{"id":6917,"date":"2020-03-27T06:30:00","date_gmt":"2020-03-27T11:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=6917"},"modified":"2020-03-04T11:00:03","modified_gmt":"2020-03-04T17:00:03","slug":"the-relationship-between-emotional-intelligence-leadership-styles-and-burnout-in-ncaa-coaches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-relationship-between-emotional-intelligence-leadership-styles-and-burnout-in-ncaa-coaches\/","title":{"rendered":"The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence, Leadership Styles, and Burnout in \tNCAA Coaches"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors:<\/strong> Luna Ugrenovic, M.S., West Virginia University, Kimberly Shaffer, Ph.D., Barry \u00a0 University, Nataniel Boiangin, Ph.D., Barry University<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author: <\/strong>
Luna Ugrenovic, M.S.
478 Harding Avenue Apt. 4
Morgantown, WV, USA, 26505
luna.ugrenovic@gmail.com
786-617-9425<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Luna\nUgrenovic is a first-year Ph.D. student at West Virginia University (WVU)\nstudying Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology concurrently with Master\u2019s\nin Clinical Mental Health Counseling. She is also a graduate teaching assistant\nand mental performance consultant trainee working with the WVU DI rowing team\nas well as WVU law school. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Relationship between Emotional Intelligence, Leadership Styles, and Burnout in NCAA Coaches<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burnout\nin coaches has been a concerning issue for many years. It can lead to a host of\nmedical, psychological, emotional and performance-related issues. One of the\nmany factors that correlates with burnout is emotional intelligence (EI; 22).\nAdditionally, research supports various leadership styles that correlate with\nperceived burnout in different ways (32). The present study aimed to\ninvestigate the relationships between EI, leadership styles, and perceived\nburnout as well as the moderating role of leadership styles on the relationship\nbetween EI and perceived burnout in NCAA coaches. The full range leadership\nmodel (2) was used in this study and proposes that there are transformational,\ntransactional, and passive-avoidant leadership styles. A total of 244 (n<\/em> = 140 male, n<\/em> = 103 female, n<\/em> = 1\nundisclosed) coaches participated from across all three NCAA divisions.\nRepresented sports were field\/cross country, basketball, lacrosse, soccer,\nswimming, volleyball, and a variety of others. Consistent with previous research,\nthe results indicated a significant moderate negative relationship between EI\nand perceived burnout (r<\/em> = -.38, p<\/em> = .000) as well\nas a significant weak negative relationship between transformational leadership\nstyle and perceived burnout (r<\/em> = -.24, p<\/em> = .000).\nAdditionally, there was a significant weak positive relationship between\npassive-avoidant leadership style and perceived burnout (r<\/em> =\n.25, p<\/em> = .000). Furthermore, passive-avoidant leadership style\nshowed a negative moderating effect on the relationship between EI and\nperceived burnout, accounting for 20% of the variance in perceived burnout.\nThis means that passive-avoidant leadership weakened the negative relationship\nbetween EI and perceived burnout. Thus, coaches who are predominately passive-avoidant\nleaders may be more likely to experience burnout symptoms despite their high\nEI. Consequently, the results underline the importance of developing strong\nleadership competences as well as EI in NCAA coaches to decrease or even\nprevent burnout.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong>\u00a0burnout, emotional intelligence, leadership styles, coaching, NCAA<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perceived\nburnout has been a topic of interest for a couple of decades, providing plenty\nof literature across various domains. Despite all the research, it is still\nprevalent among many professions and occupations, and can negatively affect the\npersonal and professional lives of men and women. Previous research indicates that\nburnout has negative effects on individuals, causing a significant loss for\nboth organizations and individuals (15). Demerouti\nand his colleagues defined perceived burnout as an outcome of imbalance between\njob demands and job resources (6). Literature suggests that burnout can lead to\na number of adverse outcomes, ranging from turnover, absenteeism, perceived unproductivity,\nand diminished performance (8, 30), to mental and physical health-related\nissues, such as anxiety, depression, lower self-esteem, and substance abuse (3,\n18, 20). In addition to standard pressures of work, coaching brings out a\nunique set of stressors, such as the pressure to win, traveling, and stress\nfrom parents of athletes, media, colleagues, administration, injuries, and fans\nthat can magnify the effects of burnout (23, 24, 27). According to the job demands-resources\nmodel of burnout (JD-R), burnout consists of two processes: job demands and job\nresources. In the first process, demanding aspects of work result in continuous\noverbearing, and eventually to exhaustion. In the second process, a lack of resources\nmakes it hard to meet job demands, which later results in withdrawal behavior\nand eventually disengagement. In other words, high job demands lead to\nexhaustion, while low job resources lead to disengagement from work. Together,\nthis represents the syndrome of perceived burnout (6). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many\npersonal factors affect the levels and impact of perceived burnout. One of\nthese personal factors that helps explain this phenomenon is emotional\nintelligence (EI). Salovey and Mayer defined EI as the capacity to be aware of\none\u2019s own emotions and feelings, to choose among them, as well as to use this\ninformation to navigate one\u2019s thinking and decisions (19). It is known that\nfeelings and emotions contribute to the quality of interpersonal relationships\n(11). Consequently, coaches are expected to develop bonds of trust to enable\nappropriate functioning within their relationships with athletes, coaching\nteam, athletic administration, etc. (5). Therefore, effective coaches possess\nqualities that go beyond sport-specific knowledge (5). Four branches of EI\n(perceiving emotion, integrating emotion in thought, understanding emotion, and\nmanaging emotion), from Mayer and Salovey’s ability model (28), are known to be\neffective skills in developing relationships with different individuals in the coaching\nworkplace (5). Previous research showed that there is a link between burnout\nand EI, indicating that higher scores on EI were related to lower scores on\nburnout (13, 29, 31). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another\nfactor influencing perceived burnout is leadership style (16). Although there is research\nlooking at the relationship between leadership styles and burnout in different\npositions such as managers, leaders of non-profit organizations, and human\nservice advisors (e.g. 15, 32), research that looked at leadership styles and burnout among\ncoaches is limited. The findings of a few studies are inconsistent, indicating\na need to further examine this relationship. A study looking at coaches\u2019\nburnout and democratic and autocratic leadership styles failed to find a link\nbetween coaches\u2019 burnout and these two leadership styles (12). On the other hand, a study looking\nat the relationship between burnout in managers and transformational,\ntransactional, and passive-avoidant leadership styles found significant\nrelationships between the variables (32). Hence, exploring the full range leadership model could\nprovide a better understanding of the relationship between burnout and\nleadership styles, specifically in coaches. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nfull range leadership model (2) includes transformational, transactional, and\npassive-avoidant leadership styles. Broadly speaking, transformational\nleadership exhibits the ability to transform followers’ thoughts and actions towards\nhigher potential, moral, and ethical standards. On the other hand,\ntransactional leadership style is characterized by transactions that can be\nconstructive or corrective. Lastly, passive-avoidant leadership style is\ndefined as a lack of leadership (2). Existing research on leadership styles and\nburnout suggests there is a connection between the two (1, 16). For instance,\ntransformational leadership is positively related to personal accomplishment,\nand negatively related to emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (32). Furthermore,\nprevious research argues that components of EI overlap with the core\ncharacteristics of transformational leadership style\n(10). As discussed previously, very few\nstudies examine the relationship between leadership style and burnout in\ncollegiate coaches, and those that do provide inconsistent findings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequently,\nthe purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between EI\nand burnout as well as leadership styles and burnout in collegiate coaches.\nThis study also examined whether collegiate coaches\u2019 leadership styles\nmoderated the relationship between EI and perceived burnout (Figure 1). Adding\nto the pool of knowledge about burnout in college coaches would not only help\nin dealing with perceived burnout but may also prevent negative consequences\nsuch as turnover, absenteeism, perceived productivity, and diminished\nperformance. The proposed hypotheses were as follows: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypothesis 1: Collegiate coaches\u2019\nemotional intelligence will be associated with lower perceived burnout. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypothesis 2: Transformational\nleadership style will be associated with lower perceived burnout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypothesis 3: Transactional\nleadership style will be associated will higher perceived burnout. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypothesis 4: Passive-avoidant\nleadership style will be associated with higher perceived burnout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypothesis 5a: Transformational\nleadership style will moderate the relationship between collegiate coaches\u2019\nemotional intelligence and their burnout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypothesis 5b: Transactional\nleadership style will moderate the relationship between collegiate coaches\u2019\nemotional intelligence and their burnout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypothesis 5c: Passive-avoidant\nleadership style will moderate the relationship between collegiate coaches\u2019\nemotional intelligence and their burnout. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1<\/em>. The proposed model. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHOD<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participants and Procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

G*Power\n3.13 was used to complete a priori power analyses with linear multiple\nregression to determine the number of participants needed for adequate power.\nUsing a standard alpha level (\u03b1 = .05), and desired power of .80, a minimum\nsample size of 89 was recommended to reveal a significant medium effect size (f<\/em> = .15). The study included coaches\nfrom all sports in NCAA divisions I, II, and III that had at least one year of\ncoaching experience. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Participants\nwho met the aforementioned inclusion criteria were recruited via email to\nparticipate in the study. Coaches\u2019 emails were found on university web-pages.\nResearch with human participants protocol form was submitted to the\ninstitutional review board (IRB) before recruitment and data collection. Prior\nto completing questionnaires, participants were provided with an informed\nconsent form to read and sign. The consent form informed participants regarding\nthe study’s background information, overall procedures, possible risks and\nbenefits, and confidentiality. Participants were then asked to complete the\nsurvey. The questions were randomized to minimize ordering effects. After\ncompleting the questionnaires, participants were provided with the debriefing\nletter. The survey in its entirety took no more than 30 minutes to be\ncompleted. The questionnaires were posted online on Qualtrics. A total of 8,520\ncoaches were emailed to participate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Materials <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A\ndemographic questionnaire<\/em> was\nadministered to attain participants’ gender, age, ethnicity, job title (head\nvs. assistant coach), sport, NCAA division, years of experience, years of\nworking at the current job, annual household income, marital status,\neducational level, athletic season, and whether he\/she coaches a male or female\nteam. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emotional\nIntelligence Scale<\/em> (EIS;\n26) is a 33-item self-report scale assessing one\u2019s ability to detect, evaluate,\nand control the emotions of oneself and others. The scale was designed based on\nSalovey and Mayer\u2019s model of EI (25). The EIS measures a total score for\nemotional intelligence by measuring the following categories of emotional\nintelligence: appraisal and expression of emotion in the self and others (13\nitems), regulation of emotion in the self and others (10 items), and utilization\nof emotions in solving problems (10 items). The example of a scale\u2019s item:\n\u201cOther people find it easy to confide in me.\u201d The EIS scale items are rated on\nthe 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)<\/em> to\n5 (strongly agree)<\/em>. The coefficient alpha was .87, providing\nsupport for high internal validity. It is stated on the EIS that it is\navailable for use for non-commercial research and educational purposes without\nseeking written permission. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oldenburg\nBurnout Inventory<\/em> <\/strong>(OLBI; 8) is a 16-item self-report\nscale. OLBI was utilized to measure participants’ perceived burnout. The scale\nassesses two dimensions of burnout: exhaustion (8 items) and disengagement from\nwork (8 items). The scale is measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly\ndisagree)<\/em> to 4 (strongly agree)<\/em>. An example item for\nexhaustion is \u201cI can tolerate the pressure of my work very well.\u201d An example\nitem for disengagement is \u201cI always find new and interesting aspects in my\nwork.\u201d The Cronbach\u2019s alpha coefficient was .85 for both exhaustion and\ndisengagement. Permission to use the scale was granted by Dr. Karina Mostert.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Multifactor\nLeadership Questionnaire<\/em> (MLQ;\n2) Leader Form (5x-Short)<\/em> version was used to evaluate three\ndifferent leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and\npassive-avoidant). The MLQ Leader Form scale measures perceived leadership\nbehaviors. It consists of 45 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging\nfrom 0 (Not at all)<\/em> to 4 (Frequently if not always)<\/em>.\nFirst, transformational leadership is measured with 20 items. Second,\ntransactional leadership is measured with 8 items. Third, passive-avoidant\nbehavior is measured with 8 items. Lastly, the outcomes of leadership are\nevaluated with 9 items. Cronbach\u2019s coefficient alphas for the leadership factor\nscales ranged from .63 to .92. Internal consistency was above .70 for all\nfactor scales. Permission to use the scale was granted after purchasing the MLQ\nManual. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

