University of Western Ontario Carron V. Albert Tammy …€¦ · University of Western Ontario ... FIRO-B dimensions and the state of the coach-athlete dyad, ... fully examined and

JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 1985, 7, 137-149

Compatibility in Coach-Athlete Relationships

Tammy Horne and Albert V. Carron University of Western Ontario

Three maior issues were examined in the present study: (a) the variables discriminating between compatible and incompatible coach-athlete dyads; (b) the relationship between coach-athlete compatibility and athlete performance; and (c) the relationship between compatibiility and athlete satisfaction. Subjects were 77 coach-athlete dyads from female intercollegiate teams. Compatibility was assessed using a sport-adapted version of Schutz's (1966) Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO-B) scale and Chelladurai and Saleh's (1980) Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS). Self-ratings of the quality of the coach-athlete relationship, athlete performance, and satisfaction with the coach's leadership were obtained. There were two variables that significantly discriminated between compatible and incompatible dyads. The sole variable predicting athletes' performance perceptions was the score reflecting discrepancy between athlete perceptions and preferences on the LSS reward dimension. Variables predicting athlete satisfaction were discrepancy between athlete perceptions and preferences on the LSS dimensions of training, reward, and social support. Recommendations for future research in this area are discussed.

Very little systematic research has examined leadership in sport. Early studies have examined the personality traits of coaches (cf., Ogilvie & Tutko, 1966) to determine if there was a particular type of person best suited to a leadership position. Other researchers (Fleishman, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957) have attempted to specify the behaviors required for effective leadership. Although some theories of leadership (Fiedler, 1967; House, 1971) have considered the moderating influence of situational variables such as leader-member relations and task structure, the research has been primarily concerned with the leader's perspective.

Less attention has been directed toward studying two-way interaction between the coach and individual athletes. Yet this approach would appear to have the greatest poten- tial for assessing the qualitative dimension of coach-athlete relationships. As Carron and Bennett (1977) have pointed out,

Inherent in any conclusion about coach-athlete compatibility based on the coach's per- sondim traits, attitudes, and/or values is one major shortcoming-the athlete is treated as a virtual non-participant in the relationship, the factor of interaction is ignored. An accurate assessment of the factors contributing to or detracting from coach-athlete com-

Requests for reprints should be sent to Tammy Home, who is currently with the Dept. of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3G1.

HORNE AND CARRON

patibility must take into account the needs, involvements, and contributions of both. (P. 672)

Carron and Bennett examined the sources of coach-athlete compatibility or incom- patibility using Schutz's (1958, 1966) theory of Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B) and its corresponding inventory, the FIRO-B scale. Schutz's theory involves examination of compatibility of needs and behavior between the leader and each individual subordinate. Schutz has stated that people have a need to both express and receive three types of behavior-inclusion, control, and affection-in their relationships with others. Compatibility exists if the behavior expressed by one person is con- gruent with what the other person wants to receive.

Carron and Bennett (1977) found that the degree of compatibility on the inclusion dimension was the main factor differentiating between compatible and incompatible coach- athlete dyads.' Inclusion refers to the need to associate with others and to have others associate with the self. Carron and Bennett postulated that unless there is inclusion or interaction to begin with, control and affection behaviors cannot occur. While this may be the case, the conclusion may be premature. The FRO-B instrument reflects an individual's interaction with people in general rather than with a specific other. It might be more accurate to measure compatibility on the FIRO-B dimensions in relation to coaches and athletes. This was done in the present study.

A sport-related instrument, the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS), has recently been developed (Chelladurai, 1978; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). This instrument assesses several dimensions of leader behavior-training and instruction, autocratic and democratic style, social support, and reward (positive feedback).

In fact, Chelladurai has developed three versions of the LSS. One assesses the coach's perceptions of personal coaching behavior, a second, the athlete's perceptions of the coach's behavior and a third, the coaching behaviors preferred by the athlete.2 These three versions of the LSS afford the opportunity to assess coach-athlete compatibility from a number of perspectives. For example, it may be measured as the discrepancy between the coach's perception of hislher behavior and the behavior preferred by the athlete. It could also be measured as the discrepancy between the athlete's perceptions of the coach's behavior and the behavior preferred by the athlete.

