This article was downloaded by: [University of Portsmouth]On: 06 May 2015, At: 08:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sport andExercise PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijs20

Examining relationships betweenemotional intelligence and coachingefficacyRichard C. Thelwell a , Andrew M. Lane b , Neil J.V. Weston c

& Iain A. Greenlees da Department of Sport and Exercise Science , Universityof Portsmouth , Spinnaker Building, Cambridge Road,Portsmouth, PO1 2ER, UK E-mail:b University of Wolverhamptonc University of Portsmouthd University of ChichesterPublished online: 28 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: Richard C. Thelwell , Andrew M. Lane , Neil J.V. Weston & Iain A.Greenlees (2008) Examining relationships between emotional intelligence and coachingefficacy, International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6:2, 224-235, DOI:10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671863

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671863

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

IJSEP, 2008, 6, 224-235© 2008 West Virginia University

Corresponding author: Richard Thelwell, Department of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Portsmouth, Spinnaker Building, Cambridge Road, Portsmouth, PO1 2ER. UK. Email: Richard.Thelwell@port.ac.uk

examInIng relatIonShIpS between emotIonal IntellIgence and coachIng effIcacy

riChard C. thelwell1, andrew M. lane2, neil J.V. weston1, and iain a. greenlees3

1University of Portsmouth2University of Wolverhampton3University of Chichester

The psychology underpinning coach performance has received widespread atten-tion in recent years (e.g., Gould, Greenleaf, & Dieffenbach, 2001). This has primarily been in the form of examining the factors that have affected the performance of success-ful and less successful teams (Gould, Greenleaf, Medbery, & Peterson, 1999), coach development following Olympic experiences (Gould et al., 2001), and the variables perceived to have affected coach effectiveness (Gould, Greenleaf, Guinan, & Chung, 2002). Although further studies have examined aspects such as burnout (e.g., Raedeke, 2004), much of the research interest has focused on the mechanisms that enable coaches to enhance the performance of their athletes (e.g., Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Loughead & Hardy, 2005; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Mallett, 2005).

224

abStractThe study examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and coaching efficacy. Ninety-nine coaches completed the Emotional Intelligence Scale and the Coaching Efficacy Scale with the results of the canonical correlation suggesting significant relationships between the two sets of variables. Regression analyses suggested motivation efficacy to be significantly associated with the regulation of emotions and social skills, whereas character-building efficacy was associated with optimism. Teaching technique efficacy was significantly associated with appraisal of own emotions with no significant predictors for game strategy efficacy. When viewed collectively, results provide an insight to how emotional intelligence relates to coaching efficacy and gives an indication to where applied work with coaches may be directed. Future research suggestions are also provided in reference to coach-related psychology.

Keywords: emotions, cognitions, interventions, psychological skills, applied psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

Emotional Intelligence and Coaching Efficacy

225

Based on the preceding, it is clear that the coaches are largely responsible for the development of their athlete performers. However, what is less well known is the degree to which coaches can be considered ‘performers’ in their own right. When observing some of the recent work on coach psychology (e.g., Gould et al., 2002) it is clear to see that, in both training and competition settings, coaches have to cope with, and overcome, a variety of obstacles that include athlete issues, tactical decisions, selection decisions, and environmental issues, while also attempting to maintain their own optimal psychological and emotional levels.

As stated, given that a primary role of the coach is to enable the continued devel-opment and improvement of their performers, it appears strange that it is only recently that research has started to examine the concept of coach efficacy. Defined by Feltz, Chase, Moritz, and Sullivan, (1999) as, “the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes” (p. 765), coaching efficacy is comprised of four main components that include motivation, game strategy, technique, and character-building efficacies. Motivation efficacy is the confidence that coaches have to influence the psychological states and skills of their athletes. Game strategy efficacy refers to the confidence that coaches have in their ability to coach during competition and lead their performers to success. Technique efficacy reflects the belief that coaches have in their teaching and diagnostic skills. Finally, character-build-ing efficacy refers to the coaches’ perception that they are capable of influencing the personal development and attitude toward sport in the performers. Each of the coach efficacy dimensions is assessed via the Coaching Efficacy Scale (Feltz et al., 1999) with a total coaching efficacy score being achieved from summing the four subscale scores.