SPSS\ndata analysis program 23.0 was used to analyze all of the data in this study. A\ncorrelation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between\ncollegiate coaches\u2019 EI and their perceived burnout, transformational leadership\nstyle and perceived burnout, transactional leadership style and perceived\nburnout, as well as passive-avoidant leadership style and perceived burnout.\nAdditionally, Baron and Kenny\u2019s test for moderation was applied to examine\nwhether each leadership style moderated the relationship between collegiate\ncoaches\u2019 EI and their perceived burnout (4). A moderator is a variable that\n\u201caffects the direction and\/or strength of the relation between an independent\nor predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable\u201d (4, p. 1174). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Out\nof 8,520 recruited coaches, a total of 321 coaches participated, out of which\n244 (n <\/em>= 140 men, n <\/em>= 103 women, n <\/em>=\n1 undisclosed) fully completed the survey. Participants’ ages ranged from 24 to\n74 years and median age was 45 years old (M<\/em> = 45.07, SD<\/em> =\n11.61). The majority of coaches worked for NCAA D III (n <\/em>= 117),\nfollowed by D II (n <\/em>= 66), and D I (n <\/em>= 61). The range\nof years coaches were employed in their current position was between 0 and 51\nyears (M<\/em> = 10.45, SD<\/em> = 8.90), while overall\ncoaching experience at the NCAA level ranged from two to 51 years (M<\/em> =\n19.95, SD<\/em> = 36.29). Most coaches were in season at the time\nthey completed the survey (n <\/em>= 129), followed by off season (n <\/em>=\n93), and preseason (n <\/em>= 22). Represented sports were track and\nfield\/cross country (n <\/em>= 49), soccer (n <\/em>= 48),\nvolleyball (n <\/em>= 46), basketball (n <\/em>= 32), lacrosse (n <\/em>=\n16), swimming (n <\/em>= 13), and other (rowing, field\nhockey, rifle, hockey, rugby, water polo, gymnastics, fencing, bowling,\nsoftball, and wrestling)\n(n <\/em>= 40). When looking at annual household income, the majority of\ncoaches reported earning between $60, 001 and $100, 000 (n <\/em>= 77),\nfollowed by earning between $100, 001 and $150, 000 (n <\/em>= 66),\nbetween $30, 001 and $60, 000 (n <\/em>= 53), earning over $150, 001 (n <\/em>=\n33), and less than $30, 000 (n<\/em> = 1), while 14 coaches choose not to\ndisclose. Of the majority of coaches reported being married coaches (n <\/em>=\n163), followed by single (n <\/em>= 43), in a relationship (n <\/em>=\n24), divorced (n <\/em>= 10), and widowed (n <\/em>= 4). The\nmajority of coaches reported holding a Master\u2019s degree (n <\/em>= 149),\nfollowed by holding a Bachelor\u2019s degree (n <\/em>= 57), and even a\nhandful had obtained a Doctorate (14 coaches were in the process of getting a Master\u2019s degree, 8 were in\nthe process of getting a Doctorate\u2019s degree, and 1 was in the process of\ngetting a Bachelor\u2019s degree)\n(n <\/em>= 15). The sample was not ethnically representative with 219\nCaucasian, 7 African-American,\n4 Latino, 1 Asian, and 13 undisclosed. However this is representative of the\nethnic makeup of NCAA coaches, with over 85% of male and female coaches across\nthe three divisions being of a Caucasian background, according to the 2018\nracial and gender report card (17). While there was a mix of both head coaches\nand assistant coaches, the sample was predominantly head coaches (n <\/em>=\n233, assistant coaches n <\/em>= 11). Out of the 244 coaches, 93\nwere a female coach coaching a female team, 81 were a male coach caching a\nfemale team, 60 were a male coach coaching a male team, and only 10 were female\ncoaches coaching a male team. Table 1 represents socio-demographic\ncharacteristic of participants divided by three NCAA divisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1:<\/strong> Socio-demographic Characteristics of Participants<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
Socio-demographic
Variable<\/strong><\/td>\n 		Group<\/strong><\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
 n (%)<\/em><\/td>\n Total
\n 244<\/td>\n 		DI
\n 61<\/td>\n 		DII
\n 66<\/td>\n 		DIII
\n 117<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Gender<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Male<\/td>\n 140 (57.4)<\/td>\n 33 (54.1)<\/td>\n 37 (56.1)<\/td>\n 70 (59.8)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Female<\/td>\n 103 (42.2)<\/td>\n 28 (45.9)<\/td>\n 28 (42.4)<\/td>\n 47 (40.2)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Undisclosed<\/td>\n 1 (0.1)<\/td>\n 0 (0)<\/td>\n 1 (1.5)<\/td>\n 0 (0)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Age<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Mean<\/td>\n 45.07<\/td>\n 48<\/td>\n 43.50<\/td>\n 44.44<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Standard Deviation<\/td>\n 11.61<\/td>\n 11.55<\/td>\n 10.73<\/td>\n 11.94<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Family’s Annual Income<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
<$30,000<\/td>\n 1 (0.4)<\/td>\n 0 (0)<\/td>\n 0 (0)<\/td>\n 1 (0.9)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
$30,001 – $ 60,000<\/td>\n 53 (21.7)<\/td>\n 8 (13.1)<\/td>\n 18 (27.3)<\/td>\n 27 (23.1)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
$60, 001 – $ 100, 000<\/td>\n 77 (31.6)<\/td>\n 17 (27.9)<\/td>\n 25 (37.9)<\/td>\n 35 (29.9)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
$100, 001 – 150, 000<\/td>\n 66 (27)<\/td>\n 17 (27.9)<\/td>\n 13 (19.7)<\/td>\n 36 (30.8)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
> $ 150, 001<\/td>\n 33 (13.5)<\/td>\n 17 (27.9)<\/td>\n 5 (7.6)<\/td>\n 11 (9.4)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Choose not to disclose<\/td>\n 14 (5.7)<\/td>\n 2 (3.3)<\/td>\n 5 (7.6)<\/td>\n 7 (6)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Marital Status<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Single<\/td>\n 46 (17.6)<\/td>\n 9 (14.8)<\/td>\n 15 (22.7)<\/td>\n 19 (16.2)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
In a relationship<\/td>\n 24 (9.8)<\/td>\n 6 (9.8)<\/td>\n 7 (10.6)<\/td>\n 11 (9.4)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Married<\/td>\n 163 (66.8)<\/td>\n 42 (68.9)<\/td>\n 42 (63.6)<\/td>\n 79 (67.5)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Divorced<\/td>\n 10 (4.1)<\/td>\n 3 (4.9)<\/td>\n 1 (1.5)<\/td>\n 6 (5.1)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Widowed<\/td>\n 4 (1.6)<\/td>\n 1 (1.6)<\/td>\n 1 (1.5)<\/td>\n 2 (1.7)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Highest Educational Level <\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Bachelor’s Degree in progress<\/td>\n 1 (0.4)<\/td>\n 0 (0)<\/td>\n 0 (0)<\/td>\n 1 (0.9)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Bachelor’s Degree complete<\/td>\n 57 (23.4)<\/td>\n 25 (41)<\/td>\n 13 (19.7)<\/td>\n 19 (16.2)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Master’s Degree in progress<\/td>\n 14 (5.7)<\/td>\n 1 (1.6)<\/td>\n 2 (3)<\/td>\n 11 (9.4)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Master’s Degree complete<\/td>\n 149 (61.1)<\/td>\n 29 (47.5)<\/td>\n 45 (68.2)<\/td>\n 75 (64.1)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Doctorate’s Degree in progress<\/td>\n 8 (3.3)<\/td>\n 1 (1.6)<\/td>\n 3 (4.5)<\/td>\n 4 (3.4)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Doctorate’s Degree complete<\/td>\n 15 (6.1)<\/td>\n 5 (8.2)<\/td>\n 3 (4.5)<\/td>\n 7 (6)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Ethnicity<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
