Collegiate coaches: an examination of motivational style and its relationship to decision making and personality.

Not a great deal is known about psychological characteristics of NCAA, Division I and II coaches. Most of the knowledge related to motivation, personality and behavior of college coaches is gleaned from observation and anecdotal evidence. Because Division I, male, basketball and football coaches have such high profiles, we often ascribe to all coaches motivations and personality characteristics exhibited by these coaches. Is this indeed an accurate way to describe coaches? The following research presents a theoretically driven assessment measure of coaching motivation with corresponding reliability and validity estimates of this scale. Motivation style is then related to decision making and personality characteristics of Division I and II, collegiate coaches.

Coaching Motivation

What factors drive coaches to be in their chosen profession? Theoretical work in the domain of social psychology has examined female coaching motivation as well as attrition (Hart, Hasbrook & Mathes, 1986; Stevens & Weiss, 1991). In Stevens and Weiss' work, female coaches identified motivators which led them to coaching or kept them in the field. These motivators included: the pleasure or enjoyment associated with working with athletes and the fun of coaching. Weiss, Barber, Sisley and Ebbeck (1991) followed up on this earlier work with new female coaches. They found a number of motivators present in their sample, including coaching skill development, the satisfaction of working with athletes, the fun of coaching and the social support present in the coaching milieu. Unfortunately, neither of these studies addressed male coaching motives.

Other researchers have focused their attention on coaches and their behaviors, although not in a motivational sense. Smith, Smoll and Hunt (1977) created a coaching behavior assessment system that identifies spontaneous and reactive behaviors present in coaches as they direct practices and competitions. Chelladurai and associates (Chelladurai, 1990; Chelladurai & Carron, 1977; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978) have also studied coaching behaviors and how athletes perceive their relationships with coaches. In Chelladurai's Multidimensional Theory of Coaching Behavior importance is placed upon the match between actual coaching behaviors, preferred coaching behaviors and behavior prescribed by the sport and the institution. Results of research using the Multidimensional Theory have primarily shown which leadership behaviors athletes prefer and how these relate to sport factors, such as performance and satisfaction.

Studies of coaching behavior, drawn from models in business, have tried to place coaching styles on a continuum from identifying those coaches with a people orientation to those whose focus is more task-oriented (Fiedler & Chemers, 1974; Fiedler, Chemers & Mahar, 1977; Danielson, 1977). This perspective certainly provides useful and important information about what coaches do and how athletes perceive their coaches. However, no research was found that addresses a fundamental issue surrounding coaching behavior namely what is the motivational attitude which drives coaches within their chosen profession? Thus, research in the domain of coaching motivation in both men and women, at a college level, is warranted.

Motivation in Sport

In the domain of sport, studies with athletes have attempted to create measures which distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for athletics (Frederick & Ryan, 1993; Goudas, Biddle & Fox, 1994). Using a theoretically derived measure of motivation based in Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), Frederick and Ryan identified five components of participation motivation, which included dimensions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In Self-Determination Theory, emphasis is placed upon the distinction between behaviors driven intrinsically, for the inherently derived motives of interest, fun, enjoyment and challenge, and for those driven extrinsically by factors such as reward, material gain or external pressure. Overall, theoretical work using this theory has shown that greater autonomy, satisfaction, adherence and performance outcomes are associated with an intrinsic style of motivation in sport and other domains, such as education and work (Deci, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 1985). In sport and fitness domains, intrinsic motives related to a greater amount of participation in sports, as well as to positive mental health characteristics, such as lower depression, higher self-esteem levels and greater perceived vitality (Frederick & Ryan, 1993). Thus, intrinsic motivation appears to influence fundamentally satisfying aspects of self and personality.

Goudas, Biddle and Fox (1994) also presented a scale based in Self-Determination Theory which identified varying levels of internalization for sport participation. The Goudas et al. scale presents a way to measure motivations for sport activities ranging from purely extrinsic, labeled an external level of control to more internalized, though still extrinsically created motivation, such as interjected and identified motivation. Notably, all extrinsic-type motives, whether externally forced or relatively self-motivating, are associated with greater feelings of pressure and control, and lowered task interest and enjoyment, as well as less personal challenge than intrinsically driven behaviors. In similar research, Frederick and Ryan (1993) found extrinsic motivation for sport to relate to negative personality traits, such as higher levels of anxiety and depression.

