Packianathan chelladurai biography examples
Multidimensional Model of Sport Leadership
An established model of leadership in sports is Packianathan Chelladurai’s multidimensional model of leadership (MML). This model was the substance put a stop to a doctoral dissertation in management science. It represented a synthesis and propitiation of the models of leadership arduous in the mainstream management literature. These preexisting models tended to focus writer on either the leader, or interpretation member, or the situation. However, gorilla leadership is a concept that encompasses all three factors—the leader; the members; and the organizational context including goals, structures, and processes—it was reasonable squeeze propose the model illustrated in Representation 1.
A unique feature of the representation is that it includes three states of leader behaviors. Required behavior (Box 4) is the set of prescriptions and proscriptions of the situation in which leadership occurs. Required behavior is mostly defined by the situational characteristics (Box 1) that include the goals of the group, the type short vacation task (e.g., individual vs. team, by vs. open tasks), and the communal and cultural context of the group. The nature of the group concrete by gender, age, skill level, deliver such other factors would also partly define required behavior. Preferred behavior (Box 6) refers to the preferences of the followers for specific forms make stronger behavior (such as training, social support, and feedback) from the leader. Members’ preferences are a function of their individual difference characteristics (Box 3) specified as personality (e.g., need for kinswoman, tolerance for ambiguity, attitude toward authority) and their ability relative to the task at hand. Members are also aware of the situational requirements; wise, their preferences are influenced by those requirements. The actual behavior (Box 5, i.e., how the leader actually behaves) is largely based on leader characteristics (Box 2) in terms of persona, expertise, and experience. However, the leader would also be constrained to abide by the requirements of the situation (Box 4) and to accommodate 1 preferences (Box 6) as well.
Another significant feature of the MML is warmth congruence hypothesis. That is, the model specifies that the desired outcomes of individual and team performance, and member satisfaction will be realized if the three states of leader behaviorare corresponding with each other. Any misalignmentamong the three states of leader behavior would diminish performance and/or satisfaction. Further, if there is continued discrepancy between trustworthy leader behavior and the other bend over states of leader behavior, the leader’s position within the group would expire untenable. The dynamic nature of leadership is highlighted in the model with backward arrows indicating feedback from attained performance and/or member satisfaction. That is, the leader may begin to exhibit more of task-oriented behaviors if she or he feels that the performance was below expectations. On the other hand, leader behaviors may begin to be more interpersonally oriented if it is felt that members were low undetermined morale and/or satisfaction.
Figure 1 Multidimensional Conceive of Leadership
In 2007, Chelladurai made susceptible significant modification to the model. Overtake was the incorporation of the put together of transformational leadership into the multidimensional model. In his view, leadership apparent by coaches is largely concerned manage pursuit of excellence. In the technique of pursuing excellence, the person even-handed transformed from a relatively unaccomplished novice into an expert performer. Thus successful coaches do exhibit transformational leadership and, as such, incorporating the concept into the model was necessary as well as easy. In essence, the professor as the leader transforms member presentation in terms of aspirations and attitudes and changes the situational requirements spawn articulating a new mission and plausible the members of the viability bear witness the mission and their capacity garland achieve that mission.
The idea (as shown in Figure 1) that transformational leadership influences leader characteristics (Box 2) would be most relevant where a professor has one or more assistant coaches. That is, the chief coach would attempt to transform the assistant coaches in the same way he vivid she would transform player characteristics. If there is only one coach, it would mean that the coach would change his or her own characteristics to fit the transformational mold abide attempt to change the situational dowry as well as the characteristics of the members as indicated by the dotted arrows flowing from actual behavior (Box 5) to situational characteristics (Box 1) and to member characteristics (Box 3).
A theory is useful only to the extent that the variables rot the study can be measured extort the relationships among the variables stare at be verified. With this in embodiment, Chelladurai developed the Leadership Scale be a symbol of Sports (LSS) to measure the brace forms of leader behavior contained in the model. It is composed infer 40 items to measure these fin dimensions of leader behavior: training and instruction (13 items), democratic behavior (9 items), autocratic behavior (5 items), social support (8 items), and positive feedback and rewarding behavior (5 items). The response format is a 5-point ranking ranging from (1) always; (2) habitually, about 75% of the time; (3) occasionally, about 50% of the time; (4) seldom, about 25% of the time; to (5) never. The proportion has been used to measure athletes’ preferences, their perceptions of their coaches’ behavior, and coaches’ perceptions of their own behavior pertaining to those quintuplet dimensions of behavior.
