Leadership styles & Team effectiveness The influence of leadership styles on team effectiveness at professional football clubs

(1)

Leadership styles & Team effectiveness

The influence of leadership styles on team effectiveness at professional football clubs

Master Thesis, MscBA, Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty Economics & Business

(2)

Leadership Styles & Team Effectiveness

The influence of leadership styles on team effectiveness at professional football clubs

Jeroen Koers

University of Groningen

Abstract

However academic research has investigated many aspects of

leadership styles in combination with team effectiveness, there is still room for investigating the influence of different leadership styles and their effect on team effectiveness within professional football organisations. Especially, due to the lack of budget in professional football these days it is inevitable for clubs to search for other ways to improve team performance. Building on this notion, the present study empirically investigated the relation between

leadership styles and team effectiveness. In this research transactional

(4)

1. Introduction

Professional football has become big business these days. Professional

football clubs are directed as multinationals and the most important factor to achieve success is without a doubt the amount of money a club has on its bank account. However, the influence of the international crisis is present in this business as well. And just like business companies, professional football clubs have to search for alternatives to be competitive due to the lack of a decent bankroll. Besides measures as youth development and a good organizational structure for long term success, professional football clubs could appoint a good head coach who influences results positively on the short term (Westerbeek, 2006). Therefore, it could be very interesting for football clubs to have knowledge about the profile of a head coach who can achieve success.

Westerbeek (2006) describes in his book about leadership in sport and business the relationship between these two worlds. Obviously, there are many differences between sport and business organizations. First of all, according to Westerbeek (2006), sports have clearly a symbolic intensity and emotional dimension which is rare in most business organizations.

Furthermore sport creates passion and loyalty by their fans, which creates energy that is absent in most business organizations. However, because of the developing sports world, with increasing attention towards

(5)

Researchers and academic writers are very interested in the different

leadership styles within organizations. There has been a lot of research within this area of human resource management (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 1988, Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). However, surprisingly there is not much literature about leadership styles and their effect on performance in professional football. Jansen op de Haar (2006) describes in his survey the relationship of commitment, which he describes as a part of performance, with leadership behaviors at Dutch professional football clubs. Pruijn (1995) conducted a research about the relationship between

leadership styles and organizational effectiveness within Dutch sport organizations. Furthermore, there are some surveys that describe the relationship between leadership styles and performance in other sport sections, such as leadership and performance in athletics (Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Charbonneau, Barling & Kelloway, 2001), in college

football (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) and in Australian football (Borland & Lye, 1996). In these surveys the authors state that leadership behaviors within the different kinds of sport are related with performance or, as in their opinion, elements of performance such as commitment, job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.

(6)

Furthermore, it could be interesting to discover the relationship between these leadership styles and their influence on group effectiveness. The wide use of human resource initiatives implies that executives assume a link

between leadership skills and group effectiveness. Quast and Hazucha (1992) investigated the relationship between subordinates’ perceptions of their leaders’ management skills and their group effectiveness. Results of the survey suggest that a leadership style, especially a transformational leadership style, is important for team effectiveness. In business

organizations, leaders of a group do have an impact on the performance of their followers (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996). In these studies leadership behaviors are positively related with higher performance, greater organizational commitment and higher job satisfaction among employees of business organizations.

Without a doubt most of the surveys about leadership and group

effectiveness contain groups from business organizations (Quast & Hazucha, 1992; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). However, there are some surveys about sport organizations which contain information about the relationship between leadership styles and group effectiveness (Pruijn, 1995; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996). These studies have obtained conflicting results about the relationship between leadership behaviors and subordinates’ outcome

variables such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment or

(7)

is a significant relationship between job satisfaction, team effectiveness and extra effort in combination with transformational leadership.

Because of the evolving football environment it could be very interesting for shareholders, board members and managers of a professional football club to conduct a research about the influence of the leadership style of the football clubs head coaches and its relation with effectiveness. Therefore the

following research question could be developed:

Which leadership style can make professional football teams most effective?

(8)

2. Theory Section

To get a clear overview of the possible influences of leadership styles on team effectiveness at professional football clubs, this section will elaborate on definitions and terms about leadership styles and team effectiveness used in academic literature. First of all, the definitions and terms that were used in the introduction section will be explained further. Within this chapter the literature will be used as a funnel, starting with general literature, elaborated towards literature from the sport business and ending with explanations linked with professional football.

2.1 Leadership styles

There are many surveys about leadership and their effect on team effectiveness (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass & Hater, 1988; Avolio & Jung, 1999; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). The view about leadership styles in the survey of Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) is one of the first studies about leadership styles and therefore important to begin with. These styles were the foundation of the styles developed by Bass (1985). With this model the whole literature about leadership styles can be better understood. The researchers developed a model about leadership styles correlated with the power of employees. Within this model three different leadership styles are central.

1. Autocratic style; This style is also called the authoritarian style, because this is the style leaders use when they tell their employees they want to get something done and how they want to accomplish it. The decisions are made without consultation.

