Cross-Cultural Study of Leadership, Motivation, Team Cohesion,

and Athletic Performance Factor between South Korean and

American Intercollegiate Athletes by using Competing Values

Leaderships Model

. IntroductionⅠ1. Necessity and Purpose of Study

Coaching leadership is a common factor noted from interviews of Olympic

medalists, athletes in the semifinals of the 2002 FIFA World Cup, and

players from the Manchester United Football club, a regular participant in

league championships. The sports coach has a unique role that exists only

in sports organizations, exercising complete control over practice and

competitions (Ha,1996) while integrating individuals of varying skill

levels, personalities, and backgrounds into effective, cohesive, and

performance oriented teams (Lee , 2000).

Barrow (1977) defined leadership as a person that influences another person

to reach a goal, and Kim (1992) defined sports coach leadership as a skill

or process that influences athletes to achieve a team goal by their

voluntary enthusiastic effort. Sport organization leadership studies have

described a trait approach, a behavior approach, and a contingency or

situational approach. Other studies described the personality of the sports

coach (Sage, 1975), the form of a sports coach’s decision-making (Lenk,

1977), the instructional behavior of a sports coach (Smith, Smool ＆ Hunt,

1977), and Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory verification in a sports

situation (Inciong, 1974). The Multidimensional Model of Leadership by

Chelladurai and Carron (1978) suggested that leader behavior is a function

of organizational constraints (required behavior), personality, ability,

and experience (actual behavior) while current research is advancing newer

concepts of transformational and transactional leadership styles in sports

organizations.

Although many theories about leadership styles specific to sports

situations are extant, there is little clear and consistent data about the

efficacy of the sport coach. A lack of construct validity, construct

validity problems of measures, and contamination effects of situational

factor involved in each leadership theory (Lee, 2000), have confounded

previous research. Other studies about sports leadership have uncovered

problems about dichotomous approach methods, over reliance on quantitative

methodology (Ha & Koo, 1997), and failure to critically review existing

leadership theories in sports situations. Quinn (1988) suggested a new

competing values leadership theory that is holistic, dynamic and

generative, and removed from existing leadership theory that is static,

purposive, and entropic (figure 1).

The competing values leadership model (Quinn, 1988), can be effectively

applied to evaluate organizational effectiveness, organization culture, and

individual leadership behavior. The model has also generated a description

of organizations as complex, dynamic, and contradictory meeting spaces

wherein organization members come to meet. As figure 1, illustrates,

organizational cultures in the competing values leadership model vary by

the extent to which they favor flexibility over control, and internal focus

over external focus (Quinn, 1988). The holistic, dynamic, and generative

dimensions of the model described four organizational cultures underpinning

this model and reified them into a matrix of four discrete leadership

dimensions.

Four primary reasons support using this model for leadership evaluations:

First, the construct was designed to carry conflicting messages. For

instance, members want their organizations not only to be adaptable and

flexible, but also stable and controlled at the same time; an emphasis is

imposed not only on the value of human resources, but also on a premium on

efficiency, planning and goal-setting (Quinn, 1988).

Second, this model explains that these four competing dimensions are not

mutually exclusive, but potentially can coexist in an organization where

some dimensions may out-weigh others (Quinn, 1988; Quinn, Hildebrandt,

Rogers, & Thompson, 1991). Still Quinn (1988) recommended an optimal

balance among the four competing values, even as they simultaneously pursue

apparently contradictory objectives and structural imperatives, and

suggested that approaches at the extremes are likely to be dysfunctional.

However, the model is problematic when applied to sports coaches whose

objectives differ from businesspersons who seek to maximize corporate

profit. Therefore, Kim (1992) developed the Competing Values Leadership

Scale for Sport (COVALSS) informed by the competing values leadership model

from Quinn (1988) and the Multidimensional Model of Leadership developed by

Chelladurai (1978). Ha and Koo (1997) confirmed the construct validity of

COVALSS by factor analysis, and therefore the utility of COVALSS for

assessing the value roles of a sports coach.

