JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 1984, 6, 27-41

Discrepancy Between Preferences and Perceptions

of Leadership Behavior and Satisfaction
of Athletes in Varying Sports

P. Chelladurai
University of Western Ontario
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 Feed-
back. Four facets of satisfaction were measured: Satisfaction with Individual
Performance, Satisfaction with Team Performance, Satisfaction with Leader-
ship, 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 prefaence 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 Per-
formance, with Leadership, and with Overall Involvement. Further, Training
and Instruction, and Positive Feedback were the most common dimensions of
leader behavior affecting athletes' satisfaction.

Leadership is perhaps one of the most extensively studied topics in industrial

and organizational psychology. Many models of leadership have been proposed and
tested, and interest and activity in the area continues to grow. In contrast, the study
of leadership in an athletic context has been sporadic and peripheral. It is unfor-
tunate and surprising that there has not been a more concerted effort to study the ef-
fects of leadership on athletic performance. Athletic teams are important organiza-
tions in their own right and provide a natural and yet manageable setting for
organizational research (Ball, 1975). Further, any insight gained regarding leadership
in athletics also may be profitably used in other settings. Finally, the uniqueness of
athletic teams is exemplified, among other things, by the almost total control and in-
fluence that the coach (the leader) exerts on athletes. The anecdotal accounts of the
exploits of great coaches suggest that the field is rich with questions and oppor-
tunities for scientific inquiry.
The view that leadership effectiveness is a function of both situational and in-
dividual characteristics has gained general acceptance (Gibb, 1969). This interac-

The author wishes to express his gratitude to A.V. Carron for his helpful suggestions
and comments.
Requests for reprints should be sent to P. Chelladurai, Faculty of Physical Education,
University of Western Ontario, London, Canada N6A 3K7.

27
28 CHELLADURAI

tionist approach is typified by recent leadership models such as the contingency

theory (Fiedler, 1967), the path-goal theory (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House &
Dessler, 1974), and the multidimensional theory (Chelladurai, 1980; Chelladurai &
Carron, 1978).
In the contingency theory, it is assumed that leader effectiveness is a joint
product of the leader's style of interacting (the personal dimension) and situational
favorableness. Task and interpersonal orientation represent the leader's interaction
style while leader-member relations, the task structure, and the power position of the
leader are the factors which make up situational favorableness.
The path-goal theory (House, 1971; House & Dessler, 1974) focuses mainly on
the needs and desires of the members (or subordinates). In this theory, it is proposed
that the leader's role is only supplemental —to provide necessary coaching, guidance,
and social support if they are lacking in the work environment. The implication is
that member performance and satisfaction are a function of the congruence between
actual leader behavior and a member's preferences for such behavior.
Similarly, in extending the path-goal theory, Osborne and Hunt (1975) en-
visaged leader behavior as consisting of the leader's adaptations to the conditions of
the wider organizational system and the leader's reactions to the needs, desires, and
pressures of the subordinates. In Osborne and Hunt's adaptive-reactive theory it is
also postulated that subordinates respond mainly to the reactive behaviors of the
leader (discretionary infiuence of the leader).
The multidimensional model (Chelladurai, 1980; Chelladurai & Carron,
1978), which is a synthesis of the above approaches, provides a framework
(paradigm) for the study of leadership in athletics. This model focuses on three
aspects of leadership behavior: actual leader behavior, leader behavior preferred by
subordinates, and required leader behavior (i.e., behavior dictated by the organiza-
tional set including its goals, structure, normative prescriptions, etc.) It is assumed
that the salient outcomes of performance and member satisfaction are positively
related to the degree of congruence among the three aspects of leader behavior. In
turn, the antecedents of these three aspects of behavior are viewed as comprising
situational characteristics, member characteristics, and leader characteristics (see
Figure 1).
The present study examined the moderating effects of task type on the
leadership-satisfaction relationship, Specifically, a hierarchical multiple regression
design was utilized incorporating the independent variable conditions of task type
(an antecedent condition representing Box 1 of Fig. 1), athlete perceptions of leader-
ship behavior representing Box 5 of Fig. 1), and athlete preferences for leadership
behavior (representing Box 6 of Fig. 1) and the dependent variable condition of
satisfaction (a consequent condition representing Box 7 of Fig. 1).
Task type was considered from the perspective of both dependence (indepen-
dent vs. interdependent sports) and variability (open vs. closed sports). Five aspects
of leader behavior were considered: Training and Instruction, Social Support,
Autocratic Behavior, Democratic Behavior, and Positive Feedback. In the analysis,
a discrepancy measure reflecting the differences between the athlete's perceptions
versus the athlete's preferences for these five behaviors was used. Finally, satisfac-
tion was considered as a multifaceted construct incorporating satisfaction with In-
dividual Performance, Team Performance, Leadership, and Overall Team Involve-
ment. Explication of the rationale for including these variables is in the sections
which follow.
 LEADERSHIP AND SATISFACTION 29

