Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 10(1): 1-8 (2002) ISSN: 0128-7702© Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Transformational Leadership Behaviours of Athletic Directorsand Their Effects on Coaches' Job Satisfaction

AMINUDDIN YUSOFFaculty of Educational Studies

Universiti Putra Malaysia43400 UPM SerdangSelangor Darul Ehsan

Keywords: Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, job satisfaction

ABSTRAK

Kajian ini menyelidik hubungan di antara gaya kepimpinan transformasi pengarah-pengarahsukan dengan kepuasan bekerja jurulatihjurulatih di institusi-institusi NCAA Divisyen I dan III diAmerika Syarikat. Kajian ini juga menyelidik sarna ada terdapat perbezaan di antara institusiDivisyen I dengan institusi Divisyen III dari segi tahap kepimpinan transformasi pengarah­pengarah sukan dan tahap kepuasan bekerja jurulatihjurulatih. Data untuk kajian ini dikumpuldaripada 618 jurulatih. Transformational Leadership Behaviour Inventory (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Moorman & Fetter 1990) digunakan untuk mengukur persepsi jurulatihjurulatih dari segi gayakepimpinan pengarah-pengarah sukan. Kepuasan bekerja jurulatihjurulatih diukur denganmenggunakan Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England & Lofquist 1967).Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan analisis pembezaan dan regresi logistik. Jurulatih DivisyenI didapati memberi penilaian yang lebih tinggi dari segi kepimpinan transformasi ketua merekasekiranya dibandingkan dengan jurulatih Divisyen III. Jurulatih Divisyen I juga melaporkan tahapkepuasan bekerja yang lebih tinggi sekiranya dibandingkan dengan rakan mereka di Divisyen III.Kajian ini juga mendapati hubungan yang signifikan di antara gaya kepimpinan transformasipengarah-pengarah sukan dengan kepuasan bekerja jurulatihjurulatih di institusi NCAA DivisyenI dan Divisyen III.

ABSTRAGr

This study examined the relationship between transformational leadership behaviours of athleticsdirectors and job satisfaction of coaches at NCAA Division I and III institutions in the UnitedStates. In addition, this study also examined whether there are differences between Division I andIII institutions with respect to the levels of transformational leadership behaviours of athleticsdirectors and coaches' job satisfaction. Data for this study were collected from 618 coaches. TheTransformational Leadership Behaviour Inventory developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman& Fetter (1990) was used to measure coaches' perception of the transformational leadershipbehaviours of their athletics directors. The job satisfaction of coaches was measured by using theMinnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England & Lofquist 1967). Data wereanalyzed by using discriminant analysis and logistic regression. It was discovered that Division Icoaches evaluated their superiors higher in terms of transformational leadership behaviours thantheir counterparts in Division III. Division I coaches also reported a higher level ofjob satisfactionthan coaches from Division III. The results also revealed that there was a significant relationshipbetween transformational leadership behaviours of athletics directors and coaches' job satisfactionat both NCAA Division I and Division III institutions.

INTRODUCTION

Interest in the study of leadership has beenrenewed by the emergence of a leadershipparadigm known as transformational leadership

theory. Burns (1978) noted that leadership hasoften been viewed as an exchange process inwhich a leader provides rewards to subordinatesin the form of payor prestige in exchange for

Aminudclin Yusof

work done by subordinates. Bums (1978) labeledthis type of leadership behaviour as transactionalleadership.Using the framework provided byMaslow's (1954) hierarchy of needs theory, Burns(1978) distinguished transformational fromtransactional leadership by pointing out that,transactional leaders appeal only to subordinates'low level and basic needs such as the need forsafety and security. The transformational leader,on the other hand, activates subordinates' higherorder needs such as the need for self­actualization. Bums (1978) argued that byactivating subordinates' higher order needs,transformational leaders are able to elevatesubordinates' motivation. The outcome oftransformational leadership behaviours is one ofan inspired subordinate who is aiming for highergoals and who is willing to perform work beyondthe minimum levels specified by the organization(Bass 1985).

