Effects of coach extraversion and educational environment on transformational leadership and athlete outcomes: A moderated mediation model

ABSTRACT

The importance of coach leadership to athlete development and performance has been identified in the literature. We respond to the call to investigate antecedents of coach transformational leadership and their indirect effects on athlete outcomes. We propose that coach extraversion as an antecedent of coach transformational leadership can indirectly impact follower cohesion and satisfaction. Building on this mediation model, we assert that educational environment (i.e., high school and university) may serve as a first-stage moderator between coach extraversion and transformational leadership. We used 48 coaches and their 570 athletes from competitive high school and university basketball teams to test this moderated mediation model. Our results indicate that coach extraversion indirectly impacts athlete cohesion and satisfaction via transformational leadership. Moreover, the indirect effects of coach extraversion on athlete outcomes via coach transformational leadership is conditionally significant only when coaches and athletes are in universities but not in high schools. Our findings highlight the importance of educational environment in determining the association between coach personality and leadership perception. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Athlete development
• coach-athlete relationship
• coaching effectiveness
• coach personality traits

Introduction

Transformational leadership is the most widely studied leadership theory (Bass, 2008; Yammarino, 2013) and has been gaining increased attention in sport psychology (for reviews, see Arthur & Tomsett, 2015; Arthur et al., 2017; Beauchamp et al., 2019). Transformational leaders motivate followers to exceed their expectations, reach their full potential, and achieve maximum performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In sports settings, empirical investigations have modelled coaches’ or peers’ transformational leadership to predict athlete outcomes. For instance, research indicates a positive effect of transformational leadership on athlete cohesion perceptions (e.g., Cronin et al., 2015; Kao et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2013) and satisfaction (e.g., Kao & Tsai, 2016; Zacharatos et al., 2000).

As the consequences of transformational leadership in sports settings have become well-studied, researchers have called for investigations on the antecedents of transformational leadership in coaches (e.g., Arthur & Tomsett, 2015; Beauchamp et al., 2019). Examining the antecedents of coach transformational leadership can help identify specific characteristics of coaches and lead to the development of effective coaching programmes (e.g., Lawrason et al., 2019). In the current research, we respond to this call and propose that coach extraversion can be an antecedent of coach transformational leadership. Extraversion is a personality trait that describes individuals with assertive, active, energetic, and positive emotions (Costa & McCrae, 2017; McCrae & Costa, 2008) and is important to sports participation (for a review, see Allen et al., 2021). Empirical findings have revealed that coaches with high extraversion are more committed and show greater relatedness to their athletes (Jackson et al., 2011), yielding a high-quality coach-athlete relationship (Yang et al., 2015). Based on this finding, Allen et al. (2021) suggested that coach extraversion may be critical for coaching behaviour. Because leader behaviour relies on their characteristics, we propose coach extraversion as an antecedent of coach transformational leadership and examine its indirect effect on athlete cohesion and satisfaction.

In addition, we leverage the leadership process framework (Ayman et al., 2018; Oc, 2018; Yammarino, 2013) to propose a contextual factor that can alter the relationship between coach extraversion and transformational leadership. Furthermore, Beauchamp et al. (2019) integrated leadership model indicates that leadership behaviours are jointly shaped by a leader’s characteristics and contextual factors. Building on these perspectives, we argue that educational environment can be an important contextual factor in the relationship between coach extraversion and transformational leadership. We propose that university environment is distinct from high school environment in many ways. One of the key differences is the increased emphasis on independence and self-identity development among students in universities. This is reflected in external structures such as college dorms, which encourage students to become more self-reliant and take greater ownership of their lives. In addition, sports programmes in universities usually focus more on performance outcomes and peer comparison than those in high schools (Horn & Newton, 2019). These differences in the external environment alter different social structures of athletes, which may impact athlete development and their perceptions of the association with coach personal characteristics and leadership behaviours (Wylleman, 2019; Wylleman et al., 2017). For example, university athletes may be more likely to have a strong sense of agency and a multifaceted self-identity, which could impact how they perceive and respond to coaching.

Therefore, we propose that the association between coach extraversion and transformational leadership differs between universities and high schools. Thus, this study aims to understand whether coach extraversion has a conditional indirect effect on athlete cohesion and satisfaction via transformational leadership such that educational environment (i.e., high schools or universities) moderates the association between coach extraversion and transformational leadership (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Proposed moderated mediation model.