The LSS has three advantages over FIRO-B in assessing possible sources of high or low dyadic compatibility. First, its items deal with the athlete's own coach, whereas the adapted FRO-B deals with coaches in general. In addition, the LSS focuses on coaches' specific behaviors, while the three behavioral dimensions of the FIRO-B are more global. Finally, the LSS allows for perceptions of coaches' behaviors from the athletes' perspective. The FIRO-B instrument deals only with perceptions of the coaches' behaviors from the coaches' perspective (although it does allow for athletes' preferences).

It appears that a person's own perceptions of another's behavior, rather than the behavior itself, determines his or her feelings and actions toward the other person (Shaver,

'To avoid confusion over the use of the word "compatibility" in describing both Schutz's FIRO-B dimensions and the state of the coach-athlete dyad, the latter will henceforth be referred to as "dyadic compatibility."

2Complete examples of the LSS and the original and adapted FIRO-B scales may be found in Chelladurai and Saleh (1980), Schub (1966), and Home (1982), respectively.

COACH-ATHLETE RELATIONSHIPS 139

1975; Sherif & Sherif, 1969). Previous research has also shown that there are often differences between how coaches perceive their behavior and how their athletes perceive it (Danielson, Zelhart, & Drake, 1975; Smith, Smoll, Hunt, Curtis, & Coppel, 1978).

Predictors

One of the major goals of this study was to identify the best predictors of dyadic compatibility by examining (a) discrepancy between athletes' perceptions of and preferences for coaching behaviors described on the U S , and (b) originator and reciprocal compatibility on the sport-adapted FIRO-B. The research was exploratory in nature since there is little prior research on which to base sound hypotheses.

Predictors of Performance Perceptions

A second major research question concerned the relationship between the above- stated LSS and FIRO-B measures and the athlete's performance. This issue has not been fully examined and results have been equivocal. For example, in early management science research, some studies have shown a positive relationship between leader-subordinate compatibility (as assessed by FIRO-B) and subordinate performance (cf., Reddy & Byrnes, 1972; Schutz, 1966), while other studies have produced negative results (cf., Hill, 1975; Underwood & Krafft, 1973).

The compatibility-performance relationship may be dependent on the nature of the task (Hill, 1975). Hill has suggested that when people work independently on a task, in- compatibility may benefit performance by arousing competition among the performers. However, when they must interact, cooperation rather than competition is more important. The importance of task structure and interaction has also been demonstrated in studies of cohesiveness in sport teams (Carron & Chelladurai, 1981; Landers & Luschen, 1974; Lenk, 1969). Cohesion and performance appear to be positively related for interacting teams (e.g., basketball, hockey) and negatively related for sports requiring independent action (e.g., track) or coaction (e.g., rowing). Since the coach-athlete relationship at the intercollegiate level involves extensive amounts of interaction due to daily practices and frequent weekend competitions, it is highly possible that at least some of the FIRO-B and LSS variables would be positively related to performance.

However, research in this area is scarce. Carron and Garvie (1978), testing international wrestlers, did not find a significant relationship between either originator and reciprocal compatibility (as measured by FIRO-B) and performance. Their failure to find a relationship may have been due to the fact that compatibility was assessed by means of the general FIRO-B instrument rather than a sport-adapted version. When they used a specific question to assess "withdrawn from" versus "communicates with" the coach, they found that communication with the coach was positively related to the athlete's sub- jective perception of performance success. This more specific measure can be viewed as similar to the FIRO-B dimension of inclusion.