Based on the studies conducted by Bass(1985), Bennis & Nanus (1985), Tichy &DeVanna (1986), Conger & Kanungo (1987),Kouzes & Posner (1987), Yukl (1994), andYammarino & Bass (1990), it was discovered thattransformational leaders are endowed withcertain traits and skills such as charismaticpersonality, strategic vision, superior diagnosticand oratory skills, and the ability to recognizethe needs of subordinates. The results of severalstudies conducted by Avolio & Bass (1988), Bass,Avolio & Goodheim (1987), Howell & Frost(1989) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, &Fetter (1990) showed that these traits aredisplayed in leadership behaviours whichresulted in higher job performance and greaterjob satisfaction among employees of businessand industrial organizations. Since job satisfactionand performance are criteria often used tomeasure leadership effectiveness (Bass 1990), itcould be argued that transformational leadershipbehaviours are indeed related to effectiveleadership behaviours.

Sports administrators will certainly beinterested in investigating the usefulness of thetransformational leadership theory in sportssettings. Specifically, if transformationalleadership behaviours are indeed related tosubordinates' job satisfaction in sports settings,perhaps sports administrators may be able tomotivate subordinates to achieve higher goalsand to do more for the organization with fewerresources. Certainly, the ability of sports

administrators to motivate subordinates to

perform work beyond the minimum levelsrequired by the organization is important insports today, especially in intercollegiate athleticsin the United States where most programs arebeing burdened with increasing costs of runningsuch programs and declining revenues(Armstrong-Doherty 1995).

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Despite the positive evidence supporting thevalidity of the propositions of transformationalleadership in business settings, there is a lack ofresearch done on this theory in sports settings.The few research studies conducted in sportssettings have obtained conflicting results.Specifically, in a study on Dutch national sportsorganizations, Pruijn and Boucher (1995)discovered no significant relationship betweentransformational leadership behaviours withsubordinates' job satisfaction and commitment.In another study, Doherty and Danylchuk (1996)examined the relationship between thetransformational leadership behaviours ofCanadian university athletics administrators tocoaches' job satisfaction. The authors discoveredthat transformational leadership behaviours ofthe athletics administrators were positively relatedto coaches' job satisfaction. Another study byWallace and Weese of Canadian YMCA directors(1995) showed no significant relationshipbetween transformational leadership behaviourswith employee job satisfaction. In a studyconducted by Langley and Weese (1995), theauthors reported no significant difference interms of employee job satisfaction between sportsorganizations led by high transformationalleaders with organizations led by lowtransformational leaders. Bourner and Weese(1995) found evidence of transformationalleadership behaviours among leaders ofCanadian Hockey League organizations.However, the authors reported no significantrelationship between transformational leadershipbehaviours and organizational effectiveness.

The conflicting results obtained ontransformational leadership research in sportssettings suggest the need for more research totest this theory in sports. Furthermore,considering that transformational leadershiptheory is a relatively new theory, the applicabilityof this theory in non-business settings needs tobe addressed. Certainly, [mdings from sports

2 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 10 No.1 2002

Transfonnational Leadership Behaviours of Athletic Directors & Their Effects on Coaches' Job Satisfaction

settings may provide a stronger validation of thepropositions of the transformational leadershiptheory. Consistent with this need, the purpose ofthis study was to address the following question:Do transformational leadership behaviours havea significant relationship with subordinates' jobsatisfaction in sports settings? Specifically, thisstudy investigated the relationship betweentransformational leadership behaviours ofathletics directors and coaches' job satisfactionat NCAA Division I and III institutions.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted with the followingobjectives:1. To identify the relationship between

transformational leadership behaviours ofathletics directors and coaches' jobsatisfaction at NCAA Division I and IIIinstitutions.

2. To examine whether there are significantdifferences between NCAA Division I andIII institutions with respect to trans­formational leadership behaviours ofathletics directors and coaches' jobsatisfaction.