ANTECEDENTS LEADER BEHAVIOR CONSEOUENCES

J iJ
SITUATIONAL REOUIRED
CHARACTERISTICS BEHAVIOR

\
PERFORMANCE

u \ .
u \

LEADER \ ACTUAL
CHARACTERISTICS BEHAVIOR
SATISFACTION

MEMBER
iJ
PREFERRED
CHARACTERISTICS BEHAVIOR

Figure 1 - A multidimensional model of leadership.

Task Type. Within path-goal theory, it is postulated that the degree of am-
biguity, interdependence, and variability in the task will determine the ap-
propriateness of specific leader behaviors. For example. House (1971) proposed that
because structuring behavior serves to reduce role ambiguity and clarify path-goal
relationships, it would be more positively related to subordinate satisfaction and per-
formance in more ambiguous tasks; and, it would be viewed as unnecessary and
redundant for nonambiguous tasks. Another of House's postulates is that high struc-
ture and close supervision will result in increased coordination, satisfaction, and per-
formance where tasks are varied and interdependent; structure in this instance serves
to regulate and clarify the path-goal relationship.
As indicated above, the task attributes of dependence and variability were in-
cluded in the present study to determine if they served to moderate the relationship
between discrepancy in leadership behavior and satisfaction. Dependence is the ex-
tent to which the successful performance of a task requires interaction with other
tasks in the team, and where the unit's success is based on the coordination of these
tasks. The distinction between individual sports and team sports is clearly based on
this dimension. Variability refers to the degree of environmental changes to which
the athlete is expected to respond. Low variability tasks involve a "closed" form of
behavior in a relatively stable, static, and unchanging environment, while high
variability tasks involve an "open" form of behavior where skills are used to respond
to objects that move in space and require spatial/temporal adjustment on the part of
the performer. The high jump versus basketball rebound represents examples of
these two. The attributes of dependence and variability have been related to the per-
sonality of athletes (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1979); to cohesion in sports (Carron &
Chelladurai, 1981b); to formal structure in sports (Chelladurai & Carron, 1977); and
to preferred leadership in sports (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978).
A thiete Perceptions and Preferences for Leader Behavior. Historically, leader
behavior has been described in terms of two main dimensions: Consideration and
Initiating Structure (Fleishman, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957). Consideration
30 CHELLADURAI

refers to those behaviors indicative of friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth
in the relationship between the leader and subordinates while Initiating Structure
refers to behaviors associated with organizing and clarifying roles for members of
the group, and providing them with coaching and guidance. These have repeatedly
appeared in similar or identical forms in numerous theoretical approaches to the
study of leadership.
One limitation in the exclusive use of these two dimensions is that they are
general measures of leader behavior which do not take into account specific leader-
ship differences across different situations. Also, and somewhat related, they tend
to confound different, distinct behavioral constructs which limits the measurement
and analysis of leadership in various types of organizations (House & Dessler, 1974;
Sheridan, Downey & Slocum, 1975; Yukl, 1971).
The Leadership Scale for Sports (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978, 1980;
Chelladurai & Carron, 1981), does provide a five-dimensional description of leader
behavior in athletic settings. Two of the dimensions. Training and Instruction and
Social Support correspond to the traditional measures. Initiating Structure and Con-
sideration, respectively. A third. Democratic Behavior, reflects the style of decision
making adopted by the coach-the degree to which the coach allows for participa-
tion by athletes in decision making. Autocratic Behavior is a measure of the degree
to which the coach is authoritarian in behavior. Although Social Support and the
fifth dimension. Positive Feedback, are generally considered to be related facets
within the traditional dimension of Consideration, they are considered independent-
ly in the Leadership Scale for Sports on the basis of their linkage to athletic perfor-
mance. Social Support is provided without reference to performance while Positive
Feedback is contingent upon performance.
Discrepancy Between Athlete Perceptions and Preferences. Yukl (1971), in his
discrepancy model of subordinate satisfaction has hypothesized that subordinate
satisfaction with the leader is a function of the discrepancy between a subordinate's
preference for and perception of specific leadership behaviors. Specific reference
was made by Yukl to task-oriented, relationship-oriented, and decision style-
oriented leader behaviors.
Insofar as decision style is concerned, for example, it has been observed that
with increasing sport experience, athletes show an increasing preference for an
authoritarian approach by coaches (Chelladurai & Carron, 1982, 1983; Chelladurai
& Saleh, 1978). Thus, if an athlete's perception of the degree to which the coach uses
that authoritarian approach is not congruent with that preference, then the result
should be decreased satisfaction with the coach as a leader.
Similarly, it has also been observed that preferences for social support
behavior also increases with sport experience (Chelladurai & Carron, 1982, 1983).
Again, if the athlete's perceptions of the degree to which the coach provides social
support is not congruent with that preference, then the result should be decreased
satisfaction.
In his discussion on the discrepancy model of subordinate satisfaction, Yukl
suggested that the relationship between the preference-perception discrepancy might
be linear and positive, linear and negative, or curvilinear and negative. That is, when
the discrepancy score is derived by subtracting the perceptions of the athletes from
their preferences (as was done in the present study), a linear negative correlation be-
tween such discrepancy and satisfaction would mean that the athletes would be
 LEADERSHIP AND SATISFACTION 31