Our research makes several interrelated contributions. First, we contribute to the limited research on the antecedents of transformational leadership in the coaching and sports literature by examining a mediating process through which coach extraversion relates to transformational leadership and athlete cohesion and satisfaction. Moreover, based on the leadership process framework (Ayman et al., 2018; Oc, 2018; Yammarino, 2013) and integrated leadership model in physical activity settings (Beauchamp et al., 2019), our investigation of the moderating role of educational environment in the proposed mediating model highlights the importance of contextual factors in the coaching-influence process. Understanding how coach personality (i.e., extraversion) is associated with coach transformational leadership perceptions and how this association is altered by educational environment (i.e., high schools and universities) can significantly contribute to coaching education and athlete development.

Coach extraversion, transformational leadership, and athlete cohesion and satisfaction

Transformational leadership refers to how leaders encourage, inspire, and motivate followers. According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders exhibit four behavioural dimensions: idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration. Idealised influence concerns leaders’ role model behaviours aligned with the organisation’s vision. Inspirational motivation refers to leaders’ developing and articulating a shared vision and high expectations that are motivating, inspiring, and challenging towards followers. Intellectual stimulation focuses on transformational leaders’ challenging their followers’ existing assumptions and soliciting followers’ suggestions and ideas. Finally, through individualised consideration, transformational leaders pay attention to each follower’s needs for achievement and growth. These four dimensions of transformational leadership have been jointly applied to understand the coach-athlete relationship and examine its impact on athlete outcomes (e.g., Kao & Watson, 2017; Kao et al., 2019; Rowold, 2006).

As noted, empirical findings indicate a positive effect of transformational leadership on cohesion (e.g., Cronin et al., 2015; Kao et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2013) and satisfaction (e.g., Kao & Tsai, 2016; Zacharatos et al., 2000). These studies find that transformational coaches articulate their vision, which helps group members to realign their values and develop a shared group vision. As a result, such coaches enhance strong group cohesiveness. Further, transformational coaches inspire, stimulate, and consider athletes’ needs, which positively affects athletes’ attitudes towards, commitment to, and satisfaction with the coach and the team. Because personality characteristics determine leader behaviours (e.g., Antonakis et al., 2012; Chelladurai, 2007) and extraversion is suggested as crucial to coaching behaviours (Allen et al., 2021), we examine the relationship between coach extraversion and transformational leadership.

Extraversion is one of the fundamental dimensions of personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Wilt & Revelle, 2017), confers a small yet robust advantage role at work (Wilmot et al., 2019), and is consistently correlated to transformational leadership (see a meta-analysis; Bono & Judge, 2004). Extraversion is characterised by experiencing and exhibiting positive affect, assertive behaviour, decisive thinking, and desire for social attention (Wilt & Revelle, 2017). Extraverted individuals tend to be outgoing, sociable, excitement-seeking, self-confident, optimistic, and energised by being around others; for instance, they appear to have goals to have fun, connect with people, entertain, stir things up, and view as leaders (McCabe & Fleeson, 2012). Accordingly, extraverted coaches may tend to exhibit positive emotions and ambitions that generate enthusiasm in athletes (i.e., inspirational motivation), and athletes may admire and emulate their coaches (i.e., idealised influence) (Hodge et al., 2014). Extraverted coaches are also likely to be perceived as offering individual consideration and intellectual stimulation since they are warm towards athletes and seek new ways to accomplish goals (Smith et al., 2017). Further, extraverted coaches who exhibit proactive actions may create perceptions of inspirational motivation and be considered role models for achieving goals (Smith et al., 2017). Therefore, it is likely that coach extraversion is positively associated with athletes’ perceptions of transformational leadership.

We assert that extraverted coaches may be perceived as transformational leaders by their athletes. Further, empirical findings indicate a positive effect of transformational leadership on cohesion and satisfaction (e.g., Cronin et al., 2015; Kao & Tsai, 2016). Coach extraversion may influence athlete cohesion and satisfaction via transformational leadership. We hypothesise that coach transformational leadership is a mediator between coach extraversion and athlete (a) social cohesion, (b) task cohesion, and (c) satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1: There is an indirect effect of coach extraversion on (a) athlete social cohesion, (b) task cohesion, and (c) satisfaction through coach transformational leadership.