METHODS

Sample

Data for this study were collected during thespring of 1998. Subjects were selected by usingtwo procedures. First, a stratified random sampleof 90 NCAA Division I and 90 Division IIIinstitutions was selected based on the 1997National Directory of College Athletics. Thisdirectory contains the list of all NCAA DivisionI and III institutions, as well as the names of allhead coaches and assistant head coaches at theseinstitutions. Once the institutions were identified,a simple random sample of 10 coaches from thefollowing sports was selected from eachinstitution: (1) men's soccer, (2) women's soccer,(3) field hockey, (4) ice hockey, (5) men'svolleyball, (6) women's volleyball, (7) men'sbaseball, and (8) women's softball.

A total of 1,800 subjects (900 from eachdivision stratified according to 450 male and 450female coaches) were randomly selected for thisstudy using the selection procedures mentionedabove. Survey packets were sent to the subjects,each packet containing a letter of introductiondescribing the study, directions for completingthe survey, the survey instruments, and a postage

paid envelope for returning the survey directlyto this researcher. Follow-up letters were sentafter one month to thank subjects for respondingto the surveyor reminding them if they had notdone so. A total of 643 subjects responded tothe survey representing a response rate of 35.7%.From this sample size, 25 subjects had morethan 10% missing or incomplete responses andwere excluded from the sample leaving a finalsample size of 618 subjects (34.3%).

The final sample consisted of 310 subjects(50.2%) from Division I institutions while 308subjects (49.8%) were from Division III. Therewere 313 males (50.6%) and 305 females(49.4%). The age range of the sample was 22-69years with a mean age of 36.08 years. The majorityof the subjects (n=490, 79.4%) were employedas full-time coaches while 496 subjects (80.3%)were head coaches. A total of 225 subjects(49.4%) reported performing administrativeduties in addition to coaching while 259 subjects(36.4%) reported having teaching res­ponsibilities. The number of years of coachingexperience ranged from 1 year to 43 years witha mean of 11.83 years.

The determination of the sample size of 300subjects (from each division) was based on a +/- 5.65 % tolerated sampling error. According toBackstrom and Hursh-Cesar (1981), using theformula n = Z (PQ) / T, where n is therequired sampling size, Z is the Z deviate at 0.05confidence level (1.96), T is the desired samplingerror (5.65%), PQ is the heterogeneity of themain variables (50/50), a sample size of 300subjects (from each division) drawn randomlyfrom the population is associated with a toleratederror of +/- 5.65 %. The total sample of 600 isassociated with a sampling error of +/- 4% at the0.05 level of significance.

Instrument

The questionnaire used in this study was dividedinto three sections. The first section consists ofthe Transformational Leadership BehaviourInventory developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Moorman, and Fetter (1990). This instrumentwas used to measure the coaches' perception ofthe transformational leadership behaviours oftheir athletics director. The instrument has areported internal consistency that ranges from0.78 to 0.92 (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman,& Fetter 1990). The second section of thequestionnaire measures the subjects' job

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 10 No.1 2002 3

Aminuddin Yusof

satisfaction. This section consists of the 20-itemshort form of the Minnesota SatisfactionQuestionnaire developed by Weiss, Dawis,England and Lofquist (1967). The authorsreported the internal consistency of the short­form MSQ to range from 0.77 to 0.92. In thefinal section of the questionnaire, the subjectswere asked to respond to question itemspertaining to demographic information such asage, gender, gender of athlete, type of sport,number of years of coaching experience,coaching status, employment status, win/lossrecord, teaching and administrative duties, andathletic affiliation.

