A recently developed model of coaching effectiveness contains numerous constructs. Using that model, a global measure of coaching effectiveness was operationalized and the Coaching Success Questionnaire-2 (CSQ-2) was created. The CSQ-2 is a new instrument and relationships among it and coach and team constructs are largely unknown. Consequently, this study was conducted to examine differences in coach servant leadership and team cohesion across CSQ-2 scores.
Method:
Following IRB approval, athletes were recruited to complete a packet of instruments (i.e., CSQ-2; Revised Servant Leadership Profile; and Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire). A total of 290 athletes assessing 33 coaches completed the packet. On average, nine athletes rated each coach (range = 3-19).
Analysis/Results:
Model fit and reliability coefficients were examined for all instruments. A total summed CSQ-2 score was calculated and coaches were evenly split into low-scoring (≤ 179), moderate-scoring (180 – 196), and high-scoring (≥ 196) groups (= 183; SD = 23.3; range = 138-220). MANOVA was conducted examining whether five subscales (i.e., social and task cohesion; trust, humility and service servant leadership) varied across levels of coaching success. A significant multivariate main effect was found, Pillai’s Trace = .861; F(10,54)=4.09, p<.001, partial eta2=.43. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated four variables differed significantly across the levels of CSQ-2 scores, including: (a) trust, F(2,30) = 35.0, p<.001, partial eta2=.70; (b) humility, F(2,30) = 17.6, p<.001, partial eta2 = .54; (c) service , F(2,30) = 27.7, p<.001, partial eta2 = .65; and (d) task cohesion, F(2,30) = 10.6, p<.001, partial eta2=.41.
Post-hoc tests revealed that at each increased level of CSQ-2 scores athletes reported playing for coaches exhibiting significantly more trust, humility and service than the low- and moderate-scoring coaches. Athletes playing for moderate- and high-scoring coaches reported significantly higher task cohesion than athletes playing for low-scoring coaches.
Conclusions:
These results illustrate that servant leadership behaviors vary systematically across levels of CSQ-2 scores. By using the results of the CSQ-2, a coach, or ideally the coach and his mentor, has quantifiable data on which to base a coach development plan. Areas of strength can be built upon while weaknesses can be improved. This process can also give the coach a sense of control by allowing the coach to focus on the process and development rather than winning the next game. Establishing commonalities between servant leadership and coaching success provides substantial information for both applied coaching development and researchers.