ actions are focused on positively teaching technical sports skills.

• (d) Individualization: coaches’ tendency to consider the needs and personal and sport expectations of athletes.

• (e) Support: coaches’ personal concern regarding athletes’ well-being and interest in building positive relationships based on confidence.

Transactional Leadership

This style can be defined as leaders’ tendency to respond to team members’ behaviours and performance using positive or negative feedback; this tendency is built on an exchange system between what leaders want and what team members give (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The leadership efficacy model integrates two transactional factors of leadership:

• (f) Positive feedback: coaches’ reinforcement and recognition of the good performance and effort of athletes.

• (g) Negative feedback: coaches’ punishments intended to manage athletes’ inadequate performance.

Decision-Making Leadership

This style can be defined as coaches’ tendency to be active or passive in sharing leadership power and decision making with team members in regard to deciding important aspects of team functioning (Gomes & Resende, 2014). The leadership efficacy model integrates two decision-making factors of leadership:

• (h) Active management: coaches’ power management behaviours regarding whether they make decisions in a more decentralized process (involving team members) or in a more centralized process (assuming all the decision-making power).

• (i) Passive management: coaches’ avoidance or delay in taking responsibility for decision making when it is necessary to solve important problems.

The optimal leadership profile (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Gomes, 2014b) assumes that higher frequencies of transformational behaviours followed by the use of positive feedback and active management (particularly the decentralized form), and lower use of negative feedback and passive management will stimulate higher leadership efficacy (see Fig. 4.3). It should be said that other leadership factors could be considered in order to formulate the optimal leadership profile, as long as they are theoretically and empirically supported.

Fig. 4.3

Leadership styles and leadership efficacy

In sum, leadership styles represent the “heart” of coach activity by including the specific behaviours used by coaches to accomplish their leadership plans that are first defined at the conceptual level and then at a practical level (i.e., leadership cycles).

Antecedent Factors of Leadership

Antecedent factors of leadership represent the third domain of the leadership efficacy model, influencing leadership efficacy by moderating the effects produced by the leadership cycles and styles of leadership. That is, antecedent factors do not directly influence leadership, but they act as facilitators of leadership, enhancing the positive influence of coaches on athletes and team performance, or inhibitors of leadership, decreasing the positive influence of coaches on athletes and team performance. There are three types of antecedent factors.

Leader Characteristics

Factors that identify the coaches and that are likely to influence, positively or negatively, their actions. These characteristics include personal factors (e.g., gender, age, or socio-educational level), stable mental factors (e.g., personality, life goals, personal beliefs and values), and dynamic mental factors (e.g., tolerance for adversity, coping with problems). It is important that coaches have self-knowledge about their personal functioning because these factors may influence the success of coaching. In this sense, coaches should analyse the need to adjust their actions according to their characteristics as a person.

Team Member Characteristics

Factors that identify the members of the team (i.e., athletes) and that are likely to positively or negatively influence the action of the coach. These characteristics include personal factors (e.g., gender, age, or socio-educational level), stable mental factors (e.g., personality, life goals, personal beliefs and values), and dynamic mental factors (e.g., tolerance for adversity, coping with problems). It is important that the coach understand the personal functioning of team members because these factors may influence the success of coaching. In this sense, coaches should analyse the need to adjust their actions according to the characteristics of the team members.

Situational Characteristics

Factors that identify the context of coaches’ activity, including the type of responsibility that they assume in the organization (e.g., hierarchical level, autonomy, responsibility, and power), the type of organization in which they are working (e.g., local or national club), and the external environment that identifies their work (e.g., level of professionalization, regional, national, or international competitions). These three situational levels may represent facilitating or inhibiting factors of coaches’ actions. For example, the sports demands faced by the club, the expectations and goals established for the coach’s activity, the organizational culture, the power assumed by the coach, the material and financial conditions given to the coach, among others, represent aspects that may affect the coaches work. Obviously, improvements in the situational conditions correspond to greater possibilities of coaches’ success. In this sense, coaches should analyse the need to adjust their actions to maximize the resources and opportunities that exist in the sports context.

Antecedent factors related to the coach, team members, and situation can be combined to indicate the favourability of conditions for leadership, which can occur at three levels:

• (a) Technical favourability: orientation of the leader to the tasks (value given to the mission and goals of the team) and task maturity of team members (competence and knowledge of team members about what needs to be performed).

• (b) Psychological favourability: orientation of the leader to the relationships (interest in the personal and human aspects of the team members, namely, their needs, expectations, and values) and psychological maturity of team members (feelings of self-confidence and motivation of team members to accept responsibility for designated roles and tasks).

• (c) Situational favourability: identifies the material conditions (e.g., resources, budgets), the human condition (e.g., number of team members, experience and maturity of team members), and the environmental conditions (e.g., players on the same market, deadlines) provided to the leader.

These concepts of technical, psychological, and situational favourability (Fiedler, 1993; Hersey & Blanchard, 1996; Likert, 1967) came together in the leadership efficacy model as moderator variables of leadership efficacy, meaning that they can facilitate the action of the coach (e.g., when team members are mature and the situation benefits the task and relationship orientation of the leader), or they can debilitate the action of the coach (e.g., when the situation undermines the coach’s actions and team members are not mature, making the task and relationship orientation of the leader almost irrelevant). Figure 4.4 presents the three dimensions of the favourability of conditions for leadership.