When motivation is discussed, it is described as the fundamental force and direction of behavior. It underlies other thoughts, emotions and behaviors in life. There is no reason to believe that motivation for coaching follows a different pattern than earlier work with athletes. Thus, motives and motivational styles in coaches should be related to other personality attributes coaches possess, as well as to how they go about behaving within the coaching environment.

The Present Study

The present study presents and provides reliability and validity information for a coaching motivation scale. This scale was created using Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) as the theoretical basis for understanding and measuring motivation in coaches. As a result, particular emphasis is placed upon distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of coaching motives. Global motivational styles, intrinsic and extrinsic, were derived from combining individual intrinsic and extrinsic coaching motives. Using these styles, it was predicted that motivational style would be related to aspects of coaching personality and decision making styles.

Consistent with the results of earlier research relating motivation to personality and behavior in sport (Frederick & Ryan, 1993; Goudas, Biddle & Fox, 1994), the present study predicted that coaches with high intrinsic-low extrinsic motives would show a more autonomous decision-making style, as well as show higher scores on the positive personality characteristics of warmth, liveliness, and openness to change. High extrinsic-low intrinsic coaches were predicted to have higher scores on controlling decision making style and negative personality characteristics associated with extrinsic motivation, such as higher dominance, rule-consciousness, vigilance, tension and apprehension 

Method

Subjects

Participants in the present study were 137 NCAA, Division I and II collegiate coaches, 53 women and 84 men. The mean age of the male coaches was 45 years and they had an average of 21 years coaching experience. Men reported spending an average of seven years as an assistant coach, 15 years as head coach, and 10 years in their present position. The mean overall coaching record for the men was a 62% victory rate. For the women, an average of 14 years coaching experience was reported with 3 years spent as assistant coach, 10 years spent as a head coach and 7 years in their present positions. The women coaches' overall win record was 57%. Overall, the sample consisted of 16 football coaches, 30 men's and women's basketball coaches, 17 baseball coaches, 17 softball coaches, 30 men's and women's track/cross-country coaches and 23 women's volleyball coaches. Sport coached was not specified in four cases.

Measures

Demographics. Information was collected about age, sex, division coached, years of head coaching experience, years of assistant coaching experience, years in present position, win-loss record and sport coached.

Personality Measure. All subjects were asked to complete the Cattell 16PF questionnaire, a widely used measure of sixteen aspects of personality (Cattell, Cattell & Cattell, 1994). The 16PF, an 185 forced choice questionnaire, measures the following aspects of personality: warmth, reasoning, emotional stability, dominance, liveliness, rule-consciousness, social boldness, sensitivity, vigilance, abstractedness, privateness, apprehension, openness to change, self-reliance, perfectionism and tension. The 16PF has a mean two week test-retest reliability coefficient of .87, with two month test-retest reliability of .78. Internal consistency coefficients range from a low of .64 for the openness to change factor to a high of .85 for social boldness, with a mean Cronbach alpha of .74 (Russell & Karol, 1994). The 16PF has been shown to have criterion validity through its correlation with related personality measures such as self-esteem and creativity.

Coaching Motivation. A measure of coaching motivation was developed specifically for this study. A 21-item list of possible coaching motives was compiled and subjects were asked to endorse each motive as to how true it was for them. Subjects responded to each motive on a seven point Likert scale with 1 = not at all true for me to 7 = very true for me. All scale items were subjected to a principal components factor analysis with the result that five individual coaching motives were found to be assessed by the scale. In order of strength, these factors were: intrinsic, extrinsic, social, growth and education and professional relations. The intrinsic factor indicated to what extent coaching is engaged in due to fun or enjoyment motives. The extrinsic factor reflects a motivational style which focuses on external rewards for coaching such as high salary or good benefits. The social factor illustrated a desire to interact with athletes and establish positive social relations. The growth and education factor shows a drive to continue to learn and educate oneself in the field of coaching. The professional relations factor is a desire to establish professional contacts with other coaches and trainers. Each subscale was created by taking a mean of all items which fell on that factor. A mean score was used due to the unequal numbers of items in each factor. The results of the principal components factor analysis, with factor loadings, percentage of variance predicted and Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for each type of motive are presented in Table 1. Correlations among subscale factors are presented in Table 2.

