Consequences of leadership styles have become a noteworthy area of research for sport psychology researchers. However, there is scant research on the concept of authentic leadership. To date, research in sport has demonstrated that authentic leadership is associated with positive outcomes for athletes such as satisfaction, commitment, trust and perceptions of choice. In this study, we examined whether athletes’ perceptions of coach authentic leadership were associated with their commitment and enjoyment and whether trust in coach and perceived autonomy mediated these relationships. Participants were 435 athletes (female = 211) from team (e.g. football, hockey; n = 338) and individual sports (e.g. boxing, swimming; n = 97) who completed questionnaires about perceived authentic leadership of their coach, perceived autonomy and trust in their coach and their enjoyment and commitment. Structural equation modelling revealed that athletes’ perceptions of their coach authentic leadership were positively related to their enjoyment and commitment and these relationships were mediated by perceived autonomy and trust. The findings suggest that authentic leadership in coaches may facilitate enjoyment and commitment in athletes, and this may occur via autonomy and trust.
VellaSAOadesLGCrowe. Review: the application of coach leader ship models to coaching practice: current state and future directions. Int J Sports Sci and Coach2010; 5: 425–434.
2.
MortonJT. Leadership in sport, Abingdon: Routledge, 2016.
3.
WalumbwaFOAvolioBJGardnerWL, et al.Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. J Manage2008; 34: 89–126.
4.
Bandura CT, Kavussannu M and Stebbings J. Authentic leadership is related to satisfaction and commitment in athletes: the mediating role of perceived choice and trust. Paper presented at North American Society for Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–18 June 2016, NASPSA.
5.
Houchin G. Authentic leadership in team sports. Master’s Thesis, The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, USA, 2011.
6.
SağnakMKuruözM. Authentic leadership and altruism: the mediating role of meaningfulness. Univ J Educ Res2016; 5: 447–452.
7.
GardnerWLCogliserCCDavisM, et al.Authentic leadership: a review of the literature and research agenda. Leadersh Q2011; 22: 1120–1145.
8.
RegoASousaFMarquesC, et al.Hope and positive affect mediating the authentic leadership and creativity relationship. J Bus Res2014; 67: 200–210.
PengerSCerneM. Authentic leadership, employees’ job satisfaction, and work engagement: a hierarchical linear modelling approach. Eco Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja2014; 21: 508–526.
11.
EmuwaA. Authentic leadership: commitment to a supervisor, follower empowerment, and procedural justice climate. Emer Leadersh J2013; 6: 45–63.
12.
NormanSMAvolioBJLuthansF. The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. Leadersh Q2010; 21: 350–364.
13.
CarronAVBrawleyLRWidmeyerWNThe measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In: DudaJL (ed). Advancements in sport and exercise psychology measurement, Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology, 1998, pp. 213–226.
14.
ScanlanTKRussellDG, et al.Project on Elite Athlete Commitment (PEAK): II. A direct test and expansion of the Sport Commitment Model with elite amateur sportsmen. J Sport Exerc Psychol2003; 25: 377–401.
15.
ScanlanTKSimonsJPThe construct of sport enjoyment. In: RobertsGC (ed). Motivation in sport and exercise, Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1992, pp. 199–215.
16.
GatlingAKangHJAKimJS. The effects of authentic leadership and organizational commitment on turnover intention. Leadersh Org Dev J2016; 2: 181–199.
17.
DirksKT. Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA basketball. J Appl Psychol2000; 85: 1004–1012.
18.
Peus C, Wesche JS, Streicher, et al. (2012). Authentic leadership: an empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. J Bus Ethics 2012; 107: 331–348.
19.
DeciELRyanRM. Self-determination theory: a macro theory of human motivation, development, and health. Can Psychol2008; 49: 182–185.
20.
RyanRMDeciEL. A self-determination theory approach to psychotherapy: the motivational basis for effective change. Can Psychol2008; 49: 186–193.
21.
ReeveJNixGHammD. Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. J Educ Psychol2003; 95: 375–392.
22.
RoofR. Authentic leadership questionnaire (ALQ) psychometrics. Asian J Bus Ethics2014; 3: 57–64.
23.
McAllisterDJ. Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad Manage J1995; 38: 24–59.
24.
NgJYYLonsdaleCHodgeK. The Basic Needs Satisfaction in Sport Scale (BNSSS): instrument development and initial validity evidence. Psychol Sport Exerc2011; 12: 257–264.
25.
ScanlanTKCarpenterPJSchmidtGW, et al.An introduction to the Sport Commitment Model. J Sport Exerc Psychol1993; 15: 1–15.
26.
ScanlanTKCarpenterPJLobelM, et al.Sources of enjoyment for youth sport athletes. Pediatr Exerc Sci1993; 5: 275–285.
27.
Al-YaaribiAKavussanuMRingC. Consequences of prosocial and antisocial behavior for the recipient. Psychol of Sport Exerc2016; 26: 102–112.
28.
KlineRB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 4th ed. New York: Guildford Press, 2016.
29.
CohenJ. A power primer. Psychol Bull1992; 112: 155–159.
30.
BentlerPM. On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Pers Indiv Diff2007; 42: 815–824.
31.
Bentler PM. EQS 6.1 for Windows [Computer software]. Encino: Multivariate Software, 2003.
32.
MarshHWHauKWenZ. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct Equ Mod2004; 11: 320–341.
33.
KennyDAKaniskanBMcCoachDB. The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociol Methods Res2015; 44: 486–507.
34.
ByrneBM. Structural equation modeling with EQS: basic concepts, applications and programming, 2nd ed. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 2006.
35.
HofmannR. Establishing factor validity using variable reduction in confirmatory factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas1995; 55: 572–582.
36.
AndersonJCGerbingDW. Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull1988; 103: 411–423.
37.
PituchKAStevensJP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 6th ed. New York: Routledge, 2016.
38.
PreacherKJHayesAF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods2008; 40: 879–891.
39.
ShroutPEBolgerN. Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods2002; 7: 422–445.
40.
JowettSInterdependence analysis and the 3+1Cs in the coach–athlete relationship. In: JowettSLavalleeD (eds). Social psychology in sport, Champaign: Human Kinetics, 2007, pp. 15–27.
41.
JowettSNezlekJ. Relationship interdependence and satisfaction with important outcomes in coach-athlete dyads. J Soc Pers Relat2012; 29: 287–301.
42.
MacKinnonDPLockwoodCMHoffmanJM, et al.A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychol Methods2002; 7: 83–104.
43.
ScanlanTKChowGMSousaC, et al.The development of the Sport Commitment Questionnaire-2 (English version). Psychol Sport Exerc2016; 22: 233–246.