African American<\/td>\n 7 (2.9)<\/td>\n 4 (6.6)<\/td>\n 1 (1.5)<\/td>\n 2 (1.7)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Caucasian<\/td>\n 219 (89.8)<\/td>\n 51 (83.6)<\/td>\n 60 (90.9)<\/td>\n 108 (92.3)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Latino<\/td>\n 4 (1.6)<\/td>\n 2 (3.3)<\/td>\n 1 (1.5)<\/td>\n 1 (0.9)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Asian<\/td>\n 1 (0.4)<\/td>\n 0 (0)<\/td>\n 0 (0)<\/td>\n 1 (0.9)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Choose not to disclose<\/td>\n 13 (5.3)<\/td>\n 4 (6.6)<\/td>\n 4 (6.1)<\/td>\n 5 (4.3)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Job Title<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Head Coach<\/td>\n 233 (95.5)<\/td>\n 56 (91.8)<\/td>\n 63 (95.5)<\/td>\n 114 (97.4)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Assistant Coach<\/td>\n 11 (4.5)<\/td>\n 5 (8.2)<\/td>\n 3 (4.5)<\/td>\n 3 (2.6)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Sport<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Track and field\/cross country<\/td>\n 49 (20.1)<\/td>\n 11 (18)<\/td>\n 15 (22.7)<\/td>\n 23 (19.7)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Soccer<\/td>\n 48 (19.7)<\/td>\n 6 (9.8)<\/td>\n 17 (25.8)<\/td>\n 25 (21.4)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Volleyball<\/td>\n 46 (18.9)<\/td>\n 16 (26.2)<\/td>\n 12 (18.2)<\/td>\n 18 (15.4)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Basketball<\/td>\n 32 (13.1)<\/td>\n 5 (8.2)<\/td>\n 7 (10.6)<\/td>\n 20 (17.1)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Lacrosse<\/td>\n 16 (6.6)<\/td>\n 2 (3.3)<\/td>\n 3 (4.5)<\/td>\n 11 (9.4)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Swimming<\/td>\n 13 (5.3)<\/td>\n 3 (4.9)<\/td>\n 6 (9.1)<\/td>\n 4 (3.4)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Other<\/td>\n 40 (16.4)<\/td>\n 18 (29.5)<\/td>\n 6 (9.1)<\/td>\n 16 (13.7)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Years of Experience on NCAA Level <\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Mean<\/td>\n 19.95<\/td>\n 20.11<\/td>\n 13.85<\/td>\n 20.21<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Standard Deviation<\/td>\n 36.29<\/td>\n 10.79<\/td>\n 9.25<\/td>\n 36.99<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Years of Being Employed at the Current Job<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Mean<\/td>\n 10.45<\/td>\n 11.79<\/td>\n 8.33<\/td>\n 10.95<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Standard Deviation<\/td>\n 9.90<\/td>\n 10.65<\/td>\n 6.41<\/td>\n 8.97<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Athletic Season<\/em>\u00b9<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Off season<\/td>\n 93 (38.1)<\/td>\n 13 (21.3)<\/td>\n 24 (36.4)<\/td>\n 56 (47.9)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Preseason<\/td>\n 22 (9)<\/td>\n 12 (19.7)<\/td>\n 4 (6.1)<\/td>\n 6 (5.1)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
In season<\/td>\n 129 (52.9)<\/td>\n 36 (59)<\/td>\n 38 (57.6)<\/td>\n 55 (47)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Which of the following best describes you?<\/em><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
A male coach, coaching female team<\/td>\n 81 (33.2)<\/td>\n 23 (37.7)<\/td>\n 22 (33.3)<\/td>\n 36 (30.8)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
A male coach, coaching male team<\/td>\n 60 (24.6)<\/td>\n 10 (16.4)<\/td>\n 16 (24.2)<\/td>\n 34 (29.1)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
A female coach, coaching female team<\/td>\n 93 (38.1)<\/td>\n 25 (41)<\/td>\n 24 (36.4)<\/td>\n 44 (37.6)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
A female coach, coaching male team<\/td>\n 10 (4.1)<\/td>\n 3 (4.9)<\/td>\n 4 (6.1)<\/td>\n 3 (2.6)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Note.<\/em> Other = rowing, field hockey, rifle, hockey, rugby, water polo, gymnastics, fencing, bowling, softball, and wrestling.
\u00b9Which best describes how far into the athletic season your team is?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Descriptive\nstatistics were calculated to assess the skewness and kurtosis of the variables\nto be used for path analyses. All skewness and kurtosis values were found to be\nwithin the acceptable -2 to +2 range for the data to be considered normal,\ntherefore maximum likelihood estimation method was used. Table 2 consists of\ndescriptive statistics for EI, burnout (exhaustion & disengagement),\ntransformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant leadership styles for\nmale and female participants separately, as well as for the entire sample.\nThere were no significant differences between males and females on any of these\nscales (see Table 2).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 2: <\/strong>Descriptive statistics for emotional intelligence, burnout, exhaustion, disengagement transformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant leadership styles.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
Variable<\/strong><\/td>\n Min<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n Max<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n M<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n SD<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Overall<\/em> (n<\/em> = 244)<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Emotional Intelligence<\/td>\n 97.00<\/td>\n 142.00<\/td>\n 120.83<\/td>\n 9.43<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Burnout<\/td>\n 21.00<\/td>\n 49.00<\/td>\n 35.60<\/td>\n 6.31<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Exhaustion<\/td>\n 8.00<\/td>\n 28.00<\/td>\n 16.28<\/td>\n 3.27<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Disengagement<\/td>\n 8.00<\/td>\n 29.00<\/td>\n 17.00<\/td>\n 3.60<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Transformational Leadership Style <\/td>\n 65.00<\/td>\n 100.00<\/td>\n 82.69<\/td>\n 7.86<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Transactional Leadership Style<\/td>\n 19.00<\/td>\n 37.00<\/td>\n 27.19<\/td>\n 3.71<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Passive-Avoidant Leadership Style<\/td>\n 8.00<\/td>\n 24.00<\/td>\n 15.12<\/td>\n 3.70<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Male<\/em> (n<\/em> = 140)<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Emotional Intelligence<\/td>\n 97.00<\/td>\n 142.00<\/td>\n 120.25<\/td>\n 9.41<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Burnout<\/td>\n 21.00<\/td>\n 49.00<\/td>\n 34.92<\/td>\n 6.04<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Exhaustion<\/td>\n 8.00<\/td>\n 23.00<\/td>\n 15.84<\/td>\n 2.99<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Disengagement<\/td>\n 8.00<\/td>\n 25.00<\/td>\n 16.71<\/td>\n 3.36<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Transformational Leadership Style<\/td>\n 65.00<\/td>\n 100.00<\/td>\n 83.01<\/td>\n 8.26<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Transactional Leadership Style<\/td>\n 19.00<\/td>\n 37.00<\/td>\n 27.57<\/td>\n 3.79<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Passive-Avoidant Leadership Style<\/td>\n 8.00<\/td>\n 24.00<\/td>\n 15.11<\/td>\n 3.80<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Female<\/em> (n<\/em> = 103)<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Emotional Intelligence<\/td>\n 97.00<\/td>\n 142.00<\/td>\n 121.75<\/td>\n 9.36<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Burnout<\/td>\n 23.00<\/td>\n 49.00<\/td>\n 36.50<\/td>\n 6.61<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Exhaustion<\/td>\n 9.00<\/td>\n 28.00<\/td>\n 16.85<\/td>\n 3.56<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Disengagement<\/td>\n 8.00<\/td>\n 29.00<\/td>\n 17.31<\/td>\n 3.82<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Transformational Leadership Style<\/td>\n 65.00<\/td>\n 96.00<\/td>\n 82.42<\/td>\n 7.16<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Transactional Leadership Style<\/td>\n 19.00<\/td>\n 33.00<\/td>\n 26.69<\/td>\n 3.27<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Passive-Avoidant Leadership Style<\/td>\n 8.00<\/td>\n 24.00<\/td>\n 15.12<\/td>\n 3.58<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Note.