Four motivational styles for coaches were created using only the intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions. Using median splits, each coach was identified as either high versus low intrinsic [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] and high versus low extrinsic. These median split scores were then combined to create four profiles: low intrinsic-low extrinsic, low intrinsic-high extrinsic, high intrinsic-low extrinsic, and high intrinsic-high extrinsic. Justification for allowing for intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for coaching to exist within the same individual has been presented in earlier work with individuals' participation motives for sport and exercise (Frederick & Ryan, 1993). Competing motives exist for nearly all behaviors although the value and level of such motives may vary across individual. What may be important in predicting coaching behaviors via motivation is the relative contribution of intrinsic and extrinsic motives to the coaching style. The results of the median split showed that 21 men and 11 women were low intrinsic-low extrinsic in style. Seventeen men and 6 women were low intrinsic-high extrinsic. Fourteen men and 15 women were high intrinsic-low extrinsic, and 27 men and 15 women were high intrinsic-high extrinsic in style.

Table 2

Correlations Among Factors of the Coaching Motivation Scale

            Intrinsic   Extrinsic   Social   Growth   Pro. Relations

Intrinsic                  .08      .26(+)   .36(+)      .24(+)
Extrinsic                  .02               .22(*)      .23(+)
Social                                       .28(+)      .28(+)
Growth                                                   .27(+)

* p [less than] .05; + p [less than] .01

Decision-Making Styles for Coaches. A measure was created for use in the present study which assessed three types of behavioral decision-making styles predicted to be important in coaching, drawing from earlier work in motivation and personality (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci, 1980). The three styles measured were autonomous, controlling and impersonal styles of decision making. An autonomous style of decision making involves collecting information from others' who are affected by the decision and considering their viewpoints in making decisions. A controlling style is characterized by using arbitrary personal authority in making decisions. An impersonal style defers authority and decision making to past precedent and involves indecisiveness in making choices. Four scenarios were created reflecting typical sport leadership decisions, such as assigning rooms to players on road trips or making a decision to take a new coaching position. After each of these scenarios three responses were provided, reflecting autonomous, controlling and impersonal decision-making styles. Coaches were asked to endorse each response as to how likely they were to behave in that way. Responses were answered using a 7-point Likert scale system ranging from 1 = not at all like to me to 7 = very like me. All coaches were given scores on their levels of all three styles by summing their responses on all four scenarios by style, with a higher score reflecting greater use of that particular behavioral decision-making style.

Procedure

There was an initial selection of sports to represent both individual and team coaches. Sports chosen for study included: men's football, men's and women's basketball, baseball, softball, men's and women's track/cross country and women's volleyball. Twenty-five NCAA Division I and II schools which sponsored these sports were randomly selected to be in the sample. The 1993-1994 Blue Book of College Athletics (Athletic Publishing Company, 1993) was selected as the reference for institutions and the sports they sponsored. The athletic directors (AD's) at these institutions were then called and permission was sought to send a package of surveys to the athletic office to be distributed to individual coaches. If an athletic department did not feel it could participate, another university was selected to be surveyed, The initial survey packages were sent to the cooperating institutions in the spring of 1995. This was followed in July by a letter requesting those who had not completed the survey to please complete the survey and return it. In September of 1995, another complete survey package was sent to all those who had not responded to the initial mailing or the follow-up letter. In total, 375 surveys were sent to coaches and 137 of those were returned for an overall response rate of 37%.

Results

Motives and Motivational Styles of Male and Female Coaches and Division I Versus II Coaches

Male and female coaches showed their highest individual motive to be intrinsic followed in order by personal growth and education, social motives, professional relations and extrinsic motives. T-tests were used to test for mean differences in motives across sex and division. No significant differences were found between men and women coaches in motives or for coaches at Division I or II levels. Mean scores for all motivation subscales for both men and women are provided in Table 3.

