The impact of coaches’ ethical leadership behaviour on athletes’ voice and performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Ethics and leadership are ongoing topics in high performance sports. The purpose of this paper is to provide an insight into the relationship between coaches’ ethical leadership behaviour, as perceived by athletes, and its impact on student-athlete accountability, voice and performance. Design/methodology/approach The paper examines the constructs of coaches’ ethical leadership behaviour, felt accountability and voice behaviour. The authors surveyed student-athletes from a variety of sports who compete in the Ontario University Athletics Regional Association. A total of 303 respondents ( n =303) completed the survey. Partial least squares path modelling algorithm was utilised for testing hypotheses. Findings The results of the study indicate a significant relationship between a coach exhibiting ethical leadership behaviour and student-athlete voice behaviour and performance. Felt accountability mediates the effect of ethical leadership on voice and performance. Practical implications This study provides support for the hypothesis that coaches who behave ethically and whose actions represent their words create an environment where a student-athlete feels accountable. This is a powerful concept as it can positively impact individual and team success. The findings suggest that one of the ways that coaches can impact athletes’ performance is to demonstrate and model ethical conduct, and reward ethical acts. Originality/value The paper examines how coaches’ ethical behaviour might impact individual processes of accountability, voice and performance. Second, the paper uses the construct of accountability to explain how coaches’ ethical leadership impacts student-athlete behaviour. The accountability literature indicates that followers’ behaviours can be understood as the consequences of his/her perceived accountability towards the leader.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".