Fig. 4.4

Antecedent factors of leadership and leadership efficacy

In summary, antecedent factors of leadership represent the “arms and legs” of coaching activity (i.e., stamina) by increasing or decreasing the potential of the leadership plan (i.e., leadership cycles) and the way it is presented to athletes and teams (i.e., leadership styles).

Leadership Cycles and Leadership Styles

Leadership cycle congruency can increase leadership efficacy. Congruence occurs when coaches assume linear relations among leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria, both at the conceptual and practical levels, and when this congruence is based on team member preferences about leadership. However, simply assuming good matches between leadership cycles and simply assuming linear relations among the philosophy, practice, and criteria of leadership that respect team member preferences does not automatically guarantee leadership efficacy. If such a guarantee was possible, it would be enough to educate coaches in establishing these relations to augment their chances of achieving sport success. On the other hand, some ideas and goals assumed by leaders can indeed produce bad results for team members, meaning that leadership is not always related to positive changes in individuals, teams, communities, and even societies (see Bass, 1998, for the concept of pseudo-transformational leaders). Therefore, the quality of leadership cycles should be considered when evaluating the impact produced by leaders. In the leadership efficacy model, the quality of leadership cycles is evaluated by the leadership styles used by the leaders, meaning that they can influence the effects produced by leaders on team members. This influence occurs in multiple forms because we should consider, at least, nine styles of leadership that can be combined in different ways and in cumulative forms, producing distinct profiles of leadership. The result is that there is no single right way to lead, but there are multiple possibilities that can be adopted by leaders. However, we should mention that this consideration does not mean that anything goes when leading others. In fact, some leadership styles seem to produce better results in leadership efficacy, as we will explain later.

Figure 4.5 presents a proposal for how to apply the leadership styles through the leadership cycle to maximize the quality and effects produced by leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria. This integration is performed according to a proposal of five tasks that leaders must complete when leading individuals and teams. The figure includes one leadership style for establishing the leadership philosophy (e.g., vision), five leadership styles for establishing the leadership practice (e.g., active management, instruction, individualization, support, and inspiration), and two leadership styles for establishing the leadership criteria (positive feedback and negative feedback). This last leadership style is in parenthesis because coaches may have alternative behaviours to change the undesirable behaviours of athletes without provoking negative reactions by them, such as disagreement in a positive way or even positive corrective instruction. As stated, coaches may assume different leadership styles in each area of the leadership cycle or even distinct combinations of leadership styles throughout the leadership cycle. The proposed combination of leadership styles in Fig. 4.5 may be more logical by considering how the cycles and styles of leadership match the tasks performed by coaches when leading athletes and teams.

Fig. 4.5

Application of leadership styles throughout the leadership cycle

It Is all about Ideas

Leadership cycles should occur linearly from leadership philosophy to leadership practice and then to leadership criteria, both at the conceptual and practical levels. This process implies that leaders should start their work by defining a philosophy of leadership based on a mission that team members are enthusiastic about. For that, leaders should reflect on their values, beliefs, and goals and about the needs, expectations, and goals of all the individuals involved in the situation (i.e., team members, managers, clients, social and legal regulators, among others). By considering these three factors (the goals of leader, the goals of the team members, and the requirements of the situation), the leader can define a philosophy of leadership that can augment the chances of bringing together all the individuals involved in the leadership scenario. This implies that coaches should be careful in defining their leadership philosophy to augment the success of their actions when working with teams and athletes.

According to Hardman and Jones (2013), the definition of coaching philosophy involves four philosophical concepts: ontology (what does it mean to be a coach), axiology (the values assumed by the coach), ethics (the moral or immoral judgements of the coach), and phenomenology (thoughts about the experience of being a coach). To establish a leadership philosophy, coaches should define the meaning of being a coach, which reflects the values assumed by the coach and the ethics of sports activity; this definition can, ultimately, influence the final experience of being a coach. The establishment of the philosophy assumed by coaches should reflect these four aspects, as proposed below.

• (a) Meaning of being a coach (ontology). The philosophy should be determined by the common purpose of contributing to stimulating athletes’ potentialities that can impact human development in a broad sense (i.e., not only the development of physical or motor skills). This common purpose should be reflected in a particular mission that encourages the best efforts and commitment of all those involved in the leadership situation.

• (b) Values of being a coach (axiology). The philosophy should correspond to a mission based on a positive vision of the future that is simple (but not simplistic) and specific for team members (i.e., all team members understand what the mission is all about). This positive vision can transcend the immediate and individual interests of each team member, stimulating them to believe that with hard work and maximum effort, they can transcend their levels of achievement and improve their abilities.

• (c) Moral options of being a coach (ethics). The philosophy should articulate a mission that is based on the ethical values and social norms of the context in which coaches and athletes are situated. Athletes should understand the ethical values of sports and how these values relate to the purpose of improving their potentialities and achieving high performance in competitions.

• (d) Personal experience of being a coach (phenomenology). The philosophy should reflect the personal vocation and enthusiasm of the coach as the leader of the team towards the established mission. The coach should be optimistic and confident about the possibility of achieving a better scenario for all the individuals involved in the situation.

