33 Constructive communication

Kevin L. Burke

We cannot not communicate. Whether or not we speak, gesture, acknowledge others, or return emails and text messages, we are communicating. Good communication L~ a cenrral skill sport psychologists and others in sports org-anizations should possess. Several authors have written regarding communicology, body language, linguistics, proxemics, encoding, dec()ding, sending, receiving, and other related topics (Burke, 1997). Many universities offer courses and even majors in communicatio:l. A hook is available entitled Case Studies in Sport Communication (Brown & O'Rourke, 2003), and a measure of communication in team sports has been developed (Sullivan & Feltz, 2006). In the business world, studies have shown having good interpersonal relations is a key forecaster of profitability and "bottom­line" advantages (Peters, 1988). Studies comparing communication among sport and busi­ness leaders emphasize similar amibutes (Weinberg & McDermott, 2002). Whetten and Cameron ( 1991) suggested supportive communication L~ a competitive advantage for managers and organizations. Regardless of the setting, effective communication L~ central to success. Knowing how to be effective communicators may he considered one of the most important skills sport psychologists should strive to hone. Interactions with others will sig­nificantly influence our success as practitioners. Understanding the basics of communica­tion provides a foundation for maximizing the components of this talent and potential for continual improvement.

Communication theory and research

There are interpersonal and group communicatbn theories in other areas of study that may be relevant to sport circumstances. One interpersonal communication model, the predicted outcome value theory (Sunnafrank, 1986), C(mcems anticipated costs and rewards in rela­tionships. Sunnafrank postulated relationships are advanced by the expectation of more positive than negative outC(>mes. In other words, the rewards and C(>Sts expected in a rela­tionship will influence the choice tO avoid, constrain, or pursue further involvement with another person. If athletes expect to benefit fro:n consulting with sport psychologists, they are more likely to seek and facilitate these C(msultations. If athletes expect negative outcomes

315

KEVIN L. BURKE

from spml psychologisl8, Lhey will communicaLe in ways that hinder 1lu: relationship- even possibly avoiding communication.

The belief that eventual maturity of interpersonal relationships is affected by perceptions of being understood or misunderstood is known as the theory o{ perceived understanding (Cahn, 1990). For example, if athletes perceive that sport psychologists understand or empathize with them, the athletes will develop feelings of emotional intimacy, which will probably lead to more interactions with sport psychologists. If athletes feel misunderstood by sport psychologists, they will most likely limit further communication.

The previous theories were developed with one-on-one communication issues at the core. There are also models of group communication processes. Two group communication theories/models are: the symbolic convergence theory (Bormann, 1986) and the interaction system model (Fisher & Hawe., 1971). Symbolic convergence (SC) theory emphasizes choices and personal translation, and that the swries and anecdotes members of a group tell disch~e important group norms and rules. In a sport setting for example, the anecdotes basketball players share with teammates about each other, or their opponents, augment team norms and help to develop and reinforce team identity. Team members learn about members of the group, and who the group represent:.~, through these symbolic converging behaviors (story telling). SC theory places importance on the meanings stories have for a team or group because these stories help the members form a rhetorical vision (Bormann, 1986). Rhetorical vision is the view of the team identity among group members and in rela­tion to persons outside the group. The strength of the SC theory is the potential w explain group processes such as the deve~opment of norms, rules, and cohesiveness (Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1997).

The interaction systems (IS) model places emphasis on interactions among group members rad1er than indiv idual acLior•i (Fhiher & lla wes, I 971) LO expla in group behavior. The IS model foc~~es on group members' behavior patterns, responses, and the interaction of mes­sage patterns (Infante et al., 1997). In other words, the IS model e:<plains that to understand team behavior, the interactions among team members should be analyzed, rather than just the behaviors of members within a team. According to Fisher and Hawes, verbal statements may be categorized as to the function performed in the group (e.g., clarification, substantia­tion, interpretation, decL~ion mtl<ing). Applied to a sport team, the IS model could be used to attempt to identify how a team interacts (e.g., message patterns among teammates) and the processes transpiring in making team decisions.

In addition to the theories and models above, Byrne's ( 1971) reinforcement theory pro­poses that principles of reinforcement explain most interpersonal attraction occurrences. Simply explained, we like and are attracted to people who reward us, and we dislike and are repelled by people who punish us. Byrne also predicted persons with similar anirudes will find their relationship rewarding, and hence, will like each other.

