The Correlation between Coach’s Leadership, Coach-Athlete

Interaction, and Mental Strength

Dede Sumarna, Amung Ma’mun and Yusup Hidayat

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jln. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia

Ziaaqila33@gmail.com

Keywords: Interaction, Mental Strength, Teen Athletes.

Abstract: The aim of this study was to find out the correlation between coach’s leadership, coach-athlete interaction,

and mental strength. This descriptive study was conducted using a quantitative approach. The samples were

40 teenage athletes at the Students' Sports Education and Training Center (PPLP) of Banten. The research

instruments included a coach’s leadership scale, a coach-athlete interaction scale, and a mental strength scale.

The data were analyzed using a correlational test. It was revealed the value of r = 0.580 and sig. = 0.001 <

0.05. It means that there was a significant correlation between coach’s leadership, coach-athlete interaction,

and athletes’ mental strengths. With the R square value of 0.336, it could be interpreted that coach’s leadership

and coach-athlete interaction contributed to the athletes’ mental strength as much as 33.6%. The other 66.4%

was influenced by other factors.

1 INTRODUCTION

As a central role in the development of mental

strength, the coach shall give guidance, training and

activities adjusted with the condition of the athletes

(Weinberg et al., 2015). The success of a

development program is also affected by the

leadership factor of the coach (Slater et al., 2014).

The coach is deemed to have an important effect in

every aspects of the athletes’ preparation to compete

and in deciding the success and development of the

athletes (Bodnár and Perényi, 2016). Sherwin et al

(2016) stated that considering that the coaches

learned through lots of different situations, everything

has a role in the coach’s development, the writer

recommended that the coach education program must

cover the combination of all seven learning situations.

In this case, the coach must place himself correctly

since it needs to be considered that just because a

certain method works for a “successful” coach does

not mean that it will transfer to every situation

(Abraham and Collins, 2011). The relevance of the

leadership theory and sports were clearer when

“Sports are seen as a formal organization”

(Chelladurai and Saleh, 1980). By analogize team

sports as a formal organization, then the “coach

position can be equated with the role of a manager or

one that has a relation with the management” (Sage,

2016). Cox (2012) stated that “To achieve the ideal

leadership behavior, the three said components must

be congruent. The measurement of the coach’s

leadership behavior in this research used the

Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS) by Chelladurai and

Saleh (1980), LSS measured the construct of

multidimensional leadership (Fletcher, 2006)

explained that “Internal consistency for the four

factors in LSS are adequate except for the low

autocratic behavior dimension which is (<0,70)”. In

this case, a coach is a motivation provider for the

athletes, the social support is important for an

athlete’s mental strength development. This shows

that the majority of athletes perceive the coach as the

positive effects provider in every aspects of the

athletes’ development (Jones et al., 2007). Other

factors that can affect the mental strength

development is the interaction between the athletes

and the coach. The coach-athlete’s interaction in the

training process contributes positively toward the

success of the athletes’ potential development and

vice versa. The effective coach-athlete interaction is

holistic, emphasized in the positive growth and

development (‘to be the best that you can’) as an

athlete/coach and as an individual. The effective

relationship of the basic materials such as empathy

understanding, honesty, support, will, acceptance,

responsiveness, hospitality, teamwork, concern,

respect and positive things (Jowett and Cockerill,

Sumarna, D., Ma’mun, A. and Hidayat, Y.

The Correlation between Coach’s Leadership, Coach-Athlete Interaction, and Mental Strength.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 221-225

ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9

221

2003; Jowett and Meek, 2000). On the other hand, the

effective relationship is ruined by the lack of will and

emotion, isolation, even antagonism, fraud,

exploitation, and physical or sexual harassment

(Balague, 1999; Brackenridge, 2001; Jowett, 2003;

Hampson and Jowett, 2012). In sports, there is a

consciousness improvement on how important the

psychological factor in the athletic work and it is now

recognized that that the physical talent is not the only

component that leads to success (Gucciardi et al.,

2008). In the science and sport community, mental

strength is seen as one of the most important attributes

that will cause a success athletic performance (Bull et

al., 2005). On the highest level, mental play often

separates the elite players from the ones with good

performance (Gucciardi et al., 2009).

In sport, there is only a few science attentions that

is focused on the mental strength and this is seen

surprising considering this terms have been used

widely for over the last 20 years (Gucciardi et al.,

2009). Because the lack of research, mental strength

is seen as one of the most used and least understood

term in the sport psychology (Bull et al., 2005).