<\/em> Possible ranges for the above measures. EI = 33-165; Burnout = 16-64; Exhaustion = 8-32; Disengagement = 8-32; Transformational = 20-100; Transactional = 8-40; Passive-avoidant = 8-40. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To\ntest hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4, a Pearson correlation coefficient was\ncalculated to explore the relationship between 1) EI and perceived burnout, 2)\ntransformational leadership style and perceived burnout, 3) transactional\nleadership style and perceived burnout, and 4) passive-avoidant leadership\nstyle and perceived burnout. The first, second and fourth hypotheses were supported,\nwhile the third was not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\nwas a significant moderate negative relationship between EI and perceived\nburnout (r<\/em> = -.38, p<\/em> = .000). There was a\nsignificant weak negative relationship between transformational leadership\nstyle and perceived burnout (r<\/em> = -.24, p<\/em> = .000).\nThe relationship between transactional leadership style and perceived burnout\nwas not statistically significant, while there was a significant weak positive\nrelationship between passive-avoidant leadership style and perceived burnout (r<\/em> =\n.25, p<\/em> = .000). See Table 3 for bivariate correlations between\nEI, burnout, leadership styles, and demographic variables. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 3: <\/strong>Bivariate correlations for emotional intelligence, burnout, leadership styles, and demographic variables\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
Variable<\/strong><\/td>\n 1<\/strong><\/td>\n 2<\/strong><\/td>\n 3<\/strong><\/td>\n 4<\/strong><\/td>\n 5<\/strong><\/td>\n 6<\/strong><\/td>\n 7<\/strong><\/td>\n 8<\/strong><\/td>\n 9<\/strong><\/td>\n 10<\/strong><\/td>\n 11<\/strong><\/td>\n 12<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
1 Age<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n .32**<\/td>\n .035<\/td>\n .37**<\/td>\n .62**<\/td>\n .22**<\/td>\n -.25**<\/td>\n -.15**<\/td>\n -.05<\/td>\n .08<\/td>\n .08<\/td>\n -.16*<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
2 Income<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n -.06<\/td>\n .18**<\/td>\n .27**<\/td>\n -.21**<\/td>\n -.17**<\/td>\n -.21**<\/td>\n -.01<\/td>\n .10<\/td>\n .05<\/td>\n -.09<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
3 Education<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n .14*<\/td>\n .08<\/td>\n -.01<\/td>\n -.01<\/td>\n .01<\/td>\n .07<\/td>\n .05<\/td>\n .12<\/td>\n .03<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
4 Coaching Experience<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n .39**<\/td>\n -.11<\/td>\n -.14*<\/td>\n -.06<\/td>\n -.01<\/td>\n .43<\/td>\n .07<\/td>\n -.10<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
5 Years employed<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n -.11<\/td>\n -.14*<\/td>\n -.06<\/td>\n -.01<\/td>\n -.08<\/td>\n -.02<\/td>\n -.01<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
6 Burnout<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n .92**<\/td>\n .91**<\/td>\n -.40**<\/td>\n -.20**<\/td>\n -.01<\/td>\n .25**<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
7 Exhaustion<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n .67**<\/td>\n -.40**<\/td>\n -.20**<\/td>\n -.01<\/td>\n .24**<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
8 Disengagement<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n -.40**<\/td>\n -.30**<\/td>\n -.02<\/td>\n .25**<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
9 Emotional Intelligence<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n .57**<\/td>\n .25**<\/td>\n -.34**<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
10 Transformational<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n .53**<\/td>\n -.31**<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
11 Transactional<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n -.14*<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
12 Passive-Avoidant<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n –<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

*p<\/em> < .05. **p<\/em> < .01. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypotheses 5a, 5b, and 5c<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To\ntest hypotheses 5a, 5b, and 5c, Baron and Kenny\u2019s test for moderation was\napplied (4). To avoid potentially problematic high multicollinearity with the\ninteraction term, the variables were centered within the acceptable range. For\nhypothesis 5a, EI and transformational leadership style were entered in step 1.\nTransformational leadership style did not account for a significant amount of\nvariance in perceived burnout, R\u00b2 <\/em>= .16, F<\/em>(2, 242)\n= 22.10, p <\/em>>.01. Next, in the step 2 the interaction term\nbetween EI and transformational leadership style was added to the regression\nmodel, which did not account for a significant proportion of the variance in\nperceived burnout, \u0394R\u00b2 = <\/em>.00, \u0394F<\/em>(1, 243) = .02,\n\u03b2\u00aa <\/em>= -.13, p > .05. <\/em>Therefore, the hypothesized\nmoderation was not supported (Table 4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 4<\/strong>: Multiple linear regression with moderator analysis for burnout, emotional intelligence, and transformational leadership style\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n
Step<\/strong><\/td>\n Predictor<\/strong><\/td>\n F<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n \u0394F<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n df<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n R²<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n Adj.R²<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n \u0394R²<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n \u03b2ª<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
DV:
Burnout <\/td>\n 		 <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n Emotional Intelligence <\/td>\n 22.10<\/td>\n 22.10<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n .16<\/td>\n .15<\/td>\n .16<\/td>\n -.07**<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
 <\/td>\n Transformational LS<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n -.36<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n Emotional Intelligence x
\n Transformational LS<\/td>\n 		15.27<\/td>\n .019<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n .16<\/td>\n .15<\/td>\n .00<\/td>\n -.13<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Note. N<\/em> = 244.