These four aspects characterize the formulation of the leadership philosophy, which is the first step of the leadership cycle of the leadership efficacy model. As stated, both the conceptual and practical cycles are linear, meaning that they follow a logical relation across the philosophy, practice, and criteria of leadership. However, is it possible to have nonlinear relations across these three factors, meaning that practice and criteria can determine the philosophy of leadership?

Perhaps this question is much more a hypothetical possibility than a real possibility in the daily work of coaches, but it should be admitted that the process is not exactly the same. In fact, when the process starts by developing a leadership philosophy, coaches may be thinking in a more logical and sustained way by considering the ontology, axiology, ethics, and phenomenology of their activity as coaches. This is the ideal process through which to establish a leadership philosophy and ideal profile of coaching. This approach is the ideological process of coaching.

However, it should be admitted that leadership philosophy may be determined by following distinct processes of formulation. For example, coaches can define their goals and principles based on their leadership practice, altering the order of the leadership cycle: leadership practice TO leadership philosophy. In this case, we may have coaches who base their ideas about coaching on their past experience and the fact that they have worked over the years. As stated by Gomes (2014a), this approach sustains on the idea of “practice makes the leader”, meaning that coaches may rely on “trial and error” strategies to establish their activity as coaches (i.e., their philosophy of leadership). This approach is the experimental process of coaching.

The other possible profile occurs when coaches define their goals and principles based on their leadership criteria, altering the order of the leadership cycle: leadership criteria TO leadership philosophy. In this case, we may have coaches that formulate their ideas about coaching on what produces or augments the chances of achieving success as coaches. When the leadership criteria determine the leadership philosophy, coaches may see their activity as “good” or “bad” if it leads to success or failure in training and competition situations. Again, as stated by Gomes (2014a), this approach sustains on the idea of “if it works don’t fix it”, meaning that leading well or leading poorly is evaluated according to the result achieved in each moment by coaches and athletes. This approach is the results-oriented process of coaching.

In sum, the leadership cycle is a key concept for the leadership efficacy model, establishing a relation among philosophy, practice, and criteria of leadership. These linear relations should start with defining the leadership philosophy based on a good idea that team members enthusiastically support. It is correct to assume that other combinations can occur in the leadership cycle, producing other ways to establish a leadership philosophy. In this sense, it seems that the leadership efficacy model is all about ideas; however, this is not the case. For this proposal, maximum efficacy depends on linear relations from leadership philosophy to leadership practice and then to leadership criteria that include the meaning of being a coach (ontology), the values of being a coach (axiology), the moral options of being a coach (ethics), and the personal experience of being a coach (phenomenology). This approach is the best strategy for producing good coaching ideas.

Leadership Efficacy Model Hypotheses

The three factors of the leadership efficacy model result in four hypotheses that test the entire model (see Fig. 4.6).

Fig. 4.6

Leadership Efficacy Model Hypotheses. Note. Discontinuous arrows separately test the H1, H2, and H3 hypotheses; continuous arrows test the H4. OCHL hypothesis

H1. Congruence of Leadership Cycles | Triphasic Relation

The efficacy of leadership increases when the leader establishes a linear relationship between how he or she intends to use the leadership position (conceptual cycle) and the effective way in which the leadership position is used when leading athletes and teams (practical cycle). The congruence between cycles of leadership should occur by considering the perspectives of both coaches and athletes.

H2. Optimal Leadership Profile

Leadership efficacy increases when the leader sustains the congruence between leadership cycles by using higher levels of transformational leadership, higher levels of positive feedback and lower levels of negative feedback from transactional leadership, and higher levels of active (decentralized) management of decision making and lower levels of passive management.

In this sense, the optimal profile of leadership is characterized by the following leadership styles: (a) decision making based on higher use of active decentralized management of leadership than centralized management of leadership, (b) transactional leadership based on higher use of positive feedback and lower use of negative feedback, and, especially, (c) the use of higher levels of transformational leadership. An optimal leadership profile is expected to augment leadership efficacy when compared with the suboptimal profile of leadership, which is based on less use of transformational leadership, more use of negative feedback and less use of positive feedback, and the higher use of passive management and centralized active management. When both profiles are compared, the optimal profile of leadership has a better chance of increasing coaches’ efficacy, both at the subjective level (i.e., team cohesion, athletes’ satisfaction) and the objective level (goal achievement, performance). Therefore, leadership styles may maximize (i.e., facilitators) or minimize (i.e., inhibitors) the leader’s cycles of leadership, moderating leadership efficacy.

H3. Favourability of Conditions for Leadership

The efficacy of leadership increases when the leader has antecedent factors that operate as facilitators of his/her actions or when the leader has antecedent factors that operate as inhibitors of his/her actions but adopts strategies to minimize the antecedent factors. These factors are related to the personality of the leader, the characteristics of the team members, and the specific conditions provided by the organization in which the leader is working. Therefore, these factors may maximize (i.e., facilitators) or minimize (i.e., inhibitors) the leader’s cycles of leadership, moderating leadership efficacy.

H4. OCHL | Optimized Congruence Hypothesis of Leadership

The efficacy of leadership increases when the leader establishes a congruence between the conceptual and practical cycles of leadership (congruence of leadership cycles), uses leadership styles based on the optimal profile of leadership when determining the leadership plan, and considers the antecedent factors of leadership.