satisfied even when their perceptions of what exists exceed preferences for what
they'd like. Conversely, a linear and positive relationship would mean that the
athletes would be more satisfied when their perception of what is present is less than
their preferences for what they would like. Finally, a curvilinear and negative rela-
tionship would mean that the athletes would be less satisfied as the discrepancy be-
tween perception and preference increased in either direction. Simply stated,
satisfaction would be maximal when there is congruence between athletes' percep-
tions and preferences.
While any of the three relationships is possible, a curvilinear relationship
seems most probable. That is, the notion of congruence between preferred and
perceived leadership implies that deviations in either direction would adversely affect
the criterion measures. Whether this curvilinear relationship would hold for all
dimensions of leader behavior and under varying task types is of primary interest
here. It has been suggested, for example, "too much" structuring behavior from the
leader may be detrimental to satisfaction while "too much" considerate behavior may
not be detrimental (Hunt & Liebscher, 1973, p. 61).
Satisfaction. Although Yukl's discrepancy propositions were only advanced in
reference to the subordinate's satisfaction with the leader, the present study also ex-
amined satisfaction with personal performance, team performance, and general
overall team involvement. An approach which involves a number of different aspects
of satisfaction is consistent with the notion long recognized by organizational re-
searchers that satisfaction is a multifaceted construct (e.g., Locke, 1976; Smith,
Kendall, & Hulin, 1969; Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). The specific ra-
tionale for including measures of performance satisfaction (personal and team) is
based on the methodological and conceptual issue in leadership research concerning
the meaning and measurement of performance and satisfaction, particularly in
athletics and educational institutions.
A distinguishing characteristic of athletics is that a primary organizational
reward, winning, is denied to one of the two principals. Athletic competitions, in
general, are zero-sum situations—there is only one winner in any contest. Thus, a
team or athlete could be deprived of a fundamental payoff despite relatively high ef-
fort and ability. This could be due to superior performance on the part of the oppo-
nent and/or pure chance. The fact that in any one sport, a number of teams (or
athletes) expend a considerable amount of their time and effort in order to par-
ticipate in competitions with the full realization that they might be denied a primary
organizational reward leads to the suggestion that, in part, they are striving to
achieve certain internalized performance standards. Consequently, a number of
authors (e.g., Carron & Chelladurai, 1981a; Frieze, Shomo, & Francis, 1979) have
proposed that an individual's perception of relative performance (i.e., perception of
performance relative to what was expected) may be a more meaningful measure of
performance effectiveness. That is, success and failure do not exist as absolute
events. They are contingent upon the perception of goal attainment and, therefore,
must be considered as a phychological state. While absolute success is one measure
of performance effectiveness, it is by no means the only one—or even the best one if
there is an interest in determining the relationship of social phychological parameters
to performance. Thus, the degree of satisfaction expressed by athletes in relation to
their performance and that of the team taps the degree to which performance
reached or failed to reach expected levels.
32 CHELLADURAI