COVALSS, as developed by Ha and Koo (1997), applies a sextet of leadership

roles to measure leadership effectiveness (fig.2).

<Figure 1> Competing values Framework of Quinn(1988)

<Figure 2> Ideal leadership profile (Ha, 1996)

The COVALSS paradigm as developed by Kim (1992) and Ha (1996) is a standard

instrument for sport coach leadership studies. COVALSS analysis included a

judo coach (An, 1997), professional baseball coach (Lee, 2000), wrestling

coach (Ha, 2000), club table tennis team coach (Kim, 2005; Suk, 2007), ice-

hockey coach (Lee, 2008), CEO of professional sports team (Lee, 2009), golf

coach (Kim, 2009), taekwondo coach (Choi & Kim, 2001; Kim & Ko, 2002; S 대,

2006), and a middle and high school athletic team coach (Park, 2007).

Notwithstanding the number of studies and breadth of sport activities

recorded, these studies focused on business and professional team coaches,

which confronts the absence of COVALSS evaluations applied to collegiate

athletic team coaches. Jo (2006), and Son (2006), argued that unlike many

American collegiate athletes, who participate in professional or business

sports after graduation, most South Korean collegiate athletes do not

participate in professional or business sports but move into other careers.

They argue further that South Korean collegiate athletes choose courses of

study that allow more time for sport training instead of studying,

resulting in poor academic choices that result in disappointing and unhappy

careers. Yet, the sports coach has unequalled advantage for influencing and

guiding college athletes’ career choices, which informs the crucial

importance of study about sports coach leadership. Therefore, the first

purpose of this study is to analyze how South Korean collegiate athletes

perceive the leadership style of their collegiate athletic coach, compare

that leadership style to the American collegiate athletic coach, and

identify a leadership style that can improve coaching methodologies and

team effectiveness.

Yet Quinn (1988) suggested that the competing leadership model could

measure not only effectiveness of coach leadership behavior but also

organizational effectiveness. However, some conceptual problems about

organizational effectiveness and various other multidimensional sub factors

are under discussion. Campbell (1977) listed 30 kinds of basic criteria to

measure organizational effectiveness, which can be modified to account for

differing perspectives. Etzioni (1964), defined organizational

effectiveness as the “…level of achieving organizational goal” which is

measured by recording the amount of the stated goal realized within each

situation. Steers (1975) organized 14 measurement criteria collected from

17 organizational effectiveness studies conducted between the years 1957 to

1974, and Jeon (2007) defined sub-factors of job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, job performance, and job turnover from previous

studies. However, these organizational effectiveness definitions, developed

from business studies, are awkward when applied to sports management.

Because the purpose of sports organizations such as collegiate athletic

teams is to achieve peak performance and win competitions, sport team

organizational effectiveness is greatly determined by psychological skill

factors that affect athletic performance. Various studies about field of

sports psychology (Gould, Weiss, & Weinberg, 1981; Gould, Petlichkoff,

Hodge, & Simons, 1990; Greenspan & Feltz, 1989; Mahoney, 1989; Mahoney,

Gabriel, & Perkins, 1987; Rushall, 1995; Smith, Schutz, Smoll, & Ptacek,

1995; Vealey, 1988; Williams, 1993) concluded that psychological skill

factors could significantly affect athletic performance. Although Vealey

(1988) proposed three groups of skills: foundation (volition, self-

awareness, self-esteem, self-confidence), performance (optimal physical

arousal, optimal mental arousal, optimal attention), and facilitative

(interpersonal skill, lifestyle management) a clear classification of

psychological skills remains elusive (Balague, 2000).

Numerous psychological assessment tools including, Studies of Psychological

Performance Inventory (Loehr, 1986), Psychological Performance Inventory

for Sport R-5 (Mahoney et al., 1987), The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-

28 (Smith et al., 1995), Test of Performance Strategies (Tomas, Murphy and

Hardy, 1999), describe motivation as a psychological skill sub-factor.