2. Democratic style; within this style the leader involves employees to

(9)

trusting and respecting your employees, often used when employees are skillful.

3. Laissez faire; It literally means noninterference in the affair of others. The leader minimizes his involvement in decision making. This style works well in environments with highly skilled employees and no requirement for central coordination.

It is important for a leader to look at the qualities of his employees. When the leader or the management has the most knowledge or skills to perform a task or job there will be a more autocratic style. On the other hand, when the employees have the ability and knowledge to perform well, there will be a more democratic and laissez faire style. However, a good leader possesses the ability to switch between the styles when the situation asks for it (Lewin, Lippitt & White, 1939).

Another important overview of leadership styles was developed by Likert (1967). In his research he distinguished four main styles of leadership, in particular around decision making and the degree to which people are involved in the decision. These styles are familiar with the styles of Bass (1985) and therefore important to discuss.

1. Exploitive authoritative

In this style the leader has not much concern for his employees and uses methods like threats and other fear-based methods to achieve goals.

2. Benevolent authoritative

This form is almost the same as the exploitive authoritative, but with more personal concern for employees. The leader now uses rewards instead of threats to achieve the goals.

(10)

In this style the information comes from downwards. Employees are allowed to think about the process; however decisions are still centrally made.

4. Participative

In this style the leader makes use of the information all the employees throughout the organization possess. Also the people lower down the organization are allowed to participate in decision making.

More recently, Goleman (2000) described six styles of leadership that have different emotions on the employees. In his survey he makes the point that a leadership style is not a function of personality, but a strategic choice. In this survey self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and skill are the most important strengths for a good leader. He distinguishes six different styles of leadership each make use of these characteristics. In his view, the best leaders don’t know just one style of leadership. The best leader is skilled in several styles and has the ability to switch between these styles as the circumstances dictate. The different leadership styles Goleman (2000) elaborates are:

1. Coercive style; (Do what I say approach) Can be very effective in

problem situations, but normally this style decreases employee motivation.

2. Authoritative style; (Come with me approach) Looks at the overall

goal, but gives employees freedom to choose their own ways of achieving it.

3. Affiliative style; (People come first approach) Building team harmony,

but have to be careful not to incorrect poor performance.

4. Democratic style; (Worker voice approach) Empower employees to

(11)

5. Pacesetting style; The leader sets high performance standards, which is good for self-motivated employees, but less skilled employees could be overwhelmed.

6. Coaching style; the focus is on personal development. This style works

well when employees are aware of their weaknesses and want to improve these.

Many studies use the leadership styles developed in 1985 by Bernard Bass (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Yammarino, 1990; Podsakoff et all., 1990; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Jung & Avolio, 1999; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). These

leadership styles, transactional leadership, transformational leadership and with less, passive leadership, are also in this study the manual for further research. Although, the theory of the other authors is important to

understand what leadership style is, the theory of Bass is leading. These styles have been used in previous research in leadership surveys within sports (Jansen op de Haar, 2006; Pruijn, 1995) and are therefore important in this survey as well. Furthermore, the theory of Bass was chosen because his types of leadership style are relatively easy to measure.

2.1.1. Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership is defined as a ‘telling style’. Transactional

(12)

Hater & Bass (1988) differentiated two different forms of transactional leadership, according to the level of engagement of the leader with his followers. First there is the contingent reward leadership. In this style, the leader and the employee decide what rewards or recognition the employee will receive for a specific level of performance. Rewards, recognition or both are provided when the employee achieves the decided level of performance. Howell and Hall-Meranda (1999) found in their study that the contingent style has a positive effect on individual performance. The second type Bass (1985) developed, is the management-by-exception style. This style is working on the principle that when employees achieve their normal performance it does not need attention. Performance which is above expectation receives praise and reward, while performance below expectations needs corrective action. In the survey of Howell and Hall-Meranda, this style has obtained mixes results about the individual performance.

(13)

2.1.2. Transformational Leadership

In comparison with transactional leadership, Bass (1985) described

transformational leadership. This style is more a ‘selling’ style. Employees often want to follow a person who inspires them. A transformational leader is a leader with vision and passion who can achieve great performance. The way transformational leaders get things done is by injecting enthusiasm and energy. The relationship between employees and a transformational leader is based more on trust and commitment than on contractual agreements (Jung & Avolio, 1999). Working with a transformational leader can create a good relationship between employees and manager. Transformational leader work with passion and energy, care about the employees and want them to

succeed. Furthermore, transformational leaders gain influence by demonstrating important personal characteristics. Some of these

characteristics are self-confidence and dominance (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).

Transformational leadership starts with the development of a vision, which will excite the employees. In the next step, the transformational leader is constantly ‘selling’ the vision to the employees. This step takes energy and commitment. Therefore the transformational leader must take every

opportunity to convince the employees to point their heads in the same direction. In this step creating trust is very important. In parallel with selling the vision is seeking the way forward. The transformation will accept in this process that failures are made, but as long as they feel progress is made they will be happy. Finally, transformational leaders are always visible. They show by their attitudes and actions how everyone else should behave.

