The purpose of this study is to investigate how shared leadership, as perceived by players within a soccer team, influences teamwork execution and the state of flow. To achieve the objectives of this study, a purposive sampling method was employed, and soccer players registered with the Korea Football Association were selected as the research participants. Subsequently, data were collected using self-report surveys on shared leadership, teamwork execution, and flow state. Data from 415 participants were utilized for analysis, and data analysis was conducted using the SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 21.0 programs. Shared leadership was found to have a positive association with teamwork execution and the state of flow. Furthermore, the mediating effect of teamwork execution in the relationship between shared leadership and the state of flow was found to be significant. The results of this study emphasize the influence of leadership that is shared among team members rather than the effectiveness of individual leadership.
CsikszentmihalyiM. Applications of flow in human development and education. Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2014.
2.
SwannCKeeganRJPiggottD,et al.A systematic review of the experience, occurrence, and controllability of flow states in elite sport. Psychol Sport Exerc2012; 13: 807–819.
3.
CsikszentmihalyiM. Reflections on enjoyment. Perspect Biol Med1985; 28: 489–497.
4.
KwonS-H. The conceptualizaion of sport flow and the development of its measurement scale. PhD Thesis, Seoul National University, South Korea, 2008.
5.
NichollsARPolmanRCHoltNL. The effects of an individualized imagery interventions on flow states and golf performance. Athl Insight J2005; 7: 43–66.
6.
Van den HoutJJDavisOCWalraveB.The application of team flow theory. Flow experience: empirical research and applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 2016: 233–247.
7.
BakkerABOerlemansWDemeroutiE, et al.Flow and performance: a study among talented Dutch soccer players. Psychol Sport Exerc2011; 12: 442–450.
8.
BoydJMScharyDPWorthingtonAR,et al.An examination of the differences in flow between individual and team athletes. Phys Cult Sport Stud Res2018; 78: 33–40.
9.
ChavezEJ. Flow in sport: a study of college athletes. Imagin Cogn Pers2008; 28: 69–91.
10.
RussellWD. An examination of flow state occurrence in college athletes. J Sport Behav2001; 24: 83–107.
11.
TotterdellP. Catching moods and hitting runs: mood linkage and subjective performance in professional sport teams. J Appl Psychol2000; 85: 848–859.
12.
McGrathJE. Social psychology: A brief introduction. (No Title) 1964.
13.
MathieuJMaynardMTRappT,et al.Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J Manag2008; 34: 410–476.
14.
McEwanDBeauchampMR. Teamwork in sport: a theoretical and integrative review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol2014; 7: 229–250.
15.
RousseauVAubéCSavoieA. Teamwork behaviors: a review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Res2006; 37: 540–570.
16.
FransenKMcEwanDSarkarM. The impact of identity leadership on team functioning and well-being in team sport: is psychological safety the missing link?Psychol Sport Exerc2020; 51: 101763.
17.
McEwanDBeauchampMR. Teamwork training in sport: a pilot intervention study. J Appl Sport Psychol2020; 32: 220–236.
18.
McEwanD. The effects of perceived teamwork on emergent states and satisfaction with performance among team sport athletes. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol2020; 9: 1.
19.
CarronAVMartinLJLougheadTM. Teamwork and performance. In: The Oxford handbook of sport and performance psychology. UK: Oxford University Press, 2012.
20.
LePineJAPiccoloRFJacksonCL, et al.A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Pers Psychol2008; 61: 273–307.
21.
MarksMAMathieuJEZaccaroSJ. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manage Rev2001; 26: 356–376.
22.
McEwanDZumboBDEysMA,et al.The development and psychometric properties of the multidimensional assessment of teamwork in sport. J Sport Exerc Psychol2018; 40: 60–72.
23.
López-GajardoMALeoFMDíaz-GarcíaJ,et al.Reciprocal relationships between teamwork execution, emergent states, and perceived team performance: a longitudinal study. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. Epub ahead of print 29 Sep 2023: 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/1612197X.2023.2263863.
24.
AubéCRousseauVBrunelleE. Flow experience in teams: the role of shared leadership. J Occup Health Psychol2018; 23: 198–206.
25.
CarpenterPJCrattyBJ. Mental activity, dreams and performance in team sport athletes. Int J Sport Psychol1983; 14: 186–197.
26.
EcclesD. The coordination of labour in sports teams. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol2010; 3: 154–170.
27.
MarottoMRoosJVictorB. Collective virtuosity in organizations: a study of peak performance in an orchestra. J Manag Stud2007; 44: 388–413.
28.
WiegmannDAElBardissiAWDearaniJA, et al.Disruptions in surgical flow and their relationship to surgical errors: an exploratory investigation. J Surg2007; 142: 658–665.
29.
MathieuJAhearneMTaylorSR. A longitudinal cross-level model of leader and salesperson influences on sales force technology use and performance. J Appl Psychol2007; 92: 528–537.
30.
PearceCLSimsHPJr. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dyn2002; 6: 172–197.