Notwithstanding that motivation is the most important psychological skill

factor significantly related to athletic performance, there are few studies

relating leadership theory to motivation (Harwood, Spray, & Keegan, 2008).

Thus, the second purpose of this study is to apply COVALLS to an

examination of the relationship between motivation and athletic performance

with resulting data used to improve leadership effectiveness and athletic

performance.

Sports coach leadership also exercises significant influence on team

cohesion in middle and high school athletes (Park, 2007). Cohesion

has been constitutively defined as a dynamic process, which is

reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain

united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the

satisfaction of member affective needs (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer,

1998). Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley (1985) developed an operational

definition of cohesion that included individual and group dimensions

of both task and social cohesion. Four dimensions emerged in their

conceptualization: Individual Attraction to the Group–-Task (ATG-T),

Individual Attraction to the Group–-Social (ATG-S), Group

Integration–Task (GI-T), and Group Integration–-Social (GI-S). Team

cohesion can be assessed using the Group Environment Questionnaire

(GEQ; Carron et al., 1985).

The concept of cohesion has been empirically linked with a number of

group and individual psychological skills variables. Examples of

group variables include a positive relationship with team

performance (Carron, Bray, & Eys, 2002), collective efficacy

(Paskevich, 1995, Study 3), and group norms (Prapavessis & Carron,

1997). Among the individual psychological skills variables found to

be associated with cohesion (Eys, Hardy, & Carron, 2003; Prapavesis

& Carron, 1996). Example is missing. Therefore, the third purpose of

this study is to explore the significance of team cohesion on an

athlete’s psychological skill and performance using COVALSS, and to

uncover additional relationships between leadership and cohesion.

Further, Prapavessis and Carron (1996) suggested that improving team

cohesion could positively influence personal psychology (mind). Later,

Duda (2001) predicted a motivational climate-cohesion relationship

based on the structural components of the climate created by

athletic coaches. But sports scientists do not limit queries only to

leadership, motivation, and cohesion but also are keenly interested

in the elements of coaching leadership that optimize athletic

performance in competition (Issurin, 2007). However, few causal

relationship studies have investigated how collegiate athletes perceive the

relationships among leadership, motivation, cohesion, and athletic

performance using the competing values leadership theory. Therefore, the

forth purpose of this study is to describe effective coaching leadership in

collegiate athletes with the competing values leadership theory and to

investigate relationships among leadership, motivation, cohesion, and

athletic performance.

Several studies have noted how culture shapes the psychology of

individual thought and behavior. Yi and Park (2003) found that

people with different cultural backgrounds and different value

systems, were more likely to have different attitudes and decision-

making styles with respect to negotiation, bargaining processes, and

problem solving in various social settings. The previous studies

suggested that the psychological results were not always generalized

when cultures were so different. When Stevenson and Stigler (1992)

compared the achievement beliefs of Asian and American

schoolchildren and their parents, they found that there was more

belief in malleable intelligence and in the important of effort

among those in the Asian culture than those in the American culture.

Despite the fact that more and more researchers and marketers

throughout the world have become interested in cross-cultural

studies, relatively few cross-cultural studies exist in the realm of

sport and athletics. Previous studies about athletes have focused on

differentiating cultural characteristics between preferred

leadership styles and coaching efficacy (Lee & Kim, 2005;

Chelladurai, Imamura, Yamaguchi, Oinuma, & Miyauchi, 1988). Yet it

is essential to understand the influence of culture as a social-

environmental factor nuancing not only physical activity but also

those psychological characteristics related with the physical

activity (Hofstede, 2001).

