Does a coach’s reputation affect an athlete’s creativity in team sports?

Abstract

Purpose

Leadership is a key factor that shapes an athlete’s development, also within team sports; most of this responsibility falls on the coaches. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the relationship between a coach’s reputation and athlete creativity as perceived by athletes within team sports.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper examined the reputational construct of coaches vis-a-vis athlete creativity. The researchers surveyed athletes from a variety of team sports and professional levels (N = 203). Structural equation modelling was utilised for testing the hypotheses.

Findings

Findings suggest that a coach’s reputation has a significant influence on the development of an athlete’s creativity. Coach reputation affects the creative development of an athlete, with knowledge sharing and openness to experiences being the principal means of influence.

Originality/value

Our study (1) examines the influence of a coach’s reputation on an athlete’s creativity, (2) tests the role of knowledge sharing in the influence on an athlete’s creativity and (3) considers openness to experiences in the development of an athlete’s creativity.

Citation

Asare, M.K. and Schnitzer, M. (2024), "Does a coach’s reputation affect an athlete’s creativity in team sports?", Sport, Business and Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/SBM-02-2024-0022

1. Introduction

Team sports have a unique unpredictability and create suspense that thrills spectators. Athletes combine tactical and technical actions to make intelligent and creative decisions regarding the constraints presented by their opponents (Leso et al., 2017). Coaches are architects of a team’s structure, which is conducive to meeting the goals and expectations of clubs, fans, and athletes (Mallett and Hanrahan, 2004). The leadership behaviour of coaches is vital and significantly impacts the performance, well-being, and work behaviour of athletes (Avolio et al., 2009), meaning that leadership is a key contextual factor that influences creativity, an intangible resource used to gain competitive advantages through the exploitation of competitive opportunities (Bommer et al., 2004). The demonstrated behaviour informs the reputation of the leader (Ferris et al., 2014) and studying the impact of a coach’s reputation (demonstrated leadership behaviour) on the development of athletes is essential to the enhancement of sports as professionalism increases (Hüttermann et al., 2019; Mallett and Hanrahan, 2004; Wang et al., 2018). Reputation is a major source of information during the formation of initial expectations (Ferris et al., 2014). The coach’s reputation as the team leader triggers behavioural responses among athletes (Manley et al., 2014), indicating that athletes make a greater effort and pay more attention to a coach with a good reputation than to a coach with no reputation based on the reputational information available to the athletes.

Research has revealed that coach humility impacts creativity among football players (Tuan, 2020) which demonstrates that leadership behaviours influence athlete development. The function of reputation is such that a strong and positive reputation provides outcomes such as influence and power; however, the development of a coach’s reputation does not happen overnight but requires the consistent demonstration of a particular behaviour or attributes over time (Ferris et al., 2014; Manley et al., 2010).

The coach-athlete relationship is the most influential and important interaction experienced by coaches and athletes in sports (Davis and Jowett, 2014); as athletes spend an increasing amount of time with their coaches as they advance through the sport’s ranks and become more competitive (Erickson and Côté, 2016), coaches influence their development through coaching. Thus far, athletes emulate coach (leader) behaviours which creates a benchmark that influences team performance. Thus, imitable coach (leadership) behaviour is a vital mechanism that influences athletes and team performance (Owens and Hekman, 2016). This confirms Hambrick and Quigley’s (2014) position that the influence of leadership is a relative factor in shaping athlete and team performance.

Team sports provide various opportunities for athletes to express their creativity (Memmert, 2007). Creativity is tackling sporting challenges with the development of practical and novel solutions. The concept of creativity is particularly important for teams as it could give a significant sporting advantage over its competitors. The concept of creativity is multifaceted and is influenced by variables such as intrinsic motivation and environmental factors (Amabile, 1988). Understanding the development of athlete’s creativity is a significant inquiry, particularly for coaches and our study seeks to understand how the reputation of a coach can enhance the creativity of athletes within team sports.

