ISSN: 1543-9518|Vol. 24

Educating Sports Entrepreneurs: Matching Theory to Practice

Anthony Borgese

Abstract

Sports entrepreneurship courses are part of sports management programs because some students hope to own their own sports-oriented business, and major sports conglomerates look to hire employees with entrepreneurial skills. Sports management instructors prepare students for these challenges. However, not all sports entrepreneurship instructors have owned their own businesses nor worked for large sports corporations. As a result, this study was conducted to determine if sports entrepreneurship instructors and sports entrepreneurs agree on the content that should be taught in sports entrepreneurship courses in order to prepare students for the real-world.

Results of the study indicate that sports entrepreneurship instructors do agree on a set of content standards for sports entrepreneurship courses, specifically, the Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education National Content Standards (1). Additionally, when ranking the content skills, sports entrepreneurship instructors and sports entrepreneurs agreed on four of the five top skills students should be taught in order to be successful sports entrepreneurs.

Key Words: Sports Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurs, Sports Education, Sports Entrepreneurship Courses

Introduction

Sport management programs continue to grow in number. Since the first sport management program was developed at Ohio University in 1966, programs continue to spread across the United States and the world. According to the North American Society for Sport Management, there are more than 200 sport management programs in the United States alone (6). This growth has prompted a need for innovation within sport management curricula and the development of courses that are high quality, content-rich, and flexible.

The sports industry is the third largest industry in the United States, accounting for more than $213 billion dollars a year in revenues (3). Kurtzman (4) outlined the importance of sports tourism as the impetus for the pursuit of business entrepreneurship, economic impact, and profitability. He categorized sports tourism jobs into categories of events, resorts, cruises, tours and attractions – along with listed subgroups in those categories. These subgroups, such as sports events planning and sports tour operators, are areas that are ripe for entrepreneurial endeavors.

An industry as large as the sports industry requires educated people to run a variety of sports related businesses. However, it should not be assumed that sports entrepreneurs are only owners of professional sports franchises. The sports industry entails a variety of sub-businesses, both large and small. For example, there are owners of health club facilities, sports arena and facility operators, league owner/operators, sporting goods store owners, sports ticket agencies, and sport physical therapists – just to name a few. Sport management students take sport entrepreneurship courses in order to learn the skills that are necessary to operate these types of sport-related businesses.

On the other hand, sport management instructors are entrusted with preparing their students for jobs in sport-oriented businesses. It is up to them to develop effective curriculum that prepares students for careers in an industry that is constantly changing and evolving. However, not all sport entrepreneurship instructors have owned their own businesses nor worked for large sports corporations. Research into what type of content and skills sport entrepreneurship instructors are teaching was sorely needed.

This study was conducted to compare what sport entrepreneurship instructors and practicing sport entrepreneurs believe are the important skills necessary to teach sport entrepreneurship students in order to be successful in running sport-oriented businesses. It is relevant to sports entrepreneurship educators as well as students of sports management programs – in regards to gauging what is currently being taught in sports entrepreneurship courses.

Methods

There were two research populations for this study. The research populations included: 1) NASPE/NASSM instructors of sport entrepreneurship courses in college level sport management programs that are accredited by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) and the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM). 2) Sport entrepreneurs located throughout the United States in a variety of sports oriented businesses.

Two hundred and seventeen (217) sport management instructors were identified through their faculty web pages. However, it should be noted that this was not a complete list of sport entrepreneurship instructors, because there is no way to determine how many of these sport management instructors actually taught sport entrepreneurship courses. The instructors that were contacted, were all members of sport management programs, and taught sports management related courses at the time the data was gathered. However, all sport management programs do not have sport entrepreneurship courses, nor do all sport management professors teach sport entrepreneurship. Therefore, it was impossible to get an exact count of how many sport entrepreneurship instructors exist in NASPE/NASSM accredited sport management programs. Ultimately, 43 (N = 43) sport entrepreneurship instructors participated in the study.

The second research population consisted of 250 sport-oriented businesses. The researcher randomly selected four sport-oriented businesses in each of the fifty states in the United States of America. Small sport-oriented businesses were chosen, as opposed to utilizing owners of large sports conglomerates. This is because they represented a good mix of sport-oriented businesses and they were more indicative of the types of businesses that would have been opened by recently graduating sports management students. Ultimately 67 (N = 67) sport entrepreneurs participated in the study.

The research instruments that were used to conduct this study were two questionnaires that were developed and piloted by the researcher and reviewed by a panel of experts to achieve validity and reliability.

The questionnaires were administered via email and regular mail for both research populations. The questionnaires were made available over the Internet to maximize participation. The researcher created electronic versions of the questionnaires and administered them on the Internet using www.surveymonkey.com.

Results

The Instructor Group was comprised of 88.4% males and 11.6% females, with 60.4% of the overall population between the ages of 36 and 55. A doctorate or master’s degree was held by 72.1% of the population. 60.4% were associate or full professors. 88.4% had 5+ years of general teaching experience. 90.7% had some type of online teaching experience. 93% had some type of blended teaching experience. 81.4% taught in 4-year colleges or universities or in graduate programs. Finally, 79.1% had sports entrepreneurship courses as an elective at their respective institutions.

An analysis of the descriptive data of the Sport Entrepreneur Group was as follows. 85.1% of the Sport Entrepreneur Group were males whereas 14.9% were female. 68.6% were between the ages of 36 and 55. 82.1% had some type of college degree. Sporting goods store owners were the largest type of business represented by this group at 37%. 25.4% of the Sport Entrepreneur respondents were relatively new businesses that had been in existence less than five years. On the opposite end, 20.9% of the group had been in business for over 25 years. The largest legal structure was a sole proprietorship at 34.3%. 38.8% of the business had over $500,000 in revenues. 17.9% only had themselves as the only employee whereas 83.6% had anywhere up to 14 employees.

To address the question of whether there is a universal set of content standards in sports entrepreneurship courses, both groups were asked if they thought that CEE’s National Content Standards (1) (Appendix A) were a complete list of all of the skills and traits necessary for sports entrepreneurship students to learn in order to become successful business owners. The results were as follows:

Table 1.1 Are CEE’s National Content Standards Complete? (Instructors)

Yes or No Frequency Percent
Yes 41 95.3
No 2 4.7

Table 1.2 Are CEE’s National Content Standards Complete? (Sports Entrepreneurs)

Yes or No Frequency Percent
Yes 65 97.0
No 2 3.0

For further analysis, a Mann-Whitney U Test was conducted to see if there were any differences between the two groups with regard to the whether they believed CEE’s National Content Standards were a complete list of the skills and traits necessary for sports entrepreneurship students to learn in order to become successful business owners. This test was administered with a .05 significance level. As the results indicated, the two tailed, significance was .650 – representing that there was no significant difference between the two groups. Table 1.3 demonstrates the results of the Mann-Whiney U Test.

Table 1.3 CEE’s National Content Standards Both Groups

Is the CEE National Content Standards List Complete?
Mann-Whitney U 1416.500
Wilcoxon W 3694.500
Z -.453
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .650

Grouping Variable: Instructor or Entrepreneur

Because the Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education’s 15 National Content Standards might be too ambitious to cover in just one sports management course, both groups were asked to rank the top five of the fifteen National Content Standards (1). This question is necessary because despite the course delivery mechanism (online, face-to-face), the top five content standards should be feasible to teach in any one course.

Table 1.4 Ranking of Top 5 Content Standards

Standards Group Rank #1 Rank #2 Rank #3 Rank #4 Rank #5 TOTAL %
Entrepreneurial Processes Instructors 11.6% 4.7% 2.3% 2.3% 4.7% 25.6%
Entrepreneurs 14.9% 6% 1.5% 1.5% 23.9%
Entrepreneurial Traits/Behaviors Instructors 7% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 14%
Entrepreneurs 3% 13.4% 4.5% 1.5% 22.4%
Business Foundations Instructors 9.3% 9.3% 11.6% 4.7% 7% 41.9%
Entrepreneurs 17.9% 7.5% 11.9% 1.5% 4.5% 43.3%
Communication/Interpersonal Skills Instructors 37.2% 14% 4.7% 7% 2.3% 65.1%
Entrepreneurs 38.8% 13.4% 14.9% 4.5% 4.5% 76.1%
Digital Skills Instructors 2.3% 2.3% 7% 4.7% 2.3% 18.6%
Entrepreneurs 1.5% 3% 7.5% 11.9%
Economics Instructors 2.3% 2.3% 4.7%
Entrepreneurs 3% 3% 1.5% 7.5%
Financial Literacy Instructors 4.7% 7% 14% 2.3% 4.7% 32.6%
Entrepreneurs 1.5% 7.5% 9% 4.5% 6% 28.4%
Professional Development Instructors 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 4.7% 11.6%
Entrepreneurs 1.5% 4.5% 6%
Financial Management Instructors 14% 32.6% 9.3% 2.3% 58.1%
Entrepreneurs 9% 28.4% 14.9% 10.4% 3% 65.7%
Human Resource Management Instructors 7% 7% 9.3% 18.6% 41.9%
Entrepreneurs 7.5% 4.5% 10.4% 10.4% 32.8%
Information Management Instructors 2.3% 18.6% 16.3% 2.3% 39.5%
Entrepreneurs 4.5% 14.9% 1.5% 4.5% 25.4%
Marketing Management Instructors 4.7% 2.3% 9.3% 18.6% 23.3% 58.1%
Entrepreneurs 3% 7.5% 25.4% 19.4% 55.2%
Operations Management Instructors 2.3% 7% 16.3% 11.6% 37.2%
Entrepreneurs 4.5% 1.5% 23.9% 17.9% 47.8%
Risk Management Instructors 2.3% 2.3% 14% 18.6%
Entrepreneurs 1.5% 1.5% 3% 10.4% 16.4%
Strategic Management Instructors 9.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 16.3%
Entrepreneurs 1.5% 3% 3% 6% 13.4%