Method

Subjects
Varsity athletes (87 basketball players from 10 teams, 52 wrestlers from 4
teams, and 57 track and field athletes from 6 teams) from Canadian Universities par-
ticipated in the study. A set of questionnaires was sent to a contact person at each
university who administered, collected, and returned them to the investigators. In all
cases, the test administered was carried out in a group setting. Not all of the returns
from subjects were complete. Therefore, the degrees of freedom varied across dif-
ferent analyses.'
Questionnaire
Leadership Behavior. As indicated previously. The Leadership Scale for
Sports (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978, 1980; Chelladurai & Carron, 1981) was used to
assess leadership behavior by coaches. This inventory assesses five dimensions of
coaching behavior-Training and Instruction, Social Support, Positive Feedback,
Democratic and Autocratic Behavior - through both a preference ("I prefer my
coach to . . .") and a perceived version ("My coach . . .") version. For the preference
version, Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) reported internal consistency estimates (Cron-
bach's alpha) of .83, .75, .45, .70, and .82 for Training and Instruction (13 items).
Democratic Behavior (9 items). Autocratic Behavior (5 items). Social Support (8
items), and Positive Feedback (5 items), respectively. The test-retest reliability coef-
ficients ranged from .71 (Social Support) to .82 (Democratic Behavior). The internal
consistency estimates for the perceived version were .93, .87, .79, .86, and .92,
respectively. Because the internal consistency for the preference version of
Autocratic Behavior is rather low, the results relating to this dimension must be
viewed with caution.
Task Attributes. The coding of the three sports on the basis of task
dependence and variability was straightforward. Wrestling and track and field are in-
dependent tasks, while basketball is an interdependent task. Similarly, basketball
and wrestling are variable tasks (open sports), while track and field is a nonvariable
task (closed sports). Thus, for purposes of the hiearchical multiple regression
analyses, a value of + 1 or - 1 was assigned to a sport depending upon the presence
or absence of the task characteristic in question. (The statistical analysis is discussed
in some depth in a later section).

'Unfortunately, our description of the sample is vague with respect to the total number
of athletes contacted, the percentage at each institute that agreed to participate, and the
percentage of returns for the total sample. Because it was impossible for us to visit each in-
stitute, we relied on a network of contacts (sport psychologists, physical educators, and so on).
These contacts were phoned, the purpose of the study explained, cooperation solicited, and the
questionnaires and informed consent forms then mailed. The contact person was then required
to approach the coach, outline the project, administer the questionnaire to the teams, and mail
the returns to us. Thus, we are not sure what was the total number of athletes contacted and/or
whether the lack of returns from some institutions were due to a lack of enthusiasm on the part
of our contact person, the coaches, or the athletes. In short, the unreturned questionnaires may
not have gone beyond either the contact person or the coach, or been accepted by a portion or
all of the athletes. And, we have no way of determining which explanation is most salient in
any specific case.
 LEADERSHIP AND SATISFACTION 33

Satisfaction. Satisfaction with Individual Performance, Team Performance,

Leadership, and Overall Involvement were each measured via a single question. Each
question was constructed in the form of a 7-choice alternative anchored between two
polarities. The following illustrates the general format for these questions:
How satisfied are you with your own performance?
1. Very dissatisfied
2. Moderately dissatisfied
3. Slightly dissatisfied
4. Neutral
5. Slightly satisfied
6. Moderately satisfied
7. Very satisfied
Statistical Analyses
Prior to describing the relationship between discrepancy in preference versus
perception for each of the five dimensions of leader behavior with each of four facets
of satisfaction, two preliminary analyses were carried out. The purpose of these
analyses was to verify if either the athletes' preferences or their perceptions were bet-
ter predictors of their satisfaction than the discrepancy score, and if the task
variables moderated the discrepancy-satisfaction relationships. The results of the
first set of multiple regression analyses showed that the discrepancy scores con-
sistently explained a greater percentage of the variance in the satisfaction measures.
In the second set of multiple regression analyses, the main terms of the discrepancy
scores and the task variables were entered first followed by the interaction terms.
Because the contributions of the interaction terms were significant in most cases,
separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed in the case of each
group with each facet of satisfaction as the dependent variable.
Although the correlations among the four satisfaction measures were all
significant {p < .001), the shared variances among any two measures were rather
low —ranging from 4.8 to 31.4% with a mean of 15.8%. Further, the pattern of cor-
relations varied among the three sport groups. Therefore, it was concluded that these
four measures were sufficiently independent facets of satisfaction. Accordingly,
subsequent analyses were carried out separately for each measure. However, it was
necessary to submit the data to multivariate multiple regression analyses to establish
that there was a significant relationship between the set of independent variables
(i.e., the discrepancy scores in the five leadership dimensions) and the set of depen-
dent variables (i.e., the four satisfaction measures). The results which showed a
significant relationship between these two sets of variables in all three groups allow
us to place greater confidence in the univariate analyses reported in the paper.
In testing the significance of the curvilinear relationship between the
discrepancy score in a dimension and a facet of satisfaction, the quadratic term of a
discrepancy score was entered after the linear term in all the regression analyses. The
significance of the quadratic term indicated a curvilinear relationship.