*p<\/em> < .05, **p<\/em> < .01<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For\nhypothesis 5b, EI and transactional leadership style were entered in step 1.\nTransactional leadership style did not account for a significant amount of\nvariance in perceived burnout, R\u00b2<\/em> = .16, F<\/em>(2, 242)\n= 23.32, p<\/em> >.01. Next, in step 2 the interaction term\nbetween EI and transactional leadership style was added to the regression\nmodel, which also did not account for a significant proportion of the variance\nin perceived burnout, \u0394R\u00b2<\/em> = .00, \u0394F<\/em>(1, 243) =\n.65, \u03b2\u00aa<\/em> = -.75, p<\/em> > .05. Therefore, the\nhypothesized moderation was not supported (Table 5). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 5<\/strong>: Multiple linear regression with moderator analysis for burnout, emotional intelligence, and transactional leadership style<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n
Step<\/strong><\/td>\n Predictor<\/strong><\/td>\n F<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n \u0394F<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n df<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n R²<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n Adj.R²<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n \u0394R²<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n \u03b2ª<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
DV:
\n Burnout <\/td>\n 		 <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n Emotional Intelligence <\/td>\n 23.32<\/td>\n 23.32<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n .16<\/td>\n .16<\/td>\n .16<\/td>\n -.42**<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
 <\/td>\n Transactional LS<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n .08<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n Emotional Intelligence x
\n Transactional LS<\/td>\n 		15.74<\/td>\n .65<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n .16<\/td>\n .15<\/td>\n .00<\/td>\n -.75<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Note. N<\/em> = 244.
*p<\/em> < .05, **p<\/em> < .01<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lastly,\nfor hypothesis 5c, EI and passive-avoidant leadership style were entered in\nstep 1. These variables accounted for a significant amount of variance in\nperceived burnout, R\u00b2<\/em> = .19, F<\/em>(2, 242) = 27.45, p<\/em> <\n.01. Next, the interaction term between EI and passive-avoidant leadership\nstyle was added to the regression model, which accounted for a significant\nproportion of the variance in perceived burnout, \u0394R\u00b2<\/em> =\n.02, \u0394F<\/em>(1, 243) = 5.65, \u03b2\u00aa<\/em> = 1.49, p <\/em><\n.05. The moderation was statistically significant (Table 6). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 6<\/strong>: Multiple linear regression with moderator analysis for burnout, emotional intelligence, and passive-avoidant leadership style<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n
Step<\/strong><\/td>\n Predictor<\/strong><\/td>\n F<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n \u0394F<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n df<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n R²<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n Adj.R²<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n \u0394R²<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n \u03b2ª<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
DV:
Burnout<\/td>\n 		 <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n Emotional Intelligence<\/td>\n 27.45<\/td>\n 25.45<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n .19<\/td>\n .18<\/td>\n .19<\/td>\n -.35**<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
 <\/td>\n Passive-Avoidant LS<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n .18*<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n Emotional Intelligence x
\n Passive-Avoidant LS<\/td>\n 		20.54<\/td>\n 5.65<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n .20<\/td>\n .19<\/td>\n .02<\/td>\n 1.49*<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Note. N<\/em> = 244.
*p<\/em> < .05, **p<\/em> < .01<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npresent study examined relationships between EI, leadership styles, and\nperceived burnout in NCAA coaches. More specifically, the study looked at the\nmoderating role of leadership styles on perceived burnout in coaches (Figure\n1). Results showed that EI was negatively associated with perceived burnout (r<\/em> =\n-.38, p<\/em> = .000). Hence, the first hypothesis was supported,\nindicating a moderate relationship between EI and perceived burnout. Hypothesis\n2 was supported, indicating that there is a significant weak negative\nrelationship between transformational leadership style and perceived burnout (r<\/em> =\n-.24, p<\/em> = .000). On the other hand, hypothesis 3 was not\nsupported, in that the relationship between transactional leadership style and\nperceived burnout was not statistically significant. Hypothesis 4 was supported,\nshowing a statistically significant weak positive relationship between\npassive-avoidant leadership style and perceived burnout (r<\/em> =\n.25, p<\/em> = .000). Furthermore, the moderation analyses performed\nin this study were partially supported. More specifically, passive-avoidant\nleadership style did have a moderating effect on the relationship between EI\nand perceived burnout, accounting for 20% of the variance in perceived burnout,\nwhereas transformational and transactional leadership styles did not show a\nmoderating effect. In other words, hypotheses 5a and 5c were not supported,\nwhile hypothesis 5c was. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As\nexpected, EI was negatively associated with perceived burnout in college\ncoaches (r<\/em> = -.38, p<\/em> = .000). That is, it seems EI\nhas a moderately positive effect on perceived burnout. This suggests that\ncoaches who have difficulty understanding, perceiving, and managing their own\nand their athletes\u2019 emotions are more likely to experience some of the signs\nand symptoms of burnout, such as fatigue, depression, stress, and anxiety.\nDespite the lack of research on the direct relationship between EI and perceived\nburnout in college coaches, there is evidence supporting the relationship\nbetween the two when looking at professions such as teachers, doctors, and\ncounselors (13, 14, 21, 22, 29, 31). More specifically, the current finding is\nconsistent with the previous studies supporting the idea that EI is negatively\nrelated to perceived burnout (13, 29, 31).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consistent\nwith previous literature, the findings indicated a statistically significant\nnegative weak relationship between transformational leadership style and\nperceived burnout (r<\/em> = -.24, p<\/em> = .000). This means\ncoaches who are transformational leaders are less likely to feel burnout.\nSimilarly to coaches with higher EI, these coaches, who are predominantly\ntransformational leaders, are less likely to experience burnout symptoms such\nas exhaustion and disengagement. Additionally, a statistically significant\npositive weak relationship between passive-avoidant leadership and perceived\nburnout was found (r<\/em> = .25, p<\/em> = .000). This means\nthat coaches who tend to be more passive-avoidant leaders are more likely to\nfeel burnt-out. Additionally, it is important to mention that coaches who are\npredominantly passive-avoidant leaders are more likely to have a negative\nimpact on their followers and tend to fail in providing inspiration and direction\n(28). In line with the current findings, a previous study found a negative\nrelationship between emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, which are\nfactors influencing burnout, as well as a positive relationship between passive-avoidant\nleadership style and exhaustion as well as depersonalization (32). Zopoatis and\nConstanti\u2019s findings suggest transformational leaders are not only more\neffective in their leadership role but are also less likely to experience\nburnout (32), which supports current findings and underlines the importance of\nleadership styles when looking into an individual\u2019s as well as a group\u2019s\nwell-being. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\nthe other hand, the relationship between transactional leadership styles and\nperceived burnout was negative, but not significant. This indicates that some\ncoaches who are predominately transactional leaders may be less burnt-out.