Coaches’ Bases of Power and Coaching Effectiveness in Team Sports

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationship between team sport coaches’ power and coaching effectiveness using French and Raven’s (1959) taxonomy of power bases as a theoretical framework. Coaching effectiveness (CE) was conceptualized as an umbrella concept and four different CE outcomes were used; athletes’ satisfaction with the coach, coaches’ general influence, adaptive training behaviours, and collective efficacy. Hypotheses were made on the specific relationships between the individual power bases and the effectiveness criteria. The total sample consisted of 820 athletes (47% females), representing 56 elite and nonelite teams from three team sports (soccer, floorball, and team handball). Data were analysed separately for adults and youths. Structural equations modelling showed that 30% (in the youth sample) and 55% (in the adult sample) of the proposed hypotheses was supported. Overall, coaches’ bases of power were strongly associated with coaching effectiveness, explaining between 13% and 59% of variance in the effectiveness outcomes used. Expert power was consistently positively related to coaching effectiveness; reward and coercive power had mixed relationships (positively, negatively, unrelated) as had legitimate power (negatively, unrelated) and reward power (positively, unrelated). The results are discussed in relation to coaching effectiveness, limitations, practical implications and future research.

Prevalence of Maltreatment Among Canadian National Team Athletes

“…Importantly, the findings of this study indicate significant positive correlations between the various forms of harm, suggesting that an environment that is conducive to one form of harm is likely conducive to many forms of harm. Together, the findings of the current study and the extensive body of literature noting the lack of power and autonomy experienced by athletes (Potrac et al, 2002;Rylander, 2016), suggest that the characteristics of the sport environment that leave athletes vulnerable to potentially harmful experiences need further attention.…”

Strategies for Maintaining the Coach–Analyst Relationship Within Professional Football Utilizing the COMPASS Model: The Performance Analyst’s Perspective

“…Research within sport has investigated the domineering power exerted by coaches over their athletes (Johns and Johns, 2000; Cushion and Jones, 2006; Rylander, 2016). A number of theories have contributed to a large body of research on power within social psychology that have often been influenced by the seminal work of French and Raven (1959).…”

“…Their 5 stage model of interpersonal influence depicted the bases of power which were identified as expert, referent, legitimate, coercive and reward. Rylander (2016) interpreted these for research within the coach–athlete setting and defined expert power as the coaches knowledge which the athlete requires or values. Referent power was based around the coach being identified as a role model or somebody that they could relate to creating reciprocal behavioral and actions.…”

Coaching Effectiveness: A Personal Discourse on Bringing Clarity to an Overused Concept

“…This, inevitably, reflects social differentiation and inequality of power, access and knowledge within those groups. I have adopted a pragmatic theory of meaning; in short, the understanding of a word is determined by the consequences of its application (Rescher, 2012). In other words, the meaning attached to effectiveness may be judged by its usefulness for analysing and evaluating coaching practice or improving coach education and development.…”