Empirical Findings

Research about Leadership Cycles and Triphasic Relation

The leadership efficacy model attributes a central role to the linear relations established among leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria to explain leadership efficacy. Philosophy, practice, and criteria deserve equal attention and importance as “central elements” explaining the activity and success of coaches. That is, coaches may have “good”, “stimulating”, “visionary” ideas for athletes and teams, but the ideas do not extend beyond “utilitarian intentions” if coaches fail to incorporate them into effective plans of actions in their work with athletes and teams. Additionally, coaches may translate the ideas into well-designed plans for training and action in their work with athletes and teams, but again, they do not extend beyond “utilitarian intentions and actions” if the coaches do not establish the effectiveness indicators of the ideas and actions to be adopted by all the team members. Therefore, establishing interesting ideas for coaching athletes is central to the efficacy of coaches, but it is a very narrow perspective for analysing the work of coaches. The “big picture” of coaching activity should also include how coaches translate the ideas into specific plans of action and how coaches monitor the accomplishment of the ideas and plans of action.

When we analyse the literature, it is obvious that the philosophy of coaching is the key factor of research and a main concept of coaching education programmes. As referred to by Jenkins (2010), coaching philosophy is central to comprehending coaches’ leadership styles and actions, representing a major aspect of coach education publications and training (Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2009). The consequence of this overvaluation of the philosophy of coaching is that we have a much greater understanding of the ideas and principles that coaches value in their work than we have about how they implement and monitor the ideas and principles. For example, Lyle (1999) studied the coaching philosophies of 43 senior coaches and identified 24 values (e.g., “respect for others” and “partnership”) that characterize a coach’s philosophy.

Another problem with knowledge about the philosophy of coaching is that several studies rely on single cases (which limit the results generalization), and most of them lack detailed information about methodology or data analysis techniques (Gould, Pierce, Cowburn, & Driska, 2017). Nevertheless, the findings of these studies are worthy of recognition. Callary, Werthner, and Trudel (2013) studied the underlying values that influenced the actions of a female hockey coach and concluded that five core values guided her actions (equity, connectedness, holistic development, respect, and effort). Vallée and Bloom (2016), providing their own example of Chantal Vallée as a basketball coach, identified principles of coaching that contributed to winning five consecutive championships (enacting a vision, athlete empowerment, teaching life skills, and lifelong learning and personal reflection). In a similar study performed with Russ Rose, a coach who won four successive NCAA national championships with a university volleyball team, concluded that “coaching for accountability” and “self-responsibility” were central aspects that characterized the philosophy of this coach (Yukelson & Rose, 2014). Interestingly, Gavazzi (2015) found similar coaching values guiding the philosophy of Urban Meyer, a highly successful Ohio State University football coach. Specifically, this coach referred to values and actions related to setting clear expectations and guidelines for his players that emphasize team accountability and player responsibility. In a more methodologically rigorous case study (employing member checking, a critical friend, and audit trail procedures), Hodge, Henry, and Smith (2014) analysed the philosophy of Graham Henry and Wayne Smith, head and assistant coaches, respectively, of the New Zealand All Blacks, the most successful rugby team of all time. As already demonstrated in other studies, these coaches valued leadership based on shared responsibility, autonomy, and supportive coaching. However, these important values changed when coaches faced major problems with athletes as, for example, unsuccessful periods of competition or even athletes engaged in undisciplined behaviours such as binge drinking. These aspects confirm the feedback loop of the leadership efficacy model, meaning that coaches can indeed change their course of action when they feel there are mismatches between their intended ideas, actions, and criteria (conceptual cycle) and the application of their leadership plan for the specific coaching context (practical cycle).

Although these studies are of interest, they have two major shortcomings. First, these studies offer a limited perspective of coaching activity by not analysing the impact of philosophy on coaches’ actions and effectiveness criteria. Second, as already indicated, most of these studies are based on single cases, lacking detailed information about methodology or data analysis techniques. As confirmed by Jenkins (2010), the link between coaching philosophy and coaching actions needs to be more deeply explained. In an attempt to better explain these relations, Gould et al. (2017) examined the coaching philosophy of J. Robinson, one of the most respected and successful NCAA wrestling coaches in the United States, and found clear relations between the coach’s philosophy and the way he proposed the development of mental skills in Robison Intensive Wrestling Camps. However, this study previously defined the analysis of the relations between a coaching philosophy and coaches’ actions specifically directed to the development of psychological skills in athletes as a goal. This approach can facilitate the establishment of connections between the philosophy and practices of coaches and limit the analysis of other areas of coaching impact produced by coaches. When these relations are not predetermined, coaches may experience more difficulties in establishing logical connections between philosophy and behaviours. In fact, there are indications that the relations established among leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria are far from simple and far from “spontaneous occurrences”. This assumption was demonstrated by McCallister, Blinde, and Weiss (2000) in a study with youth baseball and softball coaches, finding that coaches were capable of identifying a wide range of values and skills that are important to teach their athletes, but they had difficulty explaining how these values were then translated into their work with athletes. The fact that these coaches had little formal training in coaching could be a reason for this failure, but as we will see below, it is a very limited explanation.

Although research is already scarce in clarifying the relations between the philosophy and practices of coaches, the scenario may be more challenging if we add a third element of coach activity, the leadership criteria, that is, the personal and professional indicators that coaches use to analyse the impact produced by their philosophy and practices on athletes and teams. Without criteria, it is difficult to understand the profound impact of coaches on the wellbeing and performance of athletes, and without criteria, it is almost impossible to understand stability and change in the course of the actions of coaches. In fact, it is because of leadership criteria that coaches decide to maintain and reinforce their philosophy and behaviours (meaning they are producing the expected impact on athletes and teams), and it is also possible that it is because of leadership criteria that coaches decide to change their ideas and course of actions (meaning they are not producing the expected impact on athletes and teams). This result was evident in the previous study by Hodge et al. (2014), demonstrating that some critical incidents occurred in the team (i.e., deviations from what the coaches were expecting) that changed the leadership approach adopted by the coaches. It is very difficult to understand these changes in the course of action if we do not evaluate the previous expectations of coaches’ impacts (i.e., leadership criteria) and what happens when coaches confront reality.

In an attempt to capture the big picture of the philosophy, practice, and criteria of coaches, Gomes, Araújo, Resende, and Ramalho (2018) interviewed ten elite coaches from different sports. All of these coaches possessed the maximum certification to lead their teams, and they were very successful in terms of sports results, which was very different from the coaches studied by McCallister et al. (2000). Gomes et al. (2018) found congruence between coaches in some areas of their work with athletes, namely, the value of athlete motivation, the value of building positive relationships with athletes, the value of cohesion, and the need for formal and informal rules that regulate the team’s functioning. For all these areas, coaches established full property matches among the philosophy, practice, and criteria of leadership. However, these linear relationships occurred for only 21% of the established matches, meaning that for the majority of the data provided by the coaches, it was not possible to establish matches among philosophy, practice, and criteria. Therefore, this study aligns with the findings of McCallister et al. (2000), making the role of the formal training of coaches less evident in their ability to successfully complete the leadership cycles (relation among philosophy, practice, and criteria), which may be quite amazing if we think about the demands and sophistication of formal programmes of coach education.

In summary, it is evident that there is a long way to go to understand the philosophy of coaching and the impact produced on the coaches’ behaviours and effectiveness criteria. However, the pursuit of this understanding is a rewarding journey, allowing us to understand how coaches build their convictions about coaching and how these values impact the development of athletes and teams.

Research about Leadership Styles

The leadership efficacy model incorporates leadership styles to give the leadership cycles a meaning of action. The linear relations established among leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria, which occurred both at the conceptual and practical levels of coaches’ functioning (congruence hypothesis), are central to explaining leadership efficacy. However, the way these relationships occurred is worth noting. In practical terms, this process signifies that a coach can achieve congruence between conceptual and practical cycles of leadership by adopting different styles of leadership, thus producing distinct effects on athletes and teams and on leadership efficacy.

In the leadership efficacy model, coaches may achieve congruence between cycles of leadership by selecting leadership behaviours from three leadership domains (transformational, transactional, and decision making), and it is proposed that the “optimal profile of leadership” may have a major impact on coaches’ leadership. This profile is constituted by active decentralized leadership management (from decision-making leadership), positive feedback (from transactional leadership), and by vision, inspiration, instruction, individualization, and support (from transformational leadership). This set of behaviours offers better possibilities of achieving leadership efficacy when compared with a “suboptimal profile of leadership” based on less use of transformational leadership, more use of negative feedback than positive feedback, and the tendency to manage power by adopting centralized active management or, even worse, by adopting passive management.

The study of leadership styles is a main topic in the literature, producing very robust findings about leaders’ actions related to better results for team members and organizations. It should be noted that the research findings are more substantial for demonstrating the impact of leadership styles on subjective measures of leaders’ efficacy (as is the case for team members’ satisfaction and work commitment) than for demonstrating an unequivocal impact on objective measures (as is the case for teams and organizations’ performance) (for a review, see Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Nevertheless, the results reveal that certain profiles of leadership are better than others in explaining the impact produced by leaders on individuals, groups and teams, organizations, communities, and societies.

One of the major distinctions relates to the differential impacts produced by transactional leadership and transformational leadership. For the first case, leadership is based on an exchange between something that the leaders want team members to do to achieve a certain goal or task and something that team members want to have in return for their efforts in doing what the leaders want. In transformational leadership, the relationships between the leader and team members surpass the instrumental exchange system of transactional leadership by exhibiting a true commitment by the leader and team members regarding a vision and a mission that involve all of them and that stimulate the maximum levels of effort that can indeed produce performance beyond expectations (see Bass, 1985; Wang, In-Sue, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011).

This increase in the positive impact of transformational leadership over transactional leadership on distinct aspects of followers’ psychological experiences at work and on performance was called the augmentation effect of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). Research over the years has been very consistent in demonstrating better results for transformational leadership than for transactional leadership (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Hater & Bass, 1988; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Molero, Cuadrado, & Morales, 2007; Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990). Birasnav (2014), in a study with managers from service firms, found that transformational leadership has strong and positive effects on the knowledge management process and organizational performance after controlling for the effects of transactional leadership. Additionally, Zwingmann et al. (2014) analysed the health promoting effects of transformational leadership, contingent reward, and laissez-faire leadership across 16 countries and found that a strong transformational leadership climate was associated with better perceived health in eight countries and that the augmentation effect was significant in six countries.