Creativity is essential for athletes to innovate and excel and this can be significantly influenced by the coach’s reputation, which plays a crucial role in shaping an environment conducive to creative thinking and strong performance. A coach’s reputation is fundamental to creating an atmosphere of trust and psychological safety. Athletes are inclined to experiment and take creative risks when they trust their coach and feel safe from harsh criticism or punishment (Trzaskoma-Bicsérdy et al., 2007). A reputable coach fosters a supportive environment where players feel confident to try new approaches. Leaders who establish trust and encourage risk-taking contribute significantly to fostering creativity (Amabile and Khaire, 2008). In a sports context, this trust allows players to innovate without fear, knowing their efforts will be evaluated constructively.

Coaches with strong reputations often serve as role models and sources of inspiration. Their guidance can motivate players to push their creative boundaries and strive for excellence. The respect and admiration players have for such coaches drives them to innovate and think outside the box (Côté and Gilbert, 2009). Coaches with established reputations usually possess a wealth of experience and knowledge. They can provide nuanced insights and feedback that help players refine their creative ideas and approaches. Their ability to identify and nurture talent is crucial for developing creative players. Côté and Gilbert (2009) discuss the components of effective coaching, including the role of a coach’s reputation in nurturing creativity. Experienced coaches can pinpoint areas for creative improvement and provide targeted guidance to enhance the players’ innovative thinking.

In the present study, we examined a coach’s reputation in relation to the creativity of athletes in team sports. We also aimed to comprehend the facilitating role played by knowledge sharing within the relationship between the coach’s reputation and the athlete’s creativity while analysing the influence of openness to experiences between coach reputation and knowledge sharing as a moderating factor. Knowledge sharing is the transmission of knowledge that, in turn, is learned and applied by the receiver (Ma and Chan, 2014) and this is an essential component of creativity (Tsai et al., 2015). Also, Openness to experiences is the extent to which an individual uses curiosity, thinking, and imagination to create ideas, unconventional perspectives, and experiences (Soto and John, 2017). To answer the research questions, we surveyed (n = 203) athletes at all sporting levels as creativity is deemed essential for both professional and nonprofessional athletes (Hüttermann et al., 2019). Based on leadership theory, a comprehensive literature review on coach reputation and the determining factors that influence athlete creativity is presented. Thereafter, we describe the methods used in this study, and the results are explained in the subsequent section. This is followed by discussions and managerial implications for coaches and stakeholders in addition to the limitations of the study and recommendations for future research.

2. Literature review and development of hypotheses

2.1 Theoretical foundations

Over the last 40 years, research on leadership in sports management has gained prominence and various themes have emerged creating room for further studies. What we have learned is that most of the research has focused on sports leadership, particularly transformational leadership behaviours (Peachey et al., 2015). While this study looks at sports leadership, we focus on the niche theme of coaching reputation as an influence.

Within sports teams, the responsibility of leadership falls within the domain of the coach and leadership style refers to the way the coach performs duties associated with the role and manages relationships with stakeholders (Stavrinoudis and Chrysanthopoulou, 2015). The influence of leadership behaviours between subordinates and leaders is influenced by the demonstrated behaviours of the coach and the general characteristics attributed to the coach by subordinates (Neves and Story, 2013). Furthermore, the perceived leadership effectiveness by subordinates appears to be a key performance factor (Soane et al., 2015). Demonstrated leadership behaviours are what inform the reputation of the leader (Ferris et al., 2014). For example, demonstrations of ethical leadership build trust since ethical leadership implies integrity, a fundamental element of trustworthiness (Newman et al., 2014).

In most cases, leadership effectiveness is synonymous with a leader’s reputation rather than with any objective outcome criteria (Stavrinoudis and Chrysanthopoulou, 2015). For example, skill, knowledge and expertise enable a leader to influence a set domain because reputation is built on demonstrated competencies (Ferris et al., 2014). This means that the utilisation and efficient execution of leadership affects the leader’s broader reputation (Stavrinoudis and Chrysanthopoulou, 2015). Leadership is characterised by a set of essential competencies linked to the effectiveness of a leader and subsequently shapes the leader’s personal reputation (Asree et al., 2010).

By nature, humans are coordinated in social units, and affiliation develops a person’s social reputation (Ferris et al., 2014). Social interactions within sports teams are inevitable; as a coach interacts with athletes, a set of roles and their expected behaviours are created (Greenlees, 2007). The execution of these behavioural expectations builds personal reputation over time, as social and human capital forms the basis for reputation (Zinko et al., 2007).