Data Analysis

The data in this study were analyzed in twostages. First, discriminant analysis was used toexamine whether significant differences existbetween CAA Division I and III institutionswith respect to transformational leadershipbehaviours of athletic directors and coaches' jobsatisfaction. In the second stage of data analysis,sequential logistic regressions were used toexamine the relationship between trans­formational leadership behaviours of athleticsdirectors and coaches' job satisfaction, whilecontrolling the effects of other variables.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the results of the discriminantanalysis. It can be seen from this table thatNCAA Division I and Division III institutionsdiffered significantly (p<0.05) in terms ofcoaches' job satisfaction and athletics directors'transformational leadership behaviours. Anexamination of this table shows some interestingfindings. First, athletic directors from Division Iinstitutions were evaluated higher than theircounterparts in Division III in terms of

transformational leadership behaviours. Second,coaches from Division I institutions reported ahigher level of job satisfaction than coachesfrom Division III. When taken together, thesetwo fmdings suggest that coaches (from DivisionI) who evaluated their superiors higher intransformational leadership behaviours, reporteda higher level of job satisfaction than coaches(from Division III) who evaluated their leaderslower in transformational leadership behaviours.

Since the results of discriminant analysisshow a significant difference between Division Iand Division III institutions, sequential logisticregressions were conducted separately by division.For the logistic regression analyses, the subjectswere classified into one of two groups based onthe median scores on job satisfaction. Specifically,subjects who scored below the median of 74.0were classified as having low job satisfactionwhile those who scored above the median wereclassified as having high job satisfaction. Alldemographic variables (age, gender, coachingstatus, employment status, number of yearscoaching, administrative and coaching duties)were forced to enter the logistic regression modelfirst. Next, in a second model, the variable underinvestigation (transformational leadershipbehaviours) was added to the logistic regressionmodel. Comparison was made between thedemographic (covariate) model with the fullmodel. Any significant improvement in the fullmodel indicates that adding the transformationalleadership variable reliably improves theprediction of the dependent variable. This is thesame as saying that there is a significantrelationship between transformational leadershipbehaviours of athletics directors and thedependent variable, coaches' job satisfaction.Table 2 shows the results for the full model afterthe addition of the transformational leadership

TABLE 1Variables which discriminate between Division I and Division III institutions

Variable Division I Division III Std Discrim(Means) (Means) Coefficient

Transformational Leadership 73.28 71.59 0.24Job Satisfaction 73.93 73.53 -D.27

Eigenvalue0.24

Canonical0.44

Lambda0.81

Chi-Square125.54

Df10

Sigp<0.05

Classification Rate: Div I 68.1 % Div III 69.2%

4 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 10 No.1 2002

Transformational Leadership Behaviours of Athletic Directors & Their Effects on Coaches' Job Satisfaction

variables for Division I institutions. Anexamination of this table shows that Model Chi­Square was significant (p<O.OI), indicating asignificant improvement in the prediction of thedependent variable from the previous model(covariate-only model). Transformationalleadership was significant (p<O.OI) with a positivelogistic regression coefficient. The two findingssuggest that adding the transformationalleadership variable in the full model reliablyimproves the prediction of the dependentvariable job satisfaction. In other words, therewas a significant relationship between the variableunder investigation (transformational leadershipbehaviour) and the dependent variable (coaches'job satisfaction). The classification accuracy ratewas 67.38% for coaches with low job satisfactionand 73.25% for coaches with high job satisfaction.These suggest that this model successfullydifferentiates coaches with low job satisfaction

TABLE 2Sequential logistic regression analysis ­

transformational leadershipDivision I institutions (full model)

behaviours of athletics directors were significantlyrelated to coaches' job satisfaction at Division IIIinstitutions. In this model, 61.15% of the coacheswere correctly classified as having low jobsatisfaction, while the correct classification ratefor those with high job satisfaction was 75.0%.

TABLE 3Sequential logistic regression analysis ­

transformational leadershipDivision III institutions (full model)

Variable Addedto the Full Model Coefficient (B) Significance

TransformationalLeadership 0.034 0.01

-2 Log Likelihood 354.01Goodness of Fit 294.28

Model Chi-Square 15.95 p<O.OIImprovement 15.95 p<O.OI

Classification Rate: Low Satisfaction 61.15%High Satisfaction 75.00%

from those with high job satisfaction.As shown in Table 3, the results for Division

III institutions were similar to those obtained forDivision I. The significance level of Model Chi­Square (p<O.OI) indicates that adding thetransformational leadership variable in the fullmodel reliably improves the prediction of thedependent variable from the covariate-onlymodel. The predictor variable under investigation(transformational leadership) was significant(p<O.OI) with a positive logistic regressioncoefficient. When taken together, the twofmdings suggest that transformational leadership