Coaching efficacy is argued to be a mediator between a variety of sources and outcomes. As such, the sources of coaching efficacy have been reported to include: the extent of coach experience and preparation (knowledge to how the performer(s) should be prepared, past experience in coaching, leadership skills, and coaches’ develop-ment), prior success (win/loss record), perceived skills of athletes, player improvement, and support from others (e.g., school, community, parents) (Chase, Feltz, Hayashi, & Hepler, 2005). More specifically, research has recently identified efficacy sources to be influenced by gender (e.g., Short, Smiley, & Ross-Stewart, 2005), where males were reported to be more efficacious than females. Also, Malete and Feltz (2000) reported coaches who had participated in a specific coach education program to have signifi-cantly greater efficacy judgements compared to those who did not participate. Finally, in an examination of coach certification, Lee, Malete, and Feltz (2002) suggested certified coaches would experience greater coaching efficacy than those without certification.

The outcomes of coach efficacy are reported to include coaching behavior, play-er/team satisfaction, player/team performance, and player/team efficacy (Feltz et al., 1999). While the research examining links between coach efficacy and the outcomes remains sparse, in a recent study, Myers, Vargas-Tonsing, and Feltz (2005) examined the influence of coaching efficacy on coaching behavior and team variables in teams. Here they reported that for men’s teams, total coaching efficacy predicted coaching behavior, team satisfaction, and winning percentage, while for female teams, only coach behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

226

R. C. Thelwell, A. M. Lane, N. J.V. Weston, I. A. Greenlees

was predicted by total coaching efficacy. Further, within female teams, it was suggested that the gender of the coach moderated the relationship between character-building efficacy and team satisfaction, with negative and positive relationships being reported in female and male teams, respectively. Finally, there have also been reports of coach efficacy significantly predicting team efficacy in volleyball (Vargas-Tonsing, Warners, & Feltz, 2003), which, when taken with the sources of coach efficacy literature, indicates that there is clearly some merit in investigating further the mechanisms by which coach-ing efficacy is not only enhanced but also what it influences.

Given the above research that has examined some of the factors relating to coach-ing efficacy, a further possible correlate to coaching efficacy may well be that of emo-tional intelligence, which is proposed to be the ability to perceive, monitor, employ, and manage emotions within oneself and in others (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Salovey, Mayer, & Caruso, 2002)1. Unfortunately, to date much of the research examining emo-tional intelligence has taken place outside of the sporting domain and instead has fo-cused on the business (e.g., Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004), health (e.g., Pau & Crocker, 2003), and academic environments (e.g., Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2004; Parker, Hogan, Eastabrook, Oke, & Wood, 2006). What little emotional intelligence research has taken place in the sporting domain has resulted in equivocal findings (Meyer & Zizzi, 2007). For example, in their study of the relationships between emotional intelligence and baseball performance Zizzi, Deaner, and Hirshhorn (2003) provided, at best, only moderate support for the links between emotional skills and athletic performance. Contrary to this, preliminary findings by Lane and colleagues (Lane, Soos, Leibinger, Karsai, & Hamar, 2005; Lane, Thelwell, Weston, & Devonport, 2005) have suggested that emotional intelligence is associated with mood-performance relationships, although the exact relationships and impacts on performance are yet to be established.

Despite the paucity of sport-related research and the seeming depth of research in alternative environments, it could be argued that a number of parallels between the vary-ing environments, and in particular coaching, exist. For example, Jordan, Ashkanasy, and Charmine (2002) and Jordan and Troth (2002) reported individuals in business with high levels of emotional intelligence to cope better with job-related tension and deal with conflict resolution. Both examples represent situations or issues that coaches would be required to successfully execute if they were to be successful and influence ath-lete performance. Similarly, George (2000) commented that leaders within a business environment with high emotional intelligence are more likely to be more successful and effective, which illustrates once more some of the possible crossovers between leaders and managers in alternative environments and sport. With the above in mind, recent literature relating both business and sport (e.g., Jones, 2002; Weinberg & McDermott, 2002) has indicated successful individuals in each environment to possess similar forms of attributes (e.g., communication, leadership styles). Given this, it is reasonable to as-sume that if emotional intelligence contributes to performance in one environment, then it is quite plausible to suggest that it will in the other.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