To date, no work has examined the relationship between discrepancy in athletes' perceptions and preferences on the LSS and athletes' performance perceptions. In developing his instrument Chelladurai (1978) did consider athlete performance, but his discrepancy measure was the difference between the coach's perceptions of personal coaching behavior and that prescribed by the task, rather than that preferred by the athlete. In addition, he utilized final team standing of male university basketball teams rather than individual per-

140 HORNE AND CARRON

formance. In contrast, the present study was concerned with the relationship between discrepancy and individual (athlete) performance. Due to the questionable validity of using measures such as team record (which is influenced by skill of opponent) or points scored (which is influenced by both position played and skiil of opponent), performance was measured in this study as the athlete's perception of her performance relative to her own expectations. In light of the lack of direct relevance between previous research and the present investigation, no a priori hypotheses were generated.

Predictors of Satisfaction With Coach s Leadership

Very little research has examined this issue to date. Chelladurai (1978), when developing his instrument, found discrepancy between perceptions and preference for training and instruction, autocratic leadership style, and reward to be related to athlete satisfaction with the leader. However, he measured discrepancy between the coach's self-perception of behavior and the behavior preferred by the athlete. As previously discussed, it is not the actor's perceptions of hislher own behavior, but rather the observer's perceptions of that behavior which determine the observer's feelings and actions in the situation. Therefore, a more accurate measure of discrepancy would be the difference between the athlete's perceptions of the coach's behavior and the athlete's preferences. In fact, Yukl's (1971) discrepancy model of subordinate satisfaction has postulated that satisfaction is a function of discrepancy between subordinate perceptions and preferences.

A study by Scholten (1978) tested this model using the LSS. Using female intercollegiate basketball teams, Scholten found perceptionlpreference discrepancy on all five LSS dimensions to be related to athlete satisfaction with the coach's leadership. She found the highest correlation for training and instruction discrepancy, followed respectively by the social support, reward, autocratic, and democratic discrepancies.

A recent study by Chelladurai (1984) more thoroughly examined the relationship between the discrepancy of perceptions and preferences and athlete satisfaction. He considered the moderating influence of type of sport. Basketball was classified as an interdepen- dent, variable (open) sport; wrestling as an independent, variable sport; and track and field as an independent, nonvariable (closed) sport. Chelladurai found perceptionlpreference discrepancy on all five LSS dimensions to be significantly related to basketball players' satisfaction with their coach's leadership, supporting Scholten's results. Regarding wrestlers, discrepancies in training and instruction, social support, and reward were significantly related to satisfaction. For track and field, discrepancies in training and instruction and autocratic behavior were significantly related to satisfaction.

Due to the relatively small sample size in the present study (see section entitled Methodology), the predictors of satisfaction could not be examined separately for different sports. However, it was hypothesized that discrepancy in training and instruction would be related to satisfaction, since Chelladurai found this relationship for all the sports he examined. In addition, Scholten (1978) found training and instruction discrepancy to have the highest correlation (of the five LSS factors) with satisfaction for female basketball players. This is the only hypothesis that could be stated a priori, since Chelladurai did not find any other LSS dimension to be significantly related to satisfaction across sport types. Furthermore, it appears that no work to date has examined the relationship between the FIRO-B variables and satisfaction, so no a priori hypotheses regarding these compatibility measures could be stated.

COACH-ATHLETE RELATIONSHIPS

Methodology

Subjects

The sample used in this study was divided into two subsamples. The athlete subsample (n = 74) was drawn from four universities in Ontario, Canada. These subjects were participants from volleyball (n = 26), basketball (n = 19), track and field (n =

13), and swimming (n = 16). The coaches (n = 9) of these teams comprised the second subsample, so that the total sample consisted of 74 coach-athlete dyads.

Instruments

m e FZRO-B Questionnaire. As previously mentioned, this instrument measures three dimensions of interpersonal behavior (Schutz, 1958, 1966). Inclusion refers to the need to associate with others and to have others associate with the self. Control is defined as the need for mutual respect with others in areas of decision-making. Affection refers to the need to like and be liked and to have close relationships with others.

For the present study, the original FIRO-B instrument was shortened and adapted for use in sport, a procedure consistent with Schutz's (1966) suggestions. Each of the six scales-representing coaches' and athletes' needs to express and to receive behaviors from the three above dimensions-was represented by six items, giving 36 items in total.', Both originator and reciprocal compatibility were measured for each dimension, using equations provided by Schutz (1966). For reciprocal compatibility, the amount of discrepancy between coach and athlete is important, but not its direction. In contrast, originator compatibility is concerned with both amount and direction of discrepancy (Carron & Chelladurai, 1981).

