Should team coaches care about justice? Perceived justice mediates the relation between coaches’ autonomy support and athletes’ satisfaction and self-rated progression
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2021
Should team coaches care about justice? Perceived justice mediates the relation between coaches’ autonomy support and athletes’ satisfaction and self-rated progression
In contrast to the many studies in the business setting, few sport scientists have studied the predictors of athletes’ perception of justice. The present research aimed to determine the role of the interpersonal style of coaches (autonomy support) in enhancing perceived justice and its impact on satisfaction and performance. More precisely, two independent studies examined whether perceived justice mediated the relation between autonomy support on the one hand and athletes’ satisfaction and their self-rated progression on the other hand. In Study 1, female team dancers (N = 145) completed questionnaires assessing autonomy support, justice, and satisfaction. In Study 2, male handball players (N = 102) completed the same questionnaire extended with self-rated progression. Structural equation modeling revealed a positive link between athletes’ perceived autonomy support of the coach and perceived justice. Subsequently, procedural-interactional justice predicted higher levels of satisfaction and self-rated progression, while a significant indirect effect was found from autonomy support to satisfaction. Measurement and path invariance tests showed that the measurement scales and structural models were invariant across both samples. These findings signify the importance of autonomy support and perceived justice to optimize team athletes’ satisfaction and consequently their progression.
GreenbergJ.Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. J Manag1990;
16: 399–432.
2.
Cohen-CharashYSpectorPE.The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process2001;
86: 278–321.
3.
KimSAndrewDPS.Relationships between organizational justice and coaches’ attitudinal outcomes in intercollegiate sports. Int J Sports Sci Coa2015;
10: 305–326.
4.
WhisenantW.Organizational justice and commitment in interscholastic sports. Sport Educ Soc2005;
10: 343–357.
5.
De BackerMBoenFCeuxT, et al.
Do perceived justice and need support of the coach predict team identification and cohesion? Testing their relative importance among top volleyball and handball players in Belgium and Norway. Psychol Sport Exerc2011;
12: 192–201.
6.
De BackerMBoenFDe CuyperB, et al.
A team fares well with a fair coach: predictors of social loafing in interactive female sport teams. Scand J Med Sci Sports2015;
25: 897–908.
7.
BrayDCWhaleyDE.Team cohesion, effort, and objective individual performance of high school basketball players. Sport Psychol2001;
15: 260–275.
8.
JordanJSGillentineJAHuntBP.The influence of fairness: the application of organizational justice in a team sport setting. Int Sports J2004;
8: 139–149.
9.
KaramEPHuJDavisonRB, et al.
Illuminating the ‘face’ of justice: a meta-analytic examination of leadership and organizational justice. J Manag Stud2019;
56: 134–171.
10.
KimSAndrewDPS.Organizational justice in intercollegiate athletics: perceptions of coaches. Sport Manag Rev2013;
16: 200–210.
11.
ColquittJAGreenbergJ.Organizational justice: a fair assessment of the state of the literature. In: GreenbergJ (ed) Organizational behavior: the state of the science. 2nd ed.
Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, pp. 165–210.
12.
DeciELRyanRM.The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq2000;
11: 227–268.
AdieJWDudaJLNtoumanisN.Autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the optimal functioning of adult male and female sport participants: a test of basic needs theory. Motiv Emot2008;
32: 189–199.
15.
AdieJWDudaJLNtoumanisN.Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: a longitudinal investigation. Psychol Sport Exerc2012;
13: 51–59.
16.
GreenbergJLindEA.The pursuit of organizational justice: from conceptualization to implication to application. In CooperCLLockeEA (eds) I/O psychology: what we know about theory and practice.
Oxford:
Blackwell, 2000, pp. 72–105.
17.
ThibautJWalkerL.Procedural justice: a psychological analysis.
Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1975.
18.
BladerSLTylerTR.Relational models of procedural justice. In: CropanzanoRAmbroseM (eds) The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace.
New York:
Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 351–370.
19.
TylerTRBladerSL.Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement.
New York:
Psychology Press, 2000.
20.
LindEAKanferREarleyPC.Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. J Pers Soc Psychol1990;
59: 952–959.
21.
AdamsJS.Inequity in social exchange. In BerkowitzB (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology.
New York:
Academic Press, 1965, pp. 267–299.
22.
HoltzBCHaroldCM.Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investigation of overall justice perceptions. J Appl Psychol2009;
94: 1185–1199.
23.
LindEA.Fairness heuristic theory: justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In GreenbergJ (ed) Advances in organizational justice.
Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2001, pp. 56–88.
24.
van KnippenbergDDe CremerDvan KnippenbergB.Leadership and fairness: the state of the art. Eur J Work Organ Psychol2007;
16: 113–140.
25.
SalancikGRPfefferJ.A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm Sci Q1978;
23: 224–253.
