THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COACH'S LEADERSHIP STYLES AND TEAM COHESION IN IRAN FOOTBALL CLUBS PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION (ARTIGO ORIGINAL)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
COACH'S LEADERSHIP STYLES AND
TEAM COHESION IN IRAN
FOOTBALL CLUBS PROFESSIONAL
LEAGUE

Rahim Ramzaninezhad & Misagh Hoseini Keshtan
Guilan University

Corresponding author:
Rahim Ramzaninezhad
rramzani@guilan.ac.ir
h.misagh@gmail.com
Fax:00981316690675
Tel:00981316690257

Submitted for publication: January 2009
Accepted for publication: March 2009

ABSTRACT
RAMZANINEZHAD, R.; KESHTAN M. H. The relationship between coach's leadership styles and team
cohesion in iran football clubs professional league. Brazilian Journal Biomotricity, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120,
2009. The present study examined relationship between coach's leadership styles and team cohesion in Iran
football clubs professional league (2006-2007). Athletes (n=264) from 12 football teams completed the
perceived version of the leadership scale for sport (LSS) and the group environment questionnaire (GEQ).
Both questionnaires were administered at the end of season. Result indicated that increases in athletes’
perceptions of team cohesion was positively correlated with perceptions of their coach exhibiting higher
levels of training and instruction, social support, positive feedback, democratic behavior and lower levels of
autocratic behaviors. A Comparison of coach’s leadership styles demonstrated that football coaches
exhibited higher in training and instruction and lower in democratic behavior. ANOVA with repeated
measures and Tukey post hoc test revealed that successful football teams tend to be more cohesive and
their coaches exhibited higher levels of democratic and social support behavior. Overall, the findings support
the significant relationship between team cohesion and leadership behavior, and highlight the
interdependence in team sports, which can significantly affect the need for team cohesion that contributes to
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
team success.
Key Words: Cohesion; football; leadership
otricity
m

INTRODUCTION
There can be individual successes even in losing experiences, but in team sports the team
is judged by wins and losses and the coach's job is only guaranteed if the team is
urnal of Bio
successful by the same measure. Coaches have great influence on their team, and the
coach's leadership styles and behaviors have a great effect on the performance of their
athletes. From a theoretical and a practical standpoint, it is important to examine many
Brazilian Jo
111

---

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br
issues that relate coach's behavior to the many correlates that influence team success.
One such correlate is team cohesion. There is some empirical evidence that team
cohesion is related to coaching behavior (e.g. SHIELDS, et al., 1997; WESTRE & WEISS,
1991). The relationship between leader behaviors and cohesion in natural groups has
received scant empirical attention. In a military context, the cohesiveness of combat
groups has been investigated in relationship to the behavior of unit leaders (BARTONE &
KIRKLAND, 1991). In the therapeutic context, evidence suggests that leaders who are less
directive and exhibit more personal warmth have groups with higher cohesiveness
(ANTONUCCIO et al., 1987). In an organizational context, group cohesiveness has been
shown to increase when leaders reward productivity (PODSAKOFF & TODOR, 1985). In
this present study, we investigated the relationship of coach's leadership styles, cohesion
and team success within the context of team sport.
Coaching Effectiveness
The research that has been conducted over the past two decades in the area of coaching
effectiveness has primarily been focused on identifying the coaching characteristics,
leadership styles, and behavioral patterns which are most effective. In general, these
research studies have defined an “effective coach” as one who elicits either successful
performance outcomes or positive psychological responses on the part of her or his
athletes (HORN, 2002). Since coaches affect not only their athletes’ physical performance
but also their psychosocial well-being, it is important for an effective coach to become
attuned to the many personal and individual needs of their athletes. Thus, in addition to the
technical skills of their sport, effective coaches may be required to occupy many roles
within the lives of their athletes. These may include being a leader, follower, teacher, role
model, limit setter, psychologist/ counselor and/or mentor (ANSHEL, 2003). Effective
coaches are those who are prepared to meet the individual needs of their athletes and
realize that they can make a difference in the team performance by improving their own
coaching skills and understanding the effect that their behavior can have on their athletes
(ANSHEL, 2003). The two most prominent models of leadership effectiveness in sport, the
Multidimensional Model of Leadership (CHELLADURAI, 1978) and the Mediational Model
of Leadership (SMOLL & SMITH, 1989) have served as frameworks for much of the
related research. Recently, elements of both models have been combined to form a
working model of coaching effectiveness (HORN, 2002). Horn’s (2002) working model is
founded on three assumptions. First, antecedent factors (i.e. socio-cultural context,
organizational climate, and personal characteristics of the coach) and athletes’ personal
characteristics (e.g. age, gender, etc.) exert influence on coaches’ behavior indirectly
through coaches’ expectancies, beliefs, and goals. Second, coaches’ behavior affects
athletes’ evaluation of their coaches’ behavior and team performance. Third, the
effectiveness of various coaching interventions is influenced by situational factors and
individual differences. Much work remains in clarifying the specific relationships that exist
within these broad assumptions.
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
To quantify the MML, Chelladurai & Saleh (1980) developed the Leadership Scale for
Sport (LSS). The LSS is a sport-specific measure, which consists of five dimensions of
otricity
m
leader behavior; training and instruction, positive feedback, social support, democratic and
autocratic behavior. Training and instruction is related instructional behaviors towards task
accomplishment. Democratic and autocratic behaviors refer to social process of decision-
making. Positive feedback and social support refer to the motivational tendencies of the
coach and concern for the personal needs of the athletes (CHELLADURAI, 1985). The
urnal of Bio
LSS has three different versions: the athletes' perception of their coaches' behavior; the
athletes' preference for coaching behavior and the coaches' perception of their own
behavior.
Brazilian Jo
112