The augmentation effect was also confirmed in sports contexts. Rowold (2006), in a study of martial arts, found that transformational leadership added unique variance beyond that of transactional leadership for predicting leader effectiveness. Gomes and Resende (2014), in a study with futsal and soccer athletes, also confirmed the augmentation effect, with transformational leadership adding unique variance over decision-making leadership and transactional leadership for variables related to satisfaction with leadership and coach-athlete compatibility.

The augmentation effect is the demonstration of higher effects of transformational leadership over transactional leadership. However, the leadership efficacy model also proposes decision making as an area of coaches’ leadership. The model includes passive management to describe the tendency of the leader to avoid decisions and responsibilities when that is important to followers and teams and active management to describe the opposite tendency of leaders who assume their responsibilities whenever necessary. Active management can occur in a more centralized form, when leaders make decisions with little or no consultation with team members, or in a more decentralized form, when leaders make decisions only after some consultation with team members. In essence, passive management under the leadership efficacy model is similar to laisse-faire management from transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006), but active management under the leadership efficacy model does not correspond to active management under the Bass model. For the leadership efficacy model, the focus is on how leaders manage the power of decision making with team members (centralizing or decentralizing the decisions), while for transformational leadership theory, the focus is on how leaders act when deviations from rules and standards occur, by preventing these deviations from occurring (being more active) or by resolving the deviations when they occur (being more passive). For Bass (1985), decision-making leadership is included in other dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership, meaning that a leader can be transactional or transformational by using more negotiated or imposed strategies of power management. This approach is obviously possible, but it probably does not reflect equivalent forms of leadership, giving decision making theoretical autonomy and independence from the transactional and transformational leadership. This conception is supported by major approaches to leadership that treat decision making as a singular form of leadership; for instance, situational leadership theory proposes that the levels of authority and of empowerment by the leader should consider the levels of team members’ competence and commitment (Blanchard, 2007; Sosik & Jung, 2018). Additionally, path-goal theory proposes that leaders should select the most appropriate behaviours (i.e., directive, supportive, participative, or achievement oriented) according to the personal characteristics of followers and environmental characteristics in order to increase followers’ motivation to perform and reach high levels of productivity (House & Mitchell, 1997). Contributions from these models point out distinct leadership options that can modify the final profile of leaders’ ways of acting and including them as inherent parts of transactional and transformational styles limits the comprehension of how they exert power over athletes and teams. For example, a leader assuming the profile of centralized active management, positive feedback, and all five transformational behaviours may be different from a leader assuming the profile of decentralized active management, positive feedback, and all five transformational behaviours. If decision making is excluded from the analysis, these distinct patterns are also disregarded by the analysis.

In summary, the leadership efficacy model includes three areas of leadership and nine styles of leadership, covering very distinct domains of leadership. By including decision making in addition to transactional and transformational leadership, the model offers researchers the possibility to test a more comprehensive profile of leadership styles when explaining leadership efficacy (optimal profile of leadership).

Research about the Antecedent Factors of Leadership

The leadership efficacy model incorporates antecedent factors of leadership because some factors outside the specific dynamics established between leaders and team members can influence leadership efficacy. These factors are the leader as a person, the team members as persons, and the situation in which the leadership occurs. All of these factors assume the role of facilitators or inhibitors of leadership by enhancing or decreasing the positive influence of coaches on athletes and team functioning.

Starting with the leader characteristics, there is a long tradition in leadership research of analysing whether some traits, such as intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability, are related to leadership effectiveness (Sosik & Jung, 2018). Some of these traits are more referenced in the research, as is the case of the big five personality model (i.e., emotional stability, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness; McCrae & Costa Jr, 1992). The results from this model indicate that leaders who are positive, adaptive, interpersonally engaging and aware, and developmental in nature are the most effective leaders (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Sosik & Jung, 2018).

The team members’ characteristics and situational characteristics also represent important factors in the comprehension of leadership, reinforcing the need for congruence between the leader’s style of action and the characteristics of the subordinates and the work setting (see House, 1971). For example, path-goal theory emphasizes the personal characteristics of followers (e.g., perceived ability and locus of control) and environmental characteristics (e.g., task structure, authority system, or work group characteristics) as key factors in achieving organizational goals (House & Mitchell, 1997). Additionally, the contingency theory proposed by Fred Fiedler aggregates leadership into task- and relationship-oriented leadership, which should be applied according to three critical situational factors: (i) the quality of the leader-follower relations, (ii) the leader’s position of power (i.e., authority to reward or punish followers based on his or her position in the organization), and (iii) the task structure (i.e., whether the task is clearly defined and easily understood or ambiguous and complex) (Sosik & Jung, 2018).

The conjunction of the characteristics of the leaders, athletes, and situations are recognized in some important models of sports leadership, such as the multidimensional model of leadership (Chelladurai, 2007), the mediational model of leadership (Smith & Smoll, 1996), and the working model of coaching effectiveness (Horn, 2008). The results are very substantial, revealing that several variables may indeed be important to explaining leadership efficacy in sports contexts. For example, coaches’ personalities (Laborde, Guillén, Watson, & Allen, 2017) and resilience (Weinberg, Butt, & Culp, 2011) and coaches’ coping strategies for dealing with stressors (Norris, Didymus, & Kaiseler, 2017; Olusoga, Butt, Maynard, & Hays, 2010) seem to be important variables in explaining how coaches assume their roles and tasks. In the case of athletes, variables related to their sex, age, or sport experience (e.g., Beam, Serwatka, & Wilson, 2004; Riemer & Toon, 2001; Sherman, Fuller, & Speed, 2000), amotivation and sport anxiety (Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Horn, Bloom, Berglund, & Packard, 2011; Stenling, Ivarsson, Hassmén, & Lindwall, 2017), and even narcissism (Arthur, Woodman, Ong, Hardy, & Ntoumanis, 2011) seem to be related to the way coaches’ leadership is perceived by athletes. Additionally, situational factors, such as the type of sport practised by athletes (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995) and the sports results achieved by the team (Gomes, Lopes, & Mata, 2011) also impact the way athletes perceive their coaches.

