You are on page 1of 8

Menurut Renata Bari and Valentin Bucik (2009), gaya kepimpinan demokratik yang

lebih berpusatkan atlet, dapat melahirkan atlet yang bermotivasi intrinsik dan yakin pada diri
sendiri sebagai seorang yang berwibawa (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Pelletier & Vallerand,
1996, Price & Weiss, 2000). Atlet tersebut akan memberi tumpuan kepada tugas-tugas yang
perlu dilakukan untuk mencapai matlamat dan standard prestasi tertentu. Mereka akan
memanfaatkan iklim motivasi dalam pasukan sebagai pengetahuan serta pengalaman
baginya dalam menyempurnakan sesuatu tugasan. (Douglas, 1998; Williams, 1996).
Atlet sukan yang lebih bermotivasi ekstrinsik dapat dilahirkan di bawah pimpinan
jurulatih yang kurang berdemokratik, kurang memberi sokongan, kurang memberi arahan dan
kurang bersedia untuk memberi maklum balas positif (Amorose & Horn, 2000). Mereka akan
ego Motivational focus on

winning a game

berorientasikan dan dilihat


iklim motivasi dalam pasukan mereka kebanyakannya
sebagai berorientasikan prestasi high standards, excellence, and performance
improvement (Grove, 2005). (Douglas, 1998; Williams,
1996)
It reflects the extent to which a community encourages and rewards innovation,
coaches were less democratic, less supportive, less
instructive and less ready to give positive feedback
were probably more extrinsically motivated (Amorose
& Horn, 2000) and felt less competent (Horn,
1985); they were also mainly ego-oriented and perceived
the motivational climate in their teams mostly
as performance-oriented (Douglas, 1998; Williams,
1996)

Although there are more similarities than differences in the preferred leadership
behaviors of men and women, there is some evidence that males prefer more
instructive behaviors and an autocratic style of leadership (Chelladurai & Saleh,
1978; Terry, 1984). Interestingly, there is evidence that participants in highly
interactive team sports such as basketball, football or volleyball prefer more
autocratic leadership than do participants from co-acting sports such as swimming or
bowling (Terry & Howe, 1984; Terry, 1984). Finally, Weiss and Fredrichs (1986)
found a relationship between poorer team performance and frequency of social

support which probably indicates that losing teams need more social support from
leaders in order to sustain motivation.
Clough et al. developed an instrument that appears to be a valid and reliable measure
of mental toughness (Clough et al., 2002; Crust & Clough, 2005) that is known as
the MT48. Clough et al. state that:
Mentally tough individuals tend to be sociable and outgoing; as they are able to
remain calm and relaxed, they are competitive in many situations and have lower
anxiety levels than others. With a high sense of self-belief and an unshakeable faith
that they control their own destiny, these individuals can remain relatively
unaffected by competition or adversity. (p. 38)
Generally, we may distinguish leaders as
more or less task-oriented or people-oriented
(Hillel, 2006). In sport we usually distinguish
between two types of coaches - autocratic and
democratic. The democratic coach is more athletethan
task-oriented. The coaches of this type are
more supportive, more instructive and more
ready to reinforce, encourage and give positive
feedback information to their athletes than other
coaches, thus increasing their athletes sense of
competence, independence, satisfaction and selfesteem
(Chelladurai, 1993; Reimer & Toon, 2001).
They employ a less controlling leadership style,
allow their athletes to participate in the decisionmaking
processes, and encourage them to solve
some problems by themselves that may appear
during practice or competition. Sometimes, they
consult with athletes and then make decisions by
themselves. The democratic coaches approach
their athletes more individually, and their personal
care of athletes is more obvious. They care about
confl icts in the team, and try to help athletes to
solve them. The democratic coach is more oriented

towards athletes as people and interested in good


interpersonal relationships, whereas he/she is less
oriented towards outcomes, results, or winning. In
the case of a failure the democratic coach will fi rst
talk to athletes trying to analyse their performance
and trying even to comfort them. For the democratic
coach all athletes are precious and all contribute
to the teams success. Consequently, athletes
perceive such a coach as a parent, a teacher or
even a friend, and tend to have a close interpersonal
relationship with him/her. Autocratic coaches, on the other hand, are more oriented
towards
task accomplishment and outcome than towards
people; they are highly oriented towards results and
winning. They are less supportive, less instructive
and less rewarding (Reimer & Toon, 2001). They
are more directive and use a more controlling
leadership style, not allowing athletes participation
in decision-making. These coaches usually do not
explain their actions, they solve problems and make
decisions alone. In comparison to the democratic
coaches, the autocratic coaches are less fl exible,
less innovative, and less ready to try new training
or teaching methods. Also, autocratic coaches are
not open to criticism and are highly self-confi dent.
They infl uence athletes through their authoritative
leadership, severe approach, and their position of
power, demanding respect and obedience from their
athletes. They often punish a bad performance,
failure or insuffi cient effort investment, but at the
same time they might be very tolerant towards
the high ability athletes who are treated like stars.
Many autocratic coaches are ready to help or to
give support to their athletes only in the case of

