Communication and Team Cohesion Moderate the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Athletic Performance

Abstract

This study was grounded on a previous investigation of the mediating effect of teamwork on the relationship between transformational leadership and performance. The purpose of this study is to enhance theoretical knowledge of transformational leadership. This study enrolled 263 athletes registered with the Korea Sports and Olympic Committee. We assessed transformational leadership, communication, team cohesion, and athletic performance. To analyze the collected data, SPSS 24.0, PROCESS macro (V4.1), and Amos 24.0 were used. There was an interaction effect between transformational leadership and communication on athletic performance, mediated by team cohesion. According to the moderated mediating effect index, team cohesion was a significant moderator of athletic performance. It can be concluded that coaches who possess strong coaching abilities and engage in accurate, positive communication with their athletes can enhance team cohesion, organizational behavior, leading to a positive impact on athletic performance.

Keywords

athletic performance communication sport culture sports management team cohesion transformational leadership

Introduction

The individual performance of each athlete is an important determinant of the team development and sustenance, as well as a useful criterion for evaluation. A major strength of exercise performance is that it shows how antecedents are related to or derived from measures of desired outcomes (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Similarly, for teams, researchers have questioned what happens when teams move organizationally in a framework and which of these variables can predict or improve performance (Cooke et al., 2003). Moreover, transformational leadership has been traditionally studied in the context of communication and team cohesion variables based on measurements of the individual and team performance of athletes (Dionne et al., 2004), Studies on transformational leadership have confirmed a causal link between variables as an antecedent between these variables and a relationship between transformational leadership and communication, the need to elucidate the interaction effect is emphasized.

Interest in team development research has increased rapidly since the early 1980s, but research explaining how team development outcomes can be achieved is scarce (Stout et al., 1997; Tannenbaum et al., 1992). Although team development has been extensively studied in the transformational leadership literature as a way to understand individual performance (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013; Bass, 1985, 1990), few studies have aimed to achieve high levels of team performance (Bass et al., 2003). Meanwhile, a meta-analysis reported by DeGroot et al. (2000) showed that a difference was found between the experimental group (which received transformational leadership guidance) and the control group (which was not guided). Specifically, the effect was twice as strong in the experimental group. Therefore, the relationship between transformational leadership and team performance must be continuously studied.

Transformational leadership is considered one of the most important factors that enhance employee performance and organizational knowledge sharing (Bryant, 2003; García-Morales et al., 2008). Transformational leaders in sports situations motivate athletes, emphasize shared goals, and set high performance standards, leading to the realization of individual potential and the precise realization of achievement aspirations (Bass et al., 1987). Xiao et al. (2017) revealed much empirical evidence that sharing the use of knowledge integration among members can improve team performance. Recently, transformational leadership has focused on physical education in the fields of business administration (Top et al., 2020), nursing (Abd-Elrhaman & Abd-Allah, 2018), business (Birasnav, 2014), and social behavior (Li & Hung, 2009). Active research is being conducted to verify the relevance of performance in various fields.

We proposed a teamwork process that would mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and performance satisfaction through communication and team cohesion (Dionne et al., 2004). Following the research presented by Dionne et al. (2004) and based on previous studies, we assumed that communication is a moderator variable and that team cohesion is a mediating variable. Team cohesion is a dynamic process reflected in a group’s tendency to unite and maintain this unity to pursue an instrumental goal or satisfy the emotional needs of its members (Carron et al., 1998). In other words, team cohesion is the result of showing the driving force of the team “together” for a long time, both inside and outside the stadium. Previous studies have reported that team cohesion, such as team performance (Raajalakshmi & Gnanasekaran, 2021), team commitment, and goals (Dwiatmadja & Yuniawan, 2019), positively affect the dependent variable. The mediating effect of team cohesion on the relationship between transformational leadership and athletic performance perceived by Korean athletes can be understood.

Communication, a moderating variable, is defined as a social process involving information and the exchange of meaning between two or more people (Fuoss & Troppmann, 1981). Rosita (2013) explained that communication plays a crucial role in effective leadership. Since the interactions in which communication occurs are not limited to a specific communication network, it is also possible through informal communication. Coaches have emphasized that communication is vital for athletes. Recent studies related to communication, have shown that team cohesion (McLaren & Spink, 2015), team performance (Marlow et al., 2018), and team engagement (Kim et al., 2016), positively affect team member satisfaction (Onağ & Tepeci, 2014), confirming the importance of communication.