Results

The descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1. The results
of each of the hierarchical regression analyses are as follows:
34 CHELLADURAI

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations
of Leadership and Satisfaction iMeasures for Three Sport Groups

Basketball Track & Field

Players Wrestlers Athletes
(n = 87) (n = 52) (n = 57)

Preferred Leadership
Training and Instruction 4.15 4.01 3.87
( .458) ( .488) ( .489)
Democratic behavior 2.90 3.30 3.36
( .546) ( .461) ( .430)
Autocratic behavior 2.41 2.15 2.13
( .505) ( .437) ( .458)
Soclal support 3.29 3.34 3.19
( .494) ( .512) ( .472)
Positive feedback 4.08 4.09 3.89
( .615) ( .595) ( .664)
Perceived Leadership
Training and Instruction 3.55 3.83 3.51
{ .829) ( .590) ( .667)
Democratic behavior 2.58 3.17 3.07
( .746) ( .535) ( .633)
Autocratic behavior 2.89 2.61 2.34
( .847) ( .717) ( .737)
Social support 2.93 3.00 3.04
( .796) ( .619) ( .636)
Positive feedback 3.52 3.85 3.94
( .916) ( .666) ( .842)
Discrepancy In
Training and Instruction .600 .231 .359
( .858) ( .523) ( .796)
Democratic behavior .318 .137 .292
( .686) ( .480) ( .619)
Autocratic behavior -.480 -.454 -.211
Social support .364 .337 .149
( .722) ( .565) ( .597)
Positive feedback .563 .238 -.049
( .964) ( .705) ( .838)
Satisfaction With
Individual performance 4.62 4.42 4.79
(1.80) (1.95) (1.90)
Team performance 4.36 5.62 5.60
(2.07) (1.61) (1.18)
 LEADERSHIP AND SATISFACTION 35

Table 1 (cont.)

Leadership 4.78 5.92 5.91

(2.04) (1.70) (1.39)
Overall involvement 5.13 5.48 5.72
(1.69) (1.75) (1.37)

Satisfaction with Leadership

Within the interdependent, variable group (basketball), the discrepancy in
each of the five dimensions of leader behavior was significantly related to Satisfac-
tion with Leadership (See Table 2). Only the linear relationships were significant,
however. Thus, the greater perceptions relative to the preferences in Training and In-
Table 2
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction with Leadership

Sport/Leader Beta for Discrepancy Overali

Behavior Linear Term Quadratic Term

Basketball
Training and instruction -.528*** ns 31.64*** .278
Democratic behavior -.321** ns 9.43** .103
Autocratic behavior .396*** ns 15.33*** .157
Social support -.292** ns 7.65** .085
Positive feedback -.578*** ns 41.19*** .334
Wrestling
Training and Instruction -.576*** ns 24.81*** .332
Democratic behavior ns ns ns —
Autocratic behavior ns ns ns —
Sociai support -.345* ns 6.73* .119
Positive feedback .278 -.866*** 19.94*** .449
Track and Fleld
Training and instruction -.381** ns 9.20** .146
Democratic behavior ns ns ns —
Autocratic behavior .024 - .374* 4.74* .152
Sociai support ns ns ns —
Positive feedback ns ns ns

^Where the quadratic term was not significant, the overall F refers only to the linear
term.
*p < .05
**p < .01
'"p < .001
36 CHELLADURAI

struction, Democratic Behavior, Social Support, and Positive Feedback, and the
lower the perceptions relative to the preferences in Autocratic Behavior, the higher
the Satisfaction with Leadership. The percentages of variance in this facet of
satisfaction accounted for by discrepancy in Training and Instruction {R^ = .334)
were substantial.
In the independent group (wrestling), discrepancy in Training and Instruction
and Social Support were significantly and negatively related to Satisfaction with
Leadership (see Table 2). That is, the higher the perception relative to the
preferences in these two dimensions of leader behavior, the higher the Satisfaction
with Leadership. The significant and curvilinear relationship between discrepancy in
Postive Feedback and Satisfaction with leadership was substantial (R^ = .449).
For the closed independent group (track and field), discrepancy to Training
and Instruction was significantly and negatively related to satisfaction. That is, the
greater the perception relative to the preferences for Training and Instruction, the
greater the Satisfaction with Leadership (see Table 2). Discrepancy in Autocratic
Behavior was curvilinearly related to satisfaction.

