Does Fair Coach Behavior Predict the Quality of Athlete Leadership Among Belgian Volleyball and Basketball Players: The Vital Role of Team Identification and Task Cohesion

Athletic justice: Scale development and validation

The current study aimed to create a reliable and valid scale to measure athletes' perception of fairness regarding coaches' behaviors. The study utilized a scale development process, including three steps: (a) item generation, (b) scale development, and (c) scale evaluation. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were utilized to generate items and achieve content validity. In developing the AJ scale, elite athletes from 29 different sports in Saudi Arabia were recruited for two rounds of data collection. The first data set (n = 279) was collected using an initial 35-item AJ scale developed from existing justice scales and interviews with elite athletes, while the second data collection (n = 503) was performed using a refined 12-item scale based on the analysis of the first data set. The results of ESEM showed an appropriate model fit for the scale with 12 items including four dimensions. In addition, the criterion validity was supported as each dimension of AJ was positively associated with athlete satisfaction. The newly developed AJ scale will help researchers measure perceived fairness toward coaches' behaviors based on the unique culture, climate, and environment that exists in the context of sports and explore the relationships between AJ and important attitudinal and behavioral outcomes that impact team performance.

Impact of Met-Expectation of Athletic Justice on Athletic Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment via Leader-Member Exchange among Elite Saudi Arabian Athletes

Athletes' perceptions of fairness toward coaching behaviors and decisions can play a crucial role in the development and maintenance of a strong coach-athlete relationship. However, scholars have given limited attention to athletes' perceptions of fairness. Therefore, the current study aimed to explore the relationship between coaches and athletes by applying the concept of organizational justice based on met-expectation theory. The primary objective of the study was to empirically examine the direct and indirect relationships between the met-expectation of athletic justice and athletes' attitudinal outcomes, such as athletic satisfaction and organizational commitment, through leader-member exchange (LMX). Data were collected from 289 elite athletes (238 men and 51 women) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia using a mixed-mode approach (paper-and-pencil and online surveys). The results of Structural Equation Modeling indicated that when athletes perceive that their expectations of fair treatment are met, it positively affects their satisfaction. This relationship is partially influenced by the quality of their relationship with their leader. However, the findings also suggest that while the athletes' met-expectation of athletic justice has a positive effect on their satisfaction, it does not have a significant impact on their commitment to the team. The findings provide insight about important work-related outcomes by validating the coach-athlete relationship based on met-expectation of athletic justice. The findings can be utilized to improve athlete satisfaction and commitment, leading to positive team and individual outcomes.

Coaching legacies: influence propagation through temporal social networks in the Australian Football League

We study the lineage network of coaches in the Australian Football League (AFL) using a novel process of influence propagation through temporal social networks. Coaching and being coached are considered major opportunities for learning, and the vast majority of AFL coaches are former AFL players. We, therefore, establish influence via two antagonistic components: as players, future coaches are influenced by their coaches, and later liberate themselves from these influences while being coaches themselves. Influence thus propagates through time-dependent player-coach relationships, and we obtain a ranking of coaches by their aggregated influence on others. In addition to being based on an explicit process, we argue that the ranking has face validity, because it indeed favors highly reputed coaches, and is not determined by temporal or activity indicators such as the starting year of a coaching career, its length, or the number of future coaches coached.