Several previous studies have shown that the relationship between transformational leadership and performance is mediated by communication (Eisenberg et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2013). Therefore, this study will verify the relationships indicated in the literature described above by using communication or team cohesion as a potential parameter. This study will suggest a new research model. In other words, the key point of this study is to verify the relationship between transformational leadership and communication by considering the mediating effect of team cohesion.

In summary, past researchers have addressed the influences of transformational leadership by examining potential parameters of transformational leadership and member relationships (Smith et al., 2013). They have revealed that when a relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is found, it is necessary to identify a third variable that transmits this effect (MacKinnon et al., 2007), in subsequent studies to confirm the, causal relationships between the variables. Studies that examine the interaction between transformational leadership and communication while considering the mediating variable of team cohesion to verify the relationship between performance will add considerable information to this field of study.

This study is expected to expand the theoretical extension of transformational leadership by verifying the mediating effect of communication and team cohesion. It will also provide new research models for future researchers. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to expand the causal relationship process of previous studies by examining the mediating effects of communication and team cohesion in the relationship between transformational leadership and athletic performance among elite athletes in Korea.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Athletic Performance and Team Cohesion

Transformational leadership is a relatively modern coaching style that is used to understand leadership behavior in sports. The basic premise of transformational leadership theory is that leaders have the ability to elevate team members to higher levels of performance and achievement (Bass & Riggio, 2006). It also involves relationship building among team members through personal, emotional, and inspirational exchanges to motivate them to perform beyond normal expectations (Bass, 1985). Although transformational leadership has been described in prior research on team-organizational groups, the research in the past decade has shown the value of applying transformational leadership theory to sports teams (Arthur et al., 2017).

Transformational leadership theory is related to movement leadership research through its emphasis on the leader-follower relationship (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Horn (2008) argues that transformational leadership theory provides a viable framework for examining the relationship between coaching behavior and player outcomes. Transformational leadership coaches communicate the team’s vision to achieve its goals, inspire team members to believe in the vision, encourage team members to provide ideas to increase team success and satisfaction and acknowledge each team member’s contribution to this success. Thus, coaches who engage in transformational leadership behaviors have a positive impact on individual outcomes such as perceived sports ability, emotional response, and intrinsic motivation, and team outcomes such as cohesion and effectiveness.

The thesis will cover the topic of how transformational leadership exerts its influence, with researchers investigating potential mediators of the relationship between transformational leadership and outcomes (Smith et al., 2013). In the context of sports, transformational leadership has been found to have a positive impact on sports performance and intrinsic motivation (Charbonneau et al., 2001). Peers and coaches in one sports study perceived transformational leadership to be effective, satisfying, and effort-evoking (Zacharatos et al., 2000). Notably, team cohesion (Callow et al., 2009), individual and team performance (Andriani et al., 2018; Chi & Huang, 2014; Schaubroeck et al., 2007) have been shown to be significantly affected by transformational leadership. Cohesion is defined as a dynamic process characterized by the tendency to unite to pursue an instrumental goal or to satisfy the emotional needs of team members (Carron & Brawley, 2000). This definition reflects the fact that cohesion has both task-oriented (team members working together toward common goals) and socially-oriented components (team members’ liking of each other and deriving personal enjoyment from being part of the team). It is important to note that group functioning and cohesion can impact team processes (Marcos et al., 2010).

The thesis will explore the relationship between transformational leadership and team cohesion, with many researchers attempting to validate the importance and enhancement of team cohesion (Baird, Martin & Benson, 2020; Smith et al., 2013). We will examine the causal relationship between transformational leadership, team performance, and team cohesion. The study aims to contribute to the existing literature by exploring how transformational leadership can affect both team cohesion and performance, and how these variables are interconnected.

On this basis, we developed our hypotheses as follows.

H1. Transformational leadership will have a positive effect on athletic performance.

H2. Transformational leadership will have a positive effect on team cohesion.

The Relationship Between Communication, Team Cohesion, and Athletic Performance

Sport communication can be defined as the exchange of sport-and non-sport-related information occurring in the context of sport. However, a more nuanced definition is required. In sports communication, people use symbols to create meaning during interactions in a sports setting, for example in the context of a specific sporting endeavor. Sport communications has both theoretical (e.g., academic research) and practical aspects.