Conditional moderating effects of educational environment

Theoretical and empirical leadership research indicates that leadership behaviours and effectiveness are subject to contextual factors (e.g., Ayman et al., 2018; Bono & Judge, 2004; Yammarino, 2013). The role of context is also crucial in sports leadership research, as context can influence coaches to prioritise effective behaviours to meet athletes’ needs (Chelladurai, 2007). Beauchamp et al. (2019) proposed that contextual factors might combine with a leader’s characteristics to influence leadership behaviours and outcomes. Furthermore, contextual factors have been emphasised by the leadership process framework (Hollander, 2009; Yammarino, 2013), which conceptualises leadership as a series of social interactions between leaders and followers within a specific context. Contextual factors are crucial as they signify external environments as structures that either promote or hinder leader-follower interactions, emphasising the dynamic and process-oriented nature of leadership.

In line with this logic, we assert that educational environment is crucial in enhancing the association between coach extraversion and transformational leadership and the indirect effects on athlete outcomes. Compared to universities, high schools tend to have a stable and well-organised environment for athletes. This is because athletes typically are from local communities and rely more heavily on the support of their parents. Additionally, high school athletic training often strikes a balance between deliberate play and practice (Côté et al., 2010, 2019) and involves mainly prioritising competition and achievement.¹ This stable and well-organised environment can inadvertently restrict the effects of extraverted coaches’ communication skills and energy, which are essential for inspiring and motivating others in the perceptions of transformational leadership. As such, we assert that high school environment could offset the positive association between coach extraversion and transformational leadership.

Conversely, university environment is significantly more complex. University coaches recruit athletes nationwide, travel extensively for games and tournaments, exercise administrative duties (i.e., budgeting, general paperwork, and meetings), and coordinate public relations work (i.e., parents, fans, media, and stakeholders).² These environmental requirements of university settings are similar to those of other professions, making coaches’ vision more salient (e.g., Becker & Wrisberg, 2008; Gallimore & Tharp, 2004). Specifically, university environment reflects a proactive and flourishing social setting that mimics the external society. Within this liberal context, students are encouraged to explore possibilities in love, work, and self-identity (Arnett, 2016). University environment recognises and supports the complex transition that student-athletes undergo as they navigate the shift from adolescence to greater independence and self-discipline. This transition also involves restructuring social diversity, including their relationships with parents, romantic partners, and peers, as well as their preparation for life beyond their education as a student-athlete, such as job applications and career development (Wylleman, 2019; Wylleman et al., 2017). This complex and dynamic environment may lead university athletes to focus more on performance outcomes, peer comparison, and professional occupation (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004; Wylleman et al., 2017), which enhances their perceptions of extraverted coaches as transformational leaders and ultimately engender positive outcomes. Thus, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 2: Educational environment moderates the indirect effects of coach extraversion on (a) social cohesion, (b) task cohesion, and (c) athlete satisfaction through athletes’ perceptions of transformational leadership. Specifically, this indirect effect will be positive and significant at universities but may become insignificant at high schools.

Method

Participants

The participants were 48 basketball coaches and 570 players in the first division of Taiwan’s High School Basketball League and University Basketball Association. Coaches and players in the first division were recruited based on their highly competitive interactions. High school samples composite of 29 coaches (male = 22, female = 7) and 377 players (male = 256, female = 121). The high school coaches’ mean age was 34.49 years (SD = 5.79), and they had coached the present team for a mean of 5.09 years (SD = 3.32). The high school athletes’ mean age was 17.35 years (SD = 0.96); they had played competitive basketball in their career for a mean of 5.06 years (SD = 2.29) and played for the current coach for a mean of 2.47 years (SD = 2.01). The university samples comprised 19 coaches (male = 14, female = 5) and 193 players (male = 111, female = 82). The university coaches’ mean age was 40.93 years (SD = 9.07), and they have coached their team for a mean of 9.27 years (SD = 7.86). The university athletes’ mean age was 20.27 years (SD = 1.31); they had played competitive basketball in their career for a mean of 7.78 years (SD = 2.70) and played for the current coach for a mean of 2.44 years (SD = 1.46).

Measures

Extraversion

Extraversion was assessed by Tompson’s International English Mini-Markers and its validated Chinese version (Teng et al., 2011). International English Mini-Markers is a Big Five personality traits instrument with 40 items, of which we used eight to measure coaches’ extraversion. Coaches answered the Mini-Marker and were instructed, “Describe yourself as you really are compared to other people you know of the same age and sex, not as you wish to be”. Coaches indicated the extent to which each item accurately described themselves using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly inaccurate, 5 = strongly accurate). Sample items for extraversion included “extraverted” and “talkative”. Cronbach’s alpha was .83.

Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership was measured by the 45-item Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio, 2004). The MLQ-5X is the most widely used instrument for assessing transformational leadership (Arthur & Tomsett, 2015; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Rowold, 2006). The MLQ-5X has 20 items for measuring transformational leadership. The Mandarin version of MLQ-5X has been used in the Taiwanese athlete sample (Kao et al., 2019). Players answered transformational leadership by four subscales, idealised influence (attributed and behaviour), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration. Eight items were used to measure idealised influence (e.g., “goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group”), four for inspirational motivation (e.g., “talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished”), four for intellectual stimulation (e.g., “seeks differing perspectives when solving problems”), and four for individualised consideration (e.g., “helps me to develop my strengths”). The averaged four subscales were used to present transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Kao et al., 2019; Stenling & Tafvelin, 2014). The original Likert scale for MLQ-5X is a 5-point ranging from “not at all” (0) to “frequently” (4). For a straightforward interpretation of the respondents’ results, we modified the anchors of the Likert scale. Athletes identified how often their respective coaches displayed the identified behaviour using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = frequently). To determine if a model fits well for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), certain criteria need to be met. Specifically, if the model is acceptable, the comparative fit index (CFI) and normed fit index (NFI) are greater than .90. In addition, the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) is less than .08, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is less than .10 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum et al., 1996). Based on the criteria, the CFA results of transformational leadership revealed an acceptable fit (χ² = 730.66, df = 147, CFI = .98, NFI = .97, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .08). Cronbach’s alphas for idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration were .87, .81, .79, and .81, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha of the overall scale was .94.

Educational environment

We measured educational environment based on whether the participants were part of a high school or university basketball team. To code this variable, we used a dummy variable with a value of 0 for high schools and 1 for universities. In our sample, 63.8% of participants were from high schools, and 36.2% were from universities.

Cohesion

Cohesion was measured using the positively worded 18-item Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Eys et al., 2007). The Chinese version of GEQ has been used in a Taiwanese athlete sample (Kao et al., 2019). Players answered the GEQ by four dimensions of task and social cohesion, which include an attraction to group-social (e.g., “I enjoy being a part of the social activities of this team”), group integration-social (e.g., “Members of our team stick together outside of practices and games”), attraction to group-task (e.g., “I am happy with my team’s level of desire to win”), and group integration-task (e.g., “Our team members have consistent aspirations for the team’s performance”). The original GEQ is a 9-point Likert scale that ranges from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (9). However, to avoid confusing participants due to the use of different questionnaires in the same survey, we opted to use a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) to streamline the format and enhance response quality. Based on the concept of cohesion (Carron et al., 1985), for this study, we averaged the two social dimensions (i.e., individual attraction to group-social and group integration-social) and two task dimensions (i.e., individual attraction to group-task and group integration-task) separately to represent social cohesion and task cohesion, respectively. Based on the criteria for evaluating model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum et al., 1996), the CFA results revealed an acceptable fit (χ² = 453.00, df = 131, CFI = .99, NFI = .98, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .07). Cronbach’s alphas of social cohesion and task cohesion were .92 and .88, respectively. Our analytical operations on task and social cohesion were consistent with previous sports literature (e.g., Callow et al., 2009; Kao et al., 2019).

Satisfaction

We used the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire (ASQ; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998) to measure athlete satisfaction. ASQ has 15 dimensions and 56 items. We used three dimensions to measure athlete satisfaction with individual performance, satisfaction with personal treatment, and satisfaction with training and instruction. The Chinese version has been used for measuring Taiwanese athletes (Kao & Tsai, 2016). ASQ has three items for satisfaction with individual performance. We removed the item of improvement in performance over the previous season because the present coach did not instruct the new coming athletes in the previous season. Thus, two items assessed athlete satisfaction with his or her individual performance (e.g., “The improvement in my skill level thus far”); four items, with coaching behaviours that affect his/her personal treatment (e.g., “The recognition I receive from my coach”); and three items, with training and instruction provided by the coach (e.g., “The coach’s teaching of the tactics and techniques of my position”). The original version of ASQ is a 7-point Likert scale that ranges from “not at all satisfied” (1) to “extremely satisfied” (7). However, as mentioned, due to the use of different questionnaires in the same survey, we decided to use a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not satisfied, 5 = extremely satisfied) to measure athlete satisfaction. Based on the criteria for evaluating model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum et al., 1996), the CFA results revealed an acceptable fit (χ² = 278.36, df = 32, CFI = .99, NFI = .98, SRMR = .01, RMSEA = .10). Cronbach’s alphas of satisfaction with individual performance, personal treatment, and training and instruction were .88, .94, and .91, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha of the overall scale was .94. Considering our conceptual model, we averaged the three dimensions to represent overall satisfaction.