Various researches about the athletes’ mentality use

the mental strength term to explain about excellent

athlete’s psychology attributes (Jones, 2002; Bull et

al., 2005; Weinberg, 2015; Sullivan, Paquette, Holt,

and Bloom, 2011). Gucciardi et al., (2009) stated that

“When the physical, technic and tactical ability

owned by the athletes are tend to be equal, the mental

strength is the differentiator between the “good” and

the “great” athletes. (Weinberg et al., 2015) stated

that “The research on mental strength is new and

developing”. This can be seen from the variation of

the results of the research published on football

athletes with team characters (Clough and Earle,

2000; Middleton et al., 2004; Gucciardi et al, 2008;

Sullivan et al., 2012). However, in the conducted

research “Several same dimensions are gained, such

as self-believe, work ethic, personal value, self-

motivated, tough attitude, concentration, resilience,

pressure handling, emotional quotient, sport

intelligence, and commitment” (Gucciardi et al.,

2009). This research is centered toward the individual

sport characters on teenagers.

Referring to the theories explained previously, the

coach leadership behavior and coach-athlete’s

interaction allegedly have significant correlations in

developing teen athletes’ mental strength.

2 METHODS

This research used the descriptive method with

quantitative approach. The samples of this research

were 40 teenager athletes at the Students' Sports

Education and Training Center (PPLP) of Banten

consist of 30 male athletes and 10 female athletes who

are still in High School residing in the athlete dorm of

Banten. The respondent data retrieval was conducted

in September. By filling in the scale questionnaire of

mental strength for 40 questions, the coach-athlete’s

interaction scale of 20 questions and metal strength

scale of 20 questions. It was conducted at the PPLP

Building in Banten after the athletes finished their

training session.

3 RESULTS

After displaying descriptions of the result of research

data, the researcher then conducted the first stage of

statistics test in this research. The prerequisite test is

the initial step in the statistics test. This test was

conducted to find out the appropriate statistics type to

test the research hypothesis. The statistics test used in

this research was data normality test by using the

Lilliefors test.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 The Correlation between the

Coach Leadership and Mental

Strength

Table 1: Hypothesis Test Result 1 (Correlation Test).

Table 2: Hypothesis Test Result 1 (Regression Test).

The r value = 0,539 and sig. = 0,000 < 0,05 then

the correlation is significant, the value R square =

0,291 means that the correlation of the coach

leadership and the athletes' mental strength is 29,1%

while the rest 70,9% is affected by other factors.

Sig.

Remarks

0,539

0,000

Significant Correlation

R square

0,539

0,291

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

222

4.2 The Correlation of the Coach-

Athletes Interaction and Mental

Strength

Table 3: Hypothesis Test Result 2 (Correlation test).

Table 4: Hypothesis Test Result 2 (Regression Test).

The r value = 0,462 and sig. = 0,003 < 0,05 means

that the correlation is significant, the value of R

square = 0,213 which means that the correlation of

coach-athletes interaction and the athletes’ mental

strength is 21,3% while the rest 78,7% is affected by

other factors.

4.3 The Correlation of Coach

Leadership and Coach-Athletes

Mental Strength

Table 5: Hypothesis Test Result 3 (Correlation test).

Table 6. Hypothesis Test Result 3 (Regression Test).

The r value = 0,580 and sig. = 0,001 < 0,05 means

that the correlation of the coach leadership and the

coach-athlete’s interaction and mental strength is

33,6% while the rest 66,4% is affected by other

factors.

4.4 Discussion

This research revealed the variable of coach

leadership, the coach-athlete’s interaction and teen

athletes’ mental strength. For the coach leadership

variable, the researcher took several dimensions as

the instruments such as training and instruction,

democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social

support, and feedback. In other research, it was

revealed by Chelladurai (in Tenembaum et al., 2012)

explained that “Coach behavior consists of three

components: (1) required behavior, the behavior

affected by particular situation characteristics, (2)

preferred behavior, coach behavior expected by the

athletes as a result of the athletes’ individual

characteristics, (3) actual behavior, coach behavior

that presents because of the coach’s characteristics.”