Furthermore they continually try to motivate their employees (Bass & Avolio, 1993).

(14)

1. Idealized influence; this is about building confidence and trust and providing a role that employees motivates to compete. Leaders are “admired, respected and trusted” (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003). The leader is charismatic and sees what is really important.

2. Inspirational motivation; this phase is related to idealized influence, but where idealized influence is more towards motivating individuals, inspirational motivation is about motivating the entire organization. Leaders encourage followers to become part of the organizational culture and environment. This is often achieved by motivational speeches and conversations, displaying optimism and enthusiasm, stimulating teamwork and highlighting positive outcomes.

3. Intellectual stimulation; intellectual stimulation involves arousing and changing employees’ awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems. Transformational leaders try to encourage employees to be innovative and creative in this phase. They empower employees by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment in case of mistakes.

4. Individualized consideration; in this phase it is important that leaders coach their employees to their specific needs. Employees are treated individually and differently on the basis of their talents and knowledge. This is stimulated by the intention of the leader to allow the employees to reach a higher level of achievement than might otherwise have been achieved. This takes place with word of thanks, praise, fair workload distributions and mentoring.

Hall et. all. (2002) describe that these four main dimensions of

(15)

Kirkpatrick & Locke (1996) investigated that over 35 studies have reported positive relations between transformational leadership and employee performance.

2.1.3 Passive/Avoidant Leadership

The Passive/Avoidant leadership style can be distinguished in two categories; laissez-faire and management-by-exception (Bass, 1985). Laissez-faire is the same style as described by Lewin et. all in 1939. These type of leaders avoid decision making, hesitate in taking actions and are absent when needed in responding to urgent questions. As described before this laissez-faire style is similar to the management-by-exception style described by Bass. In this style leaders wait for things to go wrong before they take action. Both types of leadership styles have negative impacts on followers (Bass & Avolio, 2005).

2.2 Team effectiveness

According to Chelladurai (1987), team effectiveness is one of the most complex and controversial issues in management. The idea behind team effectiveness is that a group of people working together can achieve more than if the individuals of the team are working on their own. (Chelladurai, 1987). It is, however, impossible to provide one single definition of team effectiveness, because this term covers more than one item. Many

researchers have tried to develop the general measures of team

effectiveness (Mahoney, 1967; Molnar & Rogers, 1976; Cameron, 1981; Driskell et all, 1987; Quast & Hazucha, 1992). Because there are many disagreements in this area of research, there are many models of team effectiveness.

(16)

denote the capability of the team and the process that the team undertakes. However the level of performance can be unrepresentative of how effective the team is (Henderson & Walkinshaw, 2002). On the other hand a team can be effective without performing well. From the perspective of Henderson and Walkinshaw (2002) effectiveness pertains specifically to the accomplishment of goals and objectives. In contrast, performance pertains more closely to how well the tasks and teamwork is carried out.

Cameron (1981) used the goal model as important feature in investigating team effectiveness. The model is used to measure the teams’ effectiveness as the extent to which a team achieves the goals it has set. For example, the ranking of AFC Ajax in the national and European competitions would

represent the effectiveness of the team. However, Cameron also describes a weakness of this system, because a team can be effective in other

components than the goals were set. For example, Ajax scores the most goals and concede least, but does not win a title. Furthermore, it is possible that goals are set either too high or too low which make it not realistic to use this approach.

Another approach by Cameron (1981) is the process model. In this model the main purpose is to let internal processes run smoothly. However, an

organization can be highly effective despite of negative internal influences. On the other hand it is also possible to achieve bad results with a team that has smooth running internal processes. For example, AFC Ajax plays very attractive, but does not win any prizes because of bad luck.

Chelladurai (1987) and Driskell (1987) are mentioning the multiple

constituency model. This model is used to emphasize a team depends on its environment. In this model there are three important aspects; input,

throughput and output. The input reflects the team’s potential for

(17)

potential that must lead to the actual effectiveness is the function of the team process. In other words, the factors that team members do not bring into the group, but which emerge out of group interaction.

Hackman (1983) created the normative model of team effectiveness. He supposes that an effective team must have:

1. A clear, engaging direction.

2. An enabling performance situation (sufficient knowledge and skills to

accomplish the tasks).

3. Good team design (team composition must be correct).

4. Supportive organizational context (reward, education and information

systems).

5. Expert coaching and process assistance.

Another important aspect of team effectiveness is that a team goes through particular different life cycles. According to Tuckman (1965) and Chelladurai (1987) teams go through stages before they perform well. Tuckman (1965) describes five distinctive stages groups pass on their way to becoming an effective team.

1. Forming; team members are reserved and polite to make a good first

impression. Conflicts are avoided at all costs.

2. Storming; differences in opinion are more common and are expressed

more. Team members compete for positions, challenge goals and resist task requirements.

3. Norming; a sense of renewed optimism as the team begins to feel a

sense of team identity.