Leadership Scale for Sports. As indicated previously, this instrument measures five dimensions of leader behavior-training, autocratic and democratic style, social support, and reward (Chelladurai, 1978; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). The two latter behaviors may seem similar at first glance. However, for the reward dimension, social reinforcement (praise) is contingent on performance; with the social support dimension, positive social interaction is initiated by the coach regardless of the athlete's performance (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). In the present study, the athletes completed the "perceived" and "preferred leader behavior" versibns of the LSS. The coaches completed the "actual leader behavior" version, which measures the leader's perceptions of personal coaching behavior.

The discrepancy between the athlete's score on the "perceived" version and the coach's score on the "actual" version was examined to test the assumption that coaches and athletes often see the same coaching behavior differently. The discrepancy between the athlete's scores on the "perceived" and "preferred" versions of the instrument served as the measure of coach-athlete discrepancy on the LSS dimensions. In other words, discrepancy was assessed from the athlete's perspective.

'The original FIRO-B contains 54 items, nine per scale.

4The six scales appeared to be relatively independent. The highest correlation between any of the scales was found to be 502.

MORNEANDCARRON

Test-retest reliability for the LSS ranges from r = + .71 to .82. The majority of internal consistency estimates for the instrument range from .66 to .93 (Chelladurai 61: Saleh, 1980).5

Assessment of Pe$ormance, Satisfaction, and Compatibility of @ad. The questionnaire designed to measure athlete performance and satisfaction with the coach's leadership has been utilized in previous research (Carron & Garvie, 1978). Each athlete was asked to rate, on a 9-point scale, her perception of her current performance relative to her expectations and her satisfaction with the coach's leadership. An additional question was added to the instrument to obtain an overall rating of the coach-athlete relationship from the athlete's perspective-that is, "How would you rate your overall relationship with your coach?" This rating was used to distinguish between compatible and incompatible dyads.

Procedure. Coaches were contacted either in person or by phone and requested to participate in the study. If they agreed to participate, arrangements were made regarding completion of the above instruments. Because it was not possible for the researchers to administer the instruments personally to some of the teams, instructions were that the coach and the athletes were to complete the instruments in separate rooms. Coaches were also told that the team manager was to administer the questionnaires, collect them when done, and return them to the researchers. All coaches agreed to this procedure, which ensured that coaches would not be involved in administering questionnaires to their athletes. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects, and all were told that their responses would be confidential.

Analysis of Data. Stepwise discriminant function analysis (Klecka, 1975) was used in order to determine which variables best discriminated between compatible and incompatible dyads. The criterion used was the maximization of Rao's V, a generalized distance measure. According to Klecka, this provides for the greatest overall separation of the groups.

Dyads containing athletes who rated their overall relationship with the coach between 1 and 4 on a 9-point scale were classified as incompatible (n = 12). Dyads containing athletes who rated the relationship between 7 and 9 were classified as compatible (n = 33). This classification was used to ensure that the dyads being compared actually dif- fered in compatibility.

Tatsuoka (1970) has suggested that to retain reasonable statistical power, the total sample should be at least two to three times the number of variables used in the discriminant function analysis. Therefore, the analysis was conducted in two stages. In stage 1, separate analyses were conducted for the FIRO-B and LSS instruments. In stage 2, the variables that significantly added @ < .05) to the predictive ability of the function were retained for a final stepwise discriminant function analysis.

The forward selection procedure for multiple regression (Kim & Kohout, 1975) was used to determine the best predictors of the athlete's perceptions of performance and satisfaction with the coach's leadership. Because of the relatively small sample, a factor which can lead to obtaining inaccurate values for RZ (Pedhazur, 1982), the FIRO-B and LSS variables were examined separately in stage 1. Variables from each analysis having an F-value of 2.00 or greater were retained for the final regression analysis (stage 2) for each of the two dependent variables. Simultaneously deleting from the equation all variables

5Autocratic style on the preferred version was found to have an alpha of .45. Therefore, according to CheIladurai, fmdings involving this dimension should be viewed with caution.


having F less than 2.00 was not seen as a problem, since examination of the intercorrela- tion matrix showed low correlations, (r = .51 or less) among the predictor variables (see Pedhazur , 1982).