We argue that coaches with a successful or positive reputation are rated more competent than coaches with no or unsuccessful reputations as personal reputation is influenced by observable demonstrated behaviour, prominent attributes and accomplishments earned over a period of time (Ferris et al., 2003; Zinko et al., 2012). The historical context of the concept of personal reputation suggests that it evolves with time through consistently demonstrated behaviour that is observable directly or indirectly from secondary sources (Ferris et al., 2014; Zinko et al., 2012).

The essence of leadership within teams is to ensure that collective and individual efforts are influenced and facilitated to achieve shared objectives. To improve performance within a team, leaders must influence the processes that determine performance (Yukl, 2012). Thus, indicators of organizational performance are directly related to leadership behaviours such as leader effectiveness (Heimann et al., 2020).

The theoretical argument is that we expect reputational influence from the coach’s reputation. This is consistent with Manley et al. (2014), indicating that a coach’s reputation influences the athletes’ behavioural responses. Ultimately, personal reputation is a source of influence and is used in the absence of individual information; hence, it is rational to imply that employment decisions are affected by reputation (for example dismissals, recruiting and promotions). The career progression of a coach is a direct result of personal reputation (Ferris et al., 2003; Manley et al., 2014; Zinko and Rubin, 2015).

2.2 Coach reputation and creativity

Personal reputation is a complex combination of demonstrated behaviour, prominent attributes, and accomplishments earned over a period of time (Zinko et al., 2012). Personal reputation is operationalised in many ways and is linked to performance comparisons and performance history (Laird et al., 2012). Fuller and Jensen (2002) suggest that a leader’s reputation is a key factor for success. Coaches with a positive reputation are viewed as attractive, reliable, and honourable (Zinko et al., 2007). A person’s probable behaviour is what forms reputation, and this is an intangible asset (Fombrun et al., 2000). Zinko et al. (2012) argue that human capital, which involves achieving merit through experiences, skills, knowledge set, or abilities, is an antecedent of personal reputation. A study by Manley et al. (2014) on how reputation influences male footballers’ behavioural responses indicates that athletes use reputation information as a basis for their expectations. In addition, the study reveals that athletes pay greater attention and invest more effort when working with an experienced coach with a positive reputation than an inexperienced coach without a reputation. For personal reputation to be used for influence, the individual must effectively communicate in a manner that is consistent with their reputation (Zinko et al., 2012). A study on reputational biases established that athletes judge coaches with a professional reputation to be more competent than coaches with no professional reputation or training (Thelwell et al., 2012).

Within a sports context, creativity can be defined as an innovative or unexpected action that exceeds the normality of an athlete (Furley and Memmert, 2015). Amabile (1988) defines creativity as the development of practical and novel solutions to tackle challenges. The concept of creativity is multifaceted and is influenced by variables such as intrinsic motivation and environmental factors. The creativity framework within sports is established from two viewpoints: The ability to generate originality and the application of originality (Memmert, 2011; Sternberg and Lubart, 1996). Generating novelty involves finding a unique or statistically rare solution to a sporting context (Memmert, 2011), while selecting novelty involves determining the ideal solution to a problem within a sporting context (Leso et al., 2017).

Creativity is a function of creative thinking skills, motivation, knowledge, and expertise (Amabile, 1988). An individual’s network of people, where input is sought, determines the level of ideas and information they are exposed to within that social environment (Rodan and Galunic, 2004). An athlete’s creativity depends on the macro and micro-level mechanisms. The macro level is steered by the environmental conditions a coach creates, while the micro level relies on the respective training situation (Memmert, 2011).

Smith and Green (2020) highlight the dynamics of organisational creativity, which focuses on how creativity can be fostered within teams and organisations. Organisational culture and individual autonomy play an essential role in driving the creative process. This means an organisational culture that encourages risk-taking, experimentation and is open to new ideas while providing psychological safety is pivotal in promoting creativity among team members. In addition, an organisational environment that values and encourages diverse perspectives and collaboration is likely to generate innovative solutions (Smith and Green, 2020).

Several studies have established a relationship between creativity and learning, with learning serving as a condition for creativity (Beghetto, 2016; Karwowski et al., 2020). With the establishment of learning as the basis for creativity, knowledge-sharing facilitates the creative process (Wu and Zhu, 2012). With a focus on the environment, a working environment that supports and encourages risk-taking, where athletes feel safe to express themselves without any negative consequences, is one that yields creativity (Smith and Green, 2020).

2.3 Coach reputation and athlete’s creativity

Over the years, researchers have focused on how transformational leadership (Lee and Cho, 2018) and servant leadership (Robinson et al., 2018) influence athlete behaviours. Coaches willing to nurture creativity acknowledge the athletes’ abilities and how to improve their creativity. The personal reputation of a coach’s management style informs the training methods that influence the athletes’ creativity (Memmert, 2011). Renowned football coach Pep Guardiola´s reputation can be described as an elegant, transforming leadership style based on his game idea and the way he sets up his teams (Alonso-Gonzalez et al., 2017). Tactical creativity is particularly important during sports matches because coaches can collect vital information about their opponents through match analysis and observations of an athlete´s tactical behaviour (Memmert, 2011).

Athlete creativity within the sports context is a multidimensional phenomenon involving the confluence of the athlete´s personality and environmental, cognitive, and contextual variables that influence the creativity of the athlete and consequently, the team as a whole (Memmert and Perl, 2009). The coach creates a working environment within the team that influences the athlete´s cognitive and contextual variables. Creativity can be sustained and requested if the environment offers sustainability and demands creativity (Santos et al., 2016). Creativity, like any habit, can be encouraged or discouraged. To promote creativity within sports teams, there should be opportunities to engage, support, and reward those who exhibit creativity (Sternberg, 2012). The above discussion hypothesis is that an athlete’s creativity is an emulation of the coach’s reputation.

Several studies have postulated the theory of convergence between an individual’s reputation and ability to perform tasks (Ferris et al., 2014; Gyekye and Haybatollahi, 2015; Tsui, 1984). Individuals regarded as specialists in a field are often granted a higher level of autonomy (Zinko et al., 2012); given that they performed expertly in the past, a similar act is expected in the future (Laird et al., 2012). Based on the existing literature, the following hypothesis has been developed.

H1.

Coach reputation has a positive relationship with an athlete’s creativity.

2.4 Coach reputation and knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing is an essential component of creativity (Tsai et al., 2015). Knowledge is the processing of information comprising facts, judgements, and ideas relevant to performance (Wang et al., 2014). Knowledge sharing is the transmission of knowledge that, in turn, is learned and applied by the receiver (Ma and Chan, 2014). Knowledge sharing occurs when knowledge is disseminated, communicated, and acquired (Chen et al., 2013).

Knowledge sharing constitutes informational resources such as skills, knowledge, and experience, which are essential for developing creative behaviour (Amabile, 1988). By engaging in knowledge sharing, individuals may gather such informational resources (Gong et al., 2012). Information exchange contributes to an individual’s knowledge base and skills, enabling them to synthesise and use these informational sources to complete difficult tasks such as creating unique solutions or procedures (Gardner et al., 2012).

Knowledge sharing within a team enables athletes to comprehend the team’s approach, the tactical behaviour of individual athletes, and the team as a whole (Memmert, 2011). Knowledge sharing exposes athletes to alternative ways of thinking and different views (Gong et al., 2012) and aids in the building of appropriate creative skills (Liao and Chen, 2018).

Athletes acquire other learning values and divergent thinking while engaging in knowledge sharing. Within a sporting context, the timely flow of information with regard to techniques, tactics and skills is important in decision-making (Werner and Dickson, 2018). To gain a competitive edge, knowledge sharing’s intangible nature and the synergy it creates among team members develop their ability to create originality within their scope (Fathi et al., 2011). Knowledge sharing equips teams with tacit knowledge (opponent analysis and experiences) and explicit knowledge (training drills) that aid in the attainment of goals or the creation of novel ideas (Wang et al., 2014). Since coaching reputation triggers the behavioural responses of athletes, athletes will be open and show a greater desire for instruction, particularly to coaches with a reputation (Manley et al., 2014). As coaches share their knowledge, athletes are encouraged to also share their knowledge which builds synergy within the team (Owens and Hekman, 2016) and the backing of the coach leadership forms and influences a supportive knowledge sharing culture within the team (Fathi et al., 2011).

