Exploring the Multidimensional Model of Leadership Through the Lens of Coaches: An Examination of the Relationship Between Personality, Leader Behaviors, and the Coach–Athlete Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Multidimensional Model of Leadership hypothesizes that leader personality characteristics impact leader behaviors, which in turn influence collective and individual outcomes. While the Multidimensional Model of Leadership has received substantial research attention over the past four decades, the full hypothesis including antecedents, throughputs, and outputs has rarely been tested in one study. Hence, the purpose of the present study was to test the relationship between adaptive and maladaptive personality characteristics (i.e., perfectionism and passion), leader behaviors, and the coach–athlete relationship in college coaches. National Collegiate Athletic Association coaches ( N = 380) completed the Sport Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale-2, the Passion Scale, the Leadership Scale for Sports, and the Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire. Structural equation modeling revealed that perfectionism and passion accounted for 65% of the variance for leader behaviors. Specifically, adaptive dimensions of perfectionism and passion positively predicted leader behaviors, whereas maladaptive dimensions of perfectionism negatively predicted leader behaviors. Furthermore, leader behaviors explained over half the variance of the coach–athlete relationship. The results provide support for the Multidimensional Model of Leadership from the perspective of sport coaches. Applied implications for coaches and sport psychology practitioners are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".