Emotional Intelligence and Coaching Efficacy

227

Based on the above supposition, one could argue that the key aspects of emotional intelligence, such as detecting the emotional states of others, and managing emotions based on the situation are fundamental for a coach and, as such, their coaching ef-ficacy. For example, if coaches are unable to appraise themselves, then it is unlikely that they would be able to reflect on how best to relate and/or communicate with their athletes where conflict resolution may be required. Similarly, should coaches not be able to regulate their own emotions, the development of their athletes may be compromised due to the possible lack of clarity and appropriateness of communication. A specific example of this would include situations where coaches are required to maintain com-posure (which may be affected by job-related tension) throughout an event/competition (game strategy efficacy). Here, should athlete performance levels fall below those ex-pected, coaches will be required to appraise their own emotions and regulate them to ensure that they are not displaying inappropriate emotions to their performers, which ultimately may affect any subsequent interactions and ensuing performance. This could be equally applicable to motivation efficacy, where an inability to appraise and regulate one’s own emotions could lead to a reduced ability to affect the psychological states of the performers and, in some cases, it could lead to inappropriate psychological states of the coaches themselves. Finally, many coaches are required to exhibit high levels of optimism and social skills towards their athletes, which are undoubtedly related to their effectiveness as a coach and all coaching efficacy subscales. Taken together, the above examples, although based on speculation, suggest that coaches who experience higher levels of emotional intelligence will demonstrate similar leadership behaviors and char-acteristics to individuals who are equally as successful in alternate environments.

While there is a lack of sport-specific emotional intelligence research, there is in-tuitive appeal in investigating how it may relate to coaching efficacy based on the aforementioned examples. As such, the purpose of the present study was to explore how emotional intelligence constructs relate to motivation efficacy, game strategy efficacy, and character-building efficacy, which, when taken together, may provide researchers and practitioners alike with a better understanding of how to enhance coaching efficacy and, as such, performance.

method

ParticiPants

A total of 99 coaches (74 males and 25 females) volunteered their consent to par-ticipate. The coaches ranged in age from 18 to 58 years (M = 28.6, SD = 8.84) and they had between 2 and 30 years total coaching experience (M = 7.11, SD = 5.35). The sports represented included soccer (32.3%), gymnastics (14.1%), swimming (9.1%), cricket (7.1%), sailing (7.1%), netball (7.1%), tennis (6.1%), rugby (6.1%), hockey (4%), judo (3%), basketball (2%), golf (1%), and boxing (1%).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

228

R. C. Thelwell, A. M. Lane, N. J.V. Weston, I. A. Greenlees

Measures

Background information. To obtain appropriate demographic data, a background infor-mation questionnaire was developed to ascertain details such as age, gender, the sport coached in, the number of years that they have been coaching, and the current level of their coaching.

Emotional Intelligence. The Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) was employed in the present study. The EIS, although totaling 33 items (where items are rated on a 5-point scale anchored by 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree), is made up from six factors (see Lane, Thelwell, Gill, & Weston, 2007). Appraisal of own emotions has five items (e.g., I am aware of my emotions as I experience them), apprais-al of others’ emotions has seven items (e.g., I know what other people are feeling just by looking at them), optimism has five items (e.g., emotions are one of the things that make my life worth living), regulation has four items (e.g., I have control over my emotions), social skills has five items (e.g., I compliment others when they have done something well), and utilization of emotions has seven items (e.g., when I experience a positive emotion, I know how to make it last). Prior to the six-factor model of the EIS, internal reliability and two-week test-retest reliability had been reported at .87 and above, and .78, respectively (Schutte et al.,), while Lane et al. have reported the six-factor model to have alpha coefficients of .70 and above. In the present study, the alpha values for the six scales were .68 for appraisal of others, .66 for appraisal of own emotions, .68 for optimism, .61 for regulation, .62 for social skills, and .73 for utilization.

Coaching Efficacy Scale. The Coaching Efficacy Scale (CES; Feltz et al., 1999) was used to measure coach efficacy in the present study. The CES, although totaling 24 items (where items are rated on a 10-point scale anchored by 0 = not at all confident to 9 = ex-tremely confident), is made up from four factors, where the four subscale scores, as well as total scale scores, can be employed. Each question is preceded with the statement ‘How confident are you in your ability to,’ which is followed by a subscale specific item. Motivation efficacy has seven items (e.g., maintain your confidence), game strategy has seven items (e.g., make critical decisions during competition), character building efficacy contains four items (e.g., promote good sportsmanship), and teaching technique efficacy has six items (e.g., demonstrate the skills of your sport). Alpha values in the present study were .95 for the total scale, with subscale values being .92 for motivation efficacy, .88 for game strategy efficacy, .86 for character building efficacy, and .87 for teaching technique efficacy.