4. Performing; reaching this stage is largely dependent upon the

(18)

According to Tuckman (1965) a team at the performing stage can either return to the forming stage as group membership, leadership or the teams’ purposes are changing. Or the team can go to stage 5:

5. Adjourning; this stage is typically related to the end of a project team. This stage involves the disbandment of the team, termination of roles and completion of tasks.

2.3 Relationship between leadership and team effectiveness

The purpose of good leadership is, according to Pruijn (1995), to let people achieve goals. Achieving goals can be interpreted here as being effective. If goals are achieved, effectiveness is realized, if effectiveness is minimized, goals are not reached. According to Pruijn (1995) in many instances it is possible to determine that a leadership style had a significant influence on the success or failure of a team. Pruijn adds a major contribution in this thesis; because in his own thesis he investigated the influence of leadership styles on team effectiveness at Dutch sport organizations. Therefore, many theoretical implications can be used for further investigation in this thesis. Moreover, because Pruijn also used transactional and transformational leadership styles as most important styles in his thesis. However, more authors have reported on leadership styles and team effectiveness. Those reports will be discussed in this section.

According to De Vries (1993) there is evidence that leadership styles do have an effect on team effectiveness. However besides the influence of a particular leadership style, situational characteristics, which may include the leaders’ authority, the relation between the leader and the member, the type and nature of the work, and followers’ behavior also affect team effectiveness (Duygulu & Ciraklar, 2008). Furthermore in their study about team

(19)

They argue that a leadership style is very important in helping the team to clarify, define and manage a goal.

Cameron (1986) concluded in his survey that Dutch National Sport

organizations run by proactive managers, with a transformational leadership style are more effective than organizations with transactional leaders. This is almost the same conclusion as Howell and Higgins (1990) in their study about leaders in Canadian organizations. The most effective teams had transformational leaders, which displayed greater achievement, risk taking, innovativeness and persuasiveness than transactional leaders. Furthermore, similar findings were presented by DeLuga (1988). He investigated that transformational leaders would have a more positive effect on the

effectiveness of the team. All these studies provide a strong support for an existing relationship between leadership styles and team effectiveness.

In sport, the connection between leadership and team effectiveness has been made rarely. Chelladurai (1987) investigated some areas of sport in

combination with leadership and team effectiveness. In this survey National Sport Organizations in Canada were approached to conduct research.

Chelladurai concluded that input and throughput affect team effectiveness in these organizations.

Pratt and Eitzen (1989) found that in high school basketball teams, authoritarian and more democratic coaches are equally effective. Branch (1990), found that leaders who use a combination of leadership styles are the most effective within athletics.

Pruijn (1995) concluded in his survey about leadership and team

effectiveness in sport organizations that there is only partial support for the influence on team effectiveness with either a transformational or

(20)

1990) which stated that transformational leadership affected team

effectiveness outcomes to a greater degree than transactional leadership.

In his study, Pruijn did not find a clear relationship of transformational leadership to team effectiveness. This in contrast with the other studies mentioned above. Therefore, Pruijn concludes that a transformational

leadership style is not necessarily more successful than less transformational or transactional leadership styles.

Another interesting conclusion form the survey of Pruijn (1995), is that when team performance and maturity is increased leaders feel more confident to use a more transformational leadership style. Furthermore, Pruijn mentioned the theory of Bass & Yammarino (1991) which stated that the discrepancy between self-rating and perceptions of others about the leadership style is smaller when leaders are more successful. However, this finding was not supported in the study of Pruijn (1995).

In conclusion, many surveys conducted a positive relationship between

(21)

3. Method Section

In this section the methods are explained of how the data was gathered and the way this data was dealt with thereafter. This section is an evidence of the scientific way the research was conducted. The research was conducted by taking questionnaires from professional football players about their head coaches’ leadership styles and the team effectiveness compared with

questionnaires from the head coaches about the same subjects. Furthermore, to measure team effectiveness, an overview is given of the ranking of the teams compared with the financial budgets of the clubs.

3.1. Participants

Data for this study was gathered from 99 professional football players and their coaches. Research was conducted at 9 different Dutch professional football clubs, from both Eredivisie and Jupiler League, in order to explore the leadership style of their head coach and the team effectiveness. The research was conducted with both players and coaches, to get an impression about possible differences in judging the leadership style. All of the

participants are males. The professional football players had an age between 18 and 36 years old. The head coaches were between 38 and 53 years old. Most of the teams had an average of 10 players who participated in this survey.

3.2. Procedure

During the period March 2011 and July 2011, 99 professional football players and 9 coaches have filled in the questionnaire. Very important is that all the questionnaires were filled in anonymously to secure confidentiality.

