Coaches perform a variety of functions to maintain the team as a unit and facilitate the completion of the team goals. Descriptions of the tasks coaches are expected to accomplish are broad, but quite unspecific. Often their duties vary greatly from institution to institution. Ordering equipment, arranging schedules and transportation, counseling players, administering the budget and constantly evaluating players are but a few of the aspects of the coach’s job.

Despite this variety of tasks, all coaches are in a position of leadership. The coach is granted the authority to lead and may even emerge as the actual leader of the team. Coaches as leaders want to move the organization or team toward specific goals.

Most literature involving coaches and team management deals with psychology of coaching, organization and administration of coaching and tactics specific to each sport. Empirically, we know little about the leadership behavior of coaches or how team members perceive the leadership behavior of their coach. This occurs despite a growing awareness of the importance of the situational characteristics for effective management and leadership (Hemphill 1949, Halpin 1966, Stogdill 1974).

There is no doubt that an important aspect of coaching is the leadership behavior exhibited by the coach. Leadership in task orientation and social-emotional orientation are functions of a coach in his/her role in team management. Bobbitt (1974, p. 161) states, “…as we might expect, therefore, some approaches to changing total organizational behavior are focused on modifying the leadership styles of managers (coaches). The general rationale is that modifying leadership style can significantly affect the organization and improve the quantity and quality of work.”

The work of Hemphill, Halpin and Stogdill has broken down the leadership processes into various factors that contribute to the effective attainment of group goals. These researchers have found two main factors that act as a basis for effective leadership. These are defined as follows (Stogdill 1963, p. 53):

Consideration – A leader concerned with the social-emotional climate of the group or the personal processes that are occurring within a group (morale).
Initiating structure – A leader concerned with group goals. He/she will maintain positions and functions within the group and will set up procedures to assure that the tasks are completed.

The situational approach developed on the premise that the environmental situation of a group resulted in a specific leadership behavior. Different situations would require different leadership styles.

Stogdill (1974, p. 128) suggests that the study of leadership behavior should center upon the behavior of the officially designated leader of an organization and the situation in which he/she operates. He further suggests that greater strides will be made if research centers on the leadership behavior of an administrator (coach) and not on the administrative behavior. This study focused on the situational approach to analyzing leadership, namely the leadership behavior of soccer coaches. Specifically, the leadership styles of NCAA soccer coaches in Division I and Division III were examined.

A thorough understanding of leadership, leader behavior and leadership situations by soccer coaches is important. Soccer coaches must assist their players to cooperate in the common task of reaching team goals. Understanding this type of group cooperation and effectively leading such a diverse group, such as a soccer team, always has been a problem. Identification of the leadership behavior styles of soccer coaches and the situational variable will enhance the understanding of leadership for soccer coaches. This increase in knowledge of leadership behavior style can significantly affect the team’s successful completion of goals. Therefore, the primary objectives of the study were:

1. Identification of leadership behavior of selected NCAA Division I and Division III soccer coaches;
2. Determination of any differences that may arise between coaches;
3. Explanation of these differences; and
4. Comparison of the leadership style of these coaches with military leaders, educators, business administrators and other leaders from different fields.

• Identification of leadership behavior of soccer coaches in Division I and Division III.
  
• Determination of any difference in leadership style.
  
• Explanation of these differences.
  
• Comparison of the leadership style of these coaches with other leaders examined by the LBDQ - XII.

• Personal information – age, gender, degrees earned, etc.
  
• Program information – grants-in-aid, won-loss record.
  
• Effort information – the amount of time given to the vast duties of a coach at an institution.
  
• Identification with institution – how strongly attached the coach feels to his present situation.

Identification of leadership behavior of soccer coaches was computed through the tabulation of the record sheets of the LBDQ for each coach. The means and standard deviation for each subscale were computed for coaches by division. This step scored the coaches’ leadership behavior as described by the LBDQ-Form XII.

Analysis of the questionnaire was accomplished by placing the demographic data on IBM cards. A number of tests were run to determine any differences in the responses. There were 15 questions to be examined. Examination for most questions consisted of forming a contingency table and computing Chi square. This examination determined that no one factor (i.e. academic rank) had bearing on institutional identification.

The initial step of data analysis determined the mean and standard deviation for each leadership scale. This step described the leadership behavior of the two groups of coaches as determined by the completed Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) Form XII. The overall mean for each individual coach then was tabulated. The tabulations were compiled to determine a mean and standard deviation for the coaching groups (Division I and Division III). Lastly, the mean and standard deviation for all soccer coaches were tabulated.

The LBDQ was chosen because it is designed to measure contemporary leadership behavior or as Stogdill (1963, p. 11) suggests in the Manual for Administering the LBDQ Form XII:
LBDQ will describe the behavior of the leader, or leaders, in group or organization; provided the followers have an opportunity to observe the leader in action as a leader of the group. From LBDQ then, an accurate leader behavior description was ascertained from each coach. See the following definitions:

Representation – speaks and acts as the representative of the team.
Demand reconciliation – reconciles conflicting demands and reduces disorder to system.
Tolerance of uncertainty – is able to tolerate uncertainty and postponement without anxiety or upset.
Persuasiveness – uses persuasion and argument effectively; exhibits strong convictions.
Initiation of structure – clearly defines own role; lets followers know what is expected.
Toleration of freedom – allows followers’ scope for initiative, decision, and action.
Role assumption – actively exercises the leadership role rather than surrendering leadership to others.
Consideration – regards the comfort, well being, status, and contributions of followers.
Production emphasis – applies pressure for productive output.
Predictive accuracy – exhibits foresight and ability to predict outcomes accurately.
Integration – maintains a closely knit organization; resolves inter-member conflicts.
Superior orientation – maintains cordial relations with superiors; has influence with them; is striving for higher status.

The hypotheses were not supported by the data collected. The LBDQ did describe the coaches’ behavior, but also found that significant differences arose among coaches and between coaches and six previously tested groups.

The demographic questionnaire found four significant differences in the situational context of Division I and Division Ill coaches. These differences were found in the win-loss record, scholarships granted, evaluation process and time devoted to coaching. The data analysis suggests that these situational differences were cause for the differences in coaching leadership behavior.

Furthermore, there were significant differences found between coaches and six previously tested groups. These findings appear to support the situational nature of leadership and show that situational variables will dictate the style of leadership.

Conclusions
As with so many research efforts, this study may have raised more questions than it answered. However, some conclusions may be drawn from the data analysis. These conclusions are specific to Division I and Division III soccer coaches and are not intended to include coaches from other sports or from other levels of competition. The conclusions are:

1. Leadership behavior styles of soccer coaches seemingly can be described using the LBDQ.
2. There are significant differences in leadership behavior style of Division I and Division III soccer coaches as described by the LBDQ. Division III coaches tend to score higher than Division I in subscales of consideration, uncertainty tolerance and demand reconciliation.
3. The situational elements of the coaches, as determined by the results of the demographic questionnaire, seemingly explain these differences. There were significant differences found in four areas as proposed by the demographic questionnaire. The Division I coaches had a better win-loss record, spent more time at their coaching duties, awarded more scholarships and were evaluated first on their coaching duties.
4. There are significant differences between soccer coaches as a group and the six previously tested leader groups. These groups were: military commanders, highway patrolmen, community leaders, corporation presidents, college presidents and labor presidents.
5. The situational elements as summarized by Kerr et al. (1974) seem to explain these significant differences. Leadership behavior seems to be affected by the subordinate characteristics, supervisor characteristics and task characteristics.

1. Leadership behavior for soccer coaches can be described, measured and compared.
2. Coaches at different coaching levels (i.e. Division I and Division III) should be aware of the differences in leadership behavior styles exhibited at these levels.
3. Since leadership behavior is different at the two levels of coaching, the coaches’ operation and relationship to team members may be affected.
4. Since situational differences seem to affect the leadership styles of coaches, coaches should be made aware of the situation in which they are involved. A coach, for example, from Division III may not feel comfortable or succeed in a Division I setting with different situational variables.
5. This study is recommended as groundwork for future studies. Effectiveness, satisfaction, and many other variables may be measured and compared using the research format presented here.
6. At this time, coaches should still be selected based on their soccer and/or teaching credentials. However, administrators must be aware that situational variables may change the leadership behavior style of the coach.
7. Evaluation process should change to accommodate the coaching situation.