Table 1.4 indicates the individual content standard, along with the responses for the two research groups. Table 1.4 also indicates the percentage rankings of each content standard. The top five from both groups were: communication and interpersonal skills, financial management, marketing management, and business foundations. The two groups only differed in one of the top five areas. The instructor group listed human resources management in their top five, whereas the sports entrepreneur group listed operations management in their top five.

It is also interesting to note that the bottom three standards that both research groups felt were the least needed skills and traits were: Professional Development, Economics, and Digital Skills.

An Independent Samples T-test was conducted to compare the Instructor Group and Sport Entrepreneur Group rankings of the National Content Standards on an individual basis (Table 1.5). The Independent Samples T-test illustrated Levene’s Test of Quality Variance, a significance level, and a significance level for a two tailed test. The results indicated that there was significance in three of the fifteen National Content Standards: Digital Skills, Financial Management, and Strategic Management. This was determined by looking at the Sig. (two-tailed) column and finding the results that are below the 0.05 alpha level. SPSS provides two different statistics to choose from, depending on whether or not equal variances are assumed. One must look at the Sig. column first in order to determine if the numbers under the equal variances assumed, or equal variances not assumed row is to be used. If the Sig. level is over 0.05, then equal variances are assumed – so one would use the results in that row under the Sig. (two tailed) column.

Table 1.5 Independent T-test for Individual Rankings for Both Groups

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Diff. Std. Error Diff. 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
Entrepreneurial Processes Equal variances assumed 4.112 .053 1.417 25 .169 .74 .521 -.335 1.812
Equal variances not assumed 1.315 16.063 .207 .74 .561 -.451 1.929
Entrepreneurial Traits Equal variances assumed 2.768 .113 1.783 19 .091 .80 .449 -.139 1.739
Equal variances not assumed 1.445 6.560 .195 .80 .554 -.527 2.127
Business Foundation Equal variances assumed .014 .908 1.321 45 .193 .54 .406 -.282 1.354
Equal variances not assumed 1.305 34.784 .200 .54 .411 -.298 1.371
Communication/Interpersonal Skills Equal variances assumed .138 .712 -.558 77 .579 -.16 .285 -.727 .409
Equal variances not assumed -.563 57.181 .576 -.16 .283 -.725 .407
Digital Skills Equal variances assumed .855 .371 -2.668 14 .018 -1.38 .515 -2.480 -.270
Equal variances not assumed -2.668 11.536 .021 -1.38 .515 -2.503 -.247
Economics Equal variances assumed 2.959 .146 2.023 5 .099 2.10 1.038 -.569 4.769
Equal variances not assumed 2.689 3.921 .056 2.10 .781 -.086 4.286
Financial Literacy Equal variances assumed .167 .686 -.816 31 .421 -.35 .433 -1.237 .530
Equal variances not assumed -.816 28.129 .422 -.35 .433 -1.241 .534
Professional Development Equal variances assumed .036 .854 -.482 7 .644 -.45 .933 -2.657 1.757
Equal variances not assumed -.474 6.062 .652 -.45 .950 -2.769 1.869
Financial Management Equal variances assumed 8.228 .006 -2.248 67 .028 -.55 .243 -1.030 -.061
Equal variances not assumed -2.460 63.283 .017 -.55 .222 -.989 -.102
Human Resources Management Equal variances assumed .012 .914 .588 38 .560 .22 .369 -.530 .965
Equal variances not assumed .588 36.452 .560 .22 .369 -.531 .966
Information Management Equal variances assumed .311 .581 .804 32 .427 .24 .293 -.361 .831
Equal variances not assumed .804 29.471 .428 .24 .293 -.363 .833
Marketing Management Equal variances assumed 1.631 .207 -.474 60 .638 -.13 .283 -.700 .432
Equal variances not assumed -.455 44.500 .651 -.13 .294 -.727 .459
Operations Management Equal variances assumed .002 .967 -.575 46 .568 -.16 .272 -.703 .391
Equal variances not assumed -.573 29.788 .571 -.16 .273 -.714 .401
Risk Management Equal variances assumed .080 .780 .316 17 .756 .19 .612 -1.098 1.485
Equal variances not assumed .324 16.506 .750 .19 .596 -1.066 1.453
Strategic Management Equal variances assumed .459 .509 -3.031 14 .009 -2.00 .660 -3.415 -.585
Equal variances not assumed -2.910 10.654 .015 -2.00 .687 -3.518 -.482

As demonstrated by the Independent Samples T-test, there was significance in Digital Skills, Financial Management, and Strategic Management. The significance levels for these content standards were: 0.018, 0.017 and 0.009 respectively. When consulting Table 1.4, it revealed that a larger percentage of the Instructor Group respondents thought that Digital Skills and Strategic Management were more important than the Sports Entrepreneur Group did. Conversely, a larger percentage of the Sports Entrepreneur respondents believed that Financial Management was more important than the Instructor Group believed it to be.

In order to be able to analyze the data and come to any conclusions, one needs to take a closer look at the descriptive data of each research group. It is interesting that the percentages of the gender and ages were pretty close for both respondent groups. Another important figure to note was the high percentage of respondents who indicated that sports entrepreneurship was an elective within their programs. The hardest part of this study to get a handle on was just how many sports management programs offered sports entrepreneurship courses. This high percentage indicated that sports entrepreneurship courses are being offered, but are not required.

For the Sport Entrepreneur Group, it was interesting to see that they were highly educated with college degrees. This is indicative of many entrepreneurs despite what most people may think. Entrepreneurs are often seen as uneducated, risk takers that started businesses because they did not like school, and that was just not the case for the sports entrepreneurs in this study. The Sport Entrepreneur group had a good mix of relatively new businesses and businesses with over 25 years of experience. This makes the results even more interesting because new business owners often make mistakes, and seasoned business owners may have learned from their earlier mistakes.

The 17.9% of the respondents in the Sport Entrepreneur Group that had only one employee is significant. This was an important finding for future research because many of the National Content Standards had skills and traits listed that might not necessarily have corresponded to one employee businesses. For example, if a business only has one employee then a skill like Human Resources Management might not have been beneficial for that business owner to learn. Additionally, for the sport entrepreneurs who made higher revenues, perhaps skills like Financial Management or Economics were more important to them and their business then it was to the small, low-income business.

The results of this study indicate that instructors of sports entrepreneurship courses and sports entrepreneurs agreed on the type of content that should be addressed in a sports entrepreneurship course. The Mann-Whitney U Test performed on the two research groups indicated that there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to how they responded to whether or not CEE’s National Content Standards were all of the skills and traits necessary to be learned in order for sports entrepreneurship students to become successful sports entrepreneurs. This is important for sports entrepreneurship instructors to note when planning course content.

The ranking of the content standards was necessary to show how each group felt about the importance of teaching or learning each individual content standard. Oftentimes, the amount of time it takes to administer an entire sports entrepreneurship course varied. For example, a three credit sports entrepreneurship course at a community college may have been thirty six hours long, whereas a four-year institution may have met for forty-five hours. If both research groups agreed to the top five content standards, then the rankings could have been used by instructors to guarantee that they covered the most important content standards, regardless of the amount of hours required to administer a course.

The results from the ranking of the National Content Standards indicated that each respondent group agreed on four of the five most important content standards: Communication and Interpersonal Skills, Financial Management, Marketing Management, and Business Foundations. The respondent groups did not agree on the fifth most important skill or trait. The Sports Entrepreneurs indicated that Operations Management was the fifth most important skill or trait, whereas the Instructor Group indicated that Human Resource Management was on of the top five most important skills or traits.

Despite the lack of agreement on the fifth most important content standard the results indicated that four of CEE’s National Content Standards were very important to both of these research groups. These results should also aid sports entrepreneurship instructors in planning their course content, especially when limited to teaching only one sports entrepreneurship course and not multiple courses. Although instructors should have no problem teaching more than five topics in one particular sports entrepreneurship course, these results also indicated that all of CEE’s National Content Standards do not have to be taught in order to prepare students to become sports entrepreneurs.