Classification Rate: Low SatisfactionHigh Satisfaction

0.051 0.01

Coefficient (B) Significance

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

On the basis of the results obtained in this study,it can be concluded that there was a significantrelationship between transformational leadershipbehaviours of athletics directors and coaches'job satisfaction at both NCAA Division I and IIIinstitutions. Specifically, the results support thepropositions that transformational leadershipbehaviour increases subordinates' job satisfaction.As Bass (1985) pointed out, a transformationalleader conveys high expectations in terms of theability of the subordinates to achieve the goalsof the organization. By engaging intransformational leadership behaviours, Bass(1995) asserted that subordinates' self-confidenceand job satisfaction are positively affected, to theextent that subordinates are willing to performwork beyond the minimum levels expected ofthem. On the basis of Bass's (1985) assertion, itcan be argued that by increasing coaches' jobsatisfaction, transformational athletics directorsare able to motivate coaches to perform beyondthe minimum levels expected of them. Certainly,this ability to motivate subordinates to do morework with fewer resources is important in sportstoday, in view of the rising costs and decliningrevenues facing most sports programs today.

p<O.OIp<O.OI

67.38%73.25%

330.41312.93

30.67830.678

Model Chi-SquareImprovement

-2 Log LikelihoodGoodness of Fit

TransformationalLeadership

Variable Addedto the Full Model

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 10 No.1 2002 5

Aminuddin Yusof

However, it is less obvious why there aredifferences between CAA Division I andDivision III institutions with respect totransformational leadership behaviours ofathletics directors and coaches' job satisfaction.Specifically, the fmdings of this study suggestthat coaches (from Division I) who evaluatedtheir superiors higher in transformationalleadership behaviours, reported a higher levelof job satisfaction than coaches (from DivisionIII) who evaluated their leaders lower intransformational leadership behaviours. Why arethere differences between Division I and IIIcoaches' job satisfaction and their evaluation ofthe transformational leadership behaviours oftheir athletics directors? It is possible that thenature of work situations and the levels ofprofessionalization that exists in an institutionmight influence coaches' job satisfaction. Acomparison between Division I and III institutionssuggests that there are differences between thetwo divisions in terms of structure (Atwell, Grimes& Lopiano 1980), levels of professionalizationand commercialization (Sack 1987), and levelsof competition (Coakley 1986). Specifically,NCAA Division III institutions differ fromDivision I with respect to the following : (1)offer no athletics scholarships, (2) spend lessmoney on athletics, (3) generate less revenue,(4) sponsor a fewer number of sports, and (5)employ fewer coaches. It should be pointed outthat most coaches at Division III institutionshave faculty appointments. As educators, DivisionIII coaches are bound to consider teaching andgood performance in the classroom as moresatisfying than winning games or coaching. Inaddition, Division III coaches are more likely tobe promoted and rewarded in the institution onthe basis of their ability as good educators andnot as winning coaches. For this reason, DivisionIII coaches may consider the transformationalleadership behaviours of their athletics directorsas being less important to the coaches' jobsatisfaction. On the other hand, most Division Icoaches have full time appointments and thesecoaches are promoted and rewarded on thebasis of their ability to win games. Thus, coachesat NCAA Division I institutions may considercoaching, winning games, or transformationalleadership behaviours of athletics directors asbeing important to their job satisfaction.

This study has important implications forpractitioners and researchers in sports settings.