Research related to improving communication in sport teams has been limited in the field of sport psychology (Hanraharl & Gallois, 1993). One 12-week investigation of enharlcing interpersonal relations in team sports (DiBerardinis, Barwind, Flaningam, & Jenkins, 1983) showed improvement in a:>mmunication skills, and those gains were positive predictors of athletic performance. Other related studies investigating team a:>hesion have found, in interactive team sports, success and performance are dependent upon effective communication (e.g., Nixon, 1976). Studies investigating sport psychologist­athlete relations (e.g., Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979) and co-acting sportS (Williams & \Vidmeyer, 1991) have suggested a:>mmunication may be integral to success or perfonnance in sport.

316

CONSTRUCTIVE COMMUNICATION

Types of communication

Communication types may be viewed as intrapersonal and interpersonal. lntrapersonal communication is usually better known as "self-talk" or our inner monologue - the conver­sations we have with ourselves (see Chapter 53 ). One could argue that intrapersonal com­munication is the most important type of communication because it affecr.s one's views on life, confidence, daily actions, and reactions.

Interpersonal communication has usually been defined as meaningful exchanges between two or more persons and refers tO a person sending or receiving a message(s) from another individual or group. Interpersonal communication includes not only verbal content, but also nonverbal cues sometimes known as body language (e.g., micro-expressions, posture, facial expressions, voice intonations). Burke ( 1997) estimated that 50% to 70% of all information exchanged in-person is nonverbal. If this estimate is accurate, then forms of communication not exchanged in-person (e.g., e-mail, text messages, instant messaging, blogging) may be severely limited, or at least much less effective than face-to-face encoun­ters. When communication is &~embodied, then the potential for miscommunication and misinterpretation rises substantially.

Communication techniques

Although there is limited empirical research and theory on communication processes in sport, many methods and techniques have been suggested to improve communication processes on sport teams (e.g., Burke, 2005, 2006). Anshel (2003) developed a "ten commandments" of effective communication in sport (See Table 33. l ). Although suggested for coaches, sport psychologists may apply these propositions to their interactions with others.

Yukelson (2010) provided several suggestions for how to become an effective com­municacor. He stated: one must be honest, have good listening skills, be good at asking questions, be able to develop rapport, promote various views of the same situation, tL~e the proper terminology, and establish a trusting relationship. Yukelson aL~o emphasized tO

become an effective communicator one must take the time to practise these important attributes.

Table 33. I The ten commandmenrs of communication.

I) Thou shalt be honest. 2) Thou shalt not he defensive. 3) Thou shalt be consistent. 4) Thou shalt be empathetic. 5) Thou shalt not he sarcastic. 6) Thou shalt praise and criticize behavior, not personal icy. 7) Thou shalt respect the incegricy of ochers. 8) Thou shalt use positive nonverbal cues. 9) Thou shalt reach skills.

10) Thou shalt inceract consistently with all rerun members.

From: Anshel, M. H. (2003) . Spott psychology: From theory to ptactice (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarishrick.

317

KEVIN L. BURKE

Communication malfunctions

Although technology has assisted in the rapid exchange of certain types of communica­tions, errors or misperceptions in communications are still frequent, and when communica­tion failures or breakdowns occur, most persons blame the other parties. This bias may keep sport psychologist:.~ from thoroughly examining and attempting to improve their interpersonal skills. For accurate communications to occur, all participants must make a substantial effort, which sometimes is challenging. When persons are not "on the same page," communication breakdowns or barriers ·Occur. One of the more common blocks tO

communication is inattentive listening, which usually occurs because the listener is not interested, is thinking of another topic, or is planning the next response. Another possible communication barrier between individual~ is trust. When persons do not share a trust of each other, confidence in the information exchanged L~ severely affected. Another common cause of communication malfunctions is sending unclear or inconsistent messages. Ambiguous and vague statements are often difficult to comprehend and lead tO unintended (mis) interpretations.