FransenKVan PuyenbroeckSLougheadTM, et al.The art of athlete leadership: identifying high-quality athlete leadership at the individual and team level through social network analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol2015; 37: 274–290.
33.
DayDVGronnPSalasE. Leadership capacity in teams. Leadersh Q2004; 15: 857–880.
34.
HochJEPearceCLWelzelL. Is the most effective team leadership shared?J Pers Psychol2010; 9: 105–116.
35.
CarsonJBTeslukPEMarroneJA. Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Acad Manage J2007; 50: 1217–1234.
ParkS-HKwakM-S. Exploring shared leadership in sport team: leaders of sport team did not created in a social vacuum. Kor J Phy Edu2021; 60: 203–215.
38.
FransenKVanbeselaereNDe CuyperB, et al.The myth of the team captain as principal leader: extending the athlete leadership classification within sport teams. J Sports Sci2014; 32: 1389–1397.
39.
BoiesKLvinaEMartensML. Shared leadership and team performance in a business strategy simulation. J Pers Psychol2011; 9: 195–202.
40.
MathieuCNeumannCBabiakP,et al.Corporate psychopathy and the full-range leadership model. Assess2015; 22: 267–278.
41.
WangDWaldmanDAZhangZ. A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. J Appl Psychol2014; 99: 181–198.
42.
HoggMA. A social identity theory of leadership. Pers Soc Psychol Rev2001; 5: 184–200.
43.
HookerCCsikszentmihalyiM. Flow, creativity, and shared leadership. In: Shared leadership: reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications Inc, 2003, pp.217–234.
44.
CoxJFPearceCLPerryML. Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed influence in the innovation process: how shared leadership can enhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness. In: Shared leadership: reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications Inc, 2003, pp.48–76.
45.
FaulFErdfelderEBuchnerA,et al.Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods2009; 41: 1149–1160.
46.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci1992; 1: 98–101.
47.
LeeSKwonSAhnJ. The effect of modeling on self-efficacy and flow state of adolescent athletes through role models. Front Psychol2021; 12: 661557.
48.
AndersonJCGerbingDW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull1988; 103: 411.
49.
HuLTBentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling1999; 6: 1–55.
50.
KlineRB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications, 2023.
51.
PreacherKJKelleyK. Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychol Methods2011; 16: 93–115.
52.
HongE. Qualitative study of a Korean elite university soccer team from a vertical leadership and shared leadership perspective. Soccer Soc2023; 24: 208–222.
53.
FransenKDelvauxEMesquitaB,et al.The emergence of shared leadership in newly formed teams with an initial structure of vertical leadership: a longitudinal analysis. J Appl Behav Sci2018; 54: 140–170.
54.
YammarinoFJSalasESerbanA, et al.Collectivistic leadership approaches: putting the “we” in leadership science and practice. Ind Organ Psychol2012; 5: 382–402.
55.
HoggMAvan KnippenbergDRastDEIII. The social identity theory of leadership: theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. Eur Rev Soc Psychol2012; 23: 258–304.
56.
WalkerCJ. Experiencing flow: is doing it together better than doing it alone?J Posit Psychol2010; 5: 3–11.
57.
PearceCLCongerJA. All those years ago. In: Shared leadership: reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications Inc, 2003, pp.1–18.
58.
DaleJWeinbergRS. The relationship between coaches’ leadership style and burnout. Sport Psychol1989; 3: 1–13.
59.
GuzzoRASheaGP. Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In: Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1992, pp.269–313.
60.
Van den HoutJJ. Team flow: From concept to application. Vianen: Uitgeverij BOXPress, 2016.
61.
KahnRLWolfeDMQuinnRP, et al.Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 1964.
62.
SeongC-HChangY-NParkS-H. Characteristics of teamwork experience of badminton doubles players. Kor J Sport Psychol2023; 34: 25–36.
63.
JehnKAGreerLLevineS,et al.The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decis Negot2008; 17: 465–495.
64.
KleinKJKozlowskiSW. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Frnacisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000, pp.3–90.
65.
López-GajardoMALeoFMJackmanPC,et al.Teamwork execution and team resilience: a multistudy examination of reciprocal and longitudinal relationships. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol2023; 12: 106.
66.
KayeLK. Exploring flow experiences in cooperative digital gaming contexts. Comput Human Behav2016; 55: 286–291.
67.
Van der VegtGSEmansBJVan De VliertE. Patterns of interdependence in work teams: a two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Pers Psychol2001; 54: 51–69.
KidwellREJrBennettN. Employee propensity to withhold effort: a conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Acad Manage Rev1993; 18: 429–456.
70.
WisnerPSFeistHA. Does TEAMIN pay off?Strateg Finance2001; 82: 58.
71.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJ-Y,et al.Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol2003; 88: 879–903.
72.
MuthénBMuthénL. Mplus. In: Handbook of item response theory. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017, pp.507–518.
73.
PreacherKJZyphurMJZhangZ. A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychol Methods2010; 15: 209–233.