The findings of this study suggest that sportsadministrators should display transformationalleadership characteristics toward theirsubordinates, because by engaging intransformational leadership, transformationalleaders were discovered to make a significantdifference on subordinates' job satisfaction. Sincejob satisfaction has been suggested by Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) to bepositively related to high subordinates'performance, lowjob turnover, low absenteeism,and higher productivity, athletics directors whoare transformational will make a significantdifference in terms of the organization'sperformance and effectiveness. Further, sincetransformational leadership is a skill that can belearned (Yammarino and Bass 1988), trainingathletic directors, sports administrators, andcoaches to be transformational leaders shouldbe the top priority of sports organizations. On arelated issue, it has been pointed out thattransformational leadership "converts followersinto leaders and may convert leaders into moralagents" (Bums 1978, p.3). According to Bums(1978), subordinates can be turned into leadersif the subordinates are encouraged to engage intransformational behaviours. This view has beensupported by Bass, Waldman, Avolio and Bebb(1987) who suggested that transformationalleadership can have the same effect as fallingdominoes. The authors noted thattransformational leadership of upper levelmanagers can have an effect on the lower levelmanagers. One implication from this suggestionis that sports organizations can create moretransformational leaders by encouragingsubordinates to exhibit transformationalbehaviours. One way of encouraging subordinatesis by rewarding and promoting people on thebasis of exhibiting transformational leadershipcharacteristics. In addition, sports organizationsshould screen candidates for administrativepositions on the basis of their potential to betransformational leaders.

From a theoretical standpoint, this studyhas provided evidence of the applicability of thetransformational leadership theory in sportssettings. The current findings support earlierresearch which showed that transformationalleadership is not limited to world leaders (Haterand Bass 1985), but also can be found ineducational and non-profit settings such asschools and universities (Trice and Beyer 1984;

6 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 10 No.1 2002

Transformational Leadership Behaviours of Athletic Directors & Their Effects on Coaches' Job Satisfaction

Yammarino and Bass 1988). Specifically, thisstudy demonstrated that the positive influenceof transformational leadership on subordinates'behaviours is significant not only in businessand industry, but also within the context ofintercollegiate athletics.

RECOMMENDATIONS ANDSUGGESTIONS

The following research is recommended to buildon the results of this study and to further improveour understanding regarding transformationalleadership behaviours in sports settings:1. Examine the relationship between

transformational leadership with othercriterion variables in sports settings (such asorganizational citizenship behaviours,organizational commitment, or organi­zational culture). First suggested by Graham(1987), the relationship betweenorganizational citizenship behaviours withtransformational leadership behaviours hasreceived some empirical support from astudy conducted by Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Moorman, and Fetter (1990). In addition,transformational leadership behaviours havealso been studied, in business and industrysettings, in relation to organizational culture(Schein 1992) and organizationalcommitment (Hater & Bass 1988).Significant findings obtained in sportssettings with respect to the relationshipbetween transformational leadership withthese criterion variables will provide furtherconfirmation of the usefulness and theapplicability of the transformationalleadership theory in the sports context.

2. Conduct a qualitative study to find out thebehaviours, traits, personalities andcharacteristics of leaders who are perceivedby subordinates as transformational leadersin the sports context. Besides examining theantecedents of transformational leaders (interms of traits and personalities), in aqualitative research, the actual behavioursof transformational leaders can also bedetermined. Specifically, such a study caninvestigate how transformational leadersinteract with subordinates on a daily basis.The information gathered from such a studywill be useful in terms of developing aninstrument for measuring transformational

leadership specifically for the sports context.In addition, the information gathered willbe useful for sports administrators indesigning programs to train athleticsdirectors, coaches, and other sportsadministrators to be transformationalleaders.

3. Replicate this study and compare thetransformational leadership styles of thefollowing: (1) athletics directors vs. othersports administrators, (2) athletic directorsvs. sports coaches, (3) coaches of differentsports, (4) leadership styles of different unitswithin the Division of Athletics. Similar tothe above suggestion, the findings from thisresearch can be used towards developing aninstrument for measuring transformationalleadership, and to enable administrators todesign training programs to createtransformational leaders in sports settings.

REFERENCES

ARMSTRONG-DoHERTY, A. 1985. Athletic directors'perceptions of environmental control overinter-university athletics. Sociology ofsportJournal12: 75-95.

ATWELL, RH., B. GRIMES and D. LOPIANO. 1980. TheMoney Game : Financing Collegiate Athletics.Washington, D.C : American Council onEducation.