According to Chelladurai, “The conformity of these

three behaviors will affect the satisfactory level of the

athletes and team performance. A coach can also

adapt transformational leadership form as an effort to

replace the situational characteristics that push the

team in doing their activities, and change the athlete’s

characteristics to self-esteemed and aspiring

athletes”. Based on the result of the correlation (r)

value, the dimension with the highest value was the

feedback dimension, followed by the social support,

training and instruction, democratic behavior

dimension, and lastly the autocratic behavior.

Chelladurai and Carron (in Fletcher, 2006) explained

that “The coach’s raining and instruction would be

less effective in shaping the athletes’ mental strength

in the case where the athlete is experienced. On the

other hand, if the athletes have less competing

experiences, the instruction and training would give a

significant effect.” This was supported by the

research conducted by Crust and Azadi (2008) who

found that “coach’s instruction and training effects

have significant impacts in developing the athletes’

mental strength.” This reflects that the instruction and

training is closely related to the athletes’ performance

improvement. In the research conducted by Salminen

and Liukkonen (in Fletcher, 2006) found out that the

democratic behavior also plays and affects

significantly for the athletes’ mental strength.”

However, the result was rebutted and inversely

proportional with the research conducted by Crust

and Azadi (2008) who found out that “Democratic

behavior does not affect the athletes’ mental strength

significantly.” Furthermore, Crust and Azadi (2008)

also explained that “Social support, positive feedback

and autocratic did not affect the athletes’ mental

strength significantly.” Besides, “The needs of

coach’s social support increased due to the increasing

competition that the athletes’ participate in”

(Chelladurai and Carron in Fletcher, 2006).

For the coach-athlete’s interaction variable,

the researcher revealed the emotional closeness,

commitment and complementary behavior

dimensions. Jowet (2009) explained that “There after

three dimensions about the coach-athlete’s

interaction, namely: (1) emotional closeness, focused

on the compatibility of the coach and athlete’s

emotional relationship, (2) commitment, this

dimension described the cognitive bond and long-

term oriented, (3) complementary behavior, this

dimension described the behavior transaction

Sig.

Remarks

0,462

0,003

Significant Correlation

R square

0,462

0,213

Sig.

Remarks

0,580

0,001

Significant

Correlation

R square

0,580

0,336

The Correlation between Coach’s Leadership, Coach-Athlete Interaction, and Mental Strength

223

between the coach and the athletes in teamwork

concept”. Based on the result of correlation (r) value,

the dimension with the highest value is the emotional

closeness dimension, followed by the commitment

dimension and the last one is the complementary

behavior. Sir Alex Ferguson (in Jowet and Carter,

2006) stated that “Commitment is one of the success

key elements of coaching.” Adie and Jowwet (2010)

explained that “Coach-athlete relationship affects the

athletes’ performance and motivation.” Although

there are not plenty of previous researches, however

with the idea of coach having an “intense and

personal relationship that has common goals”

(Jowwet and Carter, 2006), therefore the researcher

assumed that the coach-athlete’s interaction has a

significant correlation toward the athletes’ mental

strength.

The mental strength variable of this research

covers the individual and team sports characteristics,

consists of four dimensions, namely: challenge facing

behavior, performance relevant behavior and values,

pressure facing behavior, success aiming behavior.

Gucciardi et al. (2008) conducted the research on

mental strength in the context of team sport, football

(Gucciardi used the Australian-rules football). In his

research, Gucciardi et al. (2008) interviews eleven

experienced coaches on elite levels. The verbatim

data gained was further analyzed and resulted in three

main categories in understanding the mental strength.

The first category is the characteristics, this category

consists of eleven characters that are deemed as the

mental strength keys (self-believe, work ethic,

personal value, self-motivated, tough attitude,

concentration, resilience, handling pressure,

emotional quotient, sport intelligence, and physical

fitness). Two other categories are the situation and

behavior. The three categories gave understanding on

the correlation of the main characteristics and the

process (situation and behavior). In the conducted

researches “Several same dimensions were gained,

such as self-believe, work ethic, personal value, self-

motivated, tough attitude, concentration, resilience,

handling pressure, emotional quotient, sport

intelligence, and commitment” (Gucciardi et al.,

2008).

4.5 Limitation

The main limitation of this research included the size

of small samples and the respondents used were

teenagers.

5 CONCLUSSIONS

Based on the hypothesis test, there are significant and

positive correlation of the coach leadership and the

coach-athlete’s interaction and mental strength. By

considering the variance proportion for the coach

leadership variable, there are five dimension to the

sequence of autocratic behavior, democratic

behavior, training and instruction, social support, and

feedback. Whereas for the coach-athlete’s interaction

variable, there are three dimensions to the sequence

of complementary behavior, commitment and

emotional closeness.