severe problems (e.g. injuries, or illness). They are


less ready to invest their capacities, time, etc. in
less competent athletes who are considered as less
important for the team.
According to some prev
atau pun jurulatih akan menggunakan gaya kepimpinan bagi dimensi yang berbeza
bagi atlet yang mewakili negara berbanding atlet yang hanya mewakili MSSM, begitu juga
atlet junior dengan atlet yang senior.

Aspek-aspek dalam kepuasan atlet ialah aspek pencapaian individu, pencapaian


pasukan, strategi, latihan dan arahan, perpaduan pasukan, dedikasi individu dan rawatan.

Leadership behavior related coach and player


Chelladurai (1978) proposed that (a) athletes in interdependent and open sports
would prefer more training and instruction than athletes in independent and closed
sports; (b) athletes in independent sports would prefer more democratic behavior than
those in interdependent sports; (c) athletes in inter-dependence sports would prefer
more autocratic behavior than those in independent sports; (d) athletes in
independent sports would prefer more social support from the coach than those in
interdependent sports; and (e) athletes in interdependent and open sports would
prefer more prefer more positive feedback than those in independent and closed
sports.
Chelladurai and Saleshs (1980) showed Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS):

Thus, Chelladurai and Saleh (1978) reported that team sport athletes
(interdependent) preference for training and instruction was significantly greater than
that of individual sport athletes (independent). Closed-sport (low-variability tasks)
athletes also preferred significantly more training and instruction than did the opensport athletes (high variability tasks). It was also found that interdependent closedsport athletes preferred the greatest level of training and instruction. (Houses,1971).

Terry and Howe (1984) found that athletes in independence sports preferred more
democratic and less autocratic behavior than did the athletes in interdependence
sports. Terry (1984) reported that team sport athletes preferred significantly more
training and instruction, autocratic behavior, and positive feedback, but less
democratic behavior and social support, than individual sport athletes. These results
lend support to path-goal theory (House, 1971), which postulates that when tasks are
varied and interdependent, greater structure and closer supervision will be preferred.
Riemer & Chelladurai, (1995) reported one of the difficulties in comparing results of
previous studies is that they included various sports that differed on the task
attributes of dependence and variability. But these sport also differed in other
situational attributes such as organizational size, popularity, and accompanying public
pressure to perform. Thus the results relating to task dependence and variability could
be confounded they effects of other attributes. To avoid this difficulty, a better
approach would be to select a sport in which the playing positions differ in terms of
variability and dependence. A single sport with contrasting levels of ask variability and
dependence in a single team would provide an excellent opportunity to compare their
effects on leadership process while at the same time controlling for other situational
variables (For example, size of team, number of coaches) that may affect leadership
behavior preferences (Table 1).
Table 1: Dimensions of the LSS

Dimension
s
Description
Behavior aimed at athletes performance by emphasizing and facilitating
hard and strenuous training; instructing them in the skill, techniques, and
tactics of the sport; clarifying the relationship among the members; and
Training and
instruction behavior structuring and coordinating the members activities.
Democratic
behavior

Behavior that allows greater participation by the athletes in decisions


pertaining to group goals, practice methods, and game tactics and strategies.

Behavior that involves independent decision making and stress personal


Autocratic behavior authority.
Social support
behavior

Behavior characterized by a concern for the welfare of individual athletes,


positive group atmosphere, and warm interpersonal relations with members.

Positive feedback

Behavior that reinforces an athlete by recognizing and rewarding good


performance.