AVOLIO, BJ. and B. BASS. 1988. Transformationalleadership, charisma, and beyond. In EmergingLeadership VlStas, ed. J.G. Hunt, B.R Baliga,H.P. Dachler, and C.A. Schriesheim.Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath.

BACKSTROM, C.H. and G. HURSH-CESAR. 1981. SurveyResearch. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

BASS, B. 1985. Leadership and Perfrmnance BeyondExpectations. New York: Free Press.

BASS, B. 1990. Bass and Stogdill's Handbook ofLeadership : Theory, Research, and ManagerialApplications. New York: Free Press.

BASS, B., B. AVOLIO and L. GOODHEIM. 1987.Biography and assessment of transformationalleadership at the world class level. Journal ofManagement 13: 7-20.

BASS, B., D.A. WALDMAN, B. AVOLIO and M. BERB.1987. Biography and the assessment oftransformational leadership at the world classlevel. Journal of Management 13: 7-19.

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 10 No.1 2002 7

Aminuddin Yusof

BENNIS, W.G. and B. NANus. 1985. Leaders : TheStrategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harperand Row.

BOURNER, F. and W.J. WEESE. 1995. Executiveleadership and organizational effectiveness inthe Canadian Hockey League. EuropeanJournalof Sport Management 2: 88-100.

COAKLEY, JJ. 1986. Sport in Society : Issues andControversies. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby CollegePublishing.

CONGER, J.A. and R KANUNGO. 1987. Toward abehavioral theory of charismatic leadership inorganizational settings. Academy of ManagementReview 12: 637-647.

DOHERTY, A.J. and K.E. DANYLCHUK. 1996.Transformational and transactional leadershipin inter-university athletics management. Journalof Sport Management 10(3): 292-309.

HATER,JJ. and B. BASS. 1988. Supervisors' evaluationsand subordinates' perceptions of trans­formational and transactional leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 695-702.

HOWELL, J.M. and PJ. FROST. 1989. A laboratorystudy of charismatic leadership. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes 43: 243­269.

KOUZES, J.M. and B. POSNER. 1987. The LeadershipChallenge: How to Get Extraordinary Things Donein Organizations. San Francisco, California :Jossey-Bass.

LANGLEY, W. and W. WEESE. 1995. Gender andleadership: The relationship to organizationaleffectiveness and employee job satisfaction inselected Canadian sport organizations.Unpublished manuscript.

PODSAKOFF, P.M., S.B. MAcKE ZIE, RH. MOORMANand R FETTER. 1990. Transformational leader

behaviors and their effects on followers' trustin leader, satisfaction, and organizationalcitizenship behaviors. Leadership Q;t.arterly 1(2):107-142.

PRUIJN, G. and R BOUCHER. 1995. The relationshipof transactional and transformationalleadership to the organizational effectivenessof Dutch national sport organizations. EuropeanJournal of Sport Management 72: 72-87.

SACK, A. 1987. College sports and the student athlete.Journal of Sport and Social Issues 11: 31-48.

TICHY, N.M. and M.A. DEVANNA. 1986. TheTransformational Leader. New York: John Wiley.

TRICE, H.M. and J.M. BEYER. 1984. Studyingorganizational cultures through rites andceremonials. Academy of Management Review 9:653-669.

WALLACE, M. and WJ. WEESE. 1995. Leadership,organizational culture, and job satisfaction inCanadian YMCA organizations. Journal of SportManagement 9: 182-193.

WEISS, DJ., R V. DAWIS, G.W. E GLAND and L.H.LOFQUIST. 1967. Manual for the MinnesotaSatisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies inVocational Rehabilitation XXII. Minneapolis,Minnesota: University of Minnesota IndustrialRelations Center Work Adjustment Project.

YAMMARJNO, FJ. and B. BASS. 1990. Transformationalleadership and multiple levels of analysis.Human Relations 43: 975-995.

YUKL, G. 1994. Leadership in Organizations. EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

(Received: 19July 1999)

8 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 10 No.1 2002