Procedure

Having received ethical clearance from the institution of the first author, coaches who were known to the institutions to which the authors were affiliated were contacted via either telephone or electronic mail. Having indicated an interest to participate in the study, the coaches were then required to read the participant information sheet prior to volunteering their consent and then completing the EIS and then the CES measures. Completion of the measures, which all took place in the presence of a member of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

Emotional Intelligence and Coaching Efficacy

229

research team either individually or in small groups, implied that the participants were consenting to their participation.

reSultSDescriptive statistics for the CES subscales indicated coaches to be most confident in their teaching technique efficacy (M = 7.32, SD = 1.02), followed by character building efficacy (M = 7.04, SD = 1.04), motivation efficacy (M = 6.84, SD = .92), and game strategy efficacy (M = 6.71, SD = .97). For total coaching efficacy, a mean and standard deviation of 6.65 ± .82 were reported. For the six EIS subscales, the mean scores were relatively consistent and ranged between 3.6 and 3.97 (with standard deviations rang-ing between .38 and .47).

In accord with suggestions from previous research that gender and years of coach-ing experience influence coach efficacy, data were checked for gender and experience differences prior to the main analysis. The resultant separate MANOVAs, using gender and years of experience as the independent variables and the CES subscales as the dependent variables, reported no significant differences (p > .05). As a result, neither gender nor years of coaching experience were analyzed throughout the remaining data analyses.

The correlations between the six subscales of the EIS, the four subscales of the CES, and overall CES are presented in Table 1. The intra-correlations between the CES sub-scales ranged between .51 and .71, and they were all significantly correlated to overall CES (range .76-.88). The intra-correlations between the EIS subscales were low to mod-erate, although significant, and ranged between .26 and .52. Correlations between the CES and EIS ranged between .07 and .39 and were significant, except for that between game strategy efficacy and utilization of emotions. Overall coaching efficacy was low to moderate yet significantly related to all subscales of the EIS.

To investigate the relationship between coaching behaviors and emotional intel-ligence a canonical correlation was employed that indicated the two sets of variables to be significantly related (Canonical R = .50, Ch-Square = 42.55, (df=24) p < .01). Further to this, the relationships between emotional intelligence and coaching behaviors were explored via the use of five separate multiple regressions where the CES subscales were the dependent variables. It should be noted that the relationship between coaching ef-ficacy and emotional intelligence could be reciprocal. Coaching efficacy could develop emotional intelligence, which in turn could enhance coaching efficacy. Equally, emotion-ally intelligent individuals might become more confident coaches. Multiple regressions could have used either coaching efficacy subscale scores or emotional intelligence as the dependent variable. Coaching efficacy was used as the dependent variables as it was the primary focus of the present study.

For motivation efficacy, the regression analysis was statistically significant: F (7,98) = 4.54, p < .05; R = .51, R2 = .26 with regulation (β = .21, t = 1.88, p < .05), and social skills (β = .23, t = 1.94, p < .05) showing significant associations. For game strategy efficacy, the regression analysis was statistically significant: F (7,98) = 2.94, p < .05; R = .43, R2 = .18, although there were no variables that were identified as contributing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

230

R. C. Thelwell, A. M. Lane, N. J.V. Weston, I. A. Greenlees

significantly. For technique efficacy, the regression analysis was statistically significant: F (7,98) = 3.42, p < .05; R = .46, R2 = .21, with appraisal of own emotions being the sole significant variable (β = .22, t = 1.78, p < .05). Likewise, for character building ef-ficacy the regression analysis was statistically significant: F (7,98) = 3.91, p < .05; R = .48, R2 = .23, with optimism showing a significant association (β = .26, t = 2.29, p < .05).

dIScuSSIonGiven the recent research interest into coaching efficacy, the purpose of the present study was to explore whether relationships existed between emotional intelligence and coaching efficacy. The results provided some interesting findings where the majority of the six subscales of emotional intelligence, as measured by the EIS, correlated sig-nificantly with overall CES and the CES subscales. Further to this is the contention that the coach should be considered a performer in their own right and as such the study attempted to provide researchers and practitioners with more information on how they can work with coaches to impact their own performance.