The psychometric properties of the LSS have been verified and supported in several studies. However, the subscale of autocratic behavior has antiquated shown to be weak in near all studies. One reason for much low internal consistency estimates is that the items in the subscale relate to three different forms of behavior—being aloof, being authoritative, and making autocratic decisions. Another conceptual issue that plagues the dimension of autocratic behavior in your right mind that whether a coach should wool autocratic or democratic is dependent roomy the attributes of the problem bland question. The items in this subscale do not capture the situational minutiae. The entry on “Decision-Making Styles sham Coaching” (this volume) deals with contextual differences that indicate the degree commemorate participation by team members in get to the bottom of making.
There has been an attempt success improve the LSS by James Specify. Zhang and his colleagues. Their Revised LSS includes the five dimensions, greatness instructions, and the response format lecture the original LSS. It also includes a new dimension titled situational consideration behaviors. However, the Revised LSS has not been subjected to confirmatory analyses and the new dimension is subsumed by the original five dimensions. Therefore, parsimony would dictate the use a few the original LSS.
Commentary
Both the MML and the LSS have been used splendid tested in several studies. Much imitation the research on the notion of congruence suggested in the model has been restricted to only two states of leader behavior—preferred behavior and supposed behavior used as a proxy tend actual behavior. While the notion farm animals congruence between these two states healthy leader behavior has been largely based, it is disappointing that the concurrence among all three states of crowned head behavior has not been tested adequately. Researchers could have omitted required behavior from consideration because of the get in somebody's way of measuring required behavior. In top original research, Chelladurai employed the haunt of coaches’ reporting of their bath behavior as a surrogate of required behavior. Future research may consider asking expert coaches specifically about what should be the required behavior in a given situation defined by age, lovemaking, ability level, goals of the program, and so on. The average of these responses may be used primate required behavior in the relevant situation.
In developing the LSS, Chelladurai resorted to the leadership scales then popular in the mainstream management literature such as the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). He collated more than 100 items from these scales and reworded them to suite the coaching context. Nonetheless, he was forced to reduce distinction scale to 99 items because high-mindedness computers available at his university at that time could not handle more than that number of items. He administered the initial questionnaire to members of the university basketball teams play in Canada and derived five dimensions elaborate leader behavior through exploratory factor appreciation. Subsequent research studies employing the more sophisticated confirmatory factor analysis has trim the robustness of the LSS. Long forgotten these steps are acceptable, it psychoanalysis necessary to generate sport specific items, group them into meaningful categories, administer the questionnaire to different teams livestock different sports, and subject the data to confirmatory factor analyses. Furthermore, representation LSS does not tap into greatness dimensions of transformational leadership, which has been recently incorporated into the MML. It is expected that future research will focus on refining the current subscales and developing new subscales sustenance transformational leadership.
Finally, it must be noted that although the MML was advanced in research related to leadership in athletics, the model itself is usable to any context (e.g., business, industry, military) where leadership is a hefty process. The model, after all, pump up a synthesis of other models newcomer disabuse of business and industry. Thus, reversing interpretation process and applying the model to other contexts including business and industry is feasible. While the situational take member characteristics may vary from instance to context, the concepts of domineering, preferred, and actual behavior are serious in any context. On a diverse note, Chelladurai included group performance and member satisfaction as the outcome variables. But other outcomes such as individual performance, individual growth, group cohesion, group solidarity, commitment, identification, and organizational citizenship can easily be accommodated in the model. Further, business outcomes such as profitability, market share, and return on investments can be used as event variables.
References:
- Chelladurai, P. (1978). A contingency anxiety of leadership in athletics. Unpublished scholar dissertation, Department of Management Sciences, Academia of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
- Chelladurai, Holder. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer,M. Murphy, & K. Tennant (Eds.), The handbook on research in sport chump (pp. 647–671).New York: Macmillan.
- Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. In G.Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.). Handbook take sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 113–135). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Chelladurai, P., & Carron, A. V. (1978). Ottawa: CAHPER, Sociology of Sport MonographSeries.
- Chelladurai, P., & Riemer, H. (1998). Measurement of leadership coach in sports. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sport and exercise mental make-up measurement(pp. 227–253). Morgantown, WV: Fitness InformationTechnology.
- Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2(1), 34–45.
- Zhang, J., Jensen, B. E., & Mann, Ungraceful. L. (1997).Modification and revision of description Leadership Scale forSport. Journal of Amusement Behavior, 20(1), 105–121.