ABSTRACT: This quantitative study sought to determine the relationship between high school coaches' leadership behaviors and their athletes' self-efficacy and grit. Specifically, this study sought to determine whether the training and instructions, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social support, or positive feedback of a coach impacted a student-athletes' self-efficacy and grit. This research also explored whether ethnicity and gender influenced perceptions. Survey data were collected from 378 former high school athletes from a public university in a rural areas in the southerner portion of the United States and 197 responded. Findings indicated that student-athletes' perceptions of their former high school coaches ' leadership behaviors did influence their self-efficacy and grit. In addition, the findings also indicated student-athletes' perceptions of coaches' leadership behaviors were also influenced by the students' ethnicity or gender. Implication for practice highlighted the importance of the student-athlete and coach relationship and how this relationship can impact student-athlete self-efficacy and grit.

Confidence (i.e., efficacy) plays a pivotal role in sport, whether it is athletes' confidence in themselves, their coaches, or in their collective group. Studies have shown that athletes' self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and collective efficacy beliefs lead to beneficial outcomes, such as enhanced performance, effort, and persistence. While athletes' perceptions of coach behaviors are associated with their efficacy beliefs, no known research has utilized observed coaching behaviors when exploring this relationship. The purpose of this study was to directly observe coaches and examine how their behaviors (i.e., instruction and feedback, positive and negative evaluation, autonomy support, and motivational climate) predict athletes' self-efficacy, other-efficacy, collective efficacy, and relation-inferred self-efficacy (RISE) beliefs. The sample consisted of three coaches, and 64 athletes from NCAA Division I and III sports. Teams included Division I Women's Soccer (n = 19), Division III Men's Lacrosse (n = 35), and Division III Football (n = 10). Coaches were recorded at a single practice, and their behaviors were coded using the Assessment of Coaching Tone observational coding system (Erickson and Cote, 2015). Athletes completed surveys measuring their self-efficacy, other-efficacy, collective efficacy, and RISE. Initial analyses showed that the coaches differed in behavior use. The football coach directed the most behaviors toward individuals, the soccer coach was the most autonomy supportive, and the lacrosse coach was the most mastery oriented. Furthermore, the football team reported higher self-efficacy than the soccer team, and higher collective efficacy than both the soccer and lacrosse teams. Multiple regression analyses revealed that none of the hypothesized coach behaviors were unique predictors of any forms of athlete efficacy beliefs. The findings contribute to existing literature on efficacy sources and provide directions for future research.

Throughout the sport and exercise psychology literature, one topic that has been given increased attention is the leadership of athletes. Prior work has focused on the coach as a primary source of leadership for athletes and how that leadership can affect various student-athlete outcomes (Coleman, 1961; Gould, Chung Smith, & White, 2006; Smoll & Smith, 1989, 2006). These investigations have provided a wealth of information regarding coaches' influence over athletes in a number of different domains, such as motivation (Eccles,1996; Jowett, 2008; MacLean, 2012; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003), persistence (Calvo et al., 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and performance (Gearity & Murray, 2011; Gillet, Vallerand, Amoura, & Baldes, 2010). Lacking the same depth of examination is the relationship between coaches and other educational leaders in an athlete's life that would provide much needed insight into their performance in an academic setting.More specifically, there is almost no research examining the relationships between coaches and teachers as they "co-lead" student-athletes. Given that teachers have been identified as one of the prime drivers of student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1997) and coaches have been identified as one of the critical influences on student behavior (Smith, Smoll & Cummings, 2009) the lack of empirical evidence for the leadership dyad of teacher-coach on student-athlete outcomes is unfortunate. Seizing the opportunity to advance our understanding of the relationship dynamics and ecology of leaders in the inner-city high schools (Khalifa, 2012) will provide a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of the environment being established for Minority student-athletes.If educators (teachers and coaches) are similarly connected by the common goal of producing a successful student-athlete, a careful examination of their relationships is clearly in order. In other words, if we can begin to understand what the leaders think about each other-which is undoubtedly related to the way they treat each other-then we start to gain further insight into the relational ecology within which the minority student-athlete flourishes or flounders (Khalifa, Dunbar, & Douglas, 2013). Therefore, the overarching goal of my dissertation work is to address this gap in the literature by investigating the mutual perceptions of and behaviors between teachers and coaches as a precursor to understanding minority student-athlete outcomes in inner-city environments.