Satisfaction with Individual and Team Performance

None of the discrepancies in leadership was related to Satisfaction with In-
dividual Performance in any of the sport groups. In the interdependent open sport
(basketball), only the linear term of Positive Feedback was significantly and
negatively related to Satisfaction with Team Performance. This explained 12% of
the variance in satisfaction (see Table 3). The higher perceptions relative to the
preferences for Positive Feedback, the higher the Satisfaction with Team Per-
formance.
In the case of the independent open sport (wrestling). Satisfaction with Team
Performance was significantly related to discrepancies in Training and Instruction,
Democratic Behavior, and Social Support (see Table 3). These relationships were all
negative, however. That is, the higher the perceptions relative to the preferences for
these dimensions of leader behavior, the higher the Satisfaction with Team Perfor-
mance. In the independent closed sport (track and field), the discrepancy in Training
and Instruction was curvilinearly related to Satisfaction with Team Performance (see
Table 3).

Satisfaction with Overall Involvement

None of the discrepancy scores was related to Satisfaction with Overall In-
volvement in the interdependent variable group (basketball). In the independent
variable group (wrestling) discrepancy in Training and Instruction was negatively
correlated with Satisfaction with Overall Involvement. Further, discrepancy in
Postive Feedback was curvilinecu^ly related to satisfaction, and it alone explained
35% of the variance (see Table 4).
Finally, in the independent closed group (track and field), the negative rela-
tionship between discrepancy in Social Support and Satisfaction with Overall In-
volvement was significant (see Table 4). That is, the higher the perceptions relative to
the preferences for Social Support, the higher the satisfaction. Also, discrepancies in
Democratic Behavior and Autocratic Behavior were curvilinearly related to Satisfac-
tion with Overall Involvement.
 LEADERSHIP AND SATISFACTION 37

Table 3

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Dependent Variable: Satisfaction with Team Performance

Sport/Leader Beta for Discrepancy Overaii

Behavior Linear Term Quadratic Term Fa R2

Basketball
Training and instruction ns ns ns —
Democratic behavior ns ns ns —
Autocratic behavior ns ns ns —
Social support ns ns ns —
Positive feedback -.347*** ns 11.50*** .120
Wrestling
Training and Instruction -.419** ns 10.63** .175
Democratic behavior -.413** ns 10.26** .170
Autocratic behavior ns ns ns
Sociai support -.342* ns 6.63* .117
Positive feedback ns ns ns —
Track and Fleld
Training and instruction -.151 - .364* 6.91** .207
Democratic behavior ns ns ns —
Autocratic behavior ns ns ns —
Social support ns ns ns —
Positive feedback ns ns ns

^Where the quadratic term was not significant, the overaii F refers oniy to the iinear
term.
*p < .05
"p < .01
***p < .001

Table 4
Summary of Hierarchlcai Regression Anaiyses
Dependent Variabie: Satisfaction with Overaii invoivement

Sport/Leader Beta for Discrepancy Overaii

Behavior Linear Term Quadratic Term Fa R2

Basketball
Training and Instruction ns ns ns —
Democratic behavior ns ns ns —
Autocratic behavior ns ns ns —
Sociai support ns ns ns —
Positive feedback ns ns ns —
38 CHELLADURAI

Tabie 4 (cont.)

Wrestiing
Training and instruction -.440*** ns 12.25*** .197
Democratic behavior ns ns ns —
Autocratic behavior ns ns ns —
Sociai support ns ns ns —
Positive feedbaci< .148 -.700*** 13.11*** .349
Track and Fieid
Training and instruction ns ns ns —
Democratic behavior .366* -.568*** 5.93** .183
Autocratic behavior .121 -.494** 5.89** .182
Sociai support - .265* ns 4.06* .070
Positive feedbacl< ns ns ns

*Where the quadratic term was not significant, the overaii F refers oniy to the iinear
term.
*p < .05
**p < .01
•"p < .001