Controls

We controlled for coach and athlete gender, age, and coach experience in years. We also controlled for the number of years that the coach and athlete had worked together, as leadership research has identified its importance in leader-follower dynamics (see Tsai et al., 2017).

Procedure

Upon receiving Research Ethics Review Committee approval (RERC, NTHU-1092HT109), we made invitational phone calls or emails to each team’s head coach for participation and permission to contact their athletes. An invitation letter for participation was sent to players and their guardians through coaches or managers. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, the rights of participants, and ethical concerns and that participation was voluntary. The questionnaires were assessed in paper-and-pencil format and distributed using different methods for coaches and athletes. Questionnaires for the head coach were delivered in sealed envelopes and collected individually by research assistants. Research assistants distributed and collected questionnaires for athletes before or after practice. Coaches were not present during the process of survey administration. The survey was conducted after midseason, giving coaches and athletes time for sufficient leadership interaction.

Analyses

Regarding hypothesis testing, we followed Preacher et al. (2007) and Hayes (2015) to execute two path analyses with the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) in R programming. For Hypothesis 1, we assessed the indirect effects of coach extraversion via products of path coefficients by using bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) from estimates based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). The bias-corrected bootstrapping process is a robust method for establishing the 95% CIs and avoiding statistical power issues for accessing indirect effects (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; MacKinnon et al., 2004). This method has been applied in sport psychology to access the mediating mechanism of transformational leadership (e.g., Kao & Tsai, 2016).

For Hypothesis 2, as Preacher et al. (2007) suggested, we added educational environment as the first-stage moderator in the path analysis. We accessed the conditional moderating effects by also including the estimated coefficient of the interaction terms of moderator and independent variable in the products of path coefficients. In this manner, we tested the indirect effects of transformational leadership on athlete outcomes when educational environment is high schools or universities, using bias-corrected CIs estimated based on 10,000 bootstrapping samples.

Results

Descriptive statistics

We present means, standard deviations, reliability estimates, and correlations for all study variables in Table 1. The results of all samples reveal that extraversion is positively related to transformational leadership (r = .23, p < .01). Transformational leadership is positively related to social cohesion (r = .57, p < .01), task cohesion (r = .62, p < .01), and satisfaction (r = .66, p < .01). With splitting the samples by educational environment (universities and high schools), the correlation coefficient between extraversion and transformational leadership was found to be .24 (p < .01) in university samples, suggesting that coaches with higher levels of extraversion may be more likely to perceived as transformational leadership in university settings. However, the correlation coefficient was only .09 (p = .09) in high school samples, indicating that this relationship is insignificant in high school settings.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
All samples (N = 48coaches and 570 athletes)
1. Extraversion^a	3.96	0.42	(.83)
2. Transformational leadership	4.05	0.61	.23**	(.94)
3. Social cohesion	4.27	0.62	.11**	.57**	(.92)
4. Task cohesion	4.11	0.59	.11**	.62**	.79**	(.88)
5. Satisfaction	3.73	0.78	.23**	.66**	.52**	.65**	(.94)
High school samples (N = 29coaches and 377 athletes)
1. Extraversion^a	4.09	0.36	(.84)
2. Transformational leadership	4.15	0.59	.09	(.94)
3. Social cohesion	4.31	0.63	.07	.55**	(.93)
4. Task cohesion	4.15	0.57	.08	.60**	.80**	(.87)
5. Satisfaction	3.90	0.67	.10*	.65**	.54**	.80**	(.93)
University samples (N = 19coaches and 193 athletes)
1. Extraversion^a	3.69	0.40	(.77)
2. Transformational leadership	3.85	0.60	.24**	(.94)
3. Social cohesion	4.21	0.60	.12	.61**	(.92)
4. Task cohesion	4.03	0.62	.06	.64**	.79**	(.91)
5. Satisfaction	3.40	0.87	.14	.62**	.50**	.63**	(.96)