Conclusions
Striving for the gold medal is an important goal for both coaches and athletes in
measurement of success on their athletic performance. In order to reach appeal
leaders provide the drive toward goal determination and goal attainment (Watkins &
Rikard, 1991). Much of human interaction consists of attempts to influence the
behavior of other people. One of the most important goals of a coach is to create a
good learning situation where student-athletes can acquire the technical skills needed
to succeed as individuals and as a team.
Reference
Antonuccio, D.O., Davis, C., Lewinsohn, P.M., & Breckenridge, J.S.(1987). Therapist
variables related to cohesiveness in a group treatment for depression. Small Group
Behavior,18,557-564.
Bartone , P.T.,& Kirkland F.R.(1991). Optimal leadership in small army units. Handbook
of military psychology, 393-409. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Chelladurai, P.(1978). A contingency model of leadership in athletics. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation , University of Waterloo, Canada.
Chelladurai, P.(1984). Discrepancy scores between preferences and perceptions of
leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of Sport
Psychology,6,27-41.
Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A. V.(1978). Leadership. Canadian Association for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation Sociology of Sport Monograph Series A, Catgary,
AB: University of Calgray.
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh,S.D.(1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of
Sport Science,3,85-92.
Chelladurai, P.,& Saleh, S.(1980). Dimension of leader behavior in sports: Development
of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2,34-35.
Carron, A.V., Bray, S.R., & Eys, M.A.(2002). Team cohesion and team success sport.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 20,119-126
Carron, A.V., Bray, S.R., & Eys, M.A.(2002). Team cohesion and team success sport.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 20,119-126.
Carron, A.V.,Brawley, L.R. ,& Widmeyer, W.N.(1998). Measurement of cohesion in sport
and exercise. In Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology.213-226. Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W.N.,& Brawley, L.R.(1985). The development of an


instrument to asses cohesion in sport teams: the Group Environment Questionnaire.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 7,244-266.
David, L., Douglas, E., Benda, J.,& Alan, B.(1997). The Relationship Between
Leadership Behaviors and Group Cohesion In Team Sports. The Journal of
Psychology.13(2), 196-210.
Duda, J.L.(1998). Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement. Fitness
Information Technology, Inc: Morgantown.
Slater, M.R., & Sewell, D.F.(1994). An examination of the cohesion-performance
relationship in university hockey teams. Journal of Sports Sciences,12,423-431.
Horne, T.,& Carron, A.V.(1985). Compatibility in coach-athlete relationships. Journal of
Sport Psychology,7,134-149.
House, R.J.(1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly,16,321-338.
Riemer, H.A.,& Chelladurai, P.(1995). Leadership and Satisfaction in Athletics.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17,276-293.
Riemer, H.A.(1991). Leadership behavior preferences of intercollegiate football
players. Unpublished manuscript, Eastern Washington University.
Schliesman, E.(1987). Relationship between the congruence of preferred and actual
leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction with leadership. Journal of Sport
Behavior,10,157-166.
Terry, P.C.,& Howe,B.L.(1984). Coaching preferences of athletes. Canadian Journal of
Applied Sport Sciences,9,188-193.
Podsakoff , P.M.,& Todor, W.D.(1985). Relati0nships between leader reward and
punishment behavior and group processes and productivity. Journal of
Managent,11,55-73.
Copyright (c) 2002 - 2010 United States Sports Academy. All rights reserved. All
submitted material, once approved by the Editorial Board and published, becomes the
property of The Sport Digest. Reproduction in whole or in part without written
permission is strictly prohibited, with the exception of acknowledged references in
scholarly material (less than 200 words).

JSEP Volume 6, Issue 1, March

Sport Psychology

Discrepancy Between Preferences and Perceptions of Leadership Behavior and


Satisfaction of Athletes in Varying Sports

1984, 6, 27 41
This study examined the relationship between the discrepancy between preferred and perceived leadership and
athletes satisfaction. The five preferred and perceived leadership behaviors assessed were Training and
Instruction, Democratic Behavior, Autocratic Behavior, Social Support, and Positive Feedback. Four facets of
satisfaction were measured: Satisfaction with Individual Performance, Satisfaction with Team Performance,
Satisfaction with Leadership, and Satisfaction with Overall Involvement. The athletes were selected from sports
differentiated on the basis of task variability and/or task dependence. Discrepancy in leadership was computed by
subtracting the perception of a specific dimension of leader behavior from preference for such behavior. The results
showed that discrepancy in leadership for athletes in the various sports was associated with three measures of
satisfaction: Satisfaction with Team Performance, with Leadership, and with Overall Involvement. Further, Training
and Instruction, and Positive Feedback were the most common dimensions of leader behavior affecting athletes
satisfaction.

You might also like