---

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br
Group Cohesion
It is reasonable to conclude that amount of cohesion have a dramatic effect on the team
success. Various researchers have addressed the connection between these two
concepts by utilizing a variety of sport types including golf, rugby, lacrosse, baseball,
basketball and football. One question that has gone relativity unanswered by this large of
research is weather cohesion impact success and performance, or success influence
cohesion. It may be reasonable to assume that as a team has more success, the high
level of performance is what causes the athletes to perceive higher level of cohesion.
Success has the potential of allowing strong interpersonal relationships and positive group
morale to develop. In 1982, Carron developed an operational definition that describes
group cohesion as a multidimensional entity. Carron proposed that cohesion has both task
and social properties that comprise both individual and group aspects. In developing a
multidimensional model of group cohesion, he further proposed both antecedents and
consequences of group cohesion. The antecedents of group cohesion were placed into
four categories: (1) leadership (2) situational (3) personal, and (4) team factors
(BRAWLEY, 1990). The consequences were identified in two categories: (1) individual and
(2) group outcomes. Subsequently, in 1985, Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley developed
the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) to quantify group cohesion as a
multidimensional property. Since that point, there has been a considerable amount of
research dedicated to understanding the relationship of cohesion to many group related
factors such as group size (WIDMEYER et al, 1992), group performance (WILLIAMS &
WIDMEYER, 1991), sport interaction level (MATHESON et al, 1997), and coaching
behavior (WESTRE & WEISS, 1991) to name a few.
Leadership, Cohesion and success
Gardner et al. (1996) described the importance of studying the relationship of coaching
behavior, cohesion and success relationship. There are two current issues, which need
further consideration. First, group cohesion is hypothesized to positively influence success
(WIDMEYER & WILLIAMS, 1991). But the majority of research has shown only a modest
positive relationship between cohesion and success (MULLEN & COPPER, 1994).
However much of this research is done on non-sport teams or laboratory created groups.
Research conducted on actual sport teams with the team success being the unit of
measurement the relationship strengthens. A recent effort by Carron et al (2002)
compared elite basketball and football teams and demonstrated a strong positive
relationship between cohesion and team success. The results showed that there were no
differences between the cohesion-to-success and the success-to-cohesion relationship.
Grieve (2000) found that performance has more impact on cohesion than cohesion has on
performance. Fox (1984) found no significant relationship between cohesion and success,
and he shown that there is a conflicting relationship between cohesion and success, and
that both positive and negative relationship have found. Therefore, it may be started that
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
cohesion results in consequences witch may or may not increase team success.
Second, coaching behavior is hypothesized influence group cohesion. Gardner et al. found
otricity
a significant relationship of all five coaching behaviors to both social and task cohesion.
m
However, Westre and Weiss (1991); Pease and Kozub (1994) found that the coaching
behaviors of training and instruction, democratic, social support and positive feedback
were all positively related to cohesion. The autocratic scale was removed from analysis
due to poor internal consistency. Ronayne (2004); Moradi (2004) found that increase in
urnal of Bio
athlete's perception of team cohesion positively correlated with perceptions of their coach
exhibiting higher levels of democratic behavior, training and instruction, social support,
positive feedback and lower levels of autocratic behaviors, punishment-oriented feedback,
Brazilian Jo
113

