Study of Perceptions of Coaching Behaviour among Coaches and Athletes

Sports are now dominated by a new breed of coaches. Coach demand best possible performance not optimum from sportsmen and best possible performance depends upon various physical, physiological, psychological and sociological parameters. The new coaches are interested in a combination of physical talent with other qualities-qualities that not only influence performance but also to sustain the athlete in his or her commitment to sports. Coach-athlete relationship is very particular one in top sports. Coaching personalities have been scrutinized by various researchers and it is becoming increasingly clear that they may often act and be perceived, in a variety of ways ranging from authoritarian dogmatic tyrants to more mellow, democratic individuals. Innovative coaches are one who possess personality traits enabling them to admit that they may not have been 100 percent right in the past, thus permitting them to change. Coaching behaviour may be defined as functioning style or approach of a coach that is associated with effective performance of the athlete. Besides team performance satisfaction of the athlete is an another aspect of coaching behaviour.

The objective of this study was to access perception of coaching behaviour among coaches & athletes.

It was hypothesized that there will be significant differences in perception of coaching behaviour among coaches & athletes. Furthermore it was also hypothesized that there will not be any significant differences in perceptions of coaching behavior among athletes of team games & individual games.

The study has been conducted on sixty male coaches and their four hundred fifty athletes who qualified for All India Intervarsity Championship of selected team games & Individual games namely soccer, hockey volleyball, track & field gymnastic & Judo. A questionnaire, leadership scale for sports (LSS) prepared by Chelladurai & Saleh consisting 40 items measures coaches & athletes perceptions of coaching behaviour, was employed for this study. Five parameters that were reflected in the questionnaire were as follows: 1. Training & instruction

3. Autocratic Behaviour 4. Social Support 5. Positive Feedback. Data were collected through questionnaire at the time of All India Intervarsity Championship of Selected sports. To obtain perception of coaching behavior among coaches & athletes, t-test was applied and level of significance chosen was .05.

The mean & standard deviation of the raw scores of the questionnaire given by coaches & athletes was obtained for each dimension of coaching behavior i.e. Training & Instruction, Democratic Behaviour, Autocratic Behaviour, Social Support & Positive Feedback. The significance of differences in perceptions of coaching behavior among coaches & athletes in all together calculated by applying t-test individually for each dimension are presented in Table-I.

Table I revealed that calculated value of t in relation to Training & Instruction, Democratic Behaviour, Autocratic Behaviour and Positive Feedback is greater than the tabulated value of t so there is significant differences among coaches and athletes. There were significant differences in perceptions of coaching behaviour on all the dimensions of coaching behavior except social support, among coaches and athletes. Athlete's perceptions of their coaches did not correspond to self perceptions of the coaches. Athletes perceived their coaches to emphasize upon training & instruction, autocratic behaviour & positive feedback. They found their coaches low in democratic behavior. Coaches assessed themselves high in democratic behaviour only. Coaches estimated themselves low in training & instruction, autocratic behaviour and positive feedback than athletes did. coaching behaviour among coaches and athletes is presented in Figure 1.

Along with perceptions of coaching behaviour among coaches & athletes, perceptions of coaching behaviour among athletes by nature of task i.e. Interdependent task (Team Game) and independent task (Individual Game) was also found. The significance of differences in athletes perception of coaching behaviour among team games athletes and individual games athletes, calculated by applying ‟t‟ test individually for each dimension are presented in Table-II.

Table II revealed that calculated value of t in relation to all the dimensions of coaching behaviour is greater than the tabulated value of „t‟ so there is significant differences among athletes in relation to behaviour of their coaches. . Players of individual sports emphasized their coaches more upon Training and Instruction, Autocratic behaviour and Positive feedback than players of Team sports. Graphical representation of the perceptions of coaching behaviour among athletes of Individual Games and Team Games in perceptions of coaching behaviour is presented in Figure 2.

Based on the results, the following conclusions are drawn – Coaches assessed themselves high in democratic behavior and low in other parameters of coaching (TI, AB & PF) than athletes. Athletes perceived their coaches to emphasize upon training and instruction, autocratic behaviour and positive feedback. The perceived their coaches low in democratic behavior. Team Game's athletes (Hockey, Soccer and Volleyball) perceived their coaches more in Autocratic behavior and social support than athletes of Individual Games. Individual game's athletes (Judo, Track & Field and Gymnastic) perceived their coaches more in training and instruction, democratic behavior and rewarding behavior. Individual games athletes might be more satisfied with their coaches' behaviour.

Best, W John (1977). Research in Education. Engle Wood Cliffs. N.J. Prentice Hall, Inc., 1977. Challadurai, P. (1993). Hand Book of Research of Sports psychology. New York: Mc. Millan Pub. Company. Horine, Larry (1991). Administration of Physical Education & Sports Programme, U.S.A.: Wmc Brown Pub., 1991. Khera, Shiv, Jeet Aapki (2002). New Delhi: Full Circle, 2002. Llewllyn, Jack & Blucker (1989). Judy A. Psychology of Coaching Theory & Application Delhi; Surjeet Pub., 1989.

Head/Associate Professor, KNIPSS, Sultanpur (UP)