26.
TepperBJ.Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad Manag J2000;
43: 178–190.
DeConinckJBStilwellCD.Incorporating organizational justice, role states, pay satisfaction and supervisor satisfaction in a model of turnover intentions. J Bus Res2004;
57: 225–231.
29.
ChelladuraiPRiemerHA.A classification of facets of athlete satisfaction. J Sport Manag1997;
11: 133–159.
30.
LorimerR.Coaches’ satisfaction with their athletic partnerships. Int J Coach Sci2009;
3: 57–66.
31.
LindEATylerTR.The social psychology of procedural justice. 1st ed.
New York:
Plenum, 1988, p. 267.
32.
HendrixWHRobbinsTMillerJ, et al.
Effects of procedural and distributive justice on factors predictive of turnover. J Soc Behav Pers1998;
13: 611–632.
33.
LavelleJJRuppDEBrocknerJ.Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model. J Manag2007;
33: 841–866.
34.
GilletNGagnéMSauvagèreS, et al.
The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions. Eur J Work Organ Psychol2013;
22: 450–460.
35.
BelmontMSkinnerEWellbornJ, et al. Teacher as social context: a measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement, structure, and autonomy support. Technical report no. 102.
Rochester:
University of Rochester, 1988.
36.
SierensEVansteenkisteMGoossensL, et al.
The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. Br J Educ Psychol2009;
79: 57–68.
37.
ColquittJA.On the dimensionality of organizational justice: construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol2001;
86: 386–400.
38.
RiemerHAChelladuraiP.Development of the athlete satisfaction questionnaire (ASQ). J Sport Exerc Psychol1998;
20: 127–156.
39.
KlineRB.Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed.
New York:
The Guilford Press, 2011, p. 428.
40.
HuLBentlerPM.Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model1999;
6: 1–55.
41.
BrownTA.Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed.
New York:
The Guildford Press, 2015, p. 462.
42.
NgJYNtoumanisNThøgersen-NtoumaniC.Autonomy support and control in weight management: what important others do and say matters. BR J Health Psychol2014;
19: 540–552.
43.
HayesAF.
Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun Monogr2009;
76: 408–420.
44.
HayesAFPreacherKJMyersTA.Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In: BucyEPHolbertRL (eds) The sourcebook for political communication research: methods, measures, and analytical techniques.
New York:
Routledge, 2011, pp. 434–465.
45.
CropanzanoRPreharCAChenPY.Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group Organ Manag2002;
27: 324–351.
46.
WayneSJShoreLMLidenRC.Perceived organizational support and leader member exchange: a social exchange perspective. Acad Manag J1997;
40: 82–111.
47.
GreenbergJ.The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: CropanzanoR (ed) Justice in the workplace: approaching fairness in human resource management.
Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993, pp. 79–103.
48.
WalumbwaFOCropanzanoRHartnellCA.Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: a test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. J Organiz Behav2009;
30: 1103–1126.
49.
WangXLiaoJXiaD, et al.
The impact of organizational justice on work performance: mediating effects of organizational commitment and leader-member exchange. Int J Manpower2010;
31: 660–677.
50.
WilliamsS.The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. The J Psychol1999;
133: 183–193.
51.
GilletNVallerandRJAmouraS, et al.
Influence of coaches’ autonomy support on athletes' motivation and sport performance: a test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychol Sport Exerc2010;
11: 155–161.
52.
ByrneBM.Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road less traveled. Struct Equ Model2004;
11: 272–300.
53.
ByrneBM.Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming.
New York:
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2010.
54.
Van PuyenbroeckSStoutenJVande BroekG.Coaching is teamwork! the role of need‐supportive coaching and the motivational climate in stimulating proactivity in volleyball teams. Scand J Med Sci Sports2018;
28: 319–328.
PutnickDLBornsteinMH.Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Dev Rev2016;
41: 71–90.
57.
Vande BroekGBoenFClaessensM, et al.
Comparison of three instructional approaches to enhance tactical knowledge in volleyball among university students. J Teach Phys Educ2011;
30: 375–392.
58.
McFarlinDBSweeneyPD.Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. AMJ1992;
35: 626–637. doi.org/10.5465/256489.
59.
ReinbothMDudaJLNtoumanisN.Dimensions of coaching behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motiv Emot2004;
28: 297–313.
60.
De MuynckGJSoenensBWaterschootJ, et al.
Towards a more refined insight in the critical motivating features of choice: an experimental study among recreational rope skippers. Psychol Sport Exerc2019;
45: 101561.
61.
DelrueJReyndersBVande BroekG, et al.
Adopting a helicopter-perspective towards motivating and demotivating coaching: a circumplex approach. Psychol Sport Exerc2019;
40: 110–126.
62.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al.
Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol2003;
88: 879–903.