In most previous studies, communication between the coach and athlete had an effect on performance in both training and competition situations (Lausic et al., 2009; Marlow et al., 2018). In another study, team cohesion was significantly affected by transformational leadership and communication (Smith et al., 2013). Finally, communication among youth soccer players was important for perceived cohesion (McLaren & Spink, 2018). Groups with high cohesion tend to be more united and committed to success than groups with little cohesion. Cohesion serves as a link between group processes and team outcomes (Mach, Dolan & Tzafrir, 2010). In other words, cohesive groups better know their team members and more efficiently use their members’ abilities to complete tasks successfully. Slater and Sewell (1994) measured the team cohesion of a hockey team and proposed investigating a cyclical model of the cohesion-performance relationship through which cohesion and performance are interdependent.

Gardner (1996) it is important to study the relationships among leadership behavior, cohesion, and performance. Group cohesion has been hypothesized to positively influences performance (Widmeyer & Williams, 1991). However, the majority of research reported only a modest positive relationship between cohesion and performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994), although such research mostly involved non-sports teams or laboratory groups. In research conducted on the performance of sports teams, the relationships were stronger; a recent study of Carron et al. (2002) elite basketball and soccer teams demonstrated a strong positive relationship between cohesion and team success.

In addition, the results of a study of 360 amateur and professional players had an effect on team cohesion, intra team communication, and team norms on team member satisfaction and intention to remain of team players. Team cohesion is reported to be significantly related to team performance (Callow et al., 2009; Mach et al., 2010). Based on the theoretical background and previous research results, the research hypothesis is as follows:

H3: Communication will have a positive effect on team cohesion.

H4: Team cohesion will have a positive effect on athletic performance.

H5: Relationship between transformational leadership and athletic performance will have a moderated mediation effect communication and team cohesion.

Method

Participants

The participants for this study were 263 athletes registered by the 2022 Korean Sport and Olympic Committee, polled using an online survey tool(June 1–10, 2022). The general characteristics of the participants were 172 (65.4%) men and 91 (34.6%) women; 85 (32.3%) participants competed in kendo, 48 (18.3%) in taekwondo, and 40 (15.2%) in track and field, and 34(12.9) soccer, and 33 (12.5%) in baseball, and 23 (8.8%) in field hockey; 143 (54.4%) participants were college students and 120 (45.6%) were professional athletes. Approval for this research was granted by the Institutional Review Board at a university with which one of the authors is affiliated.

Measures

The questionnaire was comprised of scales of reliability and validity which had been adequately assessed in previous studies. For measuring transformational leadership, we included seven items from Carless et al. (2000) that assess the ability to “Instills pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent.” The responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Although the RMSEA value appeared somewhat high in the CFA validation, the other values showed significant results (χ² = 50.601, df = 13, p < .001, Q = 3.892, IFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.978, CFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.105). To measure team communication, we utilized 15 items from Sullivan and Short (2011) questionnaire. One of the items included was “When our team communicates, we get all problems out in the open.” Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a relatively good fit index (χ² = 39.859, df = 14, p < .001, Q = 2.847, IFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.979, CFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.084). To measure team cohesion, we selected three items from Dion (2000) questionnaire, one of which was “My team and I work together to build solidarity.” The responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Although the RMSEA value appeared somewhat high in the CFA validation, the other values showed significant results (χ² = 18.022, df = 4, p < .001, Q = 4.506, IFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.976, CFI = 0.991, RMSEA = 0.116). To measure athletic performance, we adopted five items from Alper et al. (1998) questionnaire, one of which was “Team members feel highly committed to the goals of their work.” These items were then modified to fit the context of the athletes based on expert suggestions regarding content relevance and clarity. Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a relatively good fit index (χ² = 34.858, df = 10, p < .001, Q = 23.486, IFI = 0.981, TLI = 0.960, CFI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.097). Although transformational leadership and team cohesion appeared slightly higher than the standard RMSEA value of 0.08, other fit indices were found to be good, similar to the previous study conducted by Oh (2017). Therefore, it was determined that there were no significant obstacles in carrying out the study (Brosseau-Liard et al., 2012; Brosseau-Liard & Savalei, 2014).