Results and Discussion

Coaches ' Versus Athletes ' Perceptions of Coaches ' Behavior

In order to examine amount of discrepancy between coaches' and athletes' perceptions of coaches' behavior on the five dimensions of the Leadership Scale for Sports, t-tests (two-tailed) were conducted. It was found that mean discrepancies were significant for the training, democratic, social support, and reward dimensions, p < .05 (see Table 1).

In all instances, the coaches perceived themselves as exhibiting more of each of these four behaviors than was perceived by the athletes. These findings lend support to those of Danielson et al. (1975), Percival (1976), and Smith et al. (1978).

However, there was no significant difference between coaches' and athletes' perceptions of autocratic coaching behavior. There was close agreement in the degree to which coaches and athletes perceived the coach as engaging in autocratic behavior (2.54 f .415 vs. 2.67 f .630). The fact that athletes also rated their coaches fairly low on the autocratic dimension undoubtedly accounted for the lack of significance.

In sum, there were significant differences in perceptions on four of the five dimensions of the US. Due to the previously discussed importance of the observer's perceptions, the choice of athlete's perceptioris minus athlete's preferences to measure discrepancy on the LSS is further justified. It was not possible to measure differences between coaches'

Table 1

Coaches' Versus Athletes' Perceptions of Coaches' Behavior

Behavior Perceptions' t

Training* M and instruction SD

Democratic* M SD

Autocratic M SD

Social support * M SD

Reward* M SD

Athlete 3.581 0.568 2.883 0.620 2.668 0.630 2.845 0.741 3.549 0.753

Coach 4.007 - 4.81 0.531 3.165 - 2.95 0.591 2.538 1.48 0.415 3.31 3 -5.10 0.650 4.351 - 7.43 0.478

' p < .05 "Means can range from 1 to 5. Higher numbers indicate greater amounts of perceived or preferred behavior.

144 HORNE AND CARRON

Table 2a

Descriptive Statistics for Compatible and lncompatible Dyads

LSS Compatible Incompatible Behavior Perc. Pref. Discrep.* Perc. Pref. Discrep. *

Training and M instruction SD

Democratic M SD

Autocratic M SD

Social M support SD

Reward M SD

*The maximum possible discrepancy score is * 4.0, with scores closer to 0 indicating greater agreement on the behavior under consideration.

Table 2b

Descriptive Statistics for Compatible and lncompatible Dyads

FIRO-B Behavior

Compatible Incompatible Orig.' Recip. * Orig. Recip.*

Inclusion M 2.000 5.333 2.083 4.083 SD 2.398 2.582 1.929 2.109

Control M 1.606 4.333 1.417 3.416 SD 2.290 2.458 1.881 2.466

Affection M - 1.697 3.879 - 0.41 7 3.583 SD 3.067 2.395 2.275 2.275

'Scores for Originator compatibility can range from 0 to * 12; scores for Reciprocal compatibility can range from 0 to + 12. Scores closer to 0 indicate greater compatibility on the behavior under consideration.

and athletes' perceptions of coaches regarding the behaviors measured by the FIRO-B, since this instrument requires each of the coaches and athletes to deal with their own behavior.

Variables Discriminating Between Compatible and Incompatible Dyads

Descriptive statistics for compatible and incompatible dyads are presented in Table 2. Perception, preference, and perceptionlpreference discrepancy are presented for the LSS. Originator and reciprocal compatibility are presented for the FIRO-B.


Two variables from the stage 1 analyses were included in the final (stage 2) discriminant function analysis-discrepancy between athletes' perceptions and preferences for reward and autocratic behavior. This preliminary analysis correctly classified 80.8% of the dyads.