Note: Coaches rated extraversion. Athletes rated transformational leadership, social cohesion, task cohesion, and satisfaction. Internal consistency reliability estimates (alphas) are on the diagonal.

a. Denotes variable assigned distributive to individual athletes for coach-athlete dyads.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFA was conducted to examine the construct distinctiveness of the four measures in the present study. Extraversion, transformational leadership, cohesion, and satisfaction were included in the CFA. The indicators CFI and RMSEA were reported based on the recommendation of Williams et al. (2009). The results, shown in Table 2, indicate that the baseline four-factor model fits the data well (χ² = 5092.60, df = 1478, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07). We also tested seven alternative models, i.e., three each of three-factor and two-factor models and a one-factor model. A comparison of the baseline model with the alternative models, using chi-square difference tests, revealed that the baseline model fits the data best, supporting the construct distinctiveness of the variables.

Table 2. Comparison of measurement models for the main variables.

Model	χ2	df	χ2/df	Δχ2	CFI	RMSEA
Null model (all indicators are independent)	5411.15	1484	–	–	.96	.07
Baseline model (four factors)	5092.60	1478	3.45	–	.97	.07
Model 1 (three factors)	24683.27	1481	16.67	19590.70**	.91	.17
Model 2 (three factors)	12452.86	1481	8.41	7360.26**	.94	.11
Model 3 (three factors)	5998.95	1481	4.05	906.35**	.96	.09
Model 4 (two factors)	32568.61	1483	21.96	27476.01**	.85	.19
Model 5 (two factors)	25640.77	1483	17.29	20548.17**	.90	.17
Model 6 (two factors)	13528.79	1483	9.12	8436.19**	.93	.12
Model 7 (one factor)	33184.11	1484	22.36	28.91.51**	.84	.19

Note: Model 1 is three factors; cohesion and satisfaction were combined into one factor. Model 2 is three factors; leadership and cohesion were combined into one factor. Model 3 is three factors; personality and leadership were combined into one factor. Model 4 is two factors; leadership, cohesion, and satisfaction were combined into one factor. Model 5 is two factors; personality and leadership, and cohesion and satisfaction were combined into one factor. Model 6 is two factors; personality, leadership, and cohesion were combined into one factor.

**p < .01.

Tests of hypotheses

Table 3 presents the direct and indirect effects of coach extraversion on transformational leadership and athlete outcomes (i.e., social cohesion, task cohesion, and satisfaction) regarding testing Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 postulates an indirect effect of coach extraversion on athlete outcomes through coach transformational leadership. Our results indicate that the indirect effect of coach extraversion via transformational leadership was significant for social cohesion (.17, p < .01), 95% CI [0.09, 0.25], task cohesion (.17, p < .01), 95% CI [0.09, 0.25], and satisfaction (.23, p < .01), 95% CI [0.13, 0.34]. These results support Hypothesis 1.

Table 3. Effects of coach extraversion on athlete outcomes via coach transformational leadership (Hypothesis 1).

Predictor	Mediator = Coach TFL	DV = Social cohesion	DV = Task cohesion		DV = Satisfaction
Coach EXT	.28** (.07)	−.03 (.05)	−.05 (.05)		.17** (.06)
Coach TFL		.59** (.04)	.61** (.03)		.81** (.05)
Indirect effects			Effect	Lower CI		Upper CI
Indirect effect of coach EXT on social cohesion via coach TFL			.17**	0.09		0.25
Indirect effect of coach EXT on task cohesion via coach TFL			.17**	0.09		0.25
Indirect effect of coach EXT on satisfaction via coach TFL			.23**	0.13		0.34

Note: Values in parentheses are estimated errors. DV = dependent variable; TFL = transformational leadership; EXT = extraversion. Standardized coefficients and 95% bootstrapped bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) are reported.