Despite the many correlations between the respective measures, on examination of the correlation data, a key finding was that both the coach appraisals of their own emotions and regulation of emotions were significantly correlated with all CES subscales and overall CES. As suggested previously, it could be argued that should a coach be

Table 1. Correlations between Emotional Intelligence and Coaching Efficacy

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

EIS

(1) Appraisal of other’s emotions 1.00

(2) Appraisal of own emotions .36** 1.00

(3) Optimism .27** .45** 1.00

(4) Regulation .26** .52** .33** 1.00

(5) Social Skills .38** .37** .49** .31** 1.00

(6) Utilization of emotions .32** .46** .41** .46** .50** 1.00

CES

(7) Motivation .27** .32** .28** .36** .32** .21* 1.00

(8) Game Strategy .21* .27** .24* .28** .21* .07 .71** 1.00

(9) Technique .26** .39** .30** .32** .24* .22* .64** .68** 1.00

(10) Character Building .30** .27** .38** .23* .27** .27** .61** .51** .59** 1.00

(11) Overall .30** .37** .34** .36** .30** .21* .87** .88** .87** .76** 1.00

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

Emotional Intelligence and Coaching Efficacy

231

unable to appraise their own emotions and regulate them accordingly, then their ability to affect the learning and performance of their athletes will be severely hindered. As such, it may be that a coach who lacks awareness of their own emotions is subsequently unable to regulate them accordingly for the situation and ultimately their performers’ well-being. This is clearly in line with some of the reports from the business environment (e.g., George, 2000) where leaders lacking in emotional intelligence had significantly reduced leadership effectiveness. Alternatively, coaches who can appraise their own emotions will arguably possess greater sensitivity to when their emotions need to be regulated in accord with the situation, thus enabling them to fulfil their coaching role (Gould et al., 2002). Again, this mirrors research outside of sport where leaders with high emotional intelligence deal with potentially difficult situations more effectively (Jor-dan et al., 2002).

Given that coaches find themselves having to operate in many contrasting situations (e.g., training, competition), the initial findings of the study suggest that they become more aware to how emotional intelligence may facilitate their confidence and ultimately their coaching performance. Thus, irrespective to whether coaches finds themselves in a competition where they are required to maintain composure or in a training environ-ment where they are focusing on skill development, they are continually required to appraise their own emotions. Self appraisal may come before or following appraisal of their athlete’s emotions, but it is appropriate to suggest that this occurs prior to them regulating and utilizing the appropriate emotions for the situation. Acknowledging the wide ranging situations in which coaches operate and the contrasting personalities with whom they work, this reinforces not only the need for emotional intelligence within coaches, but it also identifies the many difficulties within their role where emotional intel-ligence may be of use.

The above points may be even more pertinent given the recent findings in the sources of stress literature in sport (e.g., Hanton, Fletcher, & Coughlan, 2005; Thelwell, Weston, & Greenlees, 2007) where coach behaviors are often reported to create stress within the athlete. As such, it may be that coaches who create stress for their performers not only have low levels of coaching efficacy but are also unable to appraise their own and others’ emotions. Thus, they have limited optimism regarding the situation, fail to regulate their emotions based on the situation, fail to help athletes when they experience difficulty, and/or fail to utilize their emotions to bring about change. This may especially be appropriate when coaches find themselves under pressure via experiencing their own stress, which may ultimately lead to a reduction in their situation specific levels of coach efficacy. Although such claims are unsubstantiated to date, the possible mechanisms that enable the development of both emotional intelligence and coach efficacy and what they may affect clearly warrant attention. This, for example, may be achieved via under-standing more about coach experiences of stress, how they cope with stress, what they perceive their stress to affect, and how their athletes may be affected by their stress.