Discussion

It is not surprising that discrepancy between perceived leader behavior and

athletes' preferences for such behavior was strongly associated with Satisfaction with
Leadership. While the specific relationship between discrepancies in the five dimen-
sions of leader behavior and satisfaction varied among the three sport groups, the ef-
fects of discrepancy in Training and Instruction were similar in all three groups. The
athletes' Satisfaction with Leadership increased as the coach's perceived emphasis on
Training and Instruction increased (relative to the athletes' preferences for such
behavior). This finding supports the view that athletics is a task-oriented enterprise
(Gill, 1978) and that coaching behavior that emphasizes this dimension will be con-
sistent with athlete satisfaction.
It is surprising, however, that discrepancy in Social Support, while affecting
Satisfaction with Leadership in basketball and wrestling groups was unrelated to
such satisfaction in track and field. According to the path-goal theory (House,
1971), supportive behavior should be significant in a routinized task like track and
field.
Satisfaction with Individual Performance was unrelated to the discrepancy be-
tween preferred and perceived leadership behavior. However, Satisfaction with
Team Performance was a function of this discrepancy in all three groups. Such a
contrast between Satisfaction with Individual Performance versus Satisfaction with
Team Performance is consistent with previous findings in the literature (Carron,
Ball, & Chelladurai, 1977; Carron & Chelladurai, 1982). It also provides support for
the contention that these two facets of satisfaction are quite independent.
One explanation for the lack of association between leadership behavior and
satisfaction with individual performance can be drawn from research on task goals,
task perfonnance, and satisfaction (e.g., Locke, 1968; Zander, 1971). The salient
 LEADERSHIP AND SATISFACTION 39

notion that satisfaction with performance is a function of the discrepancy between

performance and performance standards, should be applicable to both individual
and team performance. However, there are differences in the manner in which per-
formance standards are set and evaluated for individual and team performance. In-
dividuals develop their own performance goals; these goals are based on prior suc-
cess or failure, on the normative expectations for individuals in a given task situa-
tion, and on the actual performance of referrant others (Rakestraw & Weiss, 1981).
Further, the process of goal setting is intemal to the individual and the influence of
the leader is only peripheral. Therefore, the athletes would not systematically
associate leadership with their satisfaction with individual performance.
On the other hand, performance standards for the team as a whole are set
jointly by all members of the team and the coach. The influence of the coach is quite
considerable in both setting the team performance standards and in achieving those
standards. Therefore, discrepancy between the expected standard and achievement
can more readily be associated with leadership, a finding of the present study.
It was pointed out previously that Yukl (1971) suggested that the relationship
between leadership discrepancy and satisfaction could be linear or curvilinear. The
present results provide general support for a conclusion that in the case of Training
and Instruction, Social Support, and Democratic Behavior the predominant process
was linear and negative (see Tables 2, 3, and 4). That is, the higher the perceptions
relative to the preferences for these dimensions of leader behavior, the greater the
satisfaction.
In the case of Positive Feedback, a curvilinear relationship was obtained for
Satisfaction with Leadership (see Table 2) and Satisfaction with Overall Involvement
(see Table 3) for the wrestlers. In the case of Autocratic Behavior, a curvilinear rela-
tionship was also obtained for the same two satisfaction measures (see Tables 2 and
3) but for the track and field athletes. In short, when the athletes' perception of
positive feedback eind autocratic behavior on the part of the coach was equal to their
preference, satisfaction was optimal. However, when the perceptions deviated in
either direction from the preferences (too much or too little) satisfaction declined.
Discrepancy in Positive Feedback was differentially related to the satisfaction
measures in the three sport groups. These relationships were negative in basketball,
curvilinear in wrestling, and unrelated in track and field. These differences can
perhaps be explained by the essence of positive feedback and the nature of the task
involved. Positive feedback behavior is contingent upon athlete's performance, and
therefore, has motivational impact to the degree that the task environment is devoid
of such feedback. An analysis of the three sport types shows that the availability of
objective feedback from the task itself progressively increases from the interdepen-
dent open task (basketball), through independent-open task (wrestling), to
independent-closed task (track and field).
In basketball, for example, the contributions of individual players are merged
into the total team effort. Further, since it is a variable sport, there is no clear-cut
criteria to evaluate the actions of a player(s). Lack of such feedback must be com-
pensated for by the coach's positive feedback behavior. The present finding that the
basketball players expressed satisfaction even when the coach's positive feedback
behavior exceeded their preferences is consistent with the above scenario.
On the other hand, track and field represents a contrasting situation where an
athlete's effort stands by itself; there are clear and objective critera to evaluate the
performance outcome as well as the process resulting in a given performance. The in-
40 CHELLADURAI