Cross-cultural research has focused on comparisons of behavioral

phenomena, with little attention to theoretical implications. But

Betancourt and Lopez (1993) have considered theoretical implications

using a bottom-up and a top-down approach to facilitate the study of

cultural influence. The bottom-up approach begins with a specific

phenomenon observed in a culture and applies it cross-culturally to

find its implications for theory. In the top-down model, one begins

with theory, which typically ignores cultural aspects, and moves to

specific cultures to examine cultural influences. If the proposed

relationships in a theory are observed in other cultures, the theory

is believed to have cross-cultural generality. Korean culture,

somewhat similar to that of many Asian countries, is represented by

interdependence and hierarchy among group members (Moy, 1992). For

Koreans, group identity and modesty are dominant cultural values

given greater importance than individual identity and self-

expressiveness. North Americans on the other hand, reflect dominant

cultural values that place greater importance on independence and

horizontal relationships. These differences in the dominant cultural

values can affect relationships between leadership and

organizational effectiveness.

There are few studies that have applied a bottom-up investigation to

leadership, motivation, team cohesion, and athletic performance in sports

organizations. Thus the fifth purpose of this study is to investigate

relationships among leadership and the sports organizational effectiveness

factors of motivation, team cohesion, and athletic performance with respect

to cultural differences and leadership effectiveness as measured by the

competing values leadership theory.

2. Research model and Hypothesis

1) Setting research model

The first purpose of this study will apply COVALSS to motivation, team

cohesion, and performance in a comparative study of South Korean

collegiate athletes and US collegiate athletes from the Pacific

Northwest region. The second purpose of this study will compare the

relationships between competing values leadership, motivation, team

cohesion, and performance of athletes in South Korea and Northwestern

Region in the United States. The independent variables are

authoritative director role, mentor role, mediating broker role, analytic

manager role, calculating executioner role, innovative researcher roles

with intrinsic motivation and team cohesion selected as the

dependent variables. Athletic performance was also selected as a

dependent variable, so the modeling that is about relation among

them was made for this study(figure 3).

<Figure 3> Research model

2) Setting research hypothesis

Hypothesis 1. There will be difference among competing values

leadership, intrinsic motivation, team cohesion, and athletic

performance depending on demographic characteristics in both South

Korea and the United States of America.

1-1. There will be difference among competing values leadership,

intrinsic motivation, team cohesion, and athletic performance

depending on gender.

1-2. There will be difference among competing values leadership,

intrinsic motivation, team cohesion, and athletic performance

depending on a grade of school.

1-3. There will be difference among competing values leadership,

intrinsic motivation, team cohesion, and athletic performance

depending on event of sports.

1-4. There will be difference among competing values leadership,

intrinsic motivation, team cohesion, and athletic performance

depending on athletic performance.

Hypothesis 2. There will be difference among competing values

leadership, intrinsic motivation, team cohesion, and athletic

performance depending on athlete’s perception about them in both

South Korea and the United States of America.

Hypothesis 3. There will be difference of relationship model among

competing values leadership, intrinsic motivation, team cohesion,

and athletic performance depending on athlete’s perception about

them in both South Korea and the United States of America.

. MethodⅡ

1. Participants

The participants in this study will be South Korean collegiate

Athletes (n=300) and collegiate athletes from the Pacific Northwest

region of the United States. Subjects will be classified by event, year

in school, gender, and skill level.

2. Instrumentation

The research instrument which will be used in this study consists of

five components: (a) demographics information, (b) Korean/English

language version of competing values inventory (CVI); and (c)

Korean/English language version of the intrinsic motivation

inventory (IMI), (d) Korean/English language version of the group

environment questionnaire(GEQ); and (e) Korean/English language

version of performance inventory (PI). The development of the

Korean/English version of the measures will follow translation and

back-translation procedures because of cross-cultural study design

(Hui & Traindis, 1985). As Florenthal and Aviv(2000) suggested, a

four-step back-translation method will have been utilized in this

study. The expert group will review the contents of all the

inventories used in this study. Appropriate modifications to format,

wording of the items, and the scale instruction will be followed to

maintain conceptual equivalence of the measures. The validity of the

measures will be identified by content validity analysis of expert

group, an exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor

analysis. The reliability of the measures will be identified by

Cronbach alpha coefficients.