Despite not being a significant predictor in any of the multiple regression analyses, a further key finding was the significant correlation between the CES subscales and the coaches’ ability to appraise the emotions of others. Given the definition of emotional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

232

R. C. Thelwell, A. M. Lane, N. J.V. Weston, I. A. Greenlees

intelligence and the findings reported by Jordan and Troth (2002) in business, it would have been expected that coaches would be able to appraise the emotions of their ath-letes. However, what was not understood was whether the coaches’ ability to monitor others’ emotions was related to their level of coaching efficacy. Subsequently, it is sug-gested that for coaches to have high motivation efficacy, then they need to understand the current psychological levels and abilities of their athletes and understand where the athletes are wishing to progress. Similarly, with regard to game strategy efficacy, coaches should attempt to understand how their athletes respond to the competitive environment and the possible fluctuations that often occur throughout not only a single performance but also a series of performances. While interventions enabling coaches to develop their skills towards appraising their performers’ emotions have not been pro-posed to date, one could argue that should the coach be involved in assessment strate-gies such as emotional profiling (Hanin, 2000), then an insight to the athlete’s emotional responses may be gained, enabling enhanced coach efficacy.

Significant correlations were also reported between the CES subscales and opti-mism and social skills. This lends support to the assumption that being positive towards performers and being able to communicate effectively with them is important for ef-fective leadership (Gould et al., 1999; Kobe, Reiter-Palmon, & Rickers, 2001; Slaski & Cartwright, 2002). With respect to motivation efficacy, social skills along with regulation of emotions were significant predictors. This suggests that being able to regulate emo-tions and provide good social environments may contribute to a coach’s confidence in their ability to change the psychological state of their performers. Essentially, this would require coaches to be able to present themselves and their knowledge in both a positive and informative manner where the situation is taken into account (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003).

Optimism was significantly associated with character-building, a finding that sug-gests that should coaches be positive (both cognitively and behaviorally), then they are better placed to affect the maturation and attitudes of their performers (Mallett, 2005). While an understanding to how coaches present themselves and their potential sources of stress may provide information to what the barriers to being optimistic and having good social skills may be, an alternative line of inquiry would be to examine the psycho-logical skills used by coaches. For example, if the coach is to be viewed as a performer (Gould et al., 2002), then for them to have positive emotions such as optimism, it would be important to identify the extent to which they employ skills such as self-talk, goal-set-ting, and imagery. Through examining what psychological skills they use, where they use them, when they use them, and why they use them, researchers and practitioners may be better placed when understanding the emotions that coaches experience, how they are developed, and how they are regulated.

Although many significant correlations are reported between the varying subscales, perhaps the least-related emotional subscale to coaching efficacy is that of utilization of emotions. Although related to motivation, technique, and character efficacy, in addi-tion to overall coaching efficacy, there was no relationship to game strategy efficacy. The only possible explanation from the present study could be that coaches who report

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

Emotional Intelligence and Coaching Efficacy

233

themselves as being highly coach efficacious and, as such, are good at understanding and regulating their own emotions and those of others, being optimistic, and having good social skills, develop this skill implicitly through their experiences, which have been shown in previous studies to be a significant predictor of coaching efficacy (Short et al., 2005). As such, interventions designed for developing emotional control and how they are used in a facilitative manner appear warranted.

In addition to the findings from within the present study and suggested research avenues, there remain some key issues that require attention. Firstly, it is important to note that only one of the alpha coefficients for the EIS subscales in the present study was above the accepted value. Thus, while the remaining five were just below the .70 cut-off point, the authors suggest that the results, while providing interesting findings, are interpreted cautiously. Secondly, no information was gathered to the manner in which coaches perceived their emotional intelligence to have developed. Thus, in addition to the suggestions made previously, future research may wish to examine how coaches appraise their own emotions and those of others, how they regulate emotions, and how they develop an optimistic outlook to their coaching to give them high coach efficacy.

In conclusion, given the relative infancy of the emotional intelligence and coaching efficacy research, the present study examined the potential relationships between them. With many significant correlations reported between the subscales of each measure, this reinforces the view that there are many aspects that impact the performance of the coach. Therefore, such information gives an insight to how coach performance can be better understood and ultimately enhanced.

referenceSChase, M. A., Feltz, D. L., Hayashi, S. W., & Hepler, T. J. (2005). Sources of coaching efficacy: The

coaches’ perspective. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 7-25.Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching

efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 91, 765-776.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Rela-tions, 53, 1027-1055.

Gould, D., Greenleaf, C., & Dieffenbach, K. (2001). Pursuing performance excellence: Lessons learned from Olympic athletes and coaches. Journal of Excellence, 4, 21-43.