Abstract: The study examined the relationships among collegiate female student-athlete' s (n = 400) satisfaction with coaching leadership as determined by scores on the Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980), emotional intelligence (EQ) of female (n 40) and male (n = 40) head coaches as measured by the BarOn EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), and efficacy as reported on a demographic questionnaire. No significant mean differences existed for athlete self-efficacy (p .21), perceived coaching efficacy (p .51), or for coach self-efficacy (p .35). A significant negative correlation (r = -.15, p .00) existed between satisfaction with Democratic Behavior and coach self-efficacy. Total EQ, Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Adaptability were significant (p .05) predictors of satisfaction with Democratic Behavior. A significant (r = .104, p .04) correlation existed between satisfaction with Autocratic Behavior and coach selfefficacy. A significant correlation (r = .114, p .02) was found between satisfaction with Social Support Behavior and athlete self-efficacy. Athlete self-efficacy was a significant (p .05) predictor of satisfaction with Social Support Behavior.

ABSTRACT: The researcher sought to compare the leadership styles and coaching behaviors of high school and collegiate head wrestling coaches, and the dynamic changes throughout the course of the wrestling season based on the perception of their student-athletes and the coaches' self-perceived leadership styles. The purpose of the current study was to compare the coaching behaviors and leadership styles of high school and Division III collegiate head wrestling coaches across three different points in time throughout the wrestling season (pre, mid, post). The Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport (CBS-S) was administered to high school and collegiate student-athletes three times throughout the season. The self-perceived version of the Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS) was administered one time to high school and collegiate head wrestling coaches. Qualitative measures in the form of one open-ended question was administered to student--athletes at each of the three time points throughout the season, and two open-ended questions were administered to the head wrestling coaches one time simultaneous to the LSS. Results of the LSS selfperceived version showed no significant main effects in leadership strategies between high school and collegiate head wrestling coaches. Significant differences throughout the course of the season were indicated on the CBS-S in the subscales of goal setting, positive rapport, physical training and conditioning, and mental preparation. Goal setting and positive rapport increased for both groups from the preseason to midseason, and then leveled off from the midseason to postseason. Physical training and conditioning, and mental preparation increased gradually throughout the season. Significant difference between groups existed on the CBS-S in the subscales of technical skills and competition strategies. Based on the perceptions of the student-athletes on the CBS-S scores, high school head coaches scored high on the subscales of technical skills and competition strategies when compared to collegiate coaches. The results of the open-ended questions indicated that according to the student-athlete perceptions, and self-perceptions of the head coaches, high school and collegiate head coaches displayed many similarities in some leadership and coaching behaviors, most notably training, technique and practices, but also had notable differences in leadership and coaching behaviors, most notably, individual instruction, support, tapering, management and organization, and recruiting and retention. Responses of open-ended questions as perceived by the student-athletes also indicated that difference in the dynamic changes throughout the course of the season occur between high school and collegiate wrestling coaches, most notably the amount of support provided to studentathletes and the usage of sport psychology strategies used.

Sport is a medium through which the leader can greatly influence the consequences. The purpose of this research was to examine the ways in which perceived coach leadership behaviors impact perceptions of coaching performance, individual athlete performance, team performance, and lifelong outcomes. In this study, two hundred seventy nine former student-athletes were asked to recall and report on the experiences they had as an athlete during high school along with specific lifelong outcomes (e.g., confidence, control etc.). Student judgment of their coaches' types of behavior, (e.g., Democratic vs. Autocratic) was compared with perceptions of their coach's performance, their individual performance, their team's performance and various lifelong outcomes. Results revealed that Training and Instruction, Social Support, and Positive Feedback were related to Coach Performance. Training and Instruction and Democratic Behaviors were related to Individual Athlete Performance. Training and Instruction and Positive Feedback were related to Team Performance. Social Support structures were related to Athlete Challenge. Training and Instruction was related to Athlete Confidence in Abilities and overall Lifelong Outcomes. Autocratic Behaviors were related to Athlete Control of Emotions. Training and Instruction was found to be related to every short-term performance component. Coaches seeking to impact performance of their teams can do so by utilizing these leadership behaviors. Many of these behaviors also have a long-term positive effect on the individual. Sport managers seeking to satisfy the goals of the organization may employ these leadership behaviors to select, train, and evaluate staff members to increase the overall effectiveness of the organization.