**p < .01.

The results of the moderated mediation analysis are presented in Table 4. Hypothesis 2 posits a moderated mediation (conditional indirect) effect of coach extraversion on athlete outcomes such that the indirect effect will be positive and significant for the university environment. As shown in Table 4, the moderating effect of educational environment on the relationship between coach extraversion and transformational leadership is significant and positive (effect = 1.07, p < .01). Given the support for this moderating effect, we tested for moderated mediation. As shown in the lower part of the table, the conditional indirect effect of coach extraversion on social cohesion was positive and significant for universities (.68, p < .01), 95% CI [0.24, 1.11] but not high schools (.05, p = .16), 95% CI [−0.02, 0.11], with a difference of (.63, p < .01), 95% CI [0.16, 1.10]. For the prediction of task cohesion, the conditional indirect effect of coach extraversion was positive and significant for universities (.73, p < .01), 95% CI [0.26, 1.21], but not high schools (.05, p = .16), 95% CI [−0.02, 0.12], with a difference of (.68, p = .01), 95% CI [0.17, 1.19]. For the prediction of satisfaction, the conditional indirect effect of coach extraversion was positive and significant for universities (.71, p < .01), with 95% CI [0.26, 1.17], but not high schools (.05, p = .16), 95% CI [−0.02, 0.12], with a difference of (.66, p < .01), 95% CI [0.17, 1.15]. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Table 4. Modelling results: Moderated mediation analysis (Hypothesis 2).

Predictor	Mediator = Coach TFL	DV = Social cohesion	DV = Task cohesion	DV = Satisfaction
Coach EXT	.08 (.06)	.02 (.05)	.03 (.05)	.04 (.04)
Educational environment	−1.24** (.43)	.27 (.35)	.58 (.34)	.02 (.34)
Coach EXT ×Educational environment	1.07** (.40)	−.20 (.33)	−.52 (.33)	−.16 (.33)
Coach TFL		.59** (.03)	.64** (.03)	.62** (.03)
Indirect effects		Effect	Lower CI	Upper CI
Conditional indirect effect of coach EXT on social cohesion at:
High school		.05	−0.02	0.11
University		.68**	0.24	1.11
Difference		.63**	0.16	1.10
Conditional indirect effect of coach EXT on task cohesion at:
High school		.05	−0.02	0.12
University		.73**	0.26	1.21
Difference		.68**	0.17	1.19
Conditional indirect effect of coach EXT on satisfaction at:
High school		.05	−0.02	0.12
University		.71**	0.26	1.17
Difference		.66**	0.17	1.15

Note: Educational environment was dummy coded (high schools = 0, universities = 1). Values in parentheses are estimated errors; DV = dependent variable; TFL = transformational leadership; EXT = extraversion. Standardized coefficients and 95% bootstrapped bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) are reported.

**p < .01.

Discussion

We found support for the indirect effects of coach extraversion on athlete cohesion and satisfaction through athletes’ perception of transformational leadership. In addition, we demonstrate that educational environment (high schools and universities) conditionally moderates the indirect effect of coach extraversion on cohesion and satisfaction through athletes’ perception of coach transformational leadership. Specifically, the differences in the moderating effects between universities and high schools highlight the importance of contextual factors in coaches’ leadership process.

Our study responds to the call to investigate the antecedents of transformational leadership in sports settings (Arthur & Tomsett, 2015; Beauchamp et al., 2019) by demonstrating the importance of coach personality traits. Our results reveal that extraversion is an important personality trait for an effective transformational coach. These findings are theoretically important, as coach personality traits have been highlighted in successfully functioning interpersonal relationships (Jackson et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2015), and extraversion is essential to coaching behaviours (Allen et al., 2021). We have advanced the understanding of how a coach’s personality traits are associated with athletes’ perceptions of transformational leadership and athlete outcomes.

Further, our empirical findings on the differences in educational environments between high schools and universities provide evidence of the significance of contextual factors in coach leadership. Our results illustrate that extraverted university coaches are more likely to be perceived as transformational leaders and yield positive athlete outcomes. In contrast, extraverted coaches in high schools are less likely to be perceived as transformational leaders and engender positive athlete outcomes. These findings extend the athlete development view that transformational coaching is more strongly associated with athlete outcomes when the external environment is more similar to the environment in a standard profession. For example, Murray and colleagues (Murray et al., 2021) found that coaches influence athletes’ mental and physical development more than parents when athletes face challenges from competitive sports and need guidance to prepare for a professional career. Building on their findings on coaching sources’ changing from parents to coaches under different contexts, we found that coach extraversion appears more facilitating in universities than in high schools. The work of university coaches, compared to that of high school coaches, is believed to be closer to a professional occupation and match the needs and perception of ideal leaders, coaches’ visions and values are better activated in universities than in high schools. As noted, high school athletes generally live at home with their parents, but university athletes spend more time on campus with coaches and teammates. The university environment thus serves as a solid contextual factor to enhance the link between extraverted coaches and transformational leadership and engender desired outcomes. Therefore, athlete development is not only related to athlete outcomes but also is associated with coaches’ behaviour and the external environment.