The Independent Samples T-test indicated that there were significant differences between the two research groups in the content areas of: Digital Skills, Financial Management, and Strategic Management. A further analysis of these results indicated that a larger percentage of the Instructor Group thought that Digital Skills and Strategic Management were worthy enough to be included in the top five most important content standards. This was consistent with their wanting to teach more of CEE’s National Content Standards than the Sports Entrepreneurs Group felt was necessary.

The differences between the two research groups in the Financial Management content standard simply indicated that a larger percentage of the Sports Entrepreneurs believed that Financial Management was more important than the Instructor Group believed it to be. It should be noted that 58.1% of the Instructor Group did have Financial Management as a top five most important content standard and that was good enough for that group to be the second most important content standard.

Applications in Sport

This study is relevant to all sports management educators that teach sports entrepreneurship courses. If you are a sports entrepreneurship instructor, then it is up to you to review this study in order to better understand what sports entrepreneurs do on a daily basis. Not every sports entrepreneurship instructor has had the opportunity to be a sports entrepreneur, so one might not be exactly sure of the content that should be taught future sports entrepreneurs. However, this study shows the relevant content sports entrepreneurship instructors should be teaching their students on a daily basis. This study focused on the practice of sports entrepreneurs and identified what skills and traits are needed in the field. All sports entrepreneurship instructors should look at this study and utilize the results for the benefit of their students.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge all of the participants, both sports management professors and sports entrepreneurs, for taking the time out of their busy schedules to participate in this study.

References

Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education, National Content Standards for Entrepreneurship Education. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.entre-ed.org/Standards_Toolkit/standards_summary.htm

Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education, (2001). Entrepreneurship everywhere: A guide to resources and models for entrepreneurship education. Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education, Columbus, OH.

Howard, D., & Crompton, J. (2004). Financing sport, Fitness Information Technology, Morgantown, WV.

Kurtzman, J. (2005). Sports tourism categories, Journal of Sport Tourism, Vol. 10, No.1, p. 15-20.

Sport Management Program Review Council, (2000) Sport management program standards and review protocol, Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education.

The North American Society for Sports Management website. All data retrieved on November 20, 2009 from: www.nassm.com.

Corresponding Author

Dr. Anthony Borgese: aborgese@kingsborough.edu

2013-11-25T17:42:32-06:00July 9th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Educating Sports Entrepreneurs: Matching Theory to Practice
Read More

An Analysis of Hammer Throw Facility Safety Factors in NCAA Division I

Lawrence W. Judge and Jeffrey Petersen

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the level of compliance with National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) track and field hammer facility recommendations at division I universities in the United States. A 35-item survey instrument was distributed to 279 applicable schools with a 28% response rate. A total of 78.1% participants in the study reported compliance with the NCAA minimum recommendations, and 38% also met the IAAF standards. An ANOVA of the coaches’ overall perception of hammer facility safety demonstrated significant differences for facility factors including the gate height, gate positioning, cage manufacturer, landing area security, and response time to maintenance issues. The NCAA may need to examine their present hammer facility guidelines and consider alignment with the new standards of the IAAF.

Key Words: Olympic, International, Track and Field, Equipment, Cage
(more…)

2016-10-20T14:42:06-05:00July 9th, 2010|Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management|Comments Off on An Analysis of Hammer Throw Facility Safety Factors in NCAA Division I
Read More

Evidence That Support Equality: Credential Characteristics of Georgia Female High School Coaches

Willie Burden, Trey Burdette, Drew Zwald, Daniel R. Czech, and Tom Buckley

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to increase awareness and understanding concerning gender differences in high school athletic coaches in terms of coaching characteristics. The authors conducted a more comprehensive follow-up study to their 2007 survey in which they compared female and male coaches in Georgia. All active members of the Georgia High School Association (GHSA), approximately 8000 coaches, representing each of five GHSA classifications, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A and A, participated in the study conducted in the fall of 2008. The instrument used was a 76-item questionnaire that was developed and adapted from the previous coach’s survey. Results affirmed the authors’ previous research findings. When comparisons were made respecting gender, female coaches were comparable to males in such areas as degrees earned, the number of years of coaching experience between six and ten years, and in their level of coaching experience. Females exceeded males in some areas. More female coaches majored in Health and Physical Education; were recruited, supported and hired by the principal and athletic director; were teachers first; and were dedicated to educating young people.

Identifying desired qualities and competencies could assist athletic coaching candidates in preparing for careers and/or in improving their job performance, leading to greater coaching effectiveness. Also, from a qualification/preparation perspective women should be impartially represented in coaching positions, including head coach, a position where gender should be less of a factor in the hiring process.

Key Words: Gender, Coaching, Credentials, Characteristics, Preparation, Hiring

Introduction

Several studies have found female athletic coaches in high schools have equal or better qualifications than male coaches (3,9,14,22). In their study of high school coaches in the state of Georgia et al. (22) compared female and male coaching credentials and revealed female coaches possessed closely the same characteristics as male coaches, and in some instances exceeded the qualifications of their male counterparts. In spite of these favorable statistical comparisons, male coaches greatly outnumber females in terms of the number of coaching positions held, even with female athletic teams. According to the Women’s Sports Foundation website eighty percent of all coaches at the high school level are male (20). This was not always the case. In the early seventies around the passage of Title IX the number of female coaches of athletic teams was more prominent, but since then, the number has dwindled in many states across the United States.

Conceptual Background

The decline in women coaches could be due to several factors such as long held societal perceptions that men are more talented (5,21), more highly regarded (13), and more knowledgeable (12) than women. Several studies have reported that discriminatory attitudes in hiring decisions, lack of inclusion of women administrators in decision making, female athletes’ preferences for male coaches, homophobia, jobs that are not family-friendly and extreme workloads promoting unbalanced lifestyles have all played a central role in driving the decline (4,18,21).

Even though the number of female coaches has declined steadily since 1972 (7,4,15), the number of female high school athletes has risen dramatically and interest of girls in high school sports is ever increasing (11,19). Young girls need role models.

Hoch (10) stated that coaching qualifications are important and recently have become hot topics in high school athletics for numerous reasons, the first of which is accountability. In education generally and on the topic of athletics, specifically, parents expect and demand much more from public officials. Second, due to an ageing faculty and less coaching from physical education teachers, the number of teachers available to take on coaching assignments is diminishing, forcing schools to hire community coaches to fill their coaching vacancies. Third, most other professions have some form of certification in their fields; however, high school coaches do not. Anyone can apply as a coach, a position that influences millions of youngsters on a daily basis. Fourth, being a teacher in an academic discipline other than physical education does not qualify anyone to coach any more than an English instructor is equipped to teach math. Both coaches and teachers need specialized preparation. Fifth, just because someone has been a player does not necessarily ensure success as a coach. The skills involved with each are different and coaching depends upon one’s ability to teach and relate.

The encouraging news according to Popke (17) is that administrators at the high school level are beginning to see past gender as illustrated in several examples across the country. Even though the numbers are low and have been stagnant for years, there have been promising developments. In March 2010, Natalie Randolph was named as the head football coach at Calvin Coolidge Senior High School in Washington, D.C. According to the Washington Post, it is not clear how many women have been head coaches for boys’ high school football teams – but it is extremely rare. The Post reported that another Washington teacher, Wanda Oates, was named head football coach at a different Washington high school in 1985. However, she was removed a day later after coaches who did not want to coach against her pressured the school district (8). Prior to the hiring of Natalie Randolph at Coolidge Senior High, in the state of Georgia, Angela Solomon was the only known head football coach of a public middle school or high school team. She led Myers Middle School, located in Savannah, to the 2009 championship football game of Chatham County (1).

In Wilmington, Delaware, math teacher Katie Orga Godfrey was hired by the Salesianum School, a private Catholic all-boys institution, as its first ever female coach of a junior-varsity basketball team in fall, 2008. Her qualifications were the key to getting the job. Also, in fall 2008, Katie Mack was named as the first ever varsity soccer coach of a male team at Bellows Free Academy in Fairfax, Vermont; and Allison Meyer was hired as the varsity basketball coach at Fennimore, Wisconsin High School. The coaches have assumed roles where the best available leader, role model, coordinator and instructor with knowledge about their sport was needed. Therefore, the coaches’ qualifications were essential to their hiring irrespective of the coaches’ gender.

With their previous research on coaching characteristics and professional preparation as the foundation for the current study, the authors conducted a comprehensive statewide survey of high school coaches in Georgia (22). The survey revealed important data concerning coaches’ education, experiences, qualifications, and teaching areas. Comparisons were made respecting gender, ethnicity, and school classification, etc. (22).

The purpose of this study was to increase awareness and understanding concerning gender differences in high school athletic coaches in terms of coaching characteristics. Coach preparation can be linked to greater effectiveness in meeting the psychological and physical development of athletes (2). Also, identifying particular characteristics such as qualities and competencies of athletic coaches could offer others assistance in preparing for coaching careers or in improving their job performance.

Methods

Participants

All active members of the Georgia High School Association (GHSA), approximately 8000 coaches, served as the population for the study which was conducted in the fall of 2008.

Seven hundred ninety five (795) individuals representing each of five GHSA classifications, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A and A, responded to the survey.

Procedures

The instrument used was a 76-item questionnaire that was developed and adapted from a previous coach’s study that examined demographic characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity, etc.), educational level, college major and degree, current position, coaching experience, certifications, sport participant experience, and previous coaching education courses taken. The questionnaire was reviewed for face validity by coaching education faculty for appropriateness for coaches as well as individuals currently practicing as coaches.

A private company, “Georgia High School Coaches Association” (GHSCA) was contracted for dissemination of the questionnaire, which was posted on the internet and hosted by SurveyMonkey.com. The GHSCA maintains a database of active high school coaches in the state of Georgia. An email was sent to all public high school coaches in the database inviting them to participate in the study. The email provided an overview of the study, informed consent documentation, and a link to the questionnaire. Two weeks later, a reminder email was sent to all public high school coaches in the database.

Respondents were not required to answer all questions and were free to skip questions or sections of the questionnaire. The respondents did not receive any compensation for completion of the questionnaire and no personal identifying information was collected. This study was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board.

Results

Coaching Characteristics

Results from the survey are presented in Tables 1-9. The coaches’ responses revealed information concerning demographic data, educational level, coaching experience, coaching level, types of certifications, teaching areas, individuals most supportive during the hiring process, the coach’s description of filling the coaching position, and the respondent’s reason(s) for coaching.

As represented in Table 1, the seven hundred ninety-five (795) individuals responding to the survey had the following demographic characteristics related to gender, ethnicity, and age: 70.4% were males and 29.6% were females, 86.6% were Caucasian and 9.3% were African American. Female respondents were 85.5% Caucasian and 9.4% African American. With respect to males, 87.1% were Caucasian and 9.3% were African American. Females’ average age was 35.63 years and males’ average age was 39.37 years. The overall age for all coaches ranged from 19-75 years old.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Georgia High School Coaches by Gender, Ethnicity and Age as a Percentage of the Sample

Gender
Male 70.4%
Female 29.6%
Ethnicity
Caucasian 86.6%
African American 9.3%
Caucasian Males 87.1%
African American Males 9.3%
Caucasian Females 85.5%
African American Females 9.4%
Age
Male Average Age 39.97
Female Average Age 35.63
Overall Average Age (range 19-75) 39.54

Note: At least one coach from ninety three different high schools responded, a total 795 coaches.

Table 2 depicts the educational level attained by the respondents. More than ninety-six percent (96.5%) of females had a Bachelor’s degree; 73.8% a Master’s and 7.4% a Doctorate. A higher percentage of the male coaches reported having earned degrees at the Bachelor’s (98.1%), Master’s (83%), and Doctorate (8.1%) levels than females. Also, a higher percentage of male coaches (56.5%) reported having taken additional coaching education courses than females (51.7%).

Table 2
Highest Degree Earned by Georgia High School Coaches by Gender, and the Percentage of Coaches that Have Taken at Least One Coaching Education Course

Degrees Earned Males Females
Bachelors 98.1% 96.5%
Masters 83.0% 73.8%
Doctorate 8.1% 7.4%
Coaching Education Courses 56.5% 51.7%

Table 3 shows the respondents’ years of coaching experience by gender. More than thirty-two percent (32.6%) of the females had coached 11 years or more, 5.8% had coached between 16-20 years, and 6.2% had coached more than twenty years. Nearly fifty-three percent (52.6%) of males had coached 11 years or more, 10.7% had coached between 16-20 years, and 25.2% had coached more than twenty years.

Table 3
The Years of Coaching Experience for Georgia High School Coaches by Gender

Number of Years Males Females
1-5 25.6% 51.9%
6-10 21.9% 25.5%
11-15 16.7% 10.6%
16-20 10.7% 5.8%
More than 20 25.2% 6.2%

Table 4 indicates the respondents’ level of coaching. The highest level of coaching experience was in high school for 87.6% of females and 78.9% of males. Community college coaching accounted for the participants’ highest level of coaching experience for 2.2% of the female coaches and 2.2% of male coaches. College coaching was the highest level for 6.7% of the females and 16.7% of the males. Less than two percent of females (1.1%) and males (1.7%) had coached at the professional level.

Table 4
Highest Coaching Level Attained by Georgia High School Coaches by Gender

Coaching Level Males Females
High School 78.9% 87.6%
Community College 2.2% 2.2%
College 16.7% 6.7%
Professional 1.7% 1.1%

Table 5 depicts the types of certifications held by the coaches. Almost seventy eight percent (77.9%) of females held teacher certifications compared to 81.2% of males. Over seventy percent (70.2%) of females had certification in CPR, 51.5% in first aid, 3.4% in athletic training (ATC), and 0.9% in strength and conditioning (CSCS). Over seventy-five percent (75.4%) of male coaches had certification in CPR, nearly sixty percent (59.3%) in first aid, 3.6% in ATC, and 2.9% in CSCS.

Table 5
The Types of Certifications Held by Georgia High School Coaches by Gender

Certifications Males Females
Teacher 81.2% 77.9%
CPR 75.4% 70.2%
First Aid 59.3% 51.5%
ATC 3.6% 3.4%
CSCS 2.9% 0.9%

Table 6 displays the coaches’ teaching areas. Health and Physical Education was the most popular major among females (15.8%) and males (9.8%), and Math was the second most popular major chosen by 5.6% of females and 8.6% of males. With respect to females, 5.9% majored in physical sciences and of the males, 5.9% majored in the same discipline. A wide range of other majors were listed by respondents. More males than females majored in social studies.

Table 6
Teaching Areas of Georgia High School Coaches by Gender

Teaching Area Males Females
Health / Physical Education 9.8% 15.8%
Math 5.6% 8.6%
Sciences 4.1% 5.9%
Social Studies 5.8% 3.9%
Special Education 4.6% 5.9%

Table 7 identifies the individual(s) that hired the coach. Females were hired by the principle 25.5% of the time; by the Athletics Director 19.6% of the time; and by the head coach alone 14.5% of the time. Males were hired 15.9% of the time by the principle, 16.4% of the time by the Athletics Director, and 11.2% of the time by the head coach alone.

Table 7
Individual Most Supportive of Hiring Georgia High School Coaches by Gender

Person Males Females
Principal 15.9% 25.5%
Athletic Director 16.4% 19.6%
Head Coach 11.2% 14.5%

Table 8 illustrates the coaches’ description of themselves in terms of fulfilling their coaching responsibilities. Females described themselves as a teacher and coach (68.2%), as a coach who can teach (4.7%), and as a teacher who can coach (27.1%). Males described themselves as a teacher and coach (78.4%), as a coach who can teach (7.8%), and as a teacher who can coach (13.8%).

Table 8
Georgia High School Coaches’ Description of Filling Coaching Position by Gender

Description Males Females
Teacher and coach 78.4% 68.2%
Teach who can coach 13.8% 27.1%
Coach who can teach 7.8% 4.7%

Table 9 indicates the respondents’ reasons for coaching. Female coaches listed being dedicated to educating young people (20.4%), inspired by a previous coach (11.1%), parent coached and inspired me (4.3%), and my child played the sport (1.3%). Over fourteen percent (14.1%) of male respondents claimed to be coaching because they were dedicated to educating young people, inspired by a previous coach (15.2%), parent coached and inspired me (1.3%) and my child played the sport (1.2%).

Table 9
Georgia High School Coaches’ Reason(s) for Coaching by Gender

Reason for Coaching Males Females
Parent coached and inspired me 1.4% 4.3%
Inspired by a previous coach 15.2% 11.1%
My child played the sport 1.2% 1.3%
Dedicated to educating young people 14.1% 20.4%
Other 4.5% 10.2%

Discussions

In terms of the coaches’ credentials, comparisons were made between the current study and the authors’ 2007 survey findings (22). Based on the responses to this survey, the typical female high school coach in Georgia is a 36 year-old Caucasian who holds a Master’s degree, a major in Health and Physical Education, and has coached five years or less. These characteristics are identical to and affirm the authors’ 2007 research findings concerning female high school coaches in Georgia (22). Based on the responses to the survey, the typical male high school coach in Georgia is a 39 year-old Caucasian who holds a master’s degree, training in CPR and First Aid, and describes himself as a teacher and coach. These characteristics are also very similar to the authors’ previous research findings concerning male high school coaches in Georgia (22). Further, consistent with previous research outcomes, when comparisons were made respecting gender, female coaches possessed approximately the same characteristics as male coaches and in certain areas were better qualified than males.

Both studies found that more female coaches majored in Health and Physical Education; were recruited, supported and hired by the principal and athletic director; were teachers first; and were dedicated to educating young people. In addition, this study showed that a larger percentage of the high school coaches in the state of Georgia were females – nearly one third as opposed to the previously reported figure (22) and national average (20) of approximately twenty percent. Also, a higher percentage of female coaches held certifications in teaching, first aid and CPR than reported in the previous study. Female coaches were comparable to males in such areas as degrees earned, the number of years of coaching experience in the 6-10 year time frame, and in their level of coaching experience.

As a result of this survey, additional research is needed in several areas. For instance, additional research could increase understanding concerning why Georgia female high school coaches have better credentials than male coaches in certain areas and why male coaches have better credentials than female coaches in certain areas. Further research should be conducted concerning the coaches performance assessment, which would likely have a positive impact on coaching performance and ultimately on young athletes. High school principals and athletic directors should also be surveyed to get their perspective on coaching qualifications and hiring practices related to gender.

Conclusions

From a qualification/preparation perspective women should be impartially represented in coaching positions, including head coach, a position where gender should be less of a factor in the hiring process. As stated by Pedersen and Whisenant (16), equity in hiring is simply a matter of fairness, young females (and males) need to see women in key decision-making positions where their abilities and contributions are valued, they can be visible as role models, and influence (through hiring and networking) the next generation of coaches, and utilize their acknowledged perspectives, skills, and abilities. As disclosed by this study’s findings, high school principals and athletic directors are appropriately taking leadership roles in the recruitment, hiring, and support of qualified women coaches. According to Fazioli (6), this involves more than just passively posting the job announcement and waiting for qualified applicants to appear at the door. Also, head sport coaches, those with jobs to offer, and others in leadership positions should be supportive by helping stem the outcries from opposing individuals who see female coaches as threats rather than persons simply seeking equal opportunities. In addition, the general public’s understanding, trust, and embrace of female coaches is a must. Given that female coaches are better qualified or as qualified as male coaches in many of the important coaching attributes, there is a strong likelihood that they would be as successful as males in terms of their coaching performance.

Applications in Sport

Coaching is less about gender and more about whether or not the person can actually coach. Participation and educational background, training, skills, and knowledge and experience provide vital information about an individual’s qualifications. School administrators want the best candidate possible, and therefore, should seek the candidate with the best credentials for the job, male or female. Based on the findings of this study, it is possible to find qualified women coaches even for boys’ teams. Fazioli (6) states increasing the number of women coaching boys’ teams may be even more of a priority than boosting the number of female coaches in women’s sports because it is the former jobs that are higher in status and salary. The more visible and successful female role models there are in high school coaching, the more attractive coaching jobs look to young aspiring female coaches, and the more will apply for coaching vacancies.

It is hoped that the results of this study would assist decision-makers in the school systems, the Georgia High School Association, and colleges that offer a coaching education curriculum by providing useful information for coaching preparation in Georgia. This study provides some initial incentives for gathering additional information that would be useful in assessing coaching characteristics and the implications. Future researchers are encouraged to use the findings to compare coaching data from Georgia with other U.S. states and/or other countries.

References

Atkins, M. (2009, December 4). Female head coach leads Myers Middle School to championship football game. Savannah Morning News Online. Retrieved from http://savannahnow.com/news/2009-12-04/female-head-coach-leads-myers-middle-school-championship-football-game.

Brylinsky, J., (2002). National standards for athletic coaches. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED477725): http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-1/coaches.htm

Burden, W. & Zwald, D. (2003). A survey of Georgia high school coaches. The GAHPERD Journal 36(3), 19-21.

Drago R., Hennighausen, L., Rogers, J., Vescio, T. & Stauffer, K.D. (2005). Final Report for CAGE: The Coaching and Gender Equity Project. Retrieved from http://www.wihe.com/printBlog.jsp?id=383.

Falduto, k. (2006). Can the concept of “good coaching” be quantified for the purposes of title ix sex discrimination claims? Journal of Sports Law & Contemporary Problems 3(2), 220-249.

Fazioli, J. K. (2004). The advancement of female coaches in intercollegiate athletics. Background paper for the Coaching and Gender Equity Project, Department of Labor Studies and Industrial Relations, The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NjnC1pFzvhsJ:lser.la.psu.edu/workfam/CAGEbackground.doc+The+Advancement+of+Female+Coaches+in+Intercollegiate+Athletics&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Frankl, D. & Babbitt, D. G. (1998). Gender bias: a study of high school track and field athletes’ perceptions of hypothetical male and female head coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21(4), 396-407.

Hanna, J. (2010, March 15). Woman named high school’s head varsity football coach. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/11/woman.football.coach/index.html

Hasbrook C. A., Hart, B.A., Mathes, S.A., & True S. (1990). Sex bias and the validity of believed differences between male and female interscholastic athletic coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,61(3), 259-267.

Hoch, D. (2004). Coaching education and certification. Coach & Athletic Director 74(2), 14.

Howard, B. & Gillis, J. (2009). High school sports participation increases for 20th consecutive year. Retrieved from National federation of State High Schools Association website: http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3505&terms=High+school+sports+participation+up

Keilman, J. (2009, May 10). Female volleyball high school coaches: a spike in man’s world. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/may/10/local/chi-volleyball-coaches-10-may10

LeDrew, J., Zimmerman, C. (1994). Moving towards an acceptance of females in coaching. Physical Educator, 51(1), 6-14.

Millard, L (1996). Differences in coaching behaviors of male and female high school soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior 19(1), 19-31.

Pastore, D. (1992). Two-year college coaches of women’s teams: Gender differences in coaching career selections. Journal of Sport Management, 6 (3), 179-190.

Pedersen, P. & Whisenant, W. (2005). Successful when given the opportunity: Investigating gender representation and success rates of interscholastic athletic directors. Physical Educator, 62(4), 178-9.

Popke, M. (2008, December). Just call her ‘coach. As more women take the reins of boys’ teams, high schools may be entering a post-gender era. Athletic Business. Retrieved from http://www.athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=1928&zoneid=3

Sandoval, G. (2009, January 24). Going Behind the Back. College Recruiters Raise Issue of Sexual Orientation. Washingtonpost, p. D01. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35013-2003Jan23&notFound=true#

Whitehead, B. ( 2006). Survey provides new information on high school athletics. Retrieved from National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association website: http://www.miaa.net/NIAAA-Survey-press-release.pdf

Women’s Sports Foundation (2009). Coaching – do female athletes prefer male coaches? The foundation position. Retrieved from http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Coaching/C/Coaching–Do-Female-Athletes-Prefer-Male-Coaches-The-Foundation-Position.aspx

Women in Higher Education. (2009). Crisis in female coaches shortchanges women, athletes. Retrieved from http://www.wihe.com/printBlog.jsp?id=383

Zwald, D. Burden, W., & Czech, D. (2007): Are female coaches in Georgia high schools more qualified than male coaches? The GAHPERD Journal 40(3) 16.

Author Profiles

Dr. Willie Burden

Dr. Burden is an Associate Professor in the Department of Hospitality, Tourism, Family & Consumer Sciences at Georgia Southern University and also is Advisor to the Sport Management Major’s Club. His previous professional appointment was at North Carolina A & T State University in Greensboro, where he served as the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics and Instructor in the Department of Health and Physical Education.

Dr. Trey Burdette

Dr. Trey Burdette is an Assistant Professor of Coaching Education in the Department of Health and Kinesiology at Georgia Southern University. His primary teaching responsibilities are in Coaching Education – undergraduate and graduate. His research interests are in human performance and sport leadership.

Dr. Drew Zwald

Dr. Drew Zwald is the Director of the Coaching Education Program and a Professor in the Department of Health & Kinesiology at Georgia Southern University. He also is the Past President of the National Council for Accreditation of Coaching Education. His previous academic appointment was at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was the Director of the Physical Education Activity Program in the Department of Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Science.

Dr. Dan Czech

Dr. Dan Czech is a Professor in the Department of Health & Kinesiology at Georgia Southern University. His primary teaching responsibilities include teaching the sport and exercise psychology courses within the department. He also serves as a mental consultant for numerous professional football and baseball players in the National Football League and Major League Baseball respectively.

Dr. Tom Buckley

Dr. Tom Buckley is an Assistant Professor and Director of the Graduate Athletic Training Program in Athletic Training within the Department of Health and Kinesiology at Georgia Southern University. His work on the elucidation of the central and peripheral mechanisms which influence dynamic postural stability during transitional movements in individuals with central nervous system disorders has been funded by the Army Research Office and the National Athletic Trainers’ Association.

Corresponding Author

Willie James Burden, Ed.D: burdenw@georgiasouthern.edu

2017-08-03T10:29:36-05:00July 9th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Management|Comments Off on Evidence That Support Equality: Credential Characteristics of Georgia Female High School Coaches
Read More

Educating Sports Entrepreneurs: Matching Theory to Practice

Dr. Anthony Borgese,Kingsborough College, City University of New York

Abstract

Sports entrepreneurship courses are part of sports management programs because some students hope to own their own sports-oriented business, and major sports conglomerates look to hire employees with entrepreneurial skills. Sports management instructors prepare students for these challenges. However, not all sports entrepreneurship instructors have owned their own businesses nor worked for large sports corporations. As a result, this study was conducted to determine if sports entrepreneurship instructors and sports entrepreneurs agree on the content that should be taught in sports entrepreneurship courses in order to prepare students for the real-world.

Results of the study indicate that sports entrepreneurship instructors do agree on a set of content standards for sports entrepreneurship courses, specifically, the Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education National Content Standards (1). Additionally, when ranking the content skills, sports entrepreneurship instructors and sports entrepreneurs agreed on four of the five top skills students should be taught in order to be successful sports entrepreneurs.

Key Words: Sports Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurs, Sports Education, Sports Entrepreneurship Courses

Introduction

Sport management programs continue to grow in number. Since the first sport management program was developed at Ohio University in 1966, programs continue to spread across the United States and the world. According to the North American Society for Sport Management, there are more than 200 sport management programs in the United States alone (6). This growth has prompted a need for innovation within sport management curricula and the development of courses that are high quality, content-rich, and flexible.
The sports industry is the third largest industry in the United States, accounting for more than $213 billion dollars a year in revenues (3). Kurtzman (4) outlined the importance of sports tourism as the impetus for the pursuit of business entrepreneurship, economic impact, and profitability. He categorized sports tourism jobs into categories of events, resorts, cruises, tours and attractions – along with listed subgroups in those categories. These subgroups, such as sports events planning and sports tour operators, are areas that are ripe for entrepreneurial endeavors.

An industry as large as the sports industry requires educated people to run a variety of sports related businesses. However, it should not be assumed that sports entrepreneurs are only owners of professional sports franchises. The sports industry entails a variety of sub-businesses, both large and small. For example, there are owners of health club facilities, sports arena and facility operators, league owner/operators, sporting goods store owners, sports ticket agencies, and sport physical therapists – just to name a few. Sport management students take sport entrepreneurship courses in order to learn the skills that are necessary to operate these types of sport-related businesses.
On the other hand, sport management instructors are entrusted with preparing their students for jobs in sport-oriented businesses. It is up to them to develop effective curriculum that prepares students for careers in an industry that is constantly changing and evolving. However, not all sport entrepreneurship instructors have owned their own businesses nor worked for large sports corporations. Research into what type of content and skills sport entrepreneurship instructors are teaching was sorely needed.
This study was conducted to compare what sport entrepreneurship instructors and practicing sport entrepreneurs believe are the important skills necessary to teach sport entrepreneurship students in order to be successful in running sport-oriented businesses. It is relevant to sports entrepreneurship educators as well as students of sports management programs – in regards to gauging what is currently being taught in sports entrepreneurship courses.

Methods

There were two research populations for this study. The research populations included: 1) NASPE/NASSM instructors of sport entrepreneurship courses in college level sport management programs that are accredited by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) and the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM). 2) Sport entrepreneurs located throughout the United States in a variety of sports oriented businesses.

Two hundred and seventeen (217) sport management instructors were identified through their faculty web pages. However, it should be noted that this was not a complete list of sport entrepreneurship instructors, because there is no way to determine how many of these sport management instructors actually taught sport entrepreneurship courses. The instructors that were contacted, were all members of sport management programs, and taught sports management related courses at the time the data was gathered. However, all sport management programs do not have sport entrepreneurship courses, nor do all sport management professors teach sport entrepreneurship. Therefore, it was impossible to get an exact count of how many sport entrepreneurship instructors exist in NASPE/NASSM accredited sport management programs. Ultimately, 43 (N = 43) sport entrepreneurship instructors participated in the study.

The second research population consisted of 250 sport-oriented businesses. The researcher randomly selected four sport-oriented businesses in each of the fifty states in the United States of America. Small sport-oriented businesses were chosen, as opposed to utilizing owners of large sports conglomerates. This is because they represented a good mix of sport-oriented businesses and they were more indicative of the types of businesses that would have been opened by recently graduating sports management students. Ultimately 67 (N = 67) sport entrepreneurs participated in the study.

The research instruments that were used to conduct this study were two questionnaires that were developed and piloted by the researcher and reviewed by a panel of experts to achieve validity and reliability.

The questionnaires were administered via email and regular mail for both research populations. The questionnaires were made available over the Internet to maximize participation. The researcher created electronic versions of the questionnaires and administered them on the Internet using www.surveymonkey.com.

Results

The Instructor Group was comprised of 88.4% males and 11.6% females, with 60.4% of the overall population between the ages of 36 and 55. A doctorate or master’s degree was held by 72.1% of the population. 60.4% were associate or full professors. 88.4% had 5+ years of general teaching experience. 90.7% had some type of online teaching experience. 93% had some type of blended teaching experience. 81.4% taught in 4-year colleges or universities or in graduate programs. Finally, 79.1% had sports entrepreneurship courses as an elective at their respective institutions.

An analysis of the descriptive data of the Sport Entrepreneur Group was as follows. 85.1% of the Sport Entrepreneur Group were males whereas 14.9% were female. 68.6% were between the ages of 36 and 55. 82.1% had some type of college degree. Sporting goods store owners were the largest type of business represented by this group at 37%. 25.4% of the Sport Entrepreneur respondents were relatively new businesses that had been in existence less than five years. On the opposite end, 20.9% of the group had been in business for over 25 years. The largest legal structure was a sole proprietorship at 34.3%. 38.8% of the business had over $500,000 in revenues. 17.9% only had themselves as the only employee whereas 83.6% had anywhere up to 14 employees.

To address the question of whether there is a universal set of content standards in sports entrepreneurship courses, both groups were asked if they thought that CEE’s National Content Standards (1) (Appendix A) were a complete list of all of the skills and traits necessary for sports entrepreneurship students to learn in order to become successful business owners. The results were as follows:

Table 1.1 Are CEE’s National Content Standards Complete? (Instructors)

Yes or No Frequency Percent
Yes 41 95.3
No 2 4.7

Table 1.2 Are CEE’s National Content Standards Complete? (Sports Entrepreneurs)

Yes or No Frequency Percent
Yes 65 97.0
No 2 3.0
2013-11-25T17:45:31-06:00July 6th, 2010|Sports Coaching, Sports Facilities, Sports Management|Comments Off on Educating Sports Entrepreneurs: Matching Theory to Practice
Read More

An Analysis of Leadership Qualities That Influence Male and Female Athletes in Middle School Interscholastic Team Sports

Dr. Raymond Tucker, United States Sports Academy doctoral graduate

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine what behavior styles of leadership male and female athletes in middle school interscholastic team sports prefer their coaches use. The study compares those behavior styles of leadership used by coaches on male and female athletes at three different middle schools. The study compares males and females to determine if the preferred behavior styles of leadership are similar.

Results of this study detected a statistically significant difference in the leadership behavior styles by male and female coaches among the middle schools between the following dimensions: (1) democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) social support and training and instruction, (4) positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) positive feedback and autocratic behavior, (6) positive feedback and social support. The study did detect a statistically significant difference in the behavior styles of leadership used at the different middle schools in the dimensions of autocratic behavior, training and instruction, and positive feedback. This study did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the middle schools in the dimensions of democratic behavior and social support. Finally, the study detected the only statistically significant difference between male and female coaches in middle school interscholastic team sports in the five dimensions of leadership behavior was in training and instruction.

Results of this study indicate that male and female coaches use different leadership behavior styles to deal with male and female athletes in middle school interscholastic team sports. The study reveals that female coaches place more emphasis on the training and instruction behavior style of leadership than male coaches.

This study does not examine which behavior style of leadership is superior for the overall success of an interscholastic middle school athletic program. What follows is the basis for this study, procedures used to conduct the research, an analysis of the data, conclusions, and finally, recommendations for further research on this topic.

Research Questions

This research study entitled An Analysis of Leadership Qualities That Influence Male and Female Athletes in Middle School Interscholastic Team Sports was conducted to answer the following research questions:

  1. Was there a difference in the median scores of the five Leadership Scale of Sports dimensions among eighth grade females in middle school interscholastic team sports?
  2. Was there a difference in the median scores of the five Leadership Scale of Sports dimensions among eighth grade males in middle school interscholastic team sports?
  3. Was there a difference between eighth grade males and eighth grade females who participate in middle school interscholastic team sports in the median scores of the five Leadership Scale of Sports dimensions?
  4. Was there a difference among the three middle schools in the median scores of the five Leadership Scale of Sports dimensions?

Subjects

Subjects for this study were male and female athletes who participated in interscholastic
team sports at their middle schools during their seventh and eighth grade years. The schools selected for this study were three different middle schools from Central Texas which include Bastrop, Cedar Creek, and Elgin middle schools.