Using the median split variable of coaching motivation style, gender and division differences were also examined using chi-square analysis. As a result, no gender or division differences were found in coaching motivation style.

Table 3

Mean Motivation Scores for Women and Men on the Coaching Motivation
Scale

                             Women Coaches           Men Coaches
                           Mean     Sdt Error     Mean     Sdt Error

Intrinsic Motivation       6.26        .10         6.18       .08
Extrinsic Motivation       3.58        .16         3.80       .13
Social Motivation          5.33        .07         5.23       .06
Growth and Development     5.45        .13         5.29       .11
Professional Relations     4.73        .15         4.86       .12

Motivational Styles and Other Demographic Variables

Using analysis of variance procedures, coaching motivation style was unrelated to age, years of head coaching experience, years of assistant coaching experience, years in present position, or win-loss record. Chi-square analyses also indicated motivational style was unrelated to sport coached.

Relation of Motivational Style to Decision-Making in Sport Settings

Analysis of variance was used to test for differences in decision making by motivational style. Results showed that motivational style predicted differences in impersonal decision-making style, F(117,3) = 5.20, p [less than] .01, and also in autonomous decision making style, F(117,3) = 3.14, p [less than] .05. More specifically, post-hoc tests, using the Student's t, indicated coaches with a high extrinsic-low intrinsic style had a higher impersonal decision making style than coaches with any other motivational style. For autonomous decision-making style, coaches with a high intrinsic-low extrinsic style had significantly higher mean scores on autonomous decision making style, than coaches with a high extrinsic-low intrinsic style or coaches with a low intrinsic-low extrinsic style. Mean scores associated with these analyses are presented in Table 4.

Relation of Motivational Style to Personality Characteristics of Coaches

Of the sixteen personality traits measured, motivational style impacted upon three: warmth, privateness and tension. Analysis of variance with post-hoc, Student's t- tests showed that high intrinsic-low extrinsic coaches scored higher on warmth than did high extrinsic-low intrinsic or low intrinsic-low extrinsic coaches, F(116,3) = 3.07, p [less than] .05. Low intrinsic-low extrinsic coaches scored higher on privateness than did high intrinsic-low extrinsic coaches or high intrinsic-high extrinsic coaches, F(116,3) = 3.05, p [less than]. 05. Last, high extrinsic-low intrinsic coaches scored higher on tension than did any of the other three coaching groups, F (116,3) = 2.90, p [less than] .05. Means associated with these analyses are presented in Table 5.

Table 4

Differences in Decision Making Behavior by Motivational Style

Decision-Making         Motivational Style         Mean    Std Error
Style

Autonomous        Low intrinsic-Low extrinsic     22.77      .57
                  High extrinsic-Low intrinsic    22.43      .65
                  High intrinsic-Low extrinsic    24.85      .60
                  High intrinsic-High extrinsic   23.59      .49

Controlling       Low intrinsic-Low extrinsic     13.67      .78
                  High extrinsic-Low intrinsic    14.59      .91
                  High intrinsic-Low extrinsic    13.74      .82
                  High intrinsic-High extrinsic   14.66      .67

Impersonal        Low intrinsic-Low extrinsic      9.23      .55
                  High extrinsic-Low intrinsic    11.09      .62
                  High intrinsic-Low extrinsic     7.81      .58
                  High intrinsic-High extrinsic    8.73      .47

Discussion

This study began with the premise that motivation is the fundamental factor underlying energization and direction of behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Indeed, it is motivation by which all behavior begins and which contributes to thoughts, emotions and behaviors associated with any domain of activity. This study provides evidence for such an assumption. First, the present study presented and validated a scale designed to measure coaching motivation. Overall, coaches were found to show five different individual coaching motives: intrinsic, extrinsic, social, educational growth and professional relations. Second, coaching motivation was shown to relate to decision-making styles and personality traits of coaches. Results showed a high extrinsic-low intrinsic style related to an impersonal form of decision-making, exemplified by letting others make decisions which may be the coach's responsibility, or deferring to past precedents in making decisions which affect athletes. The high extrinsic-low intrinsic style was also related to a personality style characterized by higher tension and lower warmth than other coaching styles, as well as a high level of privateness. Overall, this style was shown by the fewest number of coaches, 23, however it was shared by a higher number of male than female coaches, 22% vs. 13% respectively.