Levels of listening

One aspect of improving communication and reducing communication malfunctions is the skill of becoming a better listener (Flynn, Valikoski, & Grau, 2008). Martens (1997) claimed listening effectively is difficult and most untrained listeners hear less that 20% of what is said to them! Martens (1997) suggested one may improve listening skill~ by recognizing the need to listen, focusing intently on hearing what is said, trying tO

understand the meaning of the message as well as the facts of the message, avoiding the temptation to interrupt or complete others' statements for them, respecting others' rights tO give their viewpoinrs, and trying not to give an emotional response unless it L~ suitable. Rosenfeld and \Vilder (1990) discussed three level~ of listening. Level one repre­sents active lL~tening. In active listening, the receiver is trying to understand the content of the message, the intention of the message, and the feelings accompanying the message. Martens (1997) stated that active lL~tening involves letting the message sender know the message L~ being understood. Sometimes called reflective listening (Yukelson, 2010), thL~ skill can be accomplished by paraphrasing (restating) what the person said, asking questions, and using body language that communicates attention and engagement. Using these techniques makes the sender aware the receiver is paying close attention and is interested in the message. After the message is received, the listener should honest! y and immediately inform the sender how the message is understood in a brief, but clear, manner (Martens, 1987). Another aspect of reflective or active listening is the ability tO show empathy (Yukelson, 2010). Being empathetic means the listener is able to view the situation from the sender's perspective. A good lL~tener is able to show the sender caring and concern.

Level two listening refers to hearing only the content of the message. This type of listen­ing may cause the communicator to feel the listener L~ uninterested or preoccupied. Level three listening occurs when the person receiving the message only hears portions of what L~ being stated. Attention to the message fades in and out. Receivers may also be so concerned in developing responses that they neglect to hear all of what the sender is attempting tO

share. Beginning sport psychology graduate students in their first consultation role plays may be an example of this phenomenon.

318

CONST RUCTIVE COMMUNICATION

Weinberg and Gould (2003) discussed using supportive behaviors to indicate one is listening to the message being sent. Some of these actions are: staying open to new ideas, keeping direct eye contact, nodding the head, using receptive facial gestures, acknowledging receipt of the message verbally, and paraphrasing what has heen said. Finally, the foundation for improving a:>mmunication, and lessening the risk of a:>mmunica­tion malfunctions, is to be motivated to improve. It is likely that the amount of com­munication enhancement occurring will directly depend on the level of m0tivation to

seek improvement.

Sending effective messages

Being a good communicaror involves the ability to a:>mmunicate in a manner that is clear and concise. Hardy, Burke, and Crace (2005) provided several guidelines for sending effective messages. An initial aspect of what L~ to be communicated L~ the development of the message, determining what is to he a:>mmunicated and attempting to stay within the confines of that message. Avoid adding peripheral statements or information unnecessary to the baseline message. Also, conveying too much information may overload the receiver, particularly when the athlete or a:>ach L~ under elevated stress. Development of the message can be challenging for sport psychologists in the midst of counseling sessions, due to the small amount of preparation time available in thc~~e immediate situations.

Another central element tO effective communication is to seek first tO understand the person, then seek to be understood (Covey, 1990). This suggestion places importance on showing empathy by understanding the client's goal~, interests, values, and frame of reference. By getting to know the coach or athlete first, you will be more likely to communicate with them in a meaningful manner. Another way tO be sure communications are being understood is to observe the actions and reactions of the listeners (e.g., body language, micro-expressions). Look for signs the athletes or coaches comprehend what is being said. Finally, one way to help assure your message is received is repetition. Repeat the message as many times as L~ necessary to he sure it is underst0od. Although at times it may be necessary to repeat the message in the same manner it was first delivered, find ways of sending the same message in different forms.

In communication, finding a pmitive manner of stating what needs to he said - even if strong criticism is necessary - can be extremely effective. The "sandwich approach" (Smith & Smoll, 1996) has been a popular method for providing corrective information in a manner in which the person receiving the criticism does not feel attacked, and is instead encouraged by the interaction. Briefly stated, the sandwich approach begins with a positive opening statement, followed by a future-oriented corrective statement, and end~ with an ena:>uraging, positive chsing remark. In daily interactions with others, finding a positive way tO speak with others is almost always more engaging than sarcastic or biting exchanges -no matter what the topic of conversation may he.

