Gender Issues

, Volume 30, Issue 1–4, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Follow the Leader: A Relational Demography, Similarity Attraction, and Social Identity Theory of Leadership Approach of a Team’s Performance

Original Article

Abstract

While voluminous research exists on managerial successions and the decline of female head coaches, limited research has evaluated the impact of the coach’s gender on a team’s performance. Therefore, this study focused on gendered coaching successions to determine if the gender of the head coach influenced the team’s performance when controlling extraneous variables (e.g., revenues, expenses, and team statistics). Utilizing the theoretical foundations of relational demography (Tsui et al. in Productivity and interpersonal relations in work teams characterized by diversity, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 97–130, 1995) , similar-attraction paradigm (Byrne in The attraction paradigm. Academic Press, New York, 1971) and social identity theory of leadership (SITL; Hogg in Pers Social Psychol Rev 5:184–200, 2001), we hypothesized coaching successions to similar demographic leader-member dyad relationships would positively impact team performance. Data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association and Equity in Athletic Data Analysis websites were collected on all Division I women’s basketball head coaching successions from 2003 to 2010. Coaching predecessors and successors were coded by gender, win-loss ratios, and performance statistics. Analysis of variance and repeated measures analysis of covariance were used to analyze the data. Results indicated demographic similarities in leader-member dyadic relationships do not advance team performance.

Keywords

Coaches Leadership similarities Relational demography 

References

  1. 1.
    Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2002). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal studyTwenty-five year update. Unpublished manuscript. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2012). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal national studyThirty-five year update. Unpublished manuscript. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aicher, T. J., & Cunningham, G. B. (2011). Organizational culture and leader sex impacts leader prototypicality and effectiveness. International Journal of Sport Management, 12(3), 344–360.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aicher, T. J., & Sagas, M. (2009). Sexist beliefs affect perceived treatment discrimination among coaches in division I intercollegiate athletics. International Journal of Sport Management, 10, 243–262.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aicher, T. J., & Sagas, M. (2010). Are head coaches in intercollegiate athletics perceived as masculine? An evaluation of gender stereotypes and the effect of sexism on intercollegiate coaches. Gender Issues, 27, 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen, M. P., Panian, S. K., & Lotz, R. E. (1979). Managerial succession and organizational performance: a recalcitrant problem revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allinson, C. W., Armstrong, S. J., & Hayes, J. (2001). The effects of cognitive style on leader–member exchange: A study of manager–subordinate dyads. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Audas, R., Dobson, S., & Goddard, J. (2002). The impact of managerial change on team performance in professional sports. Journal of Economics and Business, 54, 633–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Audas, R., Goddard, J., & Rowe, G. (2006). Modelling employment durations of NHL head coaches: Turnover and post-succession performance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27, 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baskett, G. D. (1973). Interview decisions as determined by competency and attitude similarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 343–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown, M. C. (1982). Administrative succession and organizational performance: The succession effect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., & Worchel, P. (1966). The effect of economic similarity-dissimilarity of determinants of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 220–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cunningham, G. B., Doherty, A. J., & Gregg, M. J. (2007). Using social cognitive career theory to understand head coaching intentions among assistant coaches of women’s teams. Sex Roles, 56, 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2002). The differential effects of human capital for male and female Division I basketball coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Introduction to a special issues. Sex Roles, 58, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quallity and effectiveness ratings. Group and Organization Management, 23, 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dixon, M. A., & Sagas, M. (2007). The relationship between organizational support, work-family conflict, and the job-life satisfaction of university coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 236–247.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eitzen, S. D., & Yetman, N. R. (1972). Managerial change, longevity, and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 110–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ehrhardt, K., McEvoy, C., & Beggs, B. (2006). Successor type and coaching performance in intercollegiate football. Kansas City, MO: Paper presented at the North American Society for Sport Management conference.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fizel, J. L., & D’Itri, M. P. (1997). Managerial efficiency, managerial succession and organizational performance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 18, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gamson, W. A., & Scotch, N. A. (1964). Scapegoating in baseball. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gardner, D. E., Shields, D. L. L., Bredemeier, B. J. L., & Bostrom, A. (1996). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and team cohesion among baseball and softball players. Sport Psychologist, 10, 367–381.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Giambatista, R., Rowe, W., & Riaz, S. (2005). Nothing succeeds like succession: A critical review of leader succession literature since 1994. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 963–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goldberg, C. B. (2005). Relational demography and similarity-attraction in interview assessments and subsequent offer decisions: Are we missing something? Group and Organization Management, 30, 597–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Graen, G., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larsen (Eds.), Leadership fronteirs (pp. 143–165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographic and organizational influences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grusky, O. (1963). Managerial succession and organizational effectiveness. The American Journal of Sociology, 69, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hoeber, L. (2007). Exploring the gaps between meanings and practices of gender equity in a sport organization. Gender, Work and Organization, 14(3), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hogg, M. A., Fielding, K. S., Johnson, D., Masser, B., Russell, E., & Svensson, A. (2006). Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: A social identity analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 80–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Knoppers, A. (1992). Explaining male dominance and sex segregation in coaching: Three approaches. Quest, 44, 210–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Knoppers, A., Meyer, B. B., Ewing, M., & Forrest, L. (1991). Opportunity and work behavior in college coaching. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, 15, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Knoppers, A., Meyer, B. B., Ewing, M., & Forrest, L. (1993). Gender ratio and social interaction among college coaches. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 256–269.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lagace, R. R. (1990). Leader-member exchange: Antecedents and consequences of the cadre and hired hand. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 10, 11–19.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. (1979). Work and friendship ties in organization: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Devader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information-processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lovett, D. J., & Lowry, C. D. (1994). “Good old boys” and “good old girls” clubs: Myth or reality? Journal of Sport Management, 8, 27–35.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Meindl, J. R., Erlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B., Walton, A. E., & Associates. (1995). Discontinuous change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Workgroup demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Peel, D. A., & Thomas, D. (1988). Outcome uncertainty and the demand for football. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 35, 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, A. (1986). Administrative succession and organizational performance: how administrator performance mediates the succession effect. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Riordan, C., & Shore, L. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: Examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2004). Treatment discrimination in college coaching: Its prevalence and impact on the career success of assistant basketball coaches. International Sports Journal, 8, 76–88.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sagas, M., Paetzold, R., & Ashley, F. (2005). Relational demography in coaching dyads. Physical Educator, 62(2), 103–112.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). “A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch”: Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 347–375.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stangl, J. M., & Kane, M. J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatory power for the underrepresentation of women coaches since Title IX: The case of homologous reproduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 47–60.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thomas, A. B. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 388–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tse, H. H. M., & Lam, W. (2008). Transformational leadership and turnover: The roles of LMX and organizational commitment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Tsui, A. S., Eagan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tsui, A. S., Xin, K., & Egan, T. D. (1995). Relational demography: The missing link in vertical dyad linkage. In S. E. Jackson & M. Ruderman (Eds.), Productivity and interpersonal relations in work teams characterized by diversity (pp. 97–130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 86–103.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (pp. 77–121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Turner, B. A., & Chelladurai, P. (2005). Organizational and occupational commitment, intention to leave, and perceived performance of intercollegiate coaches. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 193–211.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    van Dijke, M. H., & De Cremer, D. (2008). How leader prototypicality affects followers’ status: The role of procedural fairness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 226–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, B. (2007). Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 113–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wagner, S. (2010). Managerial succession and organizational performance-evidence from the German soccer league. Managerial and Decision Economics, 31, 415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Westre, K. R., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 41–54.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distribution on technical communication. The Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sport ManagementFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.School of Human ServicesUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations