1
in College Athletes
Keith Eiche, William
Sedlacek,
and Javaune Adams-Gaston
University of Maryland at
College Park
Research Report #6-97
This
study was done in cooperation with the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics
and the Counseling Center.
Computer
time was provided by the Academic Information Technology Services, University
of Maryland, College Park
2
COUNSELING CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND
An Exploration of Leadership
Characteristics in
University Athletes
Keith Eiche, William
Sedlacek,
and Javaune Adams-Gaston
Research Report # 6-97
SUMMARY
Research has been unclear as to what is associated with being a student athlete with leadership qualities. The purpose of this study was to provide more descriptive information regarding the attitudes and behaviors associated with leadership qualities in university athletes.
The data suggested that leadership in university
athletes is associated with (1) expecting higher grades, (2) certainty of
college major, (3) decreased need for emotional/social counseling, (4)
increased social adjustment, and (5) lower expectancy for transferring to
another university. These results are discussed in terms of advising issues for
student athletes.
3
A great deal of attention
has been given to the parts athletes play in being role models and leaders.
Indeed, the media have kept this topic in our national dialogue and cultural
awareness (Attner, 1994; Telander, 1991; CNN, 1994). Athletes are often
heralded as successful achievers that our children should emulate while they
are vilified in the press when they show they are human by making mistakes
(Attner, 1994). It is no wonder that athletes seem ambivalent towards our
culture which was best exemplified by Charles Barkley's 1994 statement: "I
am not a role model !".
This begs the question of whether or not athletes see themselves as leaders and/or role models. In particular, what are the basic leadership dynamics for college and pro athletes ? In reviewing relevant research, it seems that the research community has lagged behind the popular sports media in offering hypotheses. Moreover, it is the responsibility of researchers to explore this topic which has been relatively neglected.
Before examining leadership
behaviors in athletes, it may be useful to review current leadership research
in general. Most empirical work concerning leadership has been done in
organizational and social psychology. In the 1950's and 1960's critical
underlying dimensions to the leadership construct were investigated. This trait-factor
type approach assumed that leadership effectiveness was associated with certain
personality characteristics of the leader. However, the assertion that general
leadership dimensions can be isolated has been abandoned
4
due to the complex nature of this construct.
Conversely, other theorists hypothesized that leadership was a function of the
environment. This situationist view was based on environmental characteristics
and the needs and motivations of the group.
Another position that has
been asserted is an interactional perspective. Fiedler (1971) contended that
the only reasonable model of leadership behavior is not based on general
dimensions but on situational factors and their interaction with leader
characteristics. Other interactional models of leadership have focused on the
dyadic relationship between the leader and the follower. However, Fiedler's
(1971) theory best exemplifies this person-environment interactional
perspective.
Some researchers have tried
to translate some of these concepts to the realm of athletics (Chelladurai,
1980; Smoll & Smith, 1989). Smoll and Smith (1989) posited a
cognitivebehavioral model of leadership incorporating individual difference
variables, situational factors, and cognitive processes that mediate the
interactions between athletes and coaches. Chelladurai (1980) proposed a
Multidimensional Model of Leadership in which the characteristics of the leader
and group members will interact with situational factors such as the athletic
program philosophy. Thus, the specific characteristics of an effective leader
are hypothesized to vary as a function of context. Therefore, the sport leader
characteristics that are the most effective for male tennis players may be
different than the characteristics of effective leaders on a women's lacrosse
team.
5
Glenn and Horn (1993) recommended that diverse
samples of athletes should be studied in order to get a clearer picture of
effective sport leadership.
In the sports research
literature, leadership has been studied primarily in terms of coaching
leadership and its effects on player performance (Serpa, Pataco, & Santos,
1991; Summers, 1991; Dwyer & Fischer, 1990). These studies have basically
explored leadership from the coaching perspective. In particular, coaching
leadership has been explored from the coach's point of view or from how the
players' perceive the coach's leadership. In addition, some work has been done
in exploring the impact of women's leadership/role modeling in increasing
participation by females in athletics (Thorngren & Eisenbarth, 1994). Also,
there has been some research regarding the effectiveness of programs using
athletes as role models and educators in rape-awareness projects (Carom
1993), violence against women prevention (Katz, 1995), and drug and alcohol
abuse prevention (Palmer, Davis, Sher, & Hicks, 1989).
However, research concerning
athletes' leadership behavior from the athletes' perspective seems limited.
Some researchers have examined characteristics of team leaders that
differentiates them from non-leaders. Kim (1992) explored four types of
leadership by team captains and the effect on performance norms in high school
and university athletic teams. She found that performance norms were highest
when the team captain was rated high on goal achievement and group orientation
(Kim, 1992). A
6
study by Pascarella and Smart (1991) described the impact of collegiate athletic participation on a wide array of variables including leadership behavior. They concluded that athletic participation in college had a positive impact on leadership behavior and interpersonal skills (Pascarella & Smart, 1991).
Riemer and Challadurai
(1995) studied the association of preferred and perceived leadership with
leadership satisfaction on a college football team. The authors found
congruence between preferred and perceived leadership critical to the
satisfaction of the players, but the authors only examined how the players
perceived and preferred the leadership of the coaches (Riemer &
Challadurai, 1995). Glenn and Horn (1993) examined predictors of leadership
behavior in female soccer athletes. The athletes who rated high in competence,
femininity, and masculinity rated themselves higher in leadership ability. Participants
who rated high in leadership ability by their peers also exhibited high levels
of competitive trait anxiety, masculinity, skill, and perceived competence.
Besides these important findings, this study is noteworthy in the fact that the
athletes' leadership ability was measured and not the coaches' leadership as in
the majority of the current leadership research in sports.
It may be useful to conceptualize leadership as a construct that varies with group membership. Noncognitive variables such as leadership have been shown to be related to academic performance for what have been called nontraditional groups (Sedlacek, 1996). Nontraditional groups are defined as those receiving prejudice
7
and who may show their abilities in unique ways,
which may include university athletes (Sedlacek & Adams-Gaston,
1992).
The research on athletes'
leadership dynamics can be characterized as incomplete. For example, the
majority of studies look at coaches' leadership which is a narrow perspective.
Relatively few studies take on the task of measuring and exploring leadership
in the athlete from the athlete's perspective. Clearly, more exploration is
needed in this area by trying to get a more thorough description of leadership
in athletes and the behaviors and attitudes associated with athletes'
leadership. The current research and will provide more information concerning
what leadership looks like in college athletes. Factors associated with
leadership such as attitudes and behaviors of athletes can be explored so that
more accurate theories can be developed regarding leadership behavior in
athletes.
Participants
The participants were 73
freshman athletes at a large midatlantic research university with an NCAA
Division I athletic program. The study was done in cooperation with the
university athletic department.
8
The participants were
informed of the nature and purpose of the study and told they could withdraw
their participation at any time. The were then asked to respond to the
questionnaires and returned them to the experimenter. No participants declined
to participate in the current study. Instrumentation
The SLBI (Sport Leadership
Behavior Inventory), NCQ (Noncognitive Questionnaire), and the New Student
Census for the university were administered to the 73 participants. Data were
analyzed using Pearson correlations and the Eta statistic.
The SLBI (Sport Leadership
Behavior Inventory) was used as one way to operationally define leadership for
the purposes of this study (Glenn & Horn, 1993). This scale was developed
from a sample of high school varsity athletes and coaches concerning what
characteristics and behaviors determine effective leadership. The SLBI was
chosen because it is one of the only instruments available that was developed
using primarily feedback from the team athletes' perspective. The SLBI has a
fairly high alpha coefficient .85 and an acceptable test-retest
reliability of .74 and an internal consistency rating of .91 for self-ratings
of leadership behavior.
The SLBI consists of 25
items, 19 of which describe personal characteristics and/or behaviors which are
deemed desirable for athletic team leaders and 6 filler items not related to
leadership. The respondents were asked to indicate on a 7-point
9
Likert type scale the extent to which that item is
descriptive of the individual being evaluated. The scores for the items were
summed together to get a composite leadership score.
The leadership scale from
the Noncognitive Questionnaire (NCQ) was also used to operationally define
leadership in this study. The NCQ leadership scale consists of items using a 5
point Likert type scale and an open-ended item concerning leadership
positions held. The NCQ leadership scale has a test-retest reliability
of.80 with a sample of university athletes (Sedlacek & Adams-Gaston,
1992).