In summary, the antecedent factors of the leadership efficacy model may help us understand leadership efficacy; they act as moderators of the influence exerted by coaches on athletes and teams. By including antecedent factors in the study of sports coaching, we may have a better perspective of why some specific coaches leading some specific athletes in a particular situation achieve success, while other specific coaches working with some specific athletes in a given situation do not achieve success.

Practical Implications

The leadership efficacy model includes some practical implications for the coaches’ work, which are mainly derived from three components of the model: leadership cycles, leadership styles, and the antecedent factors of leadership.

Implications for the Leadership Cycles and Triphasic Relation

The main idea of leadership cycles is that when coaches establish linear relations between what they want to do (conceptual cycle) and what they effectively do when leading athletes and teams (practical cycle), both from the perspective of coaches and athletes, they maximize their efficacy with regard to their athletes and teams (congruence hypothesis). This congruence includes the relations established among leadership philosophy, leadership practice/leadership in practice, and leadership criteria (Gomes, 2014a).

Some aspects can increase the chances of the congruence hypothesis applying in leadership cycles.

• (a) Leadership plans should be designed by starting from the philosophy of leadership, and only then should leadership practices (specific behaviours that will be adopted to fulfil the coaching philosophy) and the leadership criteria (specific indicators used to monitor the accomplishment of the philosophy and practice of leadership) be established.

• (b) The philosophy of leadership does not need to be complex or extremely elaborate to be successful; on the contrary, it should be positive (i.e., pointing out a stimulating and challenging mission for the team), specific (i.e., pointing out a concrete and comprehensive mission for the team), based on personal vocation (i.e., reflecting the personal enthusiasm of the coach for the mission), and ethically acceptable (i.e., pointing out a mission that is based on the personal and social standards of sports).

• (c) The practice of leadership should include specific actions that can concretize the philosophy of leadership. A good plan of action should include specific strategies to unite the team regarding the mission, the specific plan of action, which can concretize the philosophy of leadership, and how to apply the plan of action in daily work with athletes.

• (d) The leadership criteria should be based on observable and quantifiable indicators that can monitor the achievement of the leadership philosophy and the progress of leadership practices.

• (e) Coaches may not monitor all of their ideas and actions used in daily work with athletes, but they should, at least, monitor the central ideas that they intend to implement in their teams over the sport season.

• (f) Coaches should be careful when applying their leadership plans to their teams (conceptual cycle of leadership); they should listen to athletes about the leadership plan and then observe their reactions in training and competition (practical cycle of leadership). This feedback loop between the conceptual and practical cycles of leadership can improve the impact produced by coaches on athletes and teams, leading to an increase in leadership efficacy.

• (g) Using linear cycles of leadership will prevent erratic leadership plans that are adopted without first establishing a philosophy of leadership. For example, coaches who believe that their activity is mostly a question of experience may define their leadership plans based on what worked in the past without reflecting on the leadership principles that should guide their actions; additionally, coaches who believe that their activity is a question of achieving the desired sports results may define their leadership plans based on what gives athletes better chances of achieving a higher performance without reflecting on the leadership principles that should guide their actions.

Implications for the Leadership Styles

The main idea of leadership styles is that some leadership behaviours may increase the quality of the leadership cycles, augmenting the efficacy of leadership with regard to athletes and teams; thus, some practical implications should be presented.

• (a) Coaches can increase the impact of their leadership (i.e., congruence among leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria) by using the optimal profile of leadership (mainly based on transformational leadership, followed by positive feedback and decentralized active management).

• (b) Coaches should avoid the suboptimal profile of leadership related to passive management, centralized active management (especially if the alternative behaviour of decentralized active management can be used), and negative feedback to prevent decreases in the impact of leadership efficacy on athletes and team functioning.

• (c) Leadership styles should be selected based on the goals of the coaches, the needs of the athletes, and the requirements of the situation. For example, behaviours related to vision and inspiration may be important to motivate change and the commitment of athletes to the team mission; behaviours related to individualization and support may be important to understand the athletes’ personal expectations and needs; behaviours related to instruction and positive feedback may be important when athletes are performing under pressure; and behaviours related to active management may be important when coaches have to determine important aspects of training and competition.

Implications for the Antecedent Factors of Leadership

The antecedent factors of leadership can maximize or debilitate the efficacy of coaching, meaning that coaches should consider some implications of these factors on the leadership plans.

• (a) Coaches can increase the impact of their leadership by adjusting their leadership based on their own personal characteristics, the characteristics of the athletes, and the requirements of the situation. Although antecedent factors do not represent central aspects of coaches’ activities, they can exert substantial impact on leadership efficacy.