(22)

clubs with help of my network. I know the goalkeeper of Veendam personally and the press officer of Heerenveen was a former classmate of mine. So to get these results was relatively easy. However, it was harder to get in contact with other clubs, because they get a lot of request from students, fans and journalists for cooperation. For some results I called the press officer and sent the questionnaires by email. The press officer conducted the questionnaires and sent them back by email. However, there were also some clubs that did not want to cooperate. Therefore, I decided to go to the

training ground from, for example, Groningen and Zwolle and just asked the players to cooperate. Unfortunately, it was not possible to contact all of the 38 professional football clubs. One of the reasons was that it would have cost a lot of time to visit all the clubs.

An important feature of the questionnaire was that it was based on the work of Bass and Avolio (2003). To assess the leadership style of the head coach, factors of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire were used. This measure was used, because it is the most commonly used measure of leadership. (Bass & Avolio, 2005) It shows strong validity and reliability. All the questions were translated to Dutch, because the research was only

conducted at Dutch clubs. However, because of the variety of nationalities within the Dutch Football competitions, also English questionnaires were used optionally.

(23)

3.3. Measures and Data Analysis

First of all, the players were asked to fill in some personal questions about their age, nationality, club, competition and years at the club. With these questions was investigated if there were relationships with these factors and the leadership style and/or team effectiveness. After that, questions about the leadership style and team effectiveness were asked. The questions about the leadership styles were based on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. This MLQ was chosen, because it is used in several surveys about leadership styles before (Bass & Avolio, 2003; van den Akker, 2010). The questions about team effectiveness were based on the questions from the survey of Pruijn (1995). These questions were chosen because Pruijn had completed a survey about team effectiveness at Dutch sport organizations. The complete questionnaire is attached in the appendix.

All the questions were based on a 5-point Likert scale, exactly the same that was used in a previous research (van den Akker, 2010). In the first part of the questionnaire were 11 statements in relation with transformational leadership. For example, I/My trainer display(s) a sense of power and confidence, and I/My trainer talk(s) optimistic about the future. These questions were followed by 6 statements about transactional leadership. For example, I/My trainer keep(s) track of all mistakes, and I/My trainer make(s) clear what I/My players can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved. Also statements about the passive/avoidant leadership style were enclosed. For example, I/My trainer am/is often absent when I am/he is needed, and I/My trainer avoid(s) making decisions. The final part of the statements about leadership contains some success factors in order to measure the perceived success of the head coaches. For example, I/My trainer get my players/me do more than I they’re/am expected to do.

(24)

Pruijn (1995). This part contains questions like; our team is willing to try new ideas, there is little conflict between team members, people in the team enjoy working with each other and power and information are shared fairly in the group.

(25)

4. Results

This section gives a general description of the results of the questionnaires conducted at professional football clubs in order to analyze the leadership style of the head coach and the effectiveness of the team. Furthermore, the relationship between a leadership style of a professional football coach and the team effectiveness will be elaborated. All results are visualized in table 1 – 6 and described extensively. Table 1 & 2 describe the different leadership styles of the head coaches perceived by the head coach in table 1 and the players in table 2.

In the results only a score ≥3.0 were considered as legitimate, same as in the survey of van den Akker (2010). However when a leader scores on two styles an average of ≥3.0 the executive uses both leadership styles.

4.1 Description of results

The results of the questionnaires conducted explain to what degree coaches and their players perceive a certain leadership behavior towards their

(26)

Table 1: Interview results related to the norm (coaches)

Leadership Styles Number of Coaches Mean Score on Leadership Style (Only)Transformational 0 0 (Only)Transactional 0 0 (Both)Transformational & Transactional 9 3,70 Passive/Avoidant 0 0 Below Norm 0 0 Total Coaches 9

Table 2: Interview results related to the norm (players)

Leadership Styles Number of Coaches Mean Score on Leadership Style (Only)Transformational 2 3,62 (Only)Transactional 0 0 (Both)Transformational & Transactional 7 3,45 Passive/Avoidant 0 0 Below Norm 0 0 Total Coaches 9

(27)

4.2.1 First indication of results

To get a first impression of the results, the concepts of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, passive/avoidant leadership and team effectiveness are connected with use of the Pearson correlation test. The outcomes of this test are presented in table 3 and 4. These tables show also the mean and standard deviation of the concepts. The correlation is based on a one-tailed test.

Table 3: correlations between the different concepts (Coaches)

(28)

Table 4: correlations between the different concepts (Players) Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Transformational Leadership 3,590 ,381 1 2. Transactional Leadership 3,297 ,478 ,284(**) 1 3.Passive/Avoidant Leadership 2,438 ,386 ,128 ,346(**) 1 4. Success factors 3,609 ,489 ,164 ,329(**) ,198(*) 1 5. Team Effectiveness 3,684 ,290 ,372(**) ,275(**) ,192(*) ,390(*) 1 N = 99 players (**) = Significance level of 0,01 (*) = Significance level of 0,05

Table 3 shows that only the transformational leadership style correlates significantly positively with the success factors. On the other hand, table 4 shows that from the players’ point of view, transactional leadership

significantly correlates with transformational leadership. Furthermore, transactional leadership correlates also positively with the passive/avoidant leadership style and success factors. Interesting is that team effectiveness correlates significantly with all three leadership styles, including the success factors. However, this table shows that the correlation between team

(29)

Table 5: correlations between different concepts (players) Trans formational Trans actional Passive/ Avoidant Success factors Team Effectiveness 1. Age ,016 -,056 -,042 ,026 ,056 2. Nationality -,081 -,062 -,177(*) -,083 -,055 3. Competition ,164 ,427(**) ,383(**) ,344(**) ,164 4. Years at the club ,087 ,076 -,004 -,058 ,063 N=99 players (**) = significance level of 0,01 (*) = significance level of 0,05

Table 5 shows the correlation between the personal factors with the different leadership styles and team effectiveness. The importance of this table is that it is interesting to see that there is a positive correlation between the

competition level of the players and the different leadership styles.

4.2.2. In-depth look of results

In this paragraph the research question will be answered with help from regression analysis. First of all, the concept of transformational leadership will be linked to team effectiveness. Furthermore, the same analysis is made for transactional leadership and the combination of transformational and transactional leadership. The analysis of passive/avoidant leadership is excluded because there was no significant relationship between this

(30)

Table 6: Regression analysis on team effectiveness B Std. Error R F Value 1. Transformational Leadership ,282 ,072 ,372 15,295 2. Transactional Leadership ,167 ,060 ,275 7,755 3. Transformational & Transactional Leadership ,300 ,104 ,322 8,318

The graph above presents the relationship between the different leadership styles with a significant relation towards team effectiveness. When a coach scores higher on a transformational leadership style, team effectiveness will rise. Furthermore this is the same for a transactional leadership style.

In the appendix are three figures which represent the outcomes of the regression analysis. Goal of the analysis was to found out if team

(31)

5. Discussion & Conclusion

In this final chapter the results of the previous section were concluded. Furthermore, some recommendations and limitations of this survey were discussed. It is interesting for future research to focus on some aspects that could be investigated further.

The goal of the present study was to investigate a possible relationship between leadership styles and team effectiveness at professional football organizations. In paragraph 4.2.1 it was, with help of the correlation analysis, concluded that there was a significant relationship between team effectiveness and the different leadership styles. However, this was only the outcome of the players’ questionnaires. There was no significant relationship between these factors from the coaches’ questionnaires. Perhaps, because the amount of coaches interviewed was insufficient.

In table 1 & 2 was presented that all of the 9 head coaches see themselves as coaches with both transformational and transactional skills. However, from the players’ perspective only 7 out of 9 coaches had both transformational and transactional skills. The other 2 coaches had only a transformational leadership style. It can be concluded that head coaches of Dutch professional football clubs make use of both transformational and transactional leadership styles. However, most coaches display more transformational behavior. According to Bass (1985), the lack of use of transactional leadership can be explained possibly by for example time pressure, poor appraisal methods and lack of skill or confidence.

(32)

League and therefore coaches are more transactional than coaches in the Jupiler League, because coaches in the Eredivisie want to control the team more. However, this is an interesting topic for further investigation.

Finally, from the figures 1, 2 and 3 was concluded that team effectiveness is greater when the level of transactional skills, transformational skills and both transactional and transformational skills are higher. This is very interesting, because in previous research about leadership styles this was not always the case (Cameron, 1986; DeLuga, 1988; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Pruijn, 1995). We can say that when a coach explores more transactional as well as

transformational skills the team will be more effective. For general managers at football clubs it is thus wise to screen a new coach on his leadership skills. A coach with both transactional and transformational skills is than favorable.

An overall conclusion of this survey is that Dutch professional coaches must possess transactional as well as transformational skills to increase team effectiveness. This conclusion is in line with the theory of Goleman (2000). As Goleman described in his research, the best leaders don’t know just one style of leadership. The best leader is skilled in several styles and has the ability to switch between these styles as the circumstances dictate.

In the previous study, it is concluded that professional football coaches make use of both transactional and transformational leadership styles. The other leadership style, passive/avoidant leadership is not applied by any head coach. These results are consistent with the findings of Bass (1985) and Pruijn (1995). Furthermore, the adoption of the combination of leadership styles is not surprising either.

(33)

that age indirectly influences coaches’ behavior within a team. When a team is younger, a coach shows more transactional behavior, when, on the other hand, teams are older, a coach shows more transformational behavior (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). This could be an interesting topic for further research.

However, some limitations should be considered carefully when interpreting the findings. First of all, there are only significant results for player

questionnaires. Therefore, for further research a greater amount of questionnaires for coaches is preferred. With more results from coach’s questionnaires, significant results could be given. Coaches could see

themselves as totally different leaders than their players do. Unfortunately, interviewing a significant amount of professional football coaches was not an option, because it would have cost a lot of time. Moreover, not all the teams wanted to participate in the survey. Therefore, for further research it could be interesting to compare significant results between players and coaches. In this future research can be concluded if there is difference between coaches and players perception about the leadership style of the coach.

(34)

also be a difference between good working leadership styles between these divisions.

Furthermore, in this study was chosen to work without hypotheses. One could see this as a limitation, because hypotheses could have given the thesis more depth. However, to keep this thesis clear, there was chosen to concentrate on answering the research question, without using hypotheses. Moreover, in future research hypothesis can be used to focus on some side aspect that can influence team effectiveness. For example, concentrate on different situational characteristics or other measures of effectiveness.

(35)

Reference List

• Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B.M. 1988. Transformational Leadership,

Charisma and Beyond. Emerging Leadership Vistas

• Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond

expectations. New York: The Free Press

• Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J., 1993. Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M.M. Chemers and R. Ayman (Eds.),

Leadership Theory and Research: perspectives and directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

• Bass, B.M., & Hater, J.J., 1988. Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 73: 695-702

• Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I., Avolio B.J., & Berson, Y., 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional

leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2: 207-218.

• Borland, J., & Lye, J. 1996. Matching and mobility in the market for Australian Rules football coaches. Industrial and Labor relations review, 50: 143-158

• Branch, D., 1990. Athletic director leader behavior as a predictor of

intercollegiate athletic organizational effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 4: 161-173

• Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row

• Cameron, K.S., 1981. Domains of organizational effectiveness in

colleges and universities. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 25-47

• Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, K. 2001. Transformational

(36)

• Chelladurai, P., 1987. Multidimensionality and multiple perspectives of organizational effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 1: 37-47

• Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. 1980. Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership style. Journal of sports psychology, 2: 34-45

• DeLuga, R.J., 1988. Relationship of transformational and transactional

leadership with employee influencing strategies. Group & Organization studies, 13: 456-467

• De Vries, K., 1993. Understanding the leader strategy interface:

Application of the strategic relationship interview method. Human Relations, 46: 5-22

• Doherty, A.J. & Danylchuk, K.E. 1996. Transformational and

transactional leadership in interuniversity athletics management. Journal of Sports Management, 10: 292-309

• Driskell, J.E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E., 1987. Personality and group

performance. In C. Hendrick, Group processes and intergroup relations: 91-112

• Duygulu, E., & Ciraklar, N., 2008. Team effectiveness and

Leadership roles. MPRA Paper, University of Munich.

• Goleman, D., 2000. Leadership that gets results. Harvard business

review, 2-18.

• Hackman, J.R., 1986. The psychology of self-management in

organizations. In M.S. Pallack and R.O. Perloff. Psychology and work: productivity, change and employment: 89-136

• Henderson, S., & Walkinshaw, O., 2002. Command team assessment:

Principles, guidance and observations. Unpublished report. QinetiQ, Fort Halstead.

• Howell, J.M., & Higgins, C.A., 1990. Champions of technological innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35: 317-341 • Howell, J.M., & Hall-Merenda, K.E., 1999. The ties that bind: the

(37)

leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 680-694.

• Jansen op de Haar, T. 2006. Teambinding in het Nederlands

Betaald Voetbal. Groningen

• Jung, D.I., & Avolio, B.J., 1999. Effects of leadership style and

followers’ cultural orientation on performance in groups and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 208-218.

• Kirkpatrick, S., & Locke, E., 1996. Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 36-51

• Kuhnert, R., & Lewis, P., 1987. Transactional and transformational

leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12: 648–657.

• Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K., 1939. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates." Journal of Social Psychology, 10: 271-299.

• Likert, R., 1967. The human organization: Its management and

value, New York: McGraw-Hill

• Mahoney, T.A., 1967. Managerial perceptions of organizational

effectiveness. Management Science, 14: 76-91

• Molnar, J.J, & Rogers, D.L., 1976. Organizational Effectiveness: an empirical comparison of the goal and system resource approaches. Sociological Quarterly, 17: 401-413

• Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L., 2000. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 11: 766-788.

• Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Bommer, W., 1996. Transformational

(38)

• Pratt, S.R., & Eitzen, D.S., 1989. Contrasting leadership styles and organizational effectiveness: the case of athletic teams. Social Science Quarterly, 70: 311-322.

• Pruijn, G. 1995. The relationship of transactional and

transformational leadership to the organizational effectiveness of Dutch national sport organizations. Windsor

• Quast, L., & Hazucha, J. 1992. The relationship between leaders’

management skills and their groups’ effectiveness. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership. Center for Creative Leadership: Greensboro, NC, 200-212

• Tuckman, B.W., 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups.

Psychological bulletin, 63: 384-389

• Westerbeek, H. 2006. Leiderschap in sport en business.

Nieuwegein: Arke Sports Media BV

• Yammarino, F.J., & Bass, B.M. 1990. Transformational leadership and

multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43: 975-995

• Yukl, G. 1994. Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

(39)

Appendix I

Questionnaire

This questionnaire is to describe the leadership style of the head coach as you can perceive it. Furthermore, there are questions about the effectiveness of the team. If a question is irrelevant or you don’t know the answer, you can leave the question blank. Please judge how frequently each statement fits you.