1) Korean/English language version of competing values

inventory(CVLQS)

Competing values leadership for scale(CVLQS) developed by Ha and

Gu(1997) will be used to measure leadership style of athletic

coaches in Korea. First, the original Korea version of the CVLQS

will be translated into English by the committee, who is familiar

with the competing values leaderships. Then, two other bilingual

scholars will asked to translate the scale back into Korea without

referring to the original scale. A committee, consisting of the

second author and two scholars who are involved in back-translation,

will examine item by item comparing the original and the back-

translated versions. In cases where the back-translation is not

consistent with the original item, the committee is required to

discuss the problematic item. Finally, all the researchers will be

invited to review the preliminary English version of the CVLQS. In

this way, the items of CVLQS can be adequately translated and

modified to maintain the validity of the instruments. Sub-factors of

CVLQS will be made up of authoritative director role, mentor role,

mediating broker role, analytic manager role, calculating

executioner role, and innovative researcher role. The instrument

will contain 36 items, each of them is necessary to characterize the

competing values leadership model. Responses to each item will be

recorded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly

disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

2) Korean/English Language Version of the intrinsic motivation

inventory(IMI)

Intrinsic motivation of the participants will be assessed by

Korean/English version of the IMI (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989)

which will be composed of an 18-item sport specific version. IMI

will be constructed to measure four dimensions of intrinsic

motivation: Enjoyment/Interest, Effort/Importance, Perceived

Competence, and Pressure/Tension. The 7-point Likert-type scale

ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) will be

remained the same.

(3) Group Environment Questionnaire(GEQ)

Group cohesion will be assessed through the Group Environment

Questionnaire developed by Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley(1985). The

GEQ consists of 18 items that assess four dimensions of cohesion:

Group Integration–Task (GI-T; 5 items), which measures the

individual’'s perception about the degree of unity in the team as a

collective around its goals and objectives; Group Integration–Social

(GI-S; 4 items), which measures the individual’'s perception about

the degree of social unity in the team as a collective; Individual

Attractions to the Group–Task (ATG-T; 4 items), which measures the

individual’'s perception about his or her own involvement in task

oriented aspects of the group; and Individual Attractions to the

Group–Social (ATG-S; 5 items), which measures the individual’'s

perception about his or her own involvement in social aspects of the

group. Each item will be assessed on a 9-point continuum ranging

from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

(4) Performance Measures

Performance is even more difficult to assess as it consists of many

different components and sports events had different traits. The

instrument of this study will be performance inventory developed by

Mamassis and Doganis(2004). This measure will be a set of 8

questions, each related to a different aspect of performance.

Specifically, each player will be asked to appraise his or her

performance on a 5-point scale (1 being “not good at all” and 5

being “very good”) on the following aspects: 1) his or her physical

feelings; 2) quality of technique; 3) timing and rhythm; 4)

concentration; 5) amount of effort exerted; 6) mental attitude and

thoughts; 7) level of self-confidence during the match; and 8)

comparison of his or her performance with what he or she will be

expected to play, given the opponent. An overall performance score

will be obtained from the sum of all these 8 items.

3. Procedures

The procedures of this study is as <Figure 4>. This procedures were divided

to two parts. First, this study will examine the difference of competing

values leadership, motivation, team cohesion, and performance between the

intercollegiate athletes of South Korea and Northwestern Region in

the United States. Second, this study will compare the relationships

between competing values leadership, motivation, team cohesion, and

performance of athletes in South Korea and Northwestern Region in the

United States.

The permission to collect data with the athletes will be received

from university administrators. The participants will be informed of

the purpose of the study. Athletes and coaches who agree to

participate in this study will be invited to complete a inventories.

The participants will be told that participation is voluntary and

their responses will be confidential. They will be encouraged to

answer the items as honestly as possible. The researchers will be

available to answer any questions posed by the participants.