• (b) Coaches can increase technical favourability in their teams by establishing cycles of leadership based on behaviours related to vision (to define the mission and goals of the team), inspiration (to stimulate the maximum effort of athletes), instruction (to promote the desire for the progression and improvement of athletes) and positive feedback (to stimulate continuous efforts by and feelings of pride in athletes).

• (c) Coaches can increase psychological favourability in their teams by establishing cycles of leadership based on behaviours related to individualization (to increase feelings of personal contribution by athletes towards the team mission), support (to promote positive relationships of trust with athletes), and decentralized active management (to stimulate feelings of responsibility and the desire for autonomy in athletes).

• (d) Coaches can increase situational favourability in their teams by establishing cycles of leadership based on behaviours related to vision and instruction (to convince decision makers—such as club managers—to create better conditions for coaches’ activities), and they should adapt leadership behaviours according the athletes’ maturity (to capitalize on the skills and experience of athletes).

Key Points

The activity of coaches (as that of other leaders) is complex and very dynamic. Such activity is complex because coaches must address a significant number of factors that can impact their final efficacy when leading athletes and teams. For example, for the leadership efficacy model, these factors can be aggregated into three areas (leadership cycles, leadership styles, and leadership antecedent factors). Such activity is dynamic because coaches’ actions occur in contexts that change constantly, meaning that in very narrow periods of time, the coach can be considered a successful professional (the established goals are fulfilled), but if the situation changes dramatically, the coach could turn into an unsuccessful professional (the established goals are not fulfilled). This context can be understood as the “hungry sports machine”, requiring not only maximum effort and dedication from coaches and athletes but also requiring maximum performance and sports success.

Considering the multitude of sports expectations regarding the coach’s activities, many of them not completely controllable by the coaches, it is important to reflect on how coaches can organize their ideas, goals, and actions. Figure 4.7 summarizes an organization of cycles and styles of leadership according to the main tasks involved in the coach’s activity. Some aspects should be reinforced.

• (a) The three phases of the leadership cycle (leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria) indicate five tasks for coaches (establishing the mission, uniting the team, defining the plan of action, applying the plan of action, and defining the outcomes).

• (b) Establishing the mission seems more related to the philosophy of leadership because coaches have to think about the purpose of their work with athletes and teams.

• (c) Uniting the team seems more related to leadership practices because coaches have to think about how to involve athletes in accomplishing the mission. This goal can be reached by using decentralized active management (stimulating the collective involvement of athletes) or by centralized active management (stimulating the collective mobilization of athletes). In fact, open processes of decision making have the potential to promote cohesion due the sense of the personal authorship of the athletes in the establishment of the mission; by contrast, closed processes of decision making put more responsibility on the ability of coaches to convince (and hence mobilize) athletes towards accomplishing the mission.

• (d) Defining the plan of action seems more related to leadership practices because coaches have to challenge athletes to continuously improve, stimulate the best efforts of each one, and then build strong and positive relationships. These three aspects may increase the possibilities of success in achieving the established mission. A good plan of action may depend on the ability of coaches to provide positive instruction, individualization, and support to athletes to stimulate their maximum efforts in concretizing the team mission.

• (e) Applying the plan of action seems more related to leadership practices because coaches have to motivate athletes to give their best in training and competitions. By using the behaviour of inspiration, coaches may promote attitudes that maximize the efforts of athletes.

• (f) Defining the outcomes seems more related to the leadership criteria because coaches have to determine the indicators that will be used to monitor the accomplishment of the mission. Despite the indicators that are formulated, coaches may increase the success of their plans if they assume a positive approach regarding the effort exhibited by athletes. In fact, by using positive feedback, coaches may stimulate continuous efforts by athletes, which is essential for achieving the outcomes and thus the established mission. During this process of achieving the outcomes, error and failure will occur. One of the possible reactions is to use negative feedback; however, it is not the only or the most interesting behaviour to use; coaches may respond with disagreement (when it is important to change actions related to the achievement of the outcomes) or even corrective instruction (when it is important to change the way actions are performed by the athletes in order to achieve the outcomes).

• (g) The leadership cycles and tasks are enhanced by using the most appropriate leadership styles; they should be selected based on the impact that coaches want to produce on athletes and teams. Of course, there are other leadership styles that can be applied, and they can be combined to produce multiple effects on athletes and teams. However, once again, these styles should not be used indiscriminately or without forethought. These styles should serve a certain cycle of leadership (leadership philosophy, leadership practice, and leadership criteria).

Fig. 4.7

The leadership activity of coaches

Conclusion

In this chapter, we present the leadership efficacy model, which explains one of the most fascinating topics of leadership: the effects produced by the action of leaders on individuals, groups and teams, communities, and even societies. It is evident that coaches exert influence on athletes at different levels (psychological, physically, technical, tactical, among others); however, what specific factors contribute to explaining this influence and how it occurs is still a topic of debate in the literature.

One century of academic studies on leadership have produced several theoretical explanations and united many researchers, who have all given their best to explain what leadership is all about and how it can be developed in leaders and interested individuals. It is correct that scientists have not reached agreement on these issues. However, it is a worthwhile effort because leading others with the purpose of stimulating their maximum efforts regarding a positive and common mission represents one of the most extraordinary forms of influence between human beings.