Finally, this study has significant implications for transformational leadership research in sports settings. In particular, our focus on coach personality traits and educational environment (high schools and universities) provides an important new research direction for transformational leadership research in sports. Although Beauchamp et al. (2019) noted that some of the underlying personal and contextual factors (e.g., formalised training interventions) might contribute to coaches’ higher levels of transformational leadership, no research has investigated coach personality traits and the role of educational environment. Our findings suggest that educational environment (i.e., high schools and universities) is an important contextual factor in the mediation model of coach extraversion, transformational leadership, and athlete outcomes.

Limitations, future research, and practical applications

Despite having outlined the antecedents of coach transformation leadership and the importance of educational environment, our work has certain limitations. First, transformational leadership and outcomes (cohesion and satisfaction) were assessed from athletes’ reports and are susceptible to common-source bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Because we assessed coach personality traits from coaches, we believe that common-source bias may not be a pervasive problem in our study. Second, our field investigation may raise endogeneity issues (internal validity) in building a causal claim (Antonakis et al., 2010). Although experiments are the “gold standard” in claiming causal effects, objectively coded coaching behaviours are another way to study relationships in field research (Arthur & Bastardoz, 2020). Therefore, we encourage researchers to address endogeneity issues by assessing coach transformational leadership through observational coding (e.g., the Coach Leadership Assessment System; Lefebvre et al., 2021; Turnnidge & Côté, 2019). Third, contextual factors in the current study are limited in high schools and universities, potentially limiting our findings’ generalisability. Research could examine whether the relationships can be held to different psychological contextual factors (e.g., motivational climate; Horn & Newton, 2019). Fifth, our study sample comprised basketball coaches and players, which may limit the generalisability to other sports. Therefore, we suggest that researchers examine the relationships found among, as guided by our research model, coaches, and athletes in other sports, which would strengthen the external validity of our study.

Our findings offer valuable insights for coaching practitioners looking to enhance their leadership skills and impact athletes in different environments. Specifically, our results provide evidence that personality traits, such as extraversion, can significantly impact the effectiveness of coaching practices only when the environment is complex and dynamic (i.e., university environment). Therefore, coaching development programmes should consider assessing coaches’ personalities and creating awareness of how personality traits can impact their leadership and coaching effectiveness in different contexts. In doing so, practitioners can better understand their strengths and weaknesses as coaches and develop strategies to leverage their strengths in various situations. This can enhance their leadership skills and improve athlete outcomes across various environmental settings.

Regarding future research, our study revealed that university environment could enhance coaches’ extraversion to be perceived as transformational leaders, even though coaches are low in extraversion. In contrast, despite possessing high levels of extraversion, high school coaches may be limited from being perceived as transformational leaders due to the constraints of the environment. This unique environment gives college coaches an advantage over their high school counterparts. While our study sheds light on the complex relationships between coach extraversion, educational environment, transformational leadership, and athlete outcomes, much remains to be learned about how coach personality traits impact athlete success in different educational environments. Future research in this area can help coaches better understand how to use their personalities to serve their athletes better and maximise their leadership impact.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST 111-2410-H007-058], Taiwan, and the Sue Tien Educational Fund, College of Education, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.

Notes

¹ In Taiwan, basketball is the most widely played sport and holds great importance in High-school Basketball League (HBL), where student-athletes can use it as a means to qualify for college recruitment. The HBL division-1 is highly competitive, with only 12 players selected each year due to the significant value attached to being qualified. As a result, high school basketball players undergo intensive training to increase their chances of being selected for the league and getting into university. Reflection on high school coaching has been addressed (Kao et al., 2021).

² University Basketball League (UBA) in Taiwan is widely regarded as the most fiercely competitive team sport on campus. Coaches in UBA actively seek out and recruit talented high-school players by offering them scholarships, accommodation, and additional support to ensure their success on and off the court. The responsibilities of UBA coaches go beyond those of their HBL counterparts, as they are required to manage various administrative duties in addition to training and coaching their teams to ensure a smooth and efficient league operation.