To test the

differences among

the CVLQS, IMI,

GEQ,and

performance

between South

The analysis on Validity and

reliability of Instrumentation

The comparison on

leadership, motivation, team

cohesion, and performance

between South Korea and

American athletes

⇩ ⇩

Korea and

American

athletes

Theconstruction on itemsof measures(Korean/Englishlanguageversion)

The

reliability

analysis,

content

validity

analysis,

exploratory

factor and

confirmatory

factor

analysis

Leadership,

motivation,

team cohesion,

and

performance by

demographic

variables in

South Korea

and American

athletes

The analysis

difference of

Leadership,

motivation,

team

cohesion, and

performance

between South

Korea and

American

athletes

To compare the

casual

relationships

between

leadership,

motivation, team

cohesion, and

performance of

athletes between

South Korea and

American athletes

○ The development on casual modelamong Leadership, motivation, teamcohesion, and performance in South

Korea athletes○The development on casual modelamong Leadership, motivation, team

cohesion, and performance in Americanathletes

⇩

⇨ ○ The validation of casual model inSouth Korea athletes

○ The validation of casual model inAmerican athletes

⇩

⇧

⇦Modification

○ Model fitstatistics ○ modificationmodel

⇩Modelestablishing

The comparison of casual modelbetween South Korea and American

athletes

⇩

Results and discussions on two casualmodels

<Figure 4> Procedures

4. Data analyses

Following preliminary psychometric and descriptive analyses, a

series of MANOVA/ANOVA will be utilized to test the differences

among mean scores on the CVLQS subscales, IMI, GEQ, and performance

subscales between South Korea athletes and their American

counterparts. In the analyses, the subscale of competing values

leadership and sports team effectiveness(competing values

leadership, motivation, team cohesion, and performance) will be

dependent variables and the country(including demographic variables)

will be used as an independent variable. In the event of a

significant multivariate effect, univariate independent t-test for

each subscale will be conducted to identify the where the

differences occur.

In addition, the AMOS 7.0 statistical software will be used to

identify whether there is any difference between Korea and American

athletic coaches and athletes on the competing values leadership and

organizational effectiveness. As directed by the research hypotheses

described above, a number of models will be produced: a series of

confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) measurement models examining the

factor structure of the measures and a series of structural equation

models (SEM) examining the hypothesized relations between the study

variables among two country.

References

Ahn, C. S.(1997). Reserach about Competing Values Leadership Profiles of Judo Leader.

Unpublished master dissertation, Donga University, South Korea.

Balague, G. (2000). Periodization of psychological skills training. Journal

of Science and Medicine in Sport, 3(3), 230-237.

Barrow, J. C.(1977). The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual

framework. Academy of Management Review, 2, 231-251.

Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and

race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48, 629-637.

Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In Goodman, P.

S. & Pennings, J.M. (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational

effectiveness(pp.13-55). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carron, A. V., & Chelladurai, P.(1982). Cohesion as a factor in sport

performance. International Review of Sport Sociology, 16, 2-41.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N.(1998). The measurement of

cohesiveness in sport groups. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sport and

exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness

Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., & Wheeter, J.(2002). Cohesion and performance

in sport : A meta analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188.

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R.(1985). The development of

an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment

Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.

Chelladurai, P. ＆ Carron, A. V.(1978). Leadership. CAHPER, Sociology of Sport

Monograph Series.

Chelladurai, P.(1978). A contingency model of leadership in athletics. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Canada.

Chelladurai, P., Imamura, H., Yamaguchi, Y., Oimnuma, Y., & Miyauchi, T.

(1988). Sport leadership in a cross-national setting: the case of Japanese

and Canadian university athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 374-389.

Cho, K. M.(2006). A Comparative Study of the Intercollegiate Athletic

Programs in Korea and USA. Korean Journal of Sport Management, 11(1), 223-236.

Choi, J. J.(2001). The Relationship between Competing Values Leadership and

Leader Satisfaction of the Taekwondo Do-Jang Managers. The Korean journal of

physical education, 40(3), 503-514

Chon, T. J.(2007). The relationship among professional identity, job

satisfaction, and turnover intention of sport for all readers. The Korean

journal of physical education, 46(6), 369-378.

Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievementgoalresearchinsport:Pushingtheboundariesand clarifying

some misunderstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.) Advances in motivation in sport

and exercise (pp.129–182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Etzioni, A. 1964. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Inc.

Eys, M. A., Hardy, J, & Carron, A. V.(2003). The relationship between task

cohesion and competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25,

66-76.

Fiedler, F. E.(1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York McGraw-Hill.

Florenthal, B., & Aviv, S. (2000). Value Differences between Risky Sports

Participants and Nonparticipants. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9(1), 26-35.

Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., Hodge, K., & Simons, J.(1990). Evaluating the

effectiveness of a psychological skills educational workship. The Sport

Psychologist, 4, 249-260.

Gould, D., Weiss, M., & Weinberg, R.(1981). Psychological characteristics

of successful and unsuccessful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3,

69-81.

Greenspan, M. J., & Feltz, D. M.(1989). Psychological interventions with

athletes in competitive situations. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 219-236.

Ha, H. J.(1996). Development of a competing values leadership questionnaire for coaches and

analysis of sport leadership profiles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sungkyunkwan

university, South Korea.

Ha, H. J.(2000). The Efficient Leadership Profile of Combative Event's

Coaches on Competing Values Leadership. The Korean journal of physical education,

39(1), 322-331.

Ha, H. J., Gu, B. C. (1997). Development of a Competing Values Leadership

Questionnaire for Coaches and Analysis of Sport Leadership Profiles. The

Korean Journal of Physical Education, 36(1), 176-192.

Harwood, C., Spray, C. M., & Keegan, R. (2008). Achievement goal theories in sport.

In Advances in sport psychology , 3rd ed., Edited by: Horn, T. 157–185.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

Hui, C. H., & Traindis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural

psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 16(2), 131-152.

Inciong, P. A.(1974). Leadership styles and team success. In R. K. Cox(Eds.),

Reading in sport psychology. Dubuque, IA: WM. C. Brown Publishers.

Issurin, V. (2007). A modern approach to high-performance training: The

Block Composition concept. In B. Blumenstein, R. Lidor, & G. Tenenbaum

(Eds.), Perspectives on Sport and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 2 Psychology of Sport Training (pp.

216-233). Oxford, UK: Meyer & Meyer Sport.

Kim, B. H.(1992). Competing values leaderships of sports group. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Sungkyunkwan, South Korea.

Kim, B. H., Lee, S. H., Koo, H. M., Kim, Y. S.(2006). The system supplementation

of psychological measurement evaluation DB of national athletes. ∙ The research report in

Korea institute of sports science.

Kim, H. S.(2005). The relationship between leadership of semi-pro table-tennis coached and

psychological skills of players. Unpublished master dissertation Yonsei University,

South Korea.

Lee, J. H(2008). The relationship between leadership of ice-hockey team coaches and team

cohesion. Unpublished master dissertation, Yonsei University, South Korea.

Lee, K. Y., Kim, I. S.(2005). A comparative cross-culture study of

Leadership, team cohesion, satisfaction on the east and west athletes.

Korean journal of sport psychology, 16(4), 179-197.

Lee, S. H., Lee, K. Y., Kim, K. R., Won, Y. B., Lee, H. K.(2000). A study

on the Professional baseball leaders' leadership type and athletes' stress

and life satisfaction. Gyeongnam journal of sport, 7(1).

Lee, Y. S.(2009). The relationship among competing values leadership of chief executive

officer, organization commitment and job satisfaction in professional sports team. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Yonsei University, South Korea.

Lenk, H.(1969). Top performance despite internal conflict : An antithesis to a functionalistic

proposition. In J. W. Loy & G. S. Kenyon (Eds.). Sport, culture, and society :

A reader on the sociology of sport (pp. 393-396). Toronto : Collier-

Macmillan.