REFERENCES

Abraham, A., Collins, D., 2011. Taking the Next Step:

Ways Forward for Coaching Science. Quest. 63(4),

366–384.

Adie, J. W., Jowett, S., 2010. Meta-Perceptions of the

Coach – Athlete Relationship, Achievement Goals, and

Intrinsic Motivation Among. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology. 40(11), 2750–2773.

Asamoah, B., 2013. The role of mental toughness,

psychological skills and team cohesion in soccer

performance by, (December).

Bahmani, D. S., Hatzinger, M., Gerber, M., Lemola, S.,

Clough, P. J., Perren, S., Norton, P., 2016. The Origins

of Mental Toughness – Prosocial Behavior and Low

Internalizing and Externalizing Problems at Age 5

Predict Higher Mental Toughness Scores at Age 14, 7

(August), 1–10. (online) available at:

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01221.

Bodnár, I., and Perényi, S., 2016. The International Journal

of the History of Sport a Socio-Historical Approach to

the Professionalisation of Sporting Occupations in

Hungary during the First Decades of the Twentieth

Century: The Coach, 3367 (June).

https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2012.666971

Bull, S. J., Shambrook, C. J., James, W., Brooks, J. E.,

2005. Towards an understanding of mental toughness

in elite English cricketers. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology. 17(3), 209–227.

Chelladurai, P., Saleh, S. D., 1980. School of Exercise

Science (NSW). Journal of Sport Psychology. 2, 34–45.

Cowden, R. G., Meyer-weitz, A., Asante, K. O., Taylor, J.

A., 2016. Mental Toughness in Competitive Tennis:

Relationships with Resilience and Stress. Frontiers in

psychology. 7(March), 1–9.

Davis, L., Jowett, S., Davis, L., and Jowett, S., 2014.

Coach–athlete attachment and the quality of the coach–

athlete relationship: implications for athlete’s well-

being. Journal of sports sciences. 32(15), 1454-1464.

Fletcher, S., 2006. March 2006, (March).

Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., Dimmock, J. A., 2009. Journal

of Applied Sport Psychology Evaluation of a Mental

Toughness Training Program for Youth-Aged

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

224

Australian Footballers: I. A Quantitative Analysis.

(December 2014), 37–41.

Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., Dimmock, J. A., Mallett, C.

J., 2008. Understanding the coach TM s role in the

development of mental toughness: Perspectives of elite

Australian football. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology. 20(3), 261-281.

Hampson, R., Jowett, S., 2012. Effects of coach leadership

and coach – athlete relationship on collective efficacy.

Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.

24(2), 454-460.

Jones, G., Hanton, S., Connaughton, D., 2007. A

Framework of Mental Toughness in the World’s Best

Performers. Sport Psychologist. 21(2), 243–264.

https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.21.2.243.

Jowett, S., Carpenter, P., 2016. The concept of rules in the

coach-athlete relationship, Sports Coaching Review.

4(1), 1-23.

Sage, G. H., 2016. The Coach as Management:

Organizational Leadership in American Sport. Quest.

19(1), 35-40.

Sherwin, I., Campbell, M. J., Macintyre, T. E., Sherwin, I.

A. N., 2016. Talent development of high performance

coaches in team sports in Ireland. European journal of

sport science. 17(3), 271-278.

Slater, M. J., Coffee, P., Barker, J. B., Andrew, L., 2014.

Promoting shared meanings in group memberships: a

social identity approach to leadership in sport.

Reflective Practice, 15(5), 672-685.

Slimani, M., Miarka, B., Briki, W., Cheour, F., 2016.

Comparison of mental toughness and power test

performances in high-level kickboxers by competitive

success. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine. 7(2).

https://doi.org/10.5812/asjsm.30840.

Sullivan, P. J., Paquette, K. J., Holt, N. L., Bloom, G. A.,

2012. The Relation of Coaching Context and Coach

Education to Coaching Efficacy and Perceived

Leadership Behaviors in Youth Sport. The Sport

Psychologist. 122–134.

Weinberg, R., Butt, J., Culp, B., 2011. Coaches' views of

mental toughness and how it is built. International

journal of sport and exercise psychology. 9(2), 156-

172.

The Correlation between Coach’s Leadership, Coach-Athlete Interaction, and Mental Strength

225