Based on the social learning perspective, athletes may emulate the coach’s knowledge sharing behaviours and replicate these behaviours with other athletes (White and Rezania, 2019). As knowledge sharing occurs the synergetic collaboration within the team helps build the athlete’s ability to create and apply originality (Fathi et al., 2011).

However, some factors need to be present for knowledge sharing to occur; the value of the source of knowledge, the transmission of knowledge, communication means, and the capacity and willingness of the recipient to absorb the knowledge being shared (Wu and Zhu, 2012). Knowledge sharing widens the athlete´s skill set while providing reasoning that aids in the creation of novel solutions (Walter et al., 2015). These discussions indicate that knowledge sharing mediates between a coach’s reputation and an athlete´s creativity. Based on the existing literature, the following hypothesis has been developed.

H2.

Knowledge sharing facilitates the coach’s reputation and athletes’ creativity.

2.5 Openness to experiences

Openness to experiences is the extent to which an individual uses curiosity, thinking, and imagination to create ideas, unconventional perspectives, and experiences (Soto and John, 2017). Individuals who are open to experiences are more curious and creative (Kaufman et al., 2016) and tend to be motivated to engage with the world and explore its possibilities (DeYoung, 2015). Kaufman et al. (2016) establish that openness to experiences predicts performance on divergent thinking tasks. In this case, an individual identifies numerous distinct ways to use ordinary objects. A team composed of athletes with low openness to experience traits tend to be less engaged in sharing and learning although the coach actively engages in knowledge sharing (Owens and Hekman, 2016). Furthermore, teams composed of athletes with high openness to experience traits may have elevated enthusiasm for skills and knowledge (Woods et al., 2018). Additionally, within a high openness to experience team, views from athletes with low openness to experience may lack a counteractive nature concerning the efficiency of techniques or ideas and this may build new techniques and ideas for their sporting activities (Tuan, 2020).

Athletes who are open to experiences show flexibility in thinking, and openness to diverse views, perspectives, and new experiences (Costa and McCrae, 1992), whereas athletes who are less open to experiences are less motivated and do not share or engage with knowledge proactively (Owens and Hekman, 2016). A passion for skills and knowledge is positively related to the level of openness to experiences (Woods et al., 2018). The level of openness within a team differs per athlete; however, those who try to understand other views within the team achieve a consensus on the best practices for the team.

The diversity within a team adds value to openness to experiences. Jackson (1992), explained diversity as the extent of heterogeneity within a team in terms of surface-level attributes such as age, sex, ethnicity etc. (Hicks-Clarke and Iles, 2000) and deeper-level attributes such as education, status, values, religion, and personality etc. (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). As athletes try to understand each other within a heterogeneous team, knowledge sharing occurs as the team reaches a consensus. Major et al. (2006) established a defined relationship between openness to experiences and actions, such as participation in developmental activities and the motivation to learn. This implies that teams with higher levels of openness to experiences tend to engage in knowledge sharing with their teammates.

With regard to creativity and sporting experiences, openness to participate in sports can influence creative ability since adaptability and fast thinking are required which may, in turn, translate into athlete creativity. As sports improve cognitive function, the athletes’ cognitive activity may well give rise to novel ideas and new connections (Bowers et al., 2014). This means athletes with a low level of openness to experience are susceptible to embracing conservative views while athletes with a high level of openness to experience will be more open to innovation and ideas from their teammates. Based on the existing literature, the following hypothesis has been developed.

H3.

The relationship between coach reputation and knowledge sharing leads to athlete creativity and is enhanced by openness to experiences.

3. Research methods

3.1 Hypothetical model

Figure 1 presents the proposed hypothetical model for the study. The influence of athlete creativity may be due to the coach’s reputation as presented through the leadership behaviour. For reputational information to have an influence, knowledge sharing may be employed as the means of influence. The model also indicates that, for the process of influence to be complete, athletes need to be open to experiences. An empirical analysis was conducted among athletes to test the proposed hypothetical model based on the stream of research on leadership influence on athlete performance (Wang et al., 2018) as well as a focus on athlete creativity (Hüttermann et al., 2019) within team sports.