Lenk, H.(1977). Authoritarian or democratic styled coaching? In H. Lenk(Ed.), Team

dynamics. Champaign, IL.: Stipes.

Loehr, J. E.(1986). Mental toughness training for sports: Achieving athletic excellence.

Lexington, MA: Stepen Greene Press.

Mahoney, M. J.(1989). Psychological predictors of elite and nonelite

performance in Olympic weightlifting. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 1-

12.

Mahoney, M. J., Gabriel, T. J., & Perkins, T. S.(1987). Psychological

skills and exceptional athletic performance. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 181-199.

Mamassis, G & Doganis, G. (2004). The effects of mental training program on

juniors pre-competitive anxiety, self-confidence, and tennis performance.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 118-137.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of

the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A

confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.

Moy, S. (1992). A culturally sensitive psychoeducational modelfor

understanding and treating Asian-American Clients. Journal of Psychology and

Christianity, 4, 358-367.

Myers, J. L.(1972). Fundamentals in Experimental Design, 2ndedn, Boston, MA :

Allyn & Bacon.

Park, J. Y.(2007). The Relationship between Competing Values Leadership of Teacher, Teacher

Trust, and Team Cohesion in School Sports Team. Unpublished master dissertation,

Gangneung Wonju National University, South Korea.

Park, K. Y.(2009). The influence of competing values leadership of university golf coaches on

athlete's perceived performance. Unpublished master dissertation Yongin University,

South Korea.

Paskevich, D. M.(1995). Conceptual and measurement factors of collective efficacy in its

relationship to cohesion and performance outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of Waterloo, Ontario.

Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V.(1996). The effect of group cohesion on

competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 64-74.

Quinn, R. (1988). The Competing Values Model: redefining organizational effectiveness and

change. In Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing

demands of high performance. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing

demands of high performance. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, R. E., Hildebrandt, H. W., Rogers, P. S., & Thompson, M. P. (1991).

A competing values framework for analyzing presentational communications in

management contexts. Journal of Business Communications, 28, 213-232.

Rushall, B. S.(1995). Mental skills training for sports. Spring Valley, CA:

Sport Science Associates.

Sage, J. N.(1975). The coach as management : Organizational leadership in

American sort. Quest, 19, 35-40.

Seo, H. J.(2006). The Relationship between Competing Values Leadership of Taekwondo

Coaches and Coach Satisfaction of Players. Unpublished master dissertation, Cheongju

University, South Korea.

Smith, R. E., Schutz, R. W., Smoll, F. L., & Ptacek, J. T.(1995).

Development and validation of a multidimentional measure of sport-specific

psychological skills: The athletic coping skills inventory-28. Journal of Sport

and Exercise Psychology, 17, 379-398.

Smith, R. E., Smool, F. L., ＆ Hunt, E.(1977). A system for the behavioral

assesment of athletic coach. Research Quarterly, 48, 410-407.

Sohn, J. Y.(2006). The Comparative Study Of Intercollegiate Sports Program

In Korea & The United States. Journal of sport and leisure studies, 26, 419-436.

Spink, K. S.(1992). Group cohesion and starting status in successful and

less successful elite volleyball teams. Journal of Sport Sciences, 10, 379-388.

Steers(1975). Problems in the Measurement of Organizational Effectiveness.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 1975, 546-558.

Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are

failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit.

Suk, E. M.(2007). The relationship between competing values leadership of semi-pro table-

tennis coaches, team cohesion and perceived performance. Unpublished master

dissertation, Yonsei University, South Korea.

Thomas, P. R., Murphy, S. M., & Hardy, L.(1999). Test of performance

strategies: Development and preliminary validation of a comprehensive

measure of athletes' psychological skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 697-711.

Vealey, R. S.(1988). Future directions in psychological skills training.

The Sport Psychologist, 2, 318-336.

Williams, J. M.(1993). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance(2nd

ed.) Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Yi, J. S., & Park, S. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in decision-making

styles: A study of college students in five countries. Social Behavior and

Personality, 31(1), 35-48.