\nHowever, the lack of a significant relationship could be due to the\ncharacteristic of transactional leadership. A coach who is a transactional\nleader defines expectations, and performance that achieves these expectations\nis promoted. With this being said, this kind of leadership style might not be a\nrelevant variable when trying to examine burnout in coaches. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nmoderating role of three different leadership styles on the relationship\nbetween EI and perceived burnout in coaches was investigated by the fifth\nhypothesis. There was no evidence for the moderating role of transformational\nleadership style. Moreover, transactional leadership style also failed to\nmoderate the relationship between EI and perceived burnout. This means that\ntransformational and transactional leadership styles did not act as buffers in\nthe relationship between EI and perceived burnout. This suggests that even if\ncoaches are transformational or transactional leaders, but have a low EI, their\ntransformational or transactional leadership style may not account for their\nlow EI, and they will still have a higher likelihood of becoming burnt-out.\nThis could be since a coach who has poor skills of perceiving, interpreting,\nunderstanding, and managing emotions in him\/herself or others will probably not\nbe a predominantly transformational or transactional leader. Since\ntransformational leaders are characterized as being able to transform and shape\ntheir followers\u2019 perspectives on themselves, opportunities, and challenges (2),\nEI likely plays an important role in this process by allowing the coach to have\na better understanding of how to make these impactful influences. However,\nthis needs further exploration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\nthe other hand, passive-avoidant leadership had a negative moderating effect.\nThis means that passive-avoidant leadership weakened the negative relationship\nbetween EI and burnout. In other words, a coach who is a passive-avoidant\nleader may be likely to experience burnout despite his or her high EI.\nTherefore, future research should further investigate passive-avoidant\nleadership as it relates to EI and perceived burnout, as to the best of our\nknowledge, no previous research has been conducted with these three variables. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\nare a few limitations to this study. The first limitation is the lack of\ncontrol over collecting the data due to the use of self-reports administered\nonline. This way of collecting data limits precision and control, including\ncontrol of the physical environment (9). The second limitation is that the\nstudy only looked at NCAA coaches, which limits generalizability to other\ncoaches. Another limitation is a lack of information regarding coaches who may\ncoach more than one team or more than one set of athletes. For instance, some D\nII and D III coaches could potentially be coaching both male and female teams,\nas well as different sports at the same time. This question was not asked and\ncould lead to more findings regarding workload and burnout in coaches. This\ncould be an important factor when trying to understand burnout, considering\nthat those who coach more than one team have more athletes to manage, or\ndifferent sports to focus on at the same time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Future\nresearch may expand upon the conceptualization of coping skills and other\nfactors that influence the relationship between EI and reduced burnout in\ncoaches. Additionally, looking at the same variables (EI, burnout, and\nleadership styles) in coaches from sports organizations other than NCAA, and\nthen comparing the results may help in understanding burnout better, including\nthe influence that organizational association may exert. Another way in which\nmore understanding of burnout in coaches could be gained is by exploring the\namount and type of supporting staff that is available to coaches. Coaches who\nhave more supporting staff may be less prone to burnout, possibly due to\nreduced demands (one component of burnout). Expanding on current findings,\nfuture research should seek to gain more understanding of the moderating role\nof leadership styles on the relationship between EI and perceived burnout, due\nto the apparent absence of research looking at transformational, transactional,\nand passive-avoidant leadership as moderators. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nterms of applied implications in sport, this study offers some promising\ninsights. There are a few ways in which the findings can be used to prevent\nnegative consequences of burnout in coaches and to increase their\neffectiveness. To avoid the negative consequences of coaches\u2019 burnout, this\nstudy showed that it is important to consider improving EI as well as\nleadership skills. This implies that to decrease the chances of feeling\nburnout, there should be a more holistic approach when coaching with athletes.\nIn other words, by improving coaches\u2019 ability to interpret and manage theirs\nand others’ emotions as well as to effectively lead a team, coaches will be\nless likely to become burnt-out. In the long run, this may allow coaches to\ncreate a more productive environment and strengthen the bond between themselves\nand their athletes. Additionally, coaches may be well-served by predominantly\nutilizing a transformational leadership style when working with athletes, since\nthis leadership style was shown to have a negative relationship with perceived\nburnout. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\nthe other hand, this information can be also useful for athletic directors in\nthe selection of coaches. By hiring the coaches who are demonstrating\ntransformational leadership qualities as well as higher EI, athletic directors\nmight have fewer issues dealing with burnout in coaches and all the negative\nconsequences of burnout, such as turnover and absenteeism. Furthermore, for\nsport psychology practitioners, the findings suggest that EI and leadership\nstyles are additional aspects to consider when helping coaches prevent or\nrecover from burnout. For instance, one way to prevent or decrease burnout in\ncoaches would be to create preventative burnout programs focusing on developing\nmore effective leadership skills and improving EI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Arnold, K. A., Connelly, C. E., Walsh, M. M., & Martin Ginis, K. A. (2015). Leadership styles, emotion regulation, and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health   Psychology<\/em>, 20<\/em>(4), 481.<\/li>
  2. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ). Mind Garden<\/em>, 29<\/em>.<\/li>
  3. Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & stress, 22<\/em>(3), 187-200.<\/li>
  4. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in   socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology<\/em>, 51<\/em>, 1173-1182.<\/li>
  5. Chan, J. T., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). The value of emotional intelligence for high performance coaching. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching<\/em>, 6<\/em>(3), 315-328.<\/li>
  6. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86<\/em>(3), 499.<\/li>
  7. Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: a thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology<\/em>, 15<\/em>(3), 209.<\/li>
  8. Dyrbye, L. N., Shanafelt, T. D., Johnson, P. O., Johnson, L. A., Satele, D., & West, C. P. (2019). A cross-sectional study exploring the relationship between burnout, absenteeism, and job performance among American nurses. BMC Nursing<\/em>, 18<\/em>(1),      N.PAG.<\/li>
  9. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.    Behavior research methods, 39<\/em>(2), 175-191.<\/li>
  10. Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23<\/em>, 68-78.<\/li>
  11. George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations<\/em>, 53<\/em>(8), 1027-1055. <\/li>
  12. Georgios, K., & Nikolaos, A. (2012). An investigation of a model of personal-situational factors, stress and burnout in track and field coaches. Journal of Physical Education and Sport<\/em>, 12<\/em>(3), 343. <\/li>
  13. G\u00f6rgens\u2010Ekermans, G., & Brand, T. (2012). Emotional intelligence as a moderator in the stress\u2013burnout relationship: a questionnaire study on nurses. Journal of                                         clinical nursing<\/em>, 21<\/em>(15\u201016), 2275-2285.<\/li>