The use of humor in communication has been shown to have mental and physical ben­efits (Burke, 2006). Humor is a basic way of communicating (Lynch, 2002) and can be effective in therapy (Keller, 1984). A good sense of humor can also be an effective coping mechanism (Brooks, Guthrie, & Gaylord, 1999), a relationship builder, and a meaningful a:>mmunication avenue (Rogers, 1984). Also, studies have indicated humorotL~ individuals have h igher popularity (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield, 1996). Currently, it seems there are potentially many benefit.~ to humor, when used appropriately, in com­municating with clients.

319

KEVIN L. BURKE

Nonverbal communication

As mentioned earlier, micro expressions, bod·r language, and facial expressions may he responsible for conveying more information than verbal communication. Body language may be a more salient indicator of what another is thinking and feeling than verbal content, because these subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) cues are more difficult to control con­scious~y than spoken language (Burke, 1997). Many individuals are so focused on the verbal aspects of their messages they often give little attention as to whether or not their facial expressions and body postures support what is being said. It behooves sport psychology pro­fessionals to learn to pay attention to these potential I y valuable clues. Yet, even the most experienced body language expert:.~ realize interpreting body language accurately on a consistent basis is challenging.

Although sport psychologist.~ may attend to bodily cues from their clients to better comprehend the overall communication sequence, clients may he engaged in tne same analysis. Sport psychology professionals should strive to provide nonverbal communication that supports the messages being sent. For example, using a confident ho::ly posture (e.g., shoulders back, chin forward) can help the client have confidence in what is being said.

Electronic communication

One decision sport psychology consultants mu~t consider is how much, if any, electronic communication they wish tO use with their clients. With the many communication avenues available (e.g., cell telephone, e-mail, instant arid text messaging, Facehook, Twitter, biogs), it is possible tO provide an alm<~~t unlimited amount of "in touch" services with a client (see also 01apter 44 in this book). Today's "echo hoomers" generation (or Generation Y -names given to children of"baby boomers") is the first generation to grow up with computer tech­nology (such as e-mail and text messaging), cell phones, and satellite dishes for television (Leung, 2005). Echo boomers' (EBs) familiarity with these electronic devices, in many cases, means some EBs are much more comfortable communicating in this fashion than many sport psychologists usually are. Therefore, sport psychologist.~ should familiarize them­selves with these communication possibilities and at least consider using some of these avenues as a supplement to face-to-face meetir.gs, particularly with EBs. One major draw­back of rhL~ communication boom, however, is some clients may expect practitioners tO he available almost 24/7, which may create dependency issues that must be dealt with by sport psychologists.

"Bull in the ring": a team exercise

When a ream experiences communication difficulties, the bull in the ring (BITR) tech­nique (Burke, 2005) may be tL~ed to assist with alleviating ream disruption and tension. When handled properly, this intervention usually gets the teammates involved and can he an effective eye-opening, group, and self-awareness session. The BITR session may he held in two stages. First, the players are asked to sit in a circle (the ring), and a chair is placed in the center of that circle. For the first part of the session, a team item is placed in the center chair. The item could be a media guide, team jersey (without a player's name or number

320

CONST RUCTIVE COMMUNICATION

showing), sport object (e.g., bat, ball), or even a card that has the team's name, maSC(>t, or logo on it. The players are instructed to follow four basic rules:

1. Speak freely, honestly, and forthrightly. 2. Do not explain the brief statements (discussion may occur later). 3. Do not openly react to the statements. 4. Keep an open mind.

Proceeding clockwise around the circle, each teammate is asked to make a constructive, negative statement about their team while looking at the team symbol in the center chair. (For each "round," it is usually a good idea to grant the first person a thirty-second pause to

give an adequate amount of time for a thoughtful response.) For this part of the BITR ses­sion, players are not allowed tO make statement:.~ about any individual, hut are tO only make relevant statements about the team. After hearing all of the C(>nStructive negative state­ment.~ and following the same guidelines, each player is then asked to make a positive state­ment about the team. After hearing all of the positive statements, each player L~ then allowed to make one comment or ask one question of any teammate related to the positive or negative comments made in this part of the session.