The variable that best discriminated between compatible and incompatible dyads was the discrepancy between the athlete's perceptions of and preference for reward behavior from the coach, Wilks's lambda = 308, F(1, 43) = 10.19, p < .05. This variable accounted for 19.2% of the variance between the two groups. The mean value of discrepancy for compatible dyads was -0.279 f 0.714; for incompatible dyads it was -1.200 f 1.176 (see Table 3).

The negative signs indicate that the athletes perceived the coaches as providing less reward behavior than the athletes would have liked. It appears that if the athlete perceives the coach as providing the desired amount of positive feedback, the relationship is likely to be rated as compatible by the athlete. If the athlete perceives that the coach is giving considerably less than the amount the athlete would like, the relationship is likely to be rated as incompatible.

The only other variable that significantly added to the predictive ability of the discriminant function was the discrepancy between the athlete's perceptions and preference regarding autocratic coaching behavior, Wilks's lambda = .705, F(2, 42) = 8.78, p < .05. This variable accounted for an additional 10.3 % of the variance. The mean discrepancy for compatible dyads was 0.224 f 0.622, for incompatible dyads it was 0.983 f 0.936. The positive signs indicate that the athletes perceived the coaches to be more autocratic than what they preferred. It appears then that an athlete is more likely to rate the relationship as compatible if autocratic behavior is seen as not greatly exceeding the amount desired. Interestingly, discrepancy regarding democratic behavior did not significantly discriminate between the two types of dyads. Perhaps athletes prefer that the coach be in charge and make most decisions, so long as helshe is considerate of the athletes' needs.

Predictors of Perjonnance Perceptions

Discrepancy in perception of versus preference for reward behavior was the only variable included in the final regression analysis, since it was the only variable from the

Table 3

Variables Discriminating Between Compatible and Incompatible Dyads

Variable Wilks's lambda

Standardized discriminant function coefficient

Perc.-pref.* reward

Perc.-pref. autocratic

Eigen value = .418 XZ(s) = 14.67, p < .05 Canonical correlation = ,543 ' p < .05

146 HORNEANDCARRON

first stage analyses where F > 2.00, Beta = .313, F(l,68) = 7.37, p < .05. The discrepancy between perceived and preferred behavior regarding reward accounted for 9.8% of the variance, R2 = .098, F(l, 68) = 7.37, p < .05. It is possible that the athletes use positive verbal feedback from their coach as information when assessing their own performance. In addition, this positive feedback may have a motivational effect, encouraging the athlete to try harder in order to receive more reinforcement. This motivation may lead to im- provements in actual performance, which might be further reinforced by the coach.

Compatibility and Satisfaction With the Coach's Leadership

Variables included in the final regression analysis were perceptionlpreference discrepancy for training and instruction, reward, and social support. The best predictor of the athlete's satisfaction with the coach's leadership was the discrepancy between the athlete's perceptions of and preference for training, Beta = .388, F(3, 66) = 15.18, p < .05. This LSS variable accounted for 28.9% of the variance in satisfaction, R2 = .289, F(l, 68) = 27.68, p < .05 (see Table 4).

Both Scholten (1978) and Chelladurai (1984) found training and instruction to have the highest association with satisfaction. These results support their findings. Also, Chelladurai and &on (1983) found that training and instruction behavior was perceived as itnpor- tant by athletes at the university level. Their finding is consistent with Chelladurai's (1978) finding that more experienced athletes prefer more training and instruction than do less experienced athletes. These indications that training and instruction are important to athletes lend additional support to the present finding that discrepancy on this dimension is related to low satisfaction.

Discrepancy between athletes' perceptions and preferences on the reward dimension of the LSS significantly added to the predictiveness of the regression equation, Beta = .331, F(3, 66) = 11.62, p < .05. This variable accounted for an additional 11.8% of the variance in athlete satisfaction, R2 = .407, F(2, 67) = 22.96, p < .05. This finding, which supports the results of Chelladurai (1984) and partially supports those of Scholten (1978), is not surprising. People are likely to feel positively toward someone they perceive as providing positive feedback about their performance on a task.