herent availability of such feedback in track and field partly explains the lack of a
relationship between leader's Positive Feedback Behavior and member's satisfaction.
In wrestling, although there is objective feedback from the task itself or the
outcome, there is ambiguity about the appropriateness and effective execution of the
prior processes. Consequently, a coach must provide positive feedback relative to the
athlete's selection and execution of the proper moves but only to the extent it is
needed. Any redundancy in this form of behavior would reduce a member's satisfac-
tion as indicated by the present finding.
It is intriguing to note that discrepancy in Autocratic Behavior was cur-
vilinearly related to Satisfaction with Leadership and Overall Involvement in the
track and field group. Attempting to interpret this finding is not only difficult but
also hazardous since the reliability estimate for the preference of Autocratic
Behavior is rather low.
The generally low correlations among the four measures of satisfaction and
the results of subsequent analyses suggest that these four measures tap relatively in-
dependent facets of satisfaction. Further research, however, must attempt to develop
a psychometrically refined scale to measure additional facets of satisfaction. For ex-
ample, satisfaction with leadership can be conceptualized as consisting of satisfac-
tion with technical leadership and satisfaction with interpersonal leadership—to use
the terminology of Herzberg (1966).
Further, even though this study was based on the premise that participation in
athletics and satisfaction with such participation are of value in themselves without
reference to any external measures of success and failure, it is important that addi-
tional research must be undertaken to relate the leadership variables and the satisfac-
tion measures to some objective measures of actual perfonnance.

References
Ball, D.W. (1975). A note on method in the sociological study of sport. In D.W. Ball & J.W.
Loy (Eds.), Sport and social order: Contributions to the sociology of sport. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Carron, A.V., Ball, J.R., & Chelladurai, P. (1977). Motivation for participation, success in
performance and their relationship to the individual and group satisfaction. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 45, 835-841.
Carron, A.V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). The dynamics of group cohesion in sport. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 3, 123-139. (a)
Carron, A.V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesiveness as a factor in sport performance. Inter-
national Review of Sport Sociology, 16, 21-41. (b)
Carron, A.V., & Chelladurai, P. (1982, May). Cohesiveness, coach-athlete compatibility, par-
ticipation orientation and their relationship to relative performance and satisfaction.
Paper presented at a meeting of the NASPSPA, College Park, MD.
Chelladurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sports organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport
Sciences, 5,226-231.
Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1977). A re-analysis of formal structure in sport. Canadian
Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 2, 9-14.
Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1978). Leadership, Ottawa: Canadian Association of
Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (Monograph).
Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1981). Applicability to youth sports of the leadership scale
for sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 361-362.
Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1982). Task characteristics and individual differences, and
their relationship to preferred leadership in sports. Paper presented at the proceedings
of the meeting of the NASPSPA, College Park, MD.
 LEADERSHIP AND SATISFACTION 41

Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A.V. (1983). Athletic maturity and preferred leadership. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 5, 371-380.
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of Ap-
plied Sport Sciences, 3, 85-92.
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1979). Person-task congruence in sports. Canadian Journal of
Applied Sport Sciences, 4, 172-177.
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development
of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 24-35.
Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277-298.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fleishman, E.A. (1957). A leader behavior description for industry: In R.M. Stogdill & A.E.
Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: The
Ohio State University.
Frieze, I.H., Shomo, K.H., & Francis, W.D. (1979, October). Determinants of subjective feet-
ings of success. Paper presented at a meeting ofthe LRDC conference, teacher and stu-
dent perceptions of success and failure: Implications for learning. Pittsburgh, PA.
Gibb, C. (1969). Leadership. In G. Lindzey & A. Aronson (Eds.), TAe handbook of social
psychology (2nd ed.. Vol. 4). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gill, D.L. (1978). Cohesiveness and performance in sport groups. Exerdse and Sport Science
Review, 5, 131-155.
Hemphill, J.K., & Coons, A.E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description ques-
tionnaire. In R.M. Stogdill & A.E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior and measurement.
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State Univerity.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing.
House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321-338.
House, R.J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and
a priori tests. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leader-
ship. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Hunt, J.G., & Liebscher, V.K.C. (1973). Leadership preferences, leadership behavior, and
employee satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 59-77.
Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and cause of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Eds.), Hand-
book of industrial and organizational phychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Osborne, R.N., & Hunt, J.G. (1975). An adaptive-reactive theory of leadership: The role of
macro variables in leadership research. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership
frontiers. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
Rakestraw, T.L., & Weiss, H.M. (1981). The interaction of social influences and task ex-
perience on goals, performance, and performance satisfaction. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 326-344.
Sheridan, J.E., Downey, H.K., & Siocum, J.W. (1975). Testing casual relationships of
House's path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. In J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership frontiers. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work
and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Weiss, D.M., Dawis, R.V., Engiand, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Yukl, G. (1971). Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 6, 414-440.
Zander, A. (1971). Motives and goals in groups. New York: Academic Press.

Manuscript submitted: AprW 15, 1983

Revision received: October 5, 1983