The University New Student
Census was used to evaluate the athletes' perceptions of leadership related
activities and attitudes. The items are either forced-choice questions or
5point Likert type scale items, and have content validity by being judged to be
important by faculty and administrators. Previous forms of this instrument were
shown to have test-retest reliability in the .80's.
Demographics
The participants ranged in
age from 17 to 22. There were 51 males and 22 females in the sample, and the
ethnicity composition was 23% African American, 3% Asian/Asian American, 68%
White/Caucasian, 2% Hispanic, 3% Biracial.
10
Validity Evidence of Leadership Indicators
The SLBI was significantly
correlated with the census item directly pertaining to leadership. There was a
significant relationship between SLBI scores and the statement "I do not
have the skills to be a leader on campus" (r=.26, p < .05). As SLBI
scores increased, athletes were more apt to feel they had leadership skills.
The leadership domain of the NCQ was more strongly correlated with the same
statement (r=.36, p < .05). However, the SLBI was only moderately correlated
with the leadership scale of the NCQ (r=.23, p < .06).
The SLBI did show a positive
correlation with the NCQ leadership domain, but the correlation was
nonsignificant which suggests that the NCQ and the SLBI may be measuring
somewhat different constructs and may not have psychometric statistics
established with a college sample. This makes sense in light of the fact that
the SLBI was developed with high school athletes.
Strength of association was
calculated for the census items and the NCQ leadership domain using Person
correlations or the ETA statistic. All of the relationships were significant at
the .05 level (p < .05).
As leadership scores on the
NCQ increased, expectations to obtain good grades and expecting that it will
not be difficult to obtain at least a B average increased. In addition,
leadership was positively associated with athletes feeling that instructors
will care about students and that their courses would be
11
stimulating and exciting. As leadership scores
decreased, expectations of not receiving a degree increased. Furthermore,
increased leadership behaviors were associated with a decreased expectation of
transferring to another college. In addition, increased leadership tendencies
in athletes was associated with the desire to attend college even if better
jobs were available.
As
leadership scores in the athletes increased, the expressed need to seek
emotional/social counseling decreased. In addition, as leadership increased the
expectation that it will be difficult to adjust to the social life of college
decreased. Leadership was positively associated with awareness of study
skills resources available to the athlete. A last
finding was that as leadership scores increased expectations of being able to balance
the demands of a job and a personal life increased.
Higher leadership scores
were associated with gaining a general education and self-improvement as
the main reasons to attend college. Conversely, lower leadership scores were
associated with getting a better job as the main reason to attend college. A
related finding is that high leadership scores were associated with plans to go
on to graduate school while lower scores were associated with being undecided
or working full-time after college.
12
The following results were
not significant at the .05 level but were significant at least at the .20 level
and suggest further evidence supporting the stronger findings. Higher leadership
scores were associated with expecting to obtain a graduate or professional
degree while lower scores were
associated with only obtaining a B.A. In terms of a
barrier to implementing career goals, low leadership scores were associated with
financial barriers while higher leadership scores were
associated with limited job availability or a lack
of motivation.
It seems from the current
results that college athletes who exhibit leadership tendencies are optimistic
and expect good things from their college experience. These attitudes take the
form of: expecting to get good grades, feeling that instructors will care about
students, expecting to graduate with a degree, not wanting to transfer to
another college, and expecting that classes will be stimulating. These positive
expectations can lead to a successful type of self-fulfilling prophecy
for an athlete. This could take place in the classroom or on the playing field.
Noncognitive variables such as leadership have been shown to be correlated with
academic performance and retention (Sedlacek & Adams-Gaston, 1992).
The current findings serve as a useful link to previous results pointing to
noncognitive factors associated with making good grades. It can be argued that
"leader" athletes may feel more in control of satisfying long and
short-term goals than athletes who do not possess these skills. Related to
this is
13
that the athlete may feel more able in influencing
people in the environment in such a way that satisfies the athlete's needs.
An interesting finding is
that athletes who responded high in leadership did not expect to have a problem
with social adjustment to college and were not interested in counseling for
emotional or social issues. This would further indicate an attitude of
confidence and an internal ability to cope with stressors. This finding may
seem to be positive except that an athlete may feel that he or she should be
able to handle a situation that is actually overwhelming when reaching out to
an external source for support may be important. From an interactionist
perspective, leader athletes who tend to look inward for solutions to problems
and are placed in a competitive environment with little support may have
difficulty in being overwhelmed. It is important to consider these individual
leadership attitudes/behaviors in college athletes in terms of the competitive
context in which they operate.