The final significant predictor of satisfaction was the difference between the athletes' perceived and preferred behavior regarding social support, Beta = .188, F(3, 66)

Table 4

Variables Predicting Satisfaction With Coach's Leadership

Variables Beta R2

Pen-pref. training

Perc.-pref .^

reward Perc.-pref.'

social support


= 3.70, p < .05. This variable accounted for a further 3.1 % of the variance, RZ = .438, F(3, 66) = 17.16, p < .05. This finding partially supports Scholten (1978), who found social support to have the second-highest correlation with satisfaction (training and instruction was the highest).

Additionally, Chelladurai and Carron (1983) found that preference for social support progressively increased with levels of competition up to the university level. Also Chelladurai (1978) found that the longer athletes participate in a sport, the more they tend to prefer social support. Chelladurai has suggested that longer tenure in a sport may indicate more intense involvement with it and neglect of social interactions outside athletics. According to Chelladurai, the athlete would then look to the team and coach to provide social needs. It is also possible that university athletes consider social support important because of the change in their environment, that is, living on their own and moving to a higher caliber of competition. In light of this importance of social support to university athletes, it is not surprising that perceptionlpreference discrepancy on this dimension would be related to satisfaction. However, the practical implications of such a small proportion of the variance accounted for must be considered.

Recommendations for Future Research

Several recommendations should be made for future studies of this type. First of all, the FDRO-B variables did not play a prominent role in any of the three major research issues examined by the present study. There are three possible reasons for this. First, consistent with Schutz's suggestions, the adaptation of FIRO-B to sport was achieved by substituting the word "coaches" or "athletes" for "people." Therefore, athletes were required to respond to such items as "I like coaches to take charge of things" and "I try to be friendly to coaches." Several subjects described these and other items as being overly general and difficult to interpret. This may have accounted for the inability of the FIRO-B measures to discriminate between compatible and incompatible dyads or to predict performance perception or satisfaction.

A second possible reason is also related to the generality of the FIRO-B. Research in the area of attitudes (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) has led to the suggestion that if beliefs and attitudes are to be used to predict behavior toward a certain target, they must be specific to that target and to the behavior being predicted. Using this notion of specificity, coach- athlete dyadic compatibility might best be measured in terms of the athlete's own coach and sport-related situations. The LSS questions contain this specific focus, for example items such as "My coach sees to it that athletes work to capacity."

A third reason is that with the FIRO-B, the coach's behavior is assessed from the coach's point of view, and the athlete's perceptions are not considered. In light of these problems, it might be best to use the Leadership Scale for Sports in future studies of coach- athlete compatibility.

It would also be beneficial to develop alternative means of assessing athlete performance (in addition to self-report measures). Coaches' ratings would be one possible method, although these might be influenced by the degree of dyadic compatibility. Peer ratings would be another method. Teammates would likely have more knowledge of both the athlete being rated and task requirements than would raters who are external to the team, such as researchers.

Landy and Farr (1980) have suggested that for ratings to be accurate, raters must have knowledge of both the individual being rated and the task. If there is a high correlation between two or three different ratings of an athlete's performance, the measure would

148 HORNEANDCARRON

likely be fairly accurate. Also, telling subjects that their self-report measures will be compared with ratings should reduce tendencies toward self-enhancement (Mabe & West, 1982).

Dyadic compatibility should be measured at different points during the season. When only an end-of-season measure is taken, as in the present study, playoff pressures or poor recall of the early season may affect athletes' responses. In addition, some athletes who perceived themselves as being incompatible with their coaches may have either dropp- ed out or adapted their behavior to increase compatibility. In the present study, only 12 out of 77 athletes rated their coach-athlete relationship as lower than the midpoint on a 9-point scale.6 It is also possible that coaches of teams having a history of coach-athlete turmoil may refuse permission for their teams to participate in this type of research.

Finally, larger and more homogenous samples from different sports need to be examined before any sound conclusions may be drawn about athletes' perceptions of compatibility and its relationship to performance and satisfaction. It is hoped that the present exploratory study, despite its limitations, will stimulate more research into these issues. The end result of such research could have practical implications for both athletes and their coaches.