Statistical Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using SPSS 24.0, SPSS PROCESS Macro, and Amos 24.0 statistical programs. First, a frequency analysis was conducted. Second, Cronbach’s alpha values were calculated to check the reliability of each measurement tool, and confirmatory factor analysis were performed to find out the validity of the constructs. Third, Pearson’s product-moment correlation was calculated on major variables. Fourth, SPSS PROCESS Macro 24.0 (Model no. 7) was used to explore the moderated mediating effect of team communication, team cohesion in the relationship between transformational leadership and athletic performance. We used 95% Confident intervals (CI) and alpha level of .05 for significance tests.

Results

Result of Statistical and Correlation Analyses

The calculated average, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and correlation coefficient of the variables extracted from exploratory factor analysis are reported in Table 1. Descriptive statistics of study variables including mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis are listed in Table 1. The data showed normal distribution as skewness and kurtosis fell between recommended ranges, from −2 to +2 and from −7 to+7, respectively (Hair et al., 2010). Correlations were performed to examine overall relationships between variables, and all variables were found to be correlated below .73 (see Table 1), confirming an absence of multicollinearity (Bollen & Lennox, 1991).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Pearson Correlations of Scores, and Cronbach’s α.

Variable	1	2	3	4
1. Transformational leadership (1)	—	—	—	—
2. Communication (2)	−.75*	—	—	—
3. Team cohesion (3)	.73**	−.78**	—	—
4. Athletic performance (4)	.63**	−.71**	.63**	—
M	4.14	2.18	4.33	−.29
SD	.91	.17	−1.03	−.29
Skewness	−.83	.77	−.03	−.29
Kurtosis	.01	−.30	.23	−.29
CR	.98	.93	.96	.85
AVE	.87	.71	.89	.50
Cronbach’s α	.98	.96	.92	.96

Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Analysis of the Moderated Mediating Effect of Communication on the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership, Team Cohesion, and Athletic Performance

The results of the mediating effects of communication on the relationship between transformational leadership, team cohesion, and athletic performance are shown in Figure 1. Transformational leadership had a significant positive effect on athletic performance (B = 0.40, t = 4.04, p < .001). Transformational leadership had a significant positive effect on team cohesion (B = 00.49, t = 11.88, p < .001).

As a result of conducting the moderated effect, the moderated variable, communication, had a significant negative effect on team cohesion (B = −0.23, t = −6.93, p < .001). The interaction between transformational leadership and communication had a significant positive effect on team cohesion (B = 0.07, t = 3.19, p < .01).

At the communication level, the conditional indirect effect was 0.19, 0.22, and 0.26, which showed higher as the interaction increased. And the moderated mediating effect index of 0.03 (CI [0.01, 0.09]) was significant. As a result of simple slope analysis using interaction to find out more about these conditioning effects in Figure 2, the conditioning effect was the smallest in the −1SD group (effect = 0.40, t = 0.87, p < .001), and the average (effect = 0.49, t = 11.88, p < .001) and the +1SD group (effect = 0.58, t = 12.31, p < .001) increased in the order, and all conditioning effects were found to be significant (Table 2).

Table 2.

Direct and Moderated Mediating Effect Index.

	B	SE	Boot SE	t(p)	95% CI		95% BC CI
	B	SE	Boot SE	t(p)	LLCI	ULCI	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Mediation variable model (dependent variable: team cohesion), R² = .76, F(3, 259) = 275.04, p < .000
Constant	4.39	0.03		142.16***	4.33	4.45
Transformational leadership	0.49	0.04		11.88***	0.41	0.57
Communication	−0.23	0.03		−6.93***	−0.29	−0.16
Transformational leadership × communication	0.07	0.02		3.20**	0.03	0.12
Dependent variable model (dependent variable: athletic performance), R² = .43, F(2, 260) = 99.69, p < .000
Constant	3.69	0.48		7.66***	2.76	4.64
Transformational leadership	0.40	0.09		4.04***	0.217	0.59
Team cohesion	0.46	0.11		4.15***	0.24	0.68
Conditional indirect effect of communication
−1 SD (−1.1730)	0.19		0.05				0.07	0.28
Mean (.0000)	0.22		0.06				0.09	0.32
+1 SD (1.1730)	0.26		0.07				0.10	0.38
Moderated mediating effect index	0.03		0.02				0.01	0.09

Note. LL, UL = bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (lower limit, upper limit).