---

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br
and non-reinforcement ignoring mistakes. Westre and Weiss (1991) also found that
perceptions of team and individual success strongly related to coaching behavior and team
cohesion. Shields et al. (1997) examined team cohesion as it relates to the three individual
versions of the LSS. The perceived LSS version and the perceptual discrepancy scores
(calculated from the difference between perceived and preferred versions) were most
strongly related to team cohesion. Murray (2006) also found that baseball and soccer
coaches who had athletes report higher levels of task and social cohesion rated highest in
positive feedback and training and instruction.

METHOD
Participants
Twelve teams, comprised of 264 football team members in Iran professional league (16
teams), ranging 17 to 36 participated as subjects. The first four teams were considered as
successful teams, the second four ones were considered as less successful teams, and
the third four ones were considered as unsuccessful teams.
Measures
Three instruments were used in the study: The Demographic Questionnaire, Leadership
Scale for Sport (LSS, Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) and the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ, Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). Each study participant
completed a demographic questionnaire that asked him to report age and academic
background.
The LSS measures five dimensions of leadership behavior - training and instruction (TI),
democratic behavior (DB), autocratic behavior (AB), social support (SS) and positive
feedback (PF). The LSS comes in three versions: the athlete's preference for coaching
behavior, the athlete's perception for coaching behavior and the coaches' perception of
their own behavior. The athletes in this study only completed the athlete's perceived
coaching version. The athlete's perception version of LSS contains forty items prefaced by
"My coach...", and is followed by statements such as "sees to it that athletes work to
capacity". Each it is scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from "always" to "never".
There are thirteen items for TI, nine items for DB, five items for AB, eight items for SS and
five items for PF. The psychometric properties of the LSS have been demonstrated in
several studies (for a review see CHELLADURAI, 1990).
The GEQ assess the four dimensions of team cohesion - Individual Attraction to group-
task (ATG-T), Individual Attraction to Group-Social (ATG-S), Group Integration-Task (GI-
T), and Group Integration-Social (GI-S). The questionnaire contains 18 items that are
scored on a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree".
Each item is either positively stated or negatively stated. The questionnaire has five items
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
for ATG-S, four items for ATG-T, five items for GI-T, and four items for GI-S. The score for
each category is calculated by summing the values and dividing by the number items in
that category.
otricity
m
Administration of the GEQ and LSS occurred immediately following the end of season.
The athletes were asked to indicate their coach's actual behavior when filling out the LSS.
Each gave approval gent on the head coaches’ approval. After practice, the coaches or
assistant coach brought the team together and questionnaire was always administered by
urnal of Bio
the researcher. Players first completed the demographic questionnaire, then the LSS
questionnaire, and finally the GEQ. The instruments were completed individually and
anonymously, and the coaches did not have access to the individual informational
Brazilian Jo
114

---

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br
received.

RESULTS
- Scale Reliabilities
Previous LSS studies have generally indicated acceptable internal consistency scores for
LSS scales, although some problems with the Autocratic Behavior Scale have been
reported (CHELLADURAI, 1993). In the present study, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was
utilized to examine the internal reliability of both scales. The internal reliability for the LSS
and the GEQ is represented in table 1.

Table 1 - Internal reliability scores for the LSS and the GEQ
LSS Scale
Cronbach's Alpha
Training and
0.84
Instruction
Democratic Behavior
0.79
Autocratic Behavior
0.78
Social Support
0.83
Positive Feedback
0.71



GEQ Scale
Cronbach's Alpha
Task Cohesion
0.71

Social Cohesion
0.72


- Correlation Analyses: Leadership and Cohesion
To examine the relationship between coach's leadership styles and team cohesion, we
initially conducted a Pearson correlation analysis based on individual data. The significant
correlation between the two cohesion scale and the five leadership dimensions are
contained in table 2. We found that coach’s behaviors of social support, training and
instruction, positive feedback, and democratic were all positively correlated to team
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
cohesion and autocratic behavior negatively correlated to team cohesion.
otricity

m


urnal of Bio


Brazilian Jo
115

---

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br
Table 2 - Relationship between coach's leadership styles and team cohesion

Training & Autocratic Democratic
Social
Positive
Behavior
Behavior
Support Feedback
Task
Instruction
Pearson
Cohesion
0.47*
- 0.51*
0.33*
0.49*
0.35*
Correlation

Training & Autocratic Democratic
Social
Positive
Behavior
Behavior
Support Feedback
Social
Instruction
Pearson
Cohesion
0.40*
- 0.73*
0.35*
0.42*
0.39*
Correlation
* P≤ 0.01

- Leadership, Cohesion and Success
In order to compare coach's leadership styles, we calculated ANOVA with repeated
measures and Bonferroni post hoc test. The results indicated a significance differences
between coach’s leadership styles, and showed that football coaches exhibited higher in
training and instruction and lower in democratic behavior (see Figure 1).

5
4.05
3.47
3.51
3.4
4
2.61
3
t
i
n
po
2
1
0
Training & Autocratic Democratic
S ocial
Positive
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
Instruction
S upport
Feedback

otricity
Figure 1 - Comparison of coach's leadership styles
m

ANOVA with repeated measures and Tukey post hoc test was used to comparison coach’s
leadership styles and cohesion levels of successful, less successful and unsuccessful
teams. The findings demonstrated that successful football teams tend to be more cohesive
urnal of Bio
and their coaches exhibited higher level of democratic and social support behavior (see
Figure 2&3).
Brazilian Jo
116

---

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br
successful
less successful
unsuccessful
5
4
3
t
i
n
po 2
1
0
Training &
Autocratic
Democratic
Social
Positive
Instruction
Support
Feedback

Figure 2 - Comparison of coach's leadership styles of successful, less successful and
unsuccessful teams

successful
less successful
unsuccessful
8
6
t
i
n 4
po
2
0
Task Cohesion
Social Cohesion

Figure 3 - Comparison of cohesion level of successful, less successful and unsuccessful teams

DISCUSSION
Our purpose of this study was to examining the relationship between coach's leadership
styles and team cohesion in professional football clubs. The rationale for this study
demonstrated that higher levels of task and social cohesion were related to higher levels
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
training and instruction, democratic, social support and positive feedback, and lower levels
autocratic behavior. Few researches in the coaching filed have examined the leadership
otricity
styles coaches use to develop cohesion in sport teams. Our findings especially agree with
m
Ronyne (2004); and Moradi (2004). Wester and Weiss (1991); Pease and Kozub (1994)
found that leader behaviors of training and instruction, democratic, social support, and
positive feedback were all positively related to cohesion. The results from this study and
pervious studies show that coach's leadership styles and behaviors have a great effect on
team cohesion and demonstrated the value role a coach plays in the development of
urnal of Bio
cohesion for his/her team.
The second hypothesis supported the notion that there is significance difference between
Brazilian Jo
117

---

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br
coach's leadership styles, and the results showed that football coaches exhibited higher in
training and instruction and lower in democratic behavior. With this regard Moradi (2004);
Bennet and Manuel (2000) found that coaches place more emphasis on training and
instruction while expressing a lower preference for autocratic behavior. Their findings
(coaches exhibited lower in autocratic) are in direct contrast to our findings that coaches
exhibited lower in democratic behavior. Perhaps one reason in this filed within our study is
that the football coaches in professional levels tend to exhibit lower in democratic behavior
and higher in autocratic behavior.
Overall, the results from this study showed that there is significance relationship between
coach's leadership styles and team success, and the coaches of successful teams
exhibited higher levels of democratic and social support behaviors (Echas and Krane,
1993). Alfreman (2005); Fathi (2005); Dexter (2002); Wester & Weiss (1991); Moradi
(2004); Range (2002) found significance relationship between coach's leadership styles
and team success.
The final hypothesis supported the notion that team cohesion affects team success in a
positive manner, as predicted. Results of this study showed that successful teams tend to
be more cohesive. For most team sport, primary reason for sticking together is to increase
the potential for obtaining success. Especially football is a sport that takes more
coordination and corporation, cohesive and success is related to level of and changes in
both task and social cohesion. Many researchers believe there is strong relationship
between cohesion and success. Carron, Bray & Eys (2002); Murray (2006); Moradi (2004);
Hung (2004); Range (2002) found that highly cohesive teams were more successful than
teams with lower levels of cohesion. Grieve (2000) found that success has more impact on
cohesion than cohesion on success.
In summary, these results support following items: (a) Coach's leadership styles have a
great effect on team success and team cohesion. (b) The coaches of successful teams
exhibited higher levels of democratic and social support behavior. (c) Team cohesion is a
necessary (not sufficient) factor for team success.

REFERENCES
ALFERMANN, D.; LEE, M. J.; WURTH, S. Perceived Leadership Behavior and
Motivational Climate as Antecedents of Adolescent Athletes` Skill Development, Athletic
Insight, the Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 2005.
ANSHEL, M. H. Sport Psychology: from Theory to Practice (4th edition), San Francisco,
CA: Benjamin Cummings, 2003.
ANTONUCCIO, D. O.; DAVIS, C.; LEWINSOHN, P. M.; BRECKENRIDGE, J. S. Therapist
Variables Related to Cohesiveness in a Group Treatment for Depression, Small Group
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
Behavior, v. 18, p. 557-564, 1978.
BARTONE, P. T.; KIRKLAND, F. R. Optimal Leadership in Small Army Units, in R. GAL &
otricity
A. D MANGELSDORFF (Eds), Handbook of Military Psychology, 393-409, Chichester
m
England: Wiley, 1991.
BENNETT, G., MANUEL, M. Leadership Style of Dixie Youth Baseball Coaches, Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, v. 71, p. 243-256, 2000.
urnal of Bio
BOONE, K. S.; BEITEL, P.; KUHLMAN, J. S. The Effects of the Win/Loss Record on
Cohesion, Journal of Sport Behavior, v. 20, p. 125, 1997.
BRAWLEY, L. R. Group Cohesion: Status, Problems, and Future Directions, international
Brazilian Jo
118

---

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br
Journal of Sport Psychology, v. 21, p. 355-379, 1990.
CARRON, A. V. Cohesiveness in Sport Groups: Interpretations and Considerations,
Journal of Sport Psychology, v. 4, p. 123-138, 1982.
CARRON, A. V.; BRY, S. R.; EYS, M. A. Team cohesion & Team Success in Sport,
Journal of Sport Science, v. 20, p. 119-26, 2002.
CARRON, A. V.; COLMAN, M. M.; WHEELER, J.; STEVENS, D. Cohesion and
Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, v. 24,
p. 168-188, 2002.
CARRON A. V.; WIDMEYER, W. N.; BRAWLEY, L. R. The development of an Instrument
to Assess Cohesion in Sport Team: The Group Environment Questionnaire, Journal of
Sport Psychology, v. 7, p. 244-266, 1985.
CHELLADURAI, P. A Contingency Model of Leadership in Athletics, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Waterloo, Canada, 1978.
CHELLADURAI, P. Sport Management, Micro Perspective, London, Ontario, sport
Dynamics, 1985.
CHELLADURAI, P. Leadership in sports, A Review, International Journal of Sport
Psychology, v. 21, p. 328-354, 1990.
CHELLADURAI, P. Human resource Management in Sport & Recreation, USA, Human
Kinetics, 1999.
CHELLADURAI, P.; SINGER, R.; MURPHEY, M.; TENNANT, L. K. (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Sport Psychology, 647-671, New York: Macmillan, 1993.
CHELLADURAI, P.; SALEH, S. Dimensions of Leader Behavior in Sports: Development of
Leadership Scale, Journal of Sport Psychology, v. 2, p. 34-35, 1980.
DEXTER, D. J. An Analysis of the Perceived Leadership Styles and Levels of Satisfaction
of Selected Junior Collage Athletic Directors and Head coaches, The Sport Journal, v. 5,
p. 2, 2002.
EICHAS, T.M., KRANE, V. Relationship among Perceived Leadership Styles, Member
Satisfaction, and Team Cohesion in High School Basketball Players, Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, v. 64, p. 243-256, 1993.
FATHI, M. The Relationship between Coaches’s Leadership Styles and Success in
Wrestling coaches, The Journal of Motion Science and sport, 1, 5, 101-116, 2005.
FOX, E. C. Team Cohesion, Ability and Coaches’ Leadership Effectiveness as Predictors
of Success in Women’s Intercollegiate Softball, University of Oregon Microforms, 1984.
GARDNER, D. E.; SHIELDS, D. L.; BREDEMEIER, B. J. The Relationship between
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
Perceived Coaching Behaviors and Team Cohesion Baseball and Softball Players, The
Sport Psychologist, v. 10, p. 367-381, 1996.
otricity
GRIEVE, F. G. An Experimental Examination of the Cohesion-Performance Relationship in
m
an Interactive Team Sport, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, v. 12, p. 219-235, 2000.
HORN, T. S. Coaching Effectiveness in the Sport Domain, In T. S. HORN (Ed.), Advances
in Sport Psychology, Champing, IL: Human Kinetics, 309-355, 2002.
urnal of Bio
HUANG, Y. The Effectiveness of Charismatic Leadership and Support toward Team
Behavior and Cohesion, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, v. 75, p. 243-256,
2004.
Brazilian Jo
119

---

Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan: Coach's leadership styles and team cohesion www.brjb.com.br
MATHESON, H.; MATHES, S.; MURRAY, M. The Effect of Winning and Losing on Female
Interactive and Coactive Team Cohesion, Journal of Sport Behavior, v. 20, p. 284-299,
1997.
MORADI, M. The Relationship between Coach’s Leadership styles and Group Cohesion in
Iran Basketball Clubs Professional League, Kinetics Journal, v. 29, p. 5-16, 2004.
MULLEN, B.; COOPER, C. The Relationship between Group Cohesion and Performance:
an Integration, Psychological Bulletin, v. 115, p. 210-227, 1994.
MURRAY, N. P. The Differential Effect of Team cohesion and Leadership Behavior in High
School Sports, Individual Differences Research, v. 4, p. 216-225, 2006.
NOLAN, O. 2000, The Relationship between Perceived Coaching Behaviors and Team
Cohesion among School Age Cricketers in Australian Setting, http://www.google.com/
advanced search/ leadership and team cohesion.
PEACE, D. G.; KOZUB, S. A. Perceived Coaching Behaviors and Team Cohesion in High
School Girl's Basketball Teams, Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, v. 16, p. 85-83,
1994.
PODSAKOFF, P. M.; TODOR, W. D. Relationship between Leader Reward and
Punishment Behavior and Group Processes and Productivity, Journal of Management, v.
11, p. 55-73, 1985.
RANG, C. O. The Relationship between Group Cohesion & Leadership Style & Win/Loss
Record in Collegiate Soccer Player, Unpublished Thesis, SanDiego State University, USA,
2002.
RONAYNE, L. S. Effects of Coaching Behaviors on Team Dynamics: How Coaching
Behaviors, Influence Team Cohesion and Collective Efficacy over the Course of a Season,
Master of Science in Sport Studies, Physical Education, Health, and Sport Studies, Miami
University, 2004.
Shields, D. L. The Relationship between Leadership Behaviors and Group Cohesion in
Team Sports, The Journal of Psychology, 131, 2, 196-210, 1997.
SMOLL, F. L.; SMITH, R. E. Leadership Behaviors in Sport, A Theoretical Model and
Research Paradigm, Journal of applied Social Psychology, v. 19, p. 1522-1551, 1989.
WESTER, K. R., WEISS, M. R. The Relationship between Perceived Coaching Behaviors
and Group Cohesion in High School Football Teams, The Sport Psychologist, v. 5, p. 41-
45, 1991.
WIDMEYER, W. N.; BRAWLEY, L. R.; CARRON, A. V. The Effect of Group Size in Sport,
Journal of Sport and Exercises Psychology, 49, 372-380, 1992.
WILLIAMS, J. M.; WIDMEYER, W. N. The Cohesion-Performance Outcome Relationship
, v. 3, n. 2, p. 111-120, 2009 (ISSN 1981-6324)
in a Co acting Sport, Journal of Sport and Exercises Psychology, v. 13, p. 364-371, 1991.
otricity
m
urnal of Bio
Brazilian Jo
120

---