Gould, D., Greenleaf, C., Guinan, D., & Chung, Y. (2002). A survey of U.S. Olympic coaches: Variables perceived to have influenced athlete performances and coach effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 229-250.

Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., Medbury, R., & Peterson, K. (1999). Factors affecting Olym-pic performance: Perceptions of athletes and coaches from more or less successful teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 371-394.

Hanin, Y. L. (2000). Emotions in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Hanton, S., Fletcher, D., & Coughlan, G. (2005). Stress in elite sport performers: A comparative

study of competitive and organizational stressors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 1129-1141.Jones, G. (2002). Performance excellence: A personal perspective on the link between sport and

business. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 268-281.Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Charmine, E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator

of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management Review, 27, 361-372.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

234

R. C. Thelwell, A. M. Lane, N. J.V. Weston, I. A. Greenlees

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution: Implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 62-79.

Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete coach relation-ship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313-331.

Kobe, L. M., Reiter-Palmon, R., Rickers, J. D. (2001). Self-reported leadership experiences in rela-tions to inventoried social and emotional intelligence. Current Psychology, 20, 154-163.

Lane, A., Soos, I., Leibinger, E., Karsai, I., & Hamar, P. (2005). Emotional intelligence, mood states and successful and unsuccessful performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 1253-1254.

Lane, A., Thelwell, R., Weston, N., & Devonport, T. (2005). Emotional intelligence, mood states and performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 1254-1255.

Lane, A., Thelwell, R. C., Gill, G., & Weston, N. J. V. (2007). The nature of emotional intelligence in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 313.

Lee, K. S., Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2002). The effect of a coaching education program on coach-ing efficacy. International Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 14, 55-67.

Loughead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2005). An examination of coach and peer leader behaviors in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 303-312.

Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883-904.

Malete, L., & Feltz, D. L. (2000). The effect of a coaching education program on coaching efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 410-417.

Mallett, C. J. (2005). Self-determination theory: A case study of evidence-based coaching. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 417-429.

Meyer, B. B., & Fletcher, T. B. (2007). Emotional intelligence: A theoretical overview and impli-cations for research and professional practice in sport psychology. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 1-15.

Meyer, B. B., & Zizzi, S. (2007). Emotional intelligence in sport: Conceptual, methodological, and applied issues. In A. M. Lane (Ed.), Mood and human performance: Conceptual, measurement, and applied issues (pp.131-154). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Myers, N. D., Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., & Feltz, D. L. (2005). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 129-143.

Parker, J. D. A., Hogan, M. J., Eastabrook, J. M., Oke, A., & Wood, L. M. (2006). Emotional intel-ligence and student retention: Predicting the successful transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1329-1336.

Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. A. (2004). Emotional intelligence and academic success: Examining the transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 163-172.

Pau, A. K. H., & Croucher, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence and perceived stress in dental under-graduates. Journal of Dental Education, 67, 1023-1028.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320.

Raedeke, T. D. (2004). Coach commitment and burnout: A one year follow-up. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 333-349.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., & Caruso, D. (2002). The positive psychology of emotional intelligence. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 159-171). London: Oxford University Press.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.

Short, S. E., Smiley, M., & Ross-Stewart, L. (2005). The relationship between efficacy beliefs and imagery use in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 380-394.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

Emotional Intelligence and Coaching Efficacy

235

Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2003). Emotional intelligence training and its implications for stress, health and performance. Stress and Health, 19, 233-239.

Thelwell, R. C., Weston, N. J. V., & Greenlees, I. A. (2007). Batting on a sticky wicket: Identifying sources of stress and associated coping strategies for professional cricket batsmen. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 219-232.

Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., Warners, A. L., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The predictability of coaching efficacy on team efficacy and player efficacy in volleyball. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 396-407.

Weinberg, R., & McDermott, M. (2002). A comparative analysis of sport and business organiza-tions: Factors perceived critical for organizational success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychol-ogy, 14, 282-298.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 371-399.

Zizzi, S. J., Deaner, H. R., & Hirshhorn, D. K. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelli-gence and performance among college baseball players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 262-269.

endnoteS1 While a detailed insight to the conceptual and methodological issues is beyond the scope of this paper, interested readers are directed to Meyer and Fletcher (2007) and Meyer and Zizzi (2007) for a detailed review.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Po

rtsm

outh

] at

08:

56 0

6 M

ay 2

015

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.