Methods

Data for this study was collected using the Leadership Scale of Sports (LSS) questionnaire with the permission of Dr. Packianthan Chelladurai Ph.D at Ohio State University. Athletic coordinators at each school were given verbal directions in person prior to the questionnaires being mailed. The data was analyzed quantitatively using the 15.0 version of Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Several statistical tests were used to analyze the data. The Freidman test is a test used for two-way repeated measures analysis of variance by ranks. This test was used to determine the statistically significant difference based on gender among the three middle schools in at least one of the five dimensions of leadership behavior. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test used for two related samples or repeated measures on a single sample. In order to determine the location of the difference, a series of Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests using the Bonferroni adjustment to the p-value were administered. Because there are ten comparisons to be measured, 0.05 was divided 10, rendering a new p-value of 0.005 The Kruskal-Wallis test is the non-analog test, an ANOVA; this test was used to compare three or more medians among schools based on gender. In order to determine if there were differences between males and females concerning the median scores on the (LSS), the Mann-Whitney U statistical test was used.

Results

The first research question in this study asked whether there was a difference in the
median scores of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions among eighth grade females in middle school interscholastic team sports. This question can be answered by the results of the Friedman test in Table 1.13, which clearly shows a statistically significant difference among females athletes in at least one of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions of leadership behavior from Bastrop, Cedar Creek, and Elgin middle schools. Based on this data, a series of pair wise comparisons was made to determine where the differences lie by using Wilcoxon signed Rank Test and a Bonferroni adjustment to the p-value. Because ten comparisons were made, 0.05 was divided by by10, to get a new p-value of.005.
The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank Test in Table 4.13 show a statistically
significant difference at the 0.005 alpha level among the females athletes between
between the following dimensions: (1) democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) between autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) between social support and training and instruction, (4) between positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) between positive feedback and autocratic behavior, and (6) between positive feedback and social support.
The data in Table 3.13 reveals the first statistically significant difference between the dimensions of democratic behavior and training and instruction among female coaches at the respective middle schools. Female coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 3.13 for democratic behavior, and a mean score of 2.1 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.60 for democratic behavior and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 3.07 for democratic behavior and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. This data clearly shows that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School and Elgin Middle School have a higher regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership compared to the training and instruction style of leadership. Female coaches at Bastrop Middle School ranked the highest in utilizing the democratic behavior style of leadership over training and instruction.

The second statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of autocratic behavior and training and instruction. The data in Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School show a mean score of 2.7 for autocratic behavior and a mean score of 2.1 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.65 for autocratic behavior and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School show a mean score of 3.15 for autocratic behavior and a mean score 2.3 for training and instruction. This data reveals that female coaches at all three middle schools placed a greater emphasis on the autocratic behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School ranked highest in utilizing the autocratic behavior style of leadership over training and instruction.

The third statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of
social support and training and instruction. Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.88 for social support and a mean score of 2.1 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.67 for social support and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score 3.29 for social support and a mean score of 2.3 for training and instruction. This data reveals that female coaches at all three schools have a higher regard for the social support behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School ranked the highest in utilizing the social support behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction.

The fourth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and democratic behavior. Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School have a mean score of 2.06 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.13 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.24 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.60 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 2.29 for positive feedback and mean score of 3.07 for democratic behavior. The result of this data indicate that female coaches at Bastrop and Elgin middle schools have a higher regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership than positive feedback. Female coaches at Bastrop Middle School showed the highest regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership over positive feedback.

The fifth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of
positive feedback and autocratic behavior. Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.06 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.77 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.24 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.65 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 2.29 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.15 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. This data reveals that female coaches place more emphasis on the autocratic behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had the highest regard for using positive feedback over the autocratic behavior style of leadership.

The sixth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and social support. Table 3.13 reveals that female coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.06 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.8 for the social support behavior style of leadership. Female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.24 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.67 for the social support behavior styles of leadership. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 2.29 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.29 for the social support behavior style of leadership. This data reveals that female coaches at the three middle schools have a higher regard for the social support behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback. Female coaches at Elgin Middle School had the highest score in the social support behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback.

The second research question of this study asked whether there was a difference in the median scores of the five LSS dimensions among eighth grade males in middle school interscholastic team sports. The results of the Freidman test in Table 5.13 show that among male athletes in the study, there was a statistically significant difference in at least one of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions of leadership behavior. In order to determine the location of the difference, a series of Wilcoxon signed-rank test using the Bonferroni adjustment to the p-value were conducted. Once again, since there were ten comparisons to be measured, 0.05 was divided by 10, rendering a new p-value of 0.005.

The data from the Wilcoxon signed-rank test in Table 8.13 detected a statistically significant difference in leadership styles among male coaches at Bastrop, Cedar Creek, and Elgin middle schools between the following dimensions: (1) between democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) between the autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) between social support and training and instruction, (4) between positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) between positive feedback and autocratic behavior, and (6) between positive feedback and social support.

The first statistically significant difference between male coaches at the middle schools occurred between the dimensions of democratic behavior and training and instruction. The data in Table 7.13 shows that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a high mean score of 3.43 for the democratic behavior style of leadership and a mean score of 2.2 for training and instruction. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.72 for the democratic behavior style of leadership and a mean score of 2.0 for training and instruction. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 2.95 for democratic behavior and a mean score of 1.6 for training and instruction. The data reveals that the male coaches at three middle schools have a higher regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership than training and instruction. Male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School showed the highest regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction.

The second statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of
autocratic behavior and training and instruction. The data in Table 7.13 reveals that male
coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 3.01 for the dimension of autocratic behavior and a mean score of 2.2 for training and instruction. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 3.07 for autocratic behavior and a mean score of 1.6 for training and instruction. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.69 for autocratic behavior and a mean score of 2.0 for training and instruction. The data reveals that male coaches at all three middle schools have a higher regard for the autocratic behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School ranked highest in utilizing the autocratic behavior style of leadership over training and instruction.

The third statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of social support and training and instruction. The data in Table 7.13 reveals that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had the highest regard for the social support leadership style, with a mean score of 3.2, whereas they had a mean score of 2.2 for training and instruction. Male coaches at both Bastrop and Elgin middle schools scored high in the dimension of social support, with means scores of 2.66 and 2.65, respectively. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.2 for training and instruction and male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 1.6. The data reveals that male coaches at the middle schools have a higher regard for the social support behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction. The data also shows that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School have a high regard for the use of the social support behavior style of leadership compared to training and instruction.

The fourth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and democratic behavior. The data in Table 7.13 shows that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.26 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.43 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.0 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.72 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 1.70 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.95 for the democratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at all three middle schools showed a higher regard for the democratic behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback.

The fifth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and autocratic behavior. Table 7.13 shows that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.26 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.01 for autocratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.01 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.69 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 1.70 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.15 for the autocratic behavior style of leadership. The data reveals that male coaches at the three middle schools have a higher regard for the autocratic behavior style of leadership compared to positive feedback. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School ranked the highest in utilizing the autocratic behavior style of leadership over the positive feedback behavior style of leadership.

The sixth statistically significant difference occurred between the dimensions of positive feedback and social support. The data in Table 7.13 reveals that male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.26 for positive feedback and a mean score of 3.21 for the social support behavior style of leadership. Male coaches at Bastrop Middle School had a mean score of 2.01 for positive feedback and mean score of 2.66 for social support. Male coaches at Elgin Middle School had a mean score of 1.7 for positive feedback and a mean score of 2.65 for the social support behavior style of leadership. The data indicates that male coaches at the three middle schools place a higher regard on using the social support behavior style of leadership over positive feedback.

The third research question in this study asked whether there was a statistically significant difference between eighth grade males and females in middle school interscholastic sports in the median score of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions. This question was answered using the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the median scores between male and female student athletes and the unpaired t-test. The data in Table 9.13 reveals the only statistically significant difference in means between male and female students was for the training and instruction behavior style of leadership. The difference was not statistically significant for any of the other four dimensions of leadership behavior styles preferred by males and females at any of the three middle schools. The data in Table 10.13 shows a mean score of 1.99 for males, and a mean score of 2.22 for females at Bastrop, Cedar Creek, and Elgin middle schools for the dimension of training and instruction. The data also shows female coaches have a higher regard for the training and instruction behavior style of leadership than male coaches.

The fourth research question asked whether there was a difference among the three
middle schools in the median scores of the five leadership scale of sports dimensions. The data in Table 11.13 reveals the first statistically significant difference occurred within the dimension of autocratic behavior between Bastrop Middle School and Elgin Middle School. The data in Table 12.13 displays the second statistically significant difference within the dimension of training and instruction between Cedar Creek Middle School and Elgin Middle School. The data in table 13.13 detects the third statistically significant difference within the dimension of positive feedback between Cedar Creek Middle School and Elgin Middle School. This difference was determined by the Bonferroni adjustment, which gave a new p-value of 0.017. The data did not reveal a statistical difference for the dimensions of social support and the democratic behavior styles of leadership among the three middle schools.