The second component of the BITR session follows the same format as the first part, hut each player sits in the center chair to hear comments directed at him/her. Thus, all players will hear one positive and one negative statement about themselves from each of their teammates. Each center-chair team member (the hull) is given the opportunity to select whether to hear the round of positive or negative statements first. Teammates making the comments may pass (only once) if not ready to respond, and, must look the bull directly in the eyes while making all comments. Each time a new round of comments begins, the team· mate next in the circle after the person who last began the previous round, begins the next round of comments.

Obviously this activity can be a sensitive encounter for any team. The sport psychologist's role is to enforce the rules, keep the teammates on task, and help the process flow as smoothly as possible. After all of the players complete their turns in the center chair, then each team member is given a chance to ask one question to any one of the teammates about the positive or negative comments made. Most bull~ tend tO ask a question regarding a negative statement from one of their teammates. The sport psychologist should keep these mini-disctL~Sions brief. These questions may bring about short dL~ctL%ions and interactions from teammates who sometimes may not interact often. Issues not normally talked about among the teammates who do interact often may be discussed. Then, if the climate is facilitative after the second part of this exercL~e. allow any teammate who vol.unteers, to make one C(>mment, or ask one question of any other teammate, as long as the C(>mment/ question does not relate to the statements made during the BITR session. After the C(mclu­sion of the BITR session, the sport psychologist may wish to have the group dL~cuss the process just enC(>untered. Whether or not tO have a "debriefing" session after the BITR depends on how the encounters were responded to by the participants. If the sport psy­chologist believes there may be more L~sues to discuss or the group would benefit from further discussion of the BITR processes, then further discussion is enC(mraged.

The BITR exercise can be an excellent method for reducing uncertainty within a team situation. Through these sessions teammates learn what each other is thinking about the team, and how they are perceived by teammates. In circumstances in which there L~ excellent rapport and trust, coaches and sport psychologist:.~ may cho<~~e to participate in the BITR.

321

KEVIN L. BURKE

Another way to incorporate sport psychologists or coaches in the BITR (without players being concerned about retaliation by persons in "positions of power,") is to allow anony­mous positive and negative statements tO be presented. By learning how one is perceived by othenl, the BITR •leS<lion helpll promote self·awnrene•lS through seeing oneself through others' eyes. Another purpose of BITR is to "clear the air" about issues hurting the team chemL~try, and to help promote better communication. Many times the BITR session will promote a bonding experience for the ream members. The three c~ or major goals of the BITR intervention are to promote cohesion, tO improve communication, and to clear the air.

Closing comments

Even under the best circumstances, maintaining clear and consistent communication L~ challenging. Many people have a tendency to blame communication mishaps on others, which makes oneself unlikely to seek to improve in this area. Understanding and practising our skills of communication, along with the accompanying engaged, open, and attentive hody language, is a major key to being successful as a sport psychology consultant. See Box 33. l for some take-home messages from thL~ chapter.

Box 33.1

Take-home messages regarding communication

O:>mmunication may be viewed as constantly occurring. O:>mmunication may be inrrapersonal and interpersonal. Use the "ten commandments" of communication. Make the effort to be an active listener. O:>mmunicate with others in a manner that is clear and concise, using a p<~~i­tive approach and a sense of humor. Be aware of nonverbal communication elements to send effective messages and to understand clients. O:>nsider using electronic communication methods - at least as an adjunct to face-to-face encounters. Use the "bull in the ring" technique to delve into group or ream issues.

References

Anshel, M. H. (2003). Spart psychology: From thwry to practice (2nd ed.). Scorr.'ldale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

Bonnann, E. G . ( 1986}. Symbolic convergence theory and group decision making. In R. Y. H irokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and woiip decisinn making (pp. 219- 236). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Brooks, N. A., Guthrie, D. W., & Gaylord, C. G . (1999) . Therapeutic humor in the family: An exploratory study. Humor, 12, 151- 160.

Brown, R. S., & O'Rourke, D. J. (2003). Case stitdies in sport comm1mication. Wesq10rr, CT: Praeger. Burke, K. L. (1997) . Communication in sporr..~: Research and practice. Jo11mal of Interdi~ciplina!'y

Resea!'ch in Ph)•sicaI Ed11cation, 2, 39- 52.