  14. Gutierrez, D., & Mullen, P. R. (2016). Emotional intelligence and the counselor: Examining the relationship of trait emotional intelligence to counselor burnout. Journal of Mental Health Counseling<\/em>, 38<\/em>(3), 187-200.<\/li>
  15. Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. (2017). Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout<\/em>. In Professional burnout.<\/em> Routledge. <\/li>
  16. Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology<\/em>, 94<\/em>(4), 1058.<\/li>
  17. Lapchick, R. (2019). The 2018 Racial and Gender Report Card: College Sport. The institute for diversity and ethics in sport. DeVos Sport Business<\/em>. 1-73. <\/li>
  18. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52<\/em>(1), 397-422.<\/li>
  19. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (2007). Mayer-Salovery-Caruso emotional intelligence test.<\/em> Toronto: Multi-Health Systems Incorporated.<\/li>
  20. Melamed, S., Shirom, A., Toker, S., Berliner, S., & Shapira, I. (2006). Burnout and risk of cardiovascular disease: Evidence, possible causal paths, and promising research directions. Psychological Bulletin, 132<\/em>(3), 327.<\/li>
  21. Pishghadam, R., & Sahebjam, S. (2012). Personality and emotional intelligence in teacher burnout. The Spanish Journal of Psychology<\/em>, 15<\/em>(1), 227-236.<\/li>
  22. Platsidou, M. (2010). Trait emotional intelligence of Greek special education teachers in relation to burnout and job satisfaction. School Psychology International<\/em>, 31<\/em>(1), 60-76.<\/li>
  23. Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Relationships among coach burnout, coach behaviors, and athletes\u2019 psychological responses. The Sport Psychologist<\/em>, 14<\/em>(4), 391-  409.<\/li>
  24. Raedeke, T., Kentta, G. (2013). Coach burnout. In: Potrac P, Gilbert W, Denison J, eds. Routledge handbook of sports coaching<\/em>. (424-435) New York: Routledge.<\/li>
  25. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality<\/em>, 9<\/em>(3), 185-211.<\/li>
  26. 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<\/em>, 25<\/em>(2), 167-177.<\/li>
  27. Short, S. E., Short, M. W., & Haugen, C. R. (2015). The Relationship between efficacy and burnout in coaches. International Journal of Coaching Science<\/em>, 9<\/em>(1), 37\u201349.<\/li>
  28. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The   destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of occupational health psychology, 12<\/em>(1), 80.<\/li>
  29. Testa, D., & Sangganjanavanich, V. F. (2016). Contribution of mindfulness and emotional intelligence to burnout among counseling interns. Counselor Education and Supervision<\/em>, 55<\/em>(2), 95-108.<\/li>
  30. Wang, H., Jin, Y., Wang, D., Zhao, S., Sang, X., & Yuan, B. (2020). Job satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intention among primary care providers in rural China: Results from structural equation modeling. BMC Family Practice<\/em>, 21<\/em>(1), 1\u201310. <\/li>
  31. Weng, H. C., Hung, C. M., Liu, Y. T., Cheng, Y. J., Yen, C. Y., Chang, C. C., & Huang, C. K. (2011). Associations between emotional intelligence and doctor burnout, job satisfaction and patient satisfaction. Medical Education<\/em>, 45<\/em>(8), 835-842.<\/li>
  32. Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P., & Theocharous, A. L. (2014). Job involvement, commitment, satisfaction and turnover: Evidence from hotel employees in Cyprus. Tourism Management<\/em>, 41<\/em>, 129-140. <\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Authors: Luna Ugrenovic, M.S., West Virginia University, Kimberly Shaffer, Ph.D., […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[994,295],"tags":[221,101,932,1571,249],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1Nz","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6453,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-role-of-emotion-in-sport-coaching-a-review-of-the-literature\/","url_meta":{"origin":6917,"position":0},"title":"The Role of Emotion in Sport Coaching: A Review of the Literature","date":"May 23, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Eric D. Magrum, Bryan A. McCullick Corresponding Author:Eric D. MagrumUniversity of GeorgiaDepartment of Kinesiology219 Ramsey CenterAthens, GA 30602Magrum@uga.edu419-356-8541 Eric D. Magrum is doctoral student at the University of Georgia. The Role of Emotion in Sport Coaching: A Review of the Literature ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper was to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":484,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/evidence-for-a-curvilinear-relationship-between-burnout-and-years-of-coaching-experience\/","url_meta":{"origin":6917,"position":1},"title":"Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between Burnout and Years of Coaching Experience","date":"November 29, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Shelley H. Bradford, Steve F. Pugh, Robert J. Heitman, John E. Kovaleski, and Christopher M. Keshock. University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama. ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine if the relationship between burnout, as measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and years of coaching experience was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7895,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-impact-of-need-satisfaction-on-college-athlete-burnout\/","url_meta":{"origin":6917,"position":2},"title":"The Impact of Need Satisfaction on College Athlete Burnout","date":"June 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Rachel Daniels, MS, Dr. Joel Cormier, Dr. Jonathan Gore, and Dr. Ellen McMahan Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, USA Corresponding Author:Rachel Daniels, MS,Eastern Kentucky University512 Lancaster AvenueRichmond, KY, 40475606-872-2791Rachelbdaniels@outlook.com Rachel Daniels is a certified athletic trainer and graduate of the MS in Exercise\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":8446,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-effect-of-coaches-leadership-behaviors-on-athletes-emotion-regulation-strategies\/","url_meta":{"origin":6917,"position":3},"title":"The Effect of Coaches’ Leadership Behaviors on Athletes’ Emotion Regulation Strategies","date":"January 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Adem Solakumur1, Ahmet, N. Dilek2, Yilmaz Unlu3 and Murat Kul4 1Department of Sports Physical Education, Faculty of Sport Sciences, The University of Bolu Abant \u0130zzet Baysal, Bolu, Turkey2Department of Sports Recreation, Faculty of Sport Sciences, The University of Bartin, Bartin, Turkey3Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Sport Sciences, The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Leadership"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/solakumar-table-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3914,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/psychological-determinants-of-burnout-illness-and-injury-among-elite-junior-athletes\/","url_meta":{"origin":6917,"position":4},"title":"Psychological Determinants of Burnout, Illness and Injury among Elite Junior Athletes","date":"August 16, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: F. Moen, K. Myhre and \u00d8. Sandbakk Corresponding Author: Frode Moen E-mail address: frmoe@online.no, Tel. : +47 932 487 50 Postal address: Department of Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway Frode Moen is currently the head manager of the Olympic Athlete program in central Norway,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/BurnoutTable1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1827,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/athlete-burnout-is-the-type-of-sport-a-factor\/","url_meta":{"origin":6917,"position":5},"title":"Athlete Burnout: Is the Type of Sport a Factor?","date":"April 25, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by \u00a0Shelley L. Holden, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL; Christopher M. Keshock, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL; Brooke E. Forester University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL; Steven F. Pugh, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL and Steven F. Pugh, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL. Abstract Athletes\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6917"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6917"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6917\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6936,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6917\/revisions\/6936"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}