Discussion and Implications

In answering the first research question, the researcher will discuss the statistically significant differences among female coaches between the following dimensions: (1) democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) social support and training and instruction. Female coaches at all three middle schools did not place much emphasis on the training and instruction behavior style of leadership. Instead more emphasis was placed on the democratic and autocratic behavior styles of leadership. These behavior styles of leadership do not enhance athletic performance or improve athletic ability. The data in Table 2.13 reveals a high mean score of 2.88 for the dimension of democratic behavior among female coaches at the middle schools in this study. The data also shows a high mean score of 2.79 for the dimension of the autocratic behavior style of leadership among the female coaches at the three middle schools in this study. The social support behavior style of leadership had a mean score of 2.87. The data indicates female coaches at the three middle schools use the social support behavior style of leadership in their daily interaction with athletes. The data reveals the training and instruction behavior style of leadership has the lowest mean scores among the female coaches at the three middle schools with a mean of 2.23.

In the dimensions of (4) positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) positive feedback and autocratic behavior, and (6) positive behavior and social support, female coaches at the three middle schools did not place much emphasis on the positive feedback behavior style of leadership. Instead, they placed more emphasis on the democratic and autocratic behavior styles of leadership. This means the coaches place more emphasis on controlling an athlete, giving them the opportunity to express their opinions, and helping an athlete through problems, than encouraging and reinforcing good behavior in athletes.

In order to discuss the second research question, the researcher will discuss the statistically significant differences among male coaches: (1) democratic behavior and training and instruction, (2) autocratic behavior and training and instruction, (3) social support and training and instruction. According to the data in Table 6.13 male coaches at the three middle schools did not place much emphasis in the training and instruction behavior style of leadership compared to the democratic, autocratic and social support behavior styles of leadership. Male coaches had a mean score of 2.98 for democratic; 2.87 for autocratic and a 1.98 for training and instruction. In the dimensions of (4) positive feedback and democratic behavior, (5) positive feedback and autocratic behavior, (6) positive feedback and social support, male coaches did not place much emphasis in the positive feedback behavior style of leadership compared to democratic behavior, autocratic behavior and social support. As with female coaches, male coaches placed more emphasis on the democratic and autocratic behavior styles of leadership. According to the date more emphasis was placed on controlling an athlete, giving them the opportunity to express their opinions, and helping an athlete through problems, than encouraging and reinforcing good behavior in athletes.

In looking at the third research question, the data in Table 10.13 reveals a statistically significant difference for the dimension of training and instruction between male and female coaches at the three middle schools for this study. Male coaches had a mean score of 1.99, and female coaches had a mean score of 2.22. According to the data, female coaches scored higher than male coaches in utilizing the training and instruction behavior style of leadership in their daily interaction with athletes. Furthermore, female coaches at Cedar Creek and Elgin Middle Schools had a mean score of 2.3. The data shows for training and instruction, male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School had a mean score of 2.2. This data also reveals that between male and female coaches at Bastrop Middle School, Cedar Creek Middle School, and Elgin Middle School, female and male coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School and female coaches at Elgin Middle School have a high regard for the dimensions of training and instruction behavior style of leadership.

In discussing the fourth research question, the data reveals a statistically significant difference among male and female coaches at the three respective middle schools for this study. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test show that for autocratic behavior, there was a statistically significant difference between Bastrop and Elgin middle schools. The data reveals that both male and female coaches at Elgin Middle School have a higher regard for the autocratic behavior style of leadership in their daily interaction with their athletes.

The second statistically significant difference among male and female coaches at the middle schools was for the dimension of training and instruction between Cedar Creek and Elgin middle schools. This data reveals the training and instruction behavior style of leadership is the style preferred by male and female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School. The third statistically significant difference was for the dimension of positive feedback among male and female coaches at Cedar Creek, and Elgin Middle Schools. The data indicates that male and female coaches at Cedar Creek Middle School have a high regard for the positive feedback behavior style of leadership when interacting with their athletes.

Recommendations

The author of this study makes the following recommendations for further research. First, further research is needed on the leadership behavior styles used by coaches in athletics today and the effect these behavior styles have on athletes. Future research should focus on how the various leadership styles contribute to a successful and winning athletic team. The second recommendation is for future researchers to focus the study on male and female athletes who participate in middle school interscholastic athletics and then conduct another study high school interscholastic athletics in the same school district during their senior year to determine if there was a change in their preferred behavior style of leadership. In addition, if there is a change, research should examine the factors behind the change from middle school to high school intercollegiate athletic programs. The third recommendation is to have other researchers conduct the same study at middle school intercollegiate athletic programs in other school districts, and then compare the school districts results to determine if there is difference between school districts. The last recommendation concerns the methodology used in this study. Future studies should allow for participation from all subjects, regardless of whether or not they participated in athletics during their seventh grade year or more then one sport during their eight grade year.

Finally, it is important to note that a factor that contributed to the researcher’s success in this study was having a strong relationship with the head coaches at the middle schools used in the study. This made it very easy to collect the data. The coaches had an interest in this study and were eager to find out the results.

It is the goal of this study that coaches consider the data in this study and use it to improve on the leadership behavior styles they use in their daily interaction with athletes. Researchers should pursue additional studies on this topic and coaches should look into this and similar studies to improve their interaction with athletes in interscholastic middle school athletic programs.

References

Beam, J., Serwatka, T., & Wilson. J. (2004). Preferred Leadership of NCAA Division I and II Intercollegiate Student-Athletes. Journal of Sports Behavior 27(1) 14-18.

Case, B. (1987). Leadership Behavior in Sport: A Field Test of the Situational Leadership Theory. International Journal Sport Psychology (18), 256-268.

Case. R. (1984). Leadership in Sport. The Situational Leadership Theory. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and Sports Performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1521-1534.

Chelladuari, P., & Carron, A. V. (1983). Athletic Maturity and Preferred Leadership. Journal of Sport Psychology (5), 371-380.

Chelladurai, P. (1981). The Coach as Motivator and Chameleon of Leadership Styles. Social Psychology.

Chelladurai, P., & Harold A. R. (1995). Leadership and Satisfaction in Athletics. Journal of Sports & Exercise Psychology (17), 276 – 293.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1978). Preferred Leadership In Sports. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 3(2), 85-92.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of Leader Behavior in Sports; Development of a Leadership Scale. Journal of Sport Psychology (2), 34-45.

Corlett.J, & Weese. J. W. (1993). Coaches as Leaders and Culture Builders. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 93-108.

Feldman, N., & Cakebread, C. (2004). Good Coach or Good Leader. Soccer Journal, 49(2), 29-31.

Frisco, J. D. (1991). The Coach as a Leader. Harold, A. R; & Packianathan, C. (1995). Leadership and Satisfaction in Athletics. Journal of Sports & Exercise Psychology (17), 276 – 293.

Harold, A., R., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Leadership and Satisfaction in Athletics. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology (17), 276-293.

Horne, T., & Carron, V. A. (1985). Compatibility in Coach-Athlete Relationships. Journal of Sport Psychology (7), 137-149.

Jambor, E. A; & Zhang, J. J. (1997). Investigating leadership, Gender, And Coaching Level Using the Revised Leadership for Sports Scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(3), 313 – 322.

Jones, B. J., Wells, J. L., Peters, E. R., & Johnson, J. D. (1982). Guide To Effective Coaching Principles & Practice (2nd ed.). Newton, Massachusetts: Allen and Bacon.

Laios, A., Theodaorakis, N., & Gargalinaos, D. (2003). Leadership and Power: Two Important Factors for Effective Coaching. International Sports Journal, 7(1), 150-154.

Mannie, K. (2005). Tough Love is in Effect Here. Perspectives on Coaching and Leadership. Coach & Athletic Journal, 74(10).

Reimer H.A., & Chelladurai, P. (1995). Leadership and Satisfaction in Athletics. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 276-293.

Sage, G. (1973). The Coach as Management: Organizational Leadership in American Sport. National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education, 19, 35-40.

Straub, F. W. (Ed.). (1978). Sport Psychology an Analysis of Athlete Behavior. Syracuse, NY: Movement Publications.

Sullivan, J. P., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching Efficacy as a Predictor of Leadership. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(1), 1-11.

Vos Strache, C. (1979). Players’ Perceptions of Leadership Qualities for Coaches. Research Quarterly, 50(4), 679-686.

Weese, A., Maclean, J.; & Corlett, J. (1993). Coaches as Leaders and culture Builders. The Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Journal, 93-108.

2013-11-25T19:24:46-06:00April 8th, 2010|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on An Analysis of Leadership Qualities That Influence Male and Female Athletes in Middle School Interscholastic Team Sports
Read More
Go to Top