On the other end of the motivational spectrum are those coaches with a predominantly high intrinsic style. These coaches favored an autonomous decision-making style which incorporated allowing athletes a say in decisions which affected them, and which emphasized information collection about issues before making a decision. High intrinsic-low extrinsic coaches had lower tension and privateness scores than other styles and showed the highest levels of warmth. This style was shared by 18% of the male coaches and 32% of the [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 5 OMITTED] female coaches.

Theoretically, the study of coaching motivation may be interesting, however the practical applications of such knowledge are also important. Coaches with a predominantly intrinsic style of coaching are those who coach with openness and warmth. On the other hand, predominantly extrinsic coaches exhibit high dominance, low warmth and ineffectiveness in decision making. The style of the coach will certainly impact on team climate and also on athlete satisfaction and performance. Thus, matching the style of the coach with the most appropriate type of athlete at the appropriate level of sport could prove fruitful in increasing long-term and satisfying sport participation in athletes.

For example, children's sports would likely benefit from a coach who has high warmth and who promotes learning and growth of the athletes by listening to their ideas and providing a role model for well-informed decision making. The coach ideally suited to this level of sport would then be a high intrinsic-low extrinsic style of coach.

If, however, emphasis within the sport environment is placed upon outcomes and goal attainment, a more dominant, energetic style of coach might be more appropriate. This type of coach would be found at professional and college levels of play. At these levels, a coach with some extrinsic characteristics could work well, although the present study indicated too much extrinsic motivation is associated with ineffectiveness in decision making ability.

With the intriguing findings of the present study and their potential applications in real-life sport settings, there is still a great deal of work to be done in understanding coaching motivation. Many related research questions deserve attention. Included in the list of future questions are: How do athletes perceive motivational styles of coaches and how is player satisfaction tied to these styles? Do certain types of athletes (e.g. men versus women, children versus adults) prefer and thrive under different motivational styles of coaches? Are coaches with particular motivational styles drawn to certain levels of coaching (e.g. high school versus college coaching) or to specific types of sports or athletes? These questions are all worthy of study and it is hoped that the scale presented in the present study will be of use in promoting research in the area of coaching motivation.

This study was supported by a grant from the Southern Utah University Center for Faculty Excellence. The authors would also like to thank Amanie Crosbie and Michael Semadeni for their help with this research.

References

Beazly, C. (1993). The blue book of college athletics. Montgomery AL: Athletic Publishing Company.

Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. (1994). 16PF: Fifth edition. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 328-354.

Chelladurai, P. & Carron, A. V. (1977). A reanalysis of formal structure in sport. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 2, 9-14.

Chelladurai, P. & Saleh, S. D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sports. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 3, 85-92.

Danielson, R. R. (1977). Leadership motivation and coaching classification as related to success in minor league hockey. In D. M. Landers and R. W. Christina (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport (Vol. 2). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Fiedler, F. E. & Chemers, M. M. (1974). Leadership and effective management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman and Company.

Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M. & Mahar, L. (1977). Improving leadership effectiveness - the leader match concept. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Frederick, C. M. & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Differences in motivation for sport and exercise and their relations with participation and mental health. Journal of Sport Behavior, 16, 124146.

Goudas, M., Biddle, S. & Fox, K. (1994). Perceived locus of causality, goal orientations and perceived competence in school physical education classes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 453-463.

Hart, B. A., Hasbrook, C. A. & Mathes, S. A. (1986). An examination of the reduction in the number of female interscholastic coaches. Research Quarterly, 57, 68-77.

Russell, M. & Karol, D. (1994). 16PF (5th edition): Administrators manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L. & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behavioral assessment of athletic coaches. Research Quarterly, 48, 401-407.

Stevens, C. & Weiss, M. R. (1991). Motivation and attrition of female coaches. Sport Psychologist, 7(3), 244-261.

Weiss, M. R., Barber, H., & Sisley, B. L. (1991). Developing competence and confidence in novice female coaches: Perceptions of ability and affective experiences following a season-long coaching internship. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 336363.