Discussion

If there is a significant relationship between transformational leadership behavior and the individual or group outcomes of a sports team, the processes underlying transformational leadership need to be understood (Bass, 1999). Scholars are interested in understanding transformational leadership by exploring potential parameters that influence the relationship between transformational leadership and follower outcomes. In our study, we examined the mediating effects of communication and team cohesion in the relationship between transformational leadership and performance based on the teamwork process suggested by Dionne et al. (2004) which will help to present a model. In addition, this study revealed that the research topic can represent various previous studies, as it included Korean elite team sports (Oh & Yoo, 2023; Vella et al., 2013), martial arts (Oh et al., 2022), and record sports (Zuleger, 2011).

Our study found significant direct relationships between transformational leadership, team cohesion, and performance, providing support for the causality of the study. In a study of 168 college athletes, Charbonneau et al. (2001) found that transformational leadership had a significant effect on sports performance. Similarly, Abrantes et al. (2022) conducted a study on 668 amateur basketball players and found that transformational leadership significantly affects team cohesion, aligning with the results of our study. Specifically, transformational leadership provides autonomy to players and establishes a clear mission and vision for the team, leading to a united attitude toward achieving goals. This perspective is consistent with social exchange theory and the understanding that transformational leadership is a part of organizational behavior (Johns, 2018).

The mediating effect of team cohesion was found to play a significant role in the relationship between transformational leadership and performance, as reported by Mach et al. (2022) in their study of 690 professional athletes across various sports (basketball, handball, roller hockey, and indoor soccer/soccer), and Callow et al. (2009) in their study of 309 British frisbee players, which showed that transformational leadership mediates team cohesion and indirectly impacts team performance. The present results aligns with these studies. In team sports, athletes must intuitively recognize the team goal to succeed, and team cohesion brings all team members together to perform at their best, making it a critical element in team sports that keeps all team members united in achieving a common goal. The ability to enhance athletic performance by inducing team cohesion is highly influenced by transformational leadership. Therefore, the meaningful results of our study are expected to align with those of several previous studies, thus highlighting the role of transformational leadership behavior.

Next, as a result of verifying the moderated mediating effect, which is the key point of this study, it was found that the interaction between transformational leadership and communication had a significant effect on team cohesion. In a previous study, Troth et al. (2012) studied 273 college students. As a result, communication had a significant effect on team social cohesion. Stenmans (2016) As a result of the studied 274 athletes, the interaction between team cohesion and communication was found to have a significant effect on team efficiency, supporting the results of this study. In this study, communication had a direct negative effect on team cohesion, but the interaction extracted meaningful results, showing some results that contrast with previous findings. However, we aimed to clarify goals among team athletes through transformational leadership and positive communication while encouraging members of the organization to belong to groups and fulfill their roles as team members (Schermerhorn et al., 2011). Coaches’ transformational leadership can improve athletic performance through building trust among players through communication, motivating players, and effectively resolving conflicts that may arise. Overall, effective communication is an essential component of a successful team dynamic and can help to foster a positive and supportive teamculture.

The interaction between them significantly affected exercise performance in the order of high, medium, and low. Stenmans (2016) reported that conflicts can be resolved effectively through concise and direct mutual communication within a team, thereby increasing team cohesion and team efficiency. Oh et al. (2022) examined 404 Korean athletes and reported that the interaction between team cohesion and intra-team conflict significantly affected the relationship between transformational leadership and performance in the order of high, medium, and low, thus indirectly supporting the results of the present study. This means that overall meaningful results were shown in high, medium, and low stages for athletes to be encouraged to achieve optimal performance. Clear communication between coaches and players and effective communication skills are also important in this regard.

In summary, Yukl (1999) and Smith et al. (2013) described how transformational leadership is viewed as a key determinant of organizational effectiveness, but leaders ultimately determine the effectiveness of organizational processes. Little is known about the causal effect of behavior. Since then, the relationship between transformational leadership and performance has been gradually verified by several studies. We tested the causality between variables based on the transformational leadership theory and the teamwork process suggested by Dionne et al. (2004). The transformational leadership perceived by Korean athletes induces athletic performance through team cohesion. It was concluded that effective interactions in coach-athletes communication positively affect exercise performance by mediating team cohesion. We tested the causality that can induce athletic performance by planning effective communication strategies and achieving the goals of coaches and athletes while demonstrating team cohesion.