In addition, leadership in
athletes was associated not only graduating with a degree but higher leadership
scores were associated with wanting to obtain a graduate degree. Moreover,
leadership in athletes was associated with the desire to stay in school even if
better jobs were available. These findings provide evidence for a strong value
placed on education and runs counter to the popular media stereotype of the
college athlete turning professional to get more money when given the
opportunity. Leadership seems to be associated with an investment in education
14
and the institution the athlete attends.
Leadership in college
athletes seems to be associated with a strong internal sense of control and an
optimism with dealing with problems. Athletes are certainly placed in
situations where they can develop their leadership skills, and these situations
may draw out leadership behaviors in individuals who may not otherwise exhibit
such characteristics. Competing with other schools intercollegiately and with
each other intrateam gives the college athlete multiple opportunities to
exhibit leadership. Which athletes are the leaders and which are the followers
when the coach is absent is an important question which may help athletic
directors and coaches gain more insight into team dynamics. Theories in
leadership research in college athletics have often addressed coaching
leadership and not leadership in the athletes.
Leadership is a highly
complex construct that has been shown to change with the individual and
situation. Future research can be directed at operationalizing leadership from
the athlete's perspective. The current study is an attempt to begin this work
in describing what attitudes and behaviors are associated with leadership with
this population so that theories may be formulated for athlete leadership. A
future research project that would contribute to this area would be a
qualitative study where college athletes describe what they think leadership
is. More work needs to be done descriptively before leadership in college
athletes can be understood.
15
Limitations
One limitation that is
important to note is that the sample was not evenly balanced for gender. Males
were overrepresented in the sample population which is an important consideration
in viewing these results.
16
Attner, P. (1994). A culture of irresponsibility: On
the issue of being role models, athletes have no choice but to step up because,
after all, the choice isn't theirs to make. Sporting News, 217 (13), 12-17.
Caron, S. L. (1993). Athletes as rape awareness
educators. Journal of American College Health, 41, 275-276.
Cable News Network (1994). CNN newsroom classroom
guides. Atlanta: CNN.
Challadurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sports
organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied Sciences, 5, 226-231.
Dwyer, J. J., & Fischer, D. G. (1990).
Wrestlers' perceptions of coaches' leadership as predictors of satisfaction
with leadership. Perceptual and Motor skills, 71, 511-517.
Fiedler, F. (1971). Leadership. Morristown,
NJ: General Learning Press.
Glenn, S. D., & Horn, T. S. (1993).
Psychological and personal predictors of leadership behavior in female soccer
athletes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 17-34.
Katz, J. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the
locker room: The Mentors in violence prevention project. Harvard Educational
Review, 65, 163-174.
Kim, M. (1992). Types of leadership and performance
norms of school athletic teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 803-806.
Palmer, J. H., Davis, E. Sher, A, & Hicks, S.
(1989). High school senior athletes as peer educators and role models: An
Innovative approach to drug prevention. Journal of Alcohol and Drug
Education, 35, 23-27.
Pascarella, E. T., & Smart, J. C. (1991). Impact
of intercollegiate athletic participation for african american and caucasian
men: Some further evidence. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 123-130.
Reimer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1995).
Leadership and satisfaction in athletics. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 17, 276-293.
Sedlacek, W. E. (1996). An empirical method of
determining nontraditional group status. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 28, 200-210.
17
Sedlacek, W. E., & Adams-Gaston, J.
(1992). Predicting the academic success of student-athletes using SAT and
noncognitive variables. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 189-193.
Serpa, S., Pataco, V., & Santos, F. (1991).
Leadership patterns in handball international competition. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 78-89.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership
behaviors in sport: A Theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.
Summers, R. J. (1991). The association between
athletes' perceptions of their abilities on the influence of coach technical
instruction. Journal of Sport Behavior, 14, 30-40.
Telander, R. (1991). The wrong people for the job:
Why expect athletes to be role models when they could scarcely be less suited
to the task. Sports Illustrated, 75, 108.
Thorngren, C. M., & Eisenbarth, B. S. (1994).
Games yet to be played: Equity in sport leadership. Women's Educational
Equity Act Publishing Center Digest, June, 1-9.