6For this reason, a median split should not be used to define compatible and incompatible dyads, since the researcher could end up with a highly compatible group and a moderately compatible group, rather than compatible and incompatible groups. The extreme groups method of defini- tion, used in the present study, ensured that the two groups were actually different in terms of compatibility.

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbeii, M. (1980). Understanding anitudes andpredicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Carron, A.V., & Bennett, B.B. (1977). Compatibility in the coach-athlete dyad. Research Quarterly, 48, 671-679.

Carron, A.V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). The dynamics of group cohesion in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3 , 123-139.

Carron, A.V., & Garvie, G.T. (1978). Compatibility and successful performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 1121-1122.

Chelladurai, P. (1978). A multidimensional model of leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo.

Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in various sports. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6 , 27-41.

Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred leadership. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5 , 371-380.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.

Danielson, R.R., Zelhart, P.F., &Drake, C.J. (1975). Multidimensional scaling and factor analysis of coaching behavior as perceived by high school hockey players. Research Quarterly, 46, 323-334.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. Toronto: McGraw-Hill. Fleishman, E.A. (1957). The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. In L.M. Stogdill & A.E. Coons

(Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 120-133). The Ohio State University.


Hemphill, J.K., & Coons, A.E. (1957). Development of the Leader Behavior Description Question- naire. In L.M. Stogdill & A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 6-38). The Ohio State University.

Hill, R.E. (1975). Interpersonal compatibility and workgroup performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 11, 210-219.

Home, T.E. (1982). Compatibility in coach-athlete relationships. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Westem Ontario.

House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 121-138.

Kim, J.O., & Kohout, F.3. (1975). Multiple regression analysis: Subprogram regression. In N.H. Nie, C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, & D.H. Bent (Eds.), Statisticalpackage for the social sciences @p. 320-367). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Klecka, W.R. (1975). Discriminant analysis. In N.H. Nie, C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, & D.H. Bent (Eds.), Statistical package for the social sciences (pp. 434-467). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Landers, D.M., & Luschen, G. (1974). Team performance outcome and the cohesiveness of com- petitive coacting teams. International Journal of Sport Sociology, 9, 88-96.

Landy, F.J., & Farr, J.L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107. Lenk, H. (1969). Top performance despite internal conflict: An antithesis to a functionalistic pro-

position. In J.W. Loy & G.S. Kenyon (Eds.), Sport, culture, and sociefy @p. 393-397). Lon- don: Collier-MacMillan.

Mabe, P.A., & West, S.G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-296.

Ogilvie, B.C., & Tutko, T.A. (1966). Problem athletes and how to handle them. London: Pelham Books.

Pedhazur, E.H. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Percival, L. (1976). The coach from the athlete's viewpoint. International Symposium on the Art and Science of Coaching. The Fitness Institute.

Reddy, W.R., & Bymes, A. (1972). Effects of interpersonal group composition on the problem- solving behavior of middle managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 516-517.

Scholten, P.P.M. (1978). Perceived and expected behavior of coaches as assessed by athletes. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Alberta.

Schutz, W.C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Schutz, W.C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Shaver, K.J. (1975). An introduction to attribution processes. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. (1969). Socialpsychology. New York: Harper & Row. Smith, R.E., Srnoll, F.L., Hunt, E., Curtis, B., & Coppel, D.B. (1978). Psychology and the Bad

News Bears. In G.C. Roberts & K.M. Newall (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport (pp. 109-130). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Tatsuoka, M. (1970). Selected topics in advanced statistics: An elementary approach. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Underwood, W.J., & Krafft, L.J. (1973). Interpersonal compatibility and managerial effectiveness: A test of the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 89-94.

Manuscript submitted: August 16, 1984 Revision received: January 31, 1985

Documents

University of Western Ontario Carron V. Albert Tammy …€¦ · University of Western Ontario ... FIRO-B dimensions and the state of the coach-athlete dyad, ... fully examined and