322

CONSTRUCTIVE COMMUNICATION

Burke, K. L. (2005). But coach doesn't understand: Dealing widl teain communication quagmires. In M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Spart psychology in practice {pp. 45- 59). Chainpaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Burke, K. L. (2006) . Using spore psychology to improve hasketball perfonnance .. In J. Dosi( (Ed.), The spart psychologist's handbook: A gitide for spori--specific pe1farmance enhancement (pp. 121- 137). Wesc Sussex, England: Wiley.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Cahn, D. D. (1990) . Perceived understaJlding and interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and

Personal Relacion.ships, 7, 231- 244. Covey, S. R. ( 1990). The 7 habils of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster. DiBerardinis,J., Barwind,J., Raningam, R. R., &Jenkins, V. (1983}. Enhanced interpersonal relation

as predictor of achlecic perfom1ance. lntemational}ottmal of Sport Psychology, 14, 243-251. Fisher, S. A., & Hawes, L. C . (1971) . An inceracr system model: Generating a grounded dleory of

small groups. Quarterly ]011rna1 of Speech, 57, 444-453. Flynn, ].. Valikoski, T., & Grau, J. (2008). Listening in dle husiness context: Reviewing che scace of

research. I ntemational]ournal of Listening, 22, 141-151. Hanrahan, S., & Gallois, S. (1993 ). Social interactions. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant

(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology (pp. 623--046). New York: MacmillaJl. Hardy, C. ].. Burke, K. L., & Crace, R. K. {2005). Coaching: An effective communication syscem. In

S. Murphy (Ed.) The sport psych handbook (pp. 191- 212). Champaign, IL: Humail Kinet ics. Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. R {1997). Imercultural contexrs. In Buildingcommunictv

tion theory (3rd ed., pp. 371- 395). Prospect He.ights, IL: Waveland Press. Keller, D. (1984). Humor as therapy. Wauwatosa, WI: Med-Psych. Le.ung, R. (2005, Septemher 4) . The echo hoomers. CBS News. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from: h ttp://

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/IO/Ol/60minuces/main646890.shanl Lynch, 0 . H. (2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication

research. Communication Theory, 12, 423-445. Martens, R. {1987). Coaches gitide to sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Martens, R. {1997). S1tccessfttl coaching. Champaign, IL: HumaJl Kinetics. Nixon, H. L. (1976) . Team oriencarions, imerpersonal relations, aJld team success. Research Quarterly,

47, 429-435. Pe.cers, T. (1988). Thri.ving on chaos. New York: Knopf. Rogers, V. R. (1984) . Laughing wich children. Ed1teational Leadership, 41, 46--50. Rosenfeld, L., & Wilder, L. (1990) . Communication fundamencak Act ive listening. Sport Psychology

Training B11/lerin, I (5), 1-8. Smith, R. E., & Smoll, R L. (1996) . Way wgo, coach!: A scientifically-proven approach to coaching effec­

tiveness. Portola Valley, CA: Warde. Smith, R. E., Smoll, R, & Curtis, B. (1979) . Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive-behavioral

approach to enhaJlcing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. ]011rna1 of Sport Psychology, 59- 75.

Sullivan, P. M., & Felcz, D. L. (2006). The preliminary developmenc of che Scale for Effective Communication in Team Sports (SECTS). ]011rna1 of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1693-1715.

Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformulation of uncercainry reduction cheory. Human Comm11nicarion Research, 13, 3-33.

Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Buccerfield, S., & Boodl-Butterfield, M. (1996) . Are funny people popular? An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, aJld social attraction. Communication Q11artetly, 44, 42- 52.

We.inberg. R., & McDermott, M. (2002). A comparative aJlalysis of spore and hLLsiness organiza­tions: Factors perceived critical for organizational success. ]011rna1 of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 282- 298.

We.inberg, R. S., & Gould, D. {2003). Foundations of sport and exercLse psychology (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

323

KEVIN L. BURKE

Whetten, D. W., & Cameron, K. S. (1991). Developi.ng management ski/L~ (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Williams, J.M., & Widmeyer, W N. (1991) . The cohesion-performance outcome relationship in a coacting spore. ]011rnal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 364- 371.

Yukelson, D. (2010) . Communicating effectively. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal c;rowch to peak performance (6th ed., pp. 149- 165). New York: McGraw-Hill.

324