The following rate scale is used:

Not at all Once in a

while

Sometimes Fairly often Frequently, if

not always 1 2 3 4 5 Club ………. Age ………. Nationality ………. Competition ……….

Years at the club ……….

Leadership

My trainer talks optimistic about the future

My trainer spends time teaching and coaching and helps me to develop my strengths

My trainer acts in ways that build respect from me My trainer displays a sense of power and confidence

My trainer talks about his most important values and beliefs My trainer specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose

My trainer talks enthusiastic about what needs to be accomplished

My trainer articulates a compelling vision of the future

My trainer re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate

My trainer suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments

(40)

My trainer provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts

My trainer discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets

My trainer concentrates with full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures

My trainer keeps track of all mistakes

My trainer makes clear what I can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved

My trainer expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations My trainer waits for things to go wrong before taking action My trainer avoids getting involved when important issues arise My trainer delays to respond to urgent questions

My trainer demonstrates that problems must become chronic before he takes action

My trainer fails to interfere until problems become serious My trainer avoids taking decisions

My trainer shows that he is a club believer in “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”.

My trainer is often absent when he is needed My trainer works with others in a satisfactory way My trainer get me do more than I’m expected to do My trainer increases my willingness to try harder

(41)

Team Effectiveness

Our team is willing to try new ideas

Our team is able to respond to externally imposed changes in strategy

Our team has a high level of personnel competences and skills Within our team is a lack of complaints and grievances

There is little conflict between members of your team Team philosophy, strategy are understood by all members Team philosophy, strategy are accepted by all members There is coordination of activities with other team members There is cooperation of activities with other team members There is a free flow of communication with other team members There is initiation of improvements in work methods and strategy There is goal communality, commitment and feelings of

belonging to the team

There is individual willingness to work at accomplishing goals The team is willing to take risks, seeks ways to improve, and capitalizes on opportunities

People in the team enjoy working with each other Team members do their fair share of the work The team works “like a well-oiled machine”

The team members take shared responsibility for getting things done

(42)

Appendix II

Questionnaire

This questionnaire is to describe your leadership style as you can perceive it. Furthermore, there are questions about team effectiveness. If a question is irrelevant or you don’t know the answer, you can leave the question blank. Please judge how frequently each statement fits you.

The following rate scale is used:

Not at all Once in a

while

Sometimes Fairly often Frequently, if

not always 1 2 3 4 5 Club ………. Age ………. Nationality ………. Competition ……….

Years at the club ……….

Leadership

I talk optimistic about the future

I spend time teaching and coaching and help my players to develop their strengths

I act in ways that build others’ respect from me I display a sense of power and confidence

I talk about my most important values and beliefs

I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose I talk enthusiastic about what needs to be accomplished I articulate a compelling vision of the future

I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate

(43)

I provide my players with assistance in exchange for their efforts I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving

performance targets

I concentrate with full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures

I keep track of all mistakes

I make clear what my players can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved

I express satisfaction when my players meet expectations I wait for things to go wrong before taking action

I avoid getting involved when important issues arise I delay to respond to urgent questions

I demonstrate that problems must become chronic before I take action

I fail to interfere until problems become serious I avoid taking decisions

I show that I am a club believer in “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”. I am often absent when I am needed

I work with others in a satisfactory way

I get my player to do more than they are expected to do I increase my players willingness to try harder

(44)

Team Effectiveness

Our team is willing to try new ideas

Our team is able to respond to externally imposed changes in strategy

Our team has a high level of personnel competences and skills Within our team is a lack of complaints and grievances

There is little conflict between members of our team Team philosophy, strategy are understood by all members Team philosophy, strategy are accepted by all members There is coordination of activities with other team members There is cooperation of activities with other team members There is a free flow of communication with other team members There is initiation of improvements in work methods and strategy There is goal communality, commitment and feelings of

belonging to the team

There is individual willingness to work at accomplishing goals The team is willing to take risks, seeks ways to improve, and capitalizes on opportunities

People in the team enjoy working with each other Team members do their fair share of the work The team works “like a well-oiled machine”

The team members take shared responsibility for getting things done

(45)

Appendix III

Table 7: Budget & League table ranking

Club Budget Competition League table

ranking

Head coach

De Graafschap € 9.600.000 Eredivisie 14 Darije Kalezic

FC Groningen €17.250.000 Eredivisie 5 Pieter Huistra

SC Heerenveen €26.000.000 Eredivisie 12 Ron Jans

Heracles Almelo € 9.000.000 Eredivisie 8 Peter Bosz

FC Utrecht €16.500.000 Eredivisie 9 Ton du Chatinier

BV Veendam € 2.100.000 Jupiler League 4 Joop Gall

FC Emmen € 3.200.000 Jupiler League 13 Rene Hake

FC Zwolle € 3.800.000 Jupiler League 2 Art Langeler

SC Cambuur € 4.100.000 Jupiler League 5 Alfons Arts

Figure 1: Transformational Leadership & Team effectiveness (players)

(46)