Through our research results, we can better understand the importance of transformational leadership in sports. This importance should be emphasized through educational initiatives for coaches in both the public and private sectors (Sullivan et al., 2012). These efforts can be meaningful opportunities to form a new sports culture to maximize athletes’ performance. The results emphasize the importance of coach-athlete interactions and the expansion of the theoretical transformational leadership. The positive outcomes of transformational leadership unfold over time through iterative interactions between leaders and team members (Fischer, 2017). A coach’s positive feedback can have a huge impact on players’ lives and performances. Our study extends the social psychology theory by demonstrating team cohesion through communication with players and the transformational leadership of coaches.

Finally, specific instances of transformational leadership behaviors of coaches can appear to be controlling. For example, coaches may guide players with a strong sense of control (e.g., shouting) for poor performance in a match. The shouting may appear to be controlling leadership behavior rather than one of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership theory can be applied as a more comprehensive and strong theory to change athletes’ training and their performance results by specifically examining changes over time and circumstances.

Conclusion and Suggestions

Based on the teamwork process, this study examined the moderated mediation effects of communication and team cohesion in the relationship between transformational leadership and athletic performance among 263 elite Korean athletes. The moderated mediation effects of transformational leadership and communication significantly influenced exercise performance by moderated mediation team cohesion in the order of high, medium, and low. Importantly, we discovered a new research model by securing the moderated mediation effect of the communication, team cohesion on the relationship between transformational leadership and performance.

Despite confirming the causality between new variables and presenting a new model through SPSS PROCESS macro model validation, this study had some limitations. First, as the research subjects were limited to Korean adult players, the results might not generalize to youth athletes. Future research should verify whether the current research results can be reproduced in these athletes. Second, previous studies by Kelemen et al. (2020) and Smittick et al. (2019) verified the relationship between gender and exercise performance. Meanwhile, the present study verified the difference between gender and exercise performance, and no significant difference was found. Finally, based on the theory of organizational behavior as it concerns athletes and coaches, future research should the theoretical extension by verifying the relevance of the theory of social facilitation. Such research can serve as a catalyst for athletes to devote themselves to sports through team cohesion.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board. The data were used after obtaining consent from the study subjects.

ORCID iD

Youngtaek Oh

References

Abd-Elrhaman

E. S. A.

Abd-Allah

N. A.

(2018). Transformational leadership educational program for head nurses and its effect on nurses’ job performance. American Journal of Nursing, 7(4), 127–136.

Abrantes

A. C. M.

Mach

Ferreira

A. I.

(2022). Tenure matters for team cohesion and performance: The moderating role of trust in the coach. European Sport Management Quarterly, 22(3), 313–334.

Alper

Tjosvold

Law

K. S.

(1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 33–52.

Andriani

Kesumawati

Kristiawan

(2018). The influence of the transformational leadership and work motivation on teachers performance. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 7(7), 19–29.

Arthur

C. A.

Bastardoz

Eklund

(2017). Transformational leadership in sport: Current status and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 78–83.

Avolio

B. J.

Yammarino

F. J.

(Eds.). (2013). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Emerald Group Publishing.

Baird

Martin

L. J.

Benson

A. J.

(2020). A dynamic view of coach transformational leadership: How leadership perceptions relate to task cohesion and team potency. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51, 101789.

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40.

Bass

B. M.

(1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.

10.

Bass

B. M.

(1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.

11.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

Goodheim

(1987). Biography and the assessment of transformational leadership at the world-class level. Journal of Management, 13(1), 7–19.

12.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

Jung

D. I.

Berson

(2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.

13.

Bass

B. M.

Riggio

R. E.

(2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

14.

Birasnav

(2014). Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1622–1629.

15.

Bollen

Lennox

(1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314.

16.

Brosseau-Liard

P. E.

Savalei

(2014). Adjusting incremental fit indices for nonnormality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 460–470.

17.

Brosseau-Liard

P. E.

Savalei

(2012). An investigation of the sample performance of two nonnormality corrections for RMSEA. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(6), 904–930.

18.

Bryant

S. E.

(2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 32–44.

19.

Callow

Smith

M. J.

Hardy

Arthur

C. A.

Hardy

(2009). Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 395–412.

20.

Carless

S. A.

Wearing

A. J.

Mann

(2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389–405.

21.

Carron

A. V.

Brawley

L. R.

(2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106.

22.

Carron

A. V.

Brawley

L. R.

Widmeyer

W. N.

(1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In Duda

J. L.

(Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Fitness Information Technology.

23.

Carron

A. V.

Bray

S. R.

Eys

M. A.

(2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(2), 119–126.

24.

Charbonneau

Barling

Kelloway

E. K.

(2001). Transformational leadership and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1521–1534.

25.

Chi

N. W.

Huang

J. C.

(2014). Mechanisms linking transformational leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of team goal orientation and group affective tone. Group & Organization Management, 39(3), 300–325.

26.

Cooke

N. J.

Kiekel

P. A.

Salas

Stout

Bowers

Cannon-Bowers

(2003). Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(3), 179–199.

27.

DeGroot

Kiker

D. S.

Cross

T. C.

(2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 17(4), 356–372.

28.

Dion

K. L.

(2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 7–26.

29.

Dionne

S. D.

Yammarino

F. J.

Atwater

L. E.

Spangler

W. D.

(2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 177–193.

30.

Dwiatmadja

Yuniawan

(2019). The mediating effect of commitment team goals and team solidarity capital in the team cohesiveness toward team performance: At book publishing company in Central Java and Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Quality-Access to Success, 20(168), 97–109.

31.

Eisenberg

Post

DiTomaso

(2019). Team dispersion and performance: The role of team communication and transformational leadership. Small Group Research, 50(3), 348–380.

32.

Fischer

S. A.

(2017). Transformational leadership in nursing education: making the case. Nursing Science Quarterly, 30(2), 124–128.

33.

Fuoss

D. E.

Troppmann

R. J.

(1981). Effective coaching: A psychological approach. Wiley.

34.

García-Morales

V. J.

Lloréns-Montes

F. J.

Verdú-Jover

A. J.

(2008). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge and innovation. British Journal of Management, 19(4), 299–319.

35.

Gardner

J. N.

(1996). Helping America’s first-generation college students. About Campus, 1(5), 31–32.

36.

Hair

J. F.

Ortinau

D. J.

Harrison

D. E.

(2010). Essentials of marketing research. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

37.

Horn

T. S.

(2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In Horn

T. S.

(Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 239–267, 455–459). Human Kinetics.

38.

Johns

(2018). Advances in the treatment of context in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 21–46.

39.

Kelemen

T. K.

Matthews

S. H.

Zhang

X. A.

Bradley

B. H.

Liu

(2020). When does gender diversity enhance team performance? The dual need for visionary leadership and team tenure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 50(9), 501–511.

40.

Kim

Magnusen

M. J.

Andrew

D. P.

(2016). Divided we fall: Examining the relationship between horizontal communication and team commitment via team cohesion. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(5), 625–636.

41.

Lausic

Tennebaum

Eccles

Jeong

Johnson

(2009). Intrateam communication and performance in doubles tennis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(2), 281–290.

42.

C. K.

Hung

C. H.

(2009). The influence of transformational leadership on workplace relationships and job performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(8), 1129–1142.

43.

Mach

Dolan

Tzafrir

(2010). The differential effect of team members' trust on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 771–794.

44.

Mach

Ferreira

A. I.

Abrantes

A. C.

(2022). Transformational leadership and team performance in sports teams: A conditional indirect model. Applied Psychology, 71(2), 662–694.

45.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Fairchild

A. J.

Fritz

M. S.

(2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.

46.

Marcos

F. M. L.

Miguel

P. A. S.

Oliva

D. S.

Calvo

T. G

. (2010). Interactive effects of team cohesion on perceived efficacy in semi-professional sport. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 9(2), 320–325.

47.

Marlow

S. L.

Lacerenza

C. N.

Paoletti

Burke

C. S.

Salas

(2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach? A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145-170.

48.

McLaren

C. D.

Spink

K. S.

(2015). Examining the relationship between intra-team communication and team cohesion in competitive youth soccer athletes. Journal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport, 47(1), 104–104.

49.

McLaren

C. D.

Spink

K. S.

(2018). Team member communication and perceived cohesion in youth soccer. Communication & Sport, 6(1), 111–125.

50.

Mullen

Copper

(1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210.

51.

Y. T

. (2017). Verification of a structural model on passion, athlete engagement, and burnout based on the self-determination theory [Ph.D. thesis, Jeju National University] Jeju.

52.

Y. T.

Kim

J. J.

Yang

M. H.

(2022). Analysis of the moderated mediating effect of conflicts within teams in the relationships of transformational leadership, communication, and athletic performance assessment. Journal of Coaching Development, 24(1), 73–82.

53.

Y. T.

Yoo

J. I.

(2023). Team cohesion in individual/team sports athletes: Transformational leadership and the role of social norms. Healthcare, 11(6), 792.

54.

Onağ

Tepeci

(2014). Team effectiveness in sport teams: The effects of team cohesion, intra team communication and team norms on team member satisfaction and intent to remain. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150(15), 420–428.

55.

Raajalakshmi

Gnanasekaran

D. P.

(2021). Impact of charismatic leadership on team cohesiveness and team performance. International Journal of Aquatic Science, 12(3), 2493–2498.

56.

Rosita

C. D.

(2013). Pengembangan Kehidupan Sosial dalam Pembelajaran Matematika di Perguruan Tinggi. Ragam, 13(3), 180–187.

57.

Schaubroeck

Lam

S. S.

Cha

S. E.

(2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020–1030.

58.

Schermerhorn

J. R.

Jr. Osborn

R. N.

Uhl-Bien

Hunt

J. G.

(2011). Organizational behavior. John Wiley.

59.

Slater

M. R.

Sewell

D. F.

(1994). An examination of the cohesion–performance relationship in university hockey teams. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 423–431.

60.

Smith

M. J.

Arthur

C. A.

Hardy

Callow

Williams

(2013). Transformational leadership and task cohesion in sport: The mediating role of intrateam communication. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(2), 249–257.

61.

Smittick

A. L.

Miner

K. N.

Cunningham

G. B.

(2019). The “I” in team: Coach incivility, coach gender, and team performance in women’s basketball teams. Sport Management Review, 22(3), 419–433.

62.

Stenmans

(2016). Examinig the relation between team cohesiveness and team effectiveness and the role of verbal communication in this relation [Bachelor’s thesis, University of Twente].

63.

Stout

R. J.

Salas

Fowlkes

J. E.

(1997). Enhancing teamwork in complex environments through team training. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(2), 169–182.

64.

Sullivan

P. J.

Paquette

K. J.

Holt

N. L.

Bloom

G. A.

(2012). The relation of coaching context and coach education to coaching efficacy and perceived leadership behaviors in youth sport. Sport Psychologist, 26(1), 122–134.

65.

Sullivan

P. J.

Short

(2011). Further operationalization of intra-team communication in sports: An updated version of the Scale of Effective Communication in Team Sports (SECTS-2). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(2), 471–487.

66.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Beard

R. L.

Salas

(1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In Advances in Psychology, 82, 117–153.

67.

Top

Abdullah

B. M. S.

Faraj

A. H. M.

(2020). Transformational leadership impact on employees performance. Eurasian Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 1(1), 49–59.

68.

Troth

A. C.

Jordan

P. J.

Lawrence

S. A.

(2012). Emotional intelligence, communication competence, and student perceptions of team social cohesion. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(4), 414–424.

69.

Viswesvaran

Ones

D. S.

(2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 216–226.

70.

Vella

S. A.

Oades

L. G.

Crowe

T. P.

(2013). The relationship between coach leadership, the coach–athlete relationship, team success, and the positive developmental experiences of adolescent soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(5), 549–561.

71.

Widmeyer

W. N.

Williams

J. M.

(1991). Predicting cohesion in a coacting sport. Small Group Research, 22(4), 548–570.

72.

Xiao

Zhang

Ordóñez

Pablos

(2017). How does individuals’ exchange orientation moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing ? Journal of Knowledge Management, 21, 1622–1639.

73.

Yukl

(1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.

74.

Zacharatos

Barling

Kelloway

E. K.

(2000). Development and effects of transformational leadership in adolescents. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 211–226.

75.

Zuleger

B. M.

(2011). Leadership characteristics of successful NCAA Division I track and field head coaches. Western Washington University; WWU Graduate School Collection.