3.2 Sample and survey method

The research context of this study was team sports. Nonprofessional teams are springboards for athletes to develop their talents and interests, while professional teams engage in sports tournaments all year round such as the Austrian Bundesliga or English Premier League. Creativity is encouraged within both professional and nonprofessional teams because of its impact on improving a team’s performance (Ratten, 2018). Although nonprofessional sports are less competitive than professional sports, the increase in professionalism at lower levels of competition requires consistent improvement in athletic performance (Bormann et al., 2016).

Even though there are a multitude of sports teams globally, access to athletes is a bureaucratic process; hence, the snowball sampling method was adopted because it offers a feasible advantage in gathering data from phenomena that are difficult to observe (Johnson, 2014). Research participants (athletes) were asked to assist in identifying other potential athletes. The use of snowball sampling is not new to quantitative research in the sports industry (Pfister and Radtke, 2009; Webb et al., 2016). Additionally, we employed convenience sampling where we browsed the web pages of sports team associations to compile a database of teams and contacted the teams directly, seeking permission to survey their athletes. Teams interested in participating scheduled an appointment for data collection or shared the link to the questionnaire through the team’s internal platforms such as WhatsApp or Slack. Athletes below the age of 18 were asked to get the approval of their legal guardians or parents before completing the questionnaire.

Although there was an over-sample of male athletes, female athletes represent about 40% of all sports participants (Connley, 2021). Our over-sampling ensured the data represents the real-world population distribution of athletes where male athletes are the majority in many sports. Despite our sample attempting to implement real-world population distribution of athletes, our gender analysis found no significant differences among both male and female athletes.

Before the questionnaire was answered, an informational section detailing the goals and importance of the research was made available, and questions could be asked directly if the data were taken on-site or an email address was made available to receive and answer all questions. Data were collected between January 2023 and July 2023, and took the respondents approximately 15–25 min to complete the questionnaire. A total sample of n = 203 was collected using the survey.

3.3 Questionnaire design

The questionnaire used for this study was developed based on already validated scales from previous studies. The 5-point Likert scale was employed in the questionnaire, such that respondents were asked to rank a statement from (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The questionnaire gathered sociodemographic information on gender, age, educational level, duration at the club, sports professionalism, and income earned from sports. These variables, as reported in previous research, influence an individual’s attitudinal and behavioural responses (Fu and Deshpande, 2014). Education develops a person’s arsenal of knowledge (Mbise, 2013) which in turn, influences creative behaviour (Amabile, 1988).

Coach reputation was measured by Zinko et al. (2016) on a twelve-item scale (Example: “The coach is known to be an expert in his/her area”) while the coach’s leadership behaviour was measured by Chiu et al. (2016) Leadership Scale for Sport a 25-item scale. Soto and John’s (2009) fifteen-item scale was used to measure athlete´s openness to experiences and van den Hooff and de Leeuw van Weenen (2004) fourteen-item scale was used to measure athlete´s knowledge sharing. We adapted Soto and John (2009) which was based on The Big Five Inventory specifically from the extraversion and openness scoring scale. Additionally, athlete creativity was measured with a thirteen-item scale adapted from Zhou and George (2001). The scale was initially designed for office employees and adapted to the sporting context. Example: “suggests new ways of performing work tasks” was adapted to “suggest new ways to perform sports tasks”.

The survey was conducted according to the Ethics Guidelines provided by the Review Board of the Department of Sport Science at the University of Innsbruck. The researchers carefully considered whether the study could cause potential harm to anyone involved but did not identify any possible ill effects of the study. Participants were assigned randomly generated codes and no personal information was asked meaning, the data collected cannot be directly associated with any participant. Data collected were made accessible to the researchers for analysis purposes only and saved in a secure folder which ensures the confidentiality of the participants. The questionnaire was available to the authors upon request.

3.4 Data analyses

The study used structural equation modelling (SEM) to analyse the relationship between coach reputation and athlete creativity. SEM allowed us to validate the proposed hypothetical model by examining how the variables are interrelated and how well they fit the observed data. Since SEM is confirmatory, our proposed hypothesis could be tested specifically which helps to reduce issues related to overfitting and data dredging (Deng et al., 2018). Additionally, SEM is reported to perform better than traditional multivariate techniques since SEM can be estimated and tested by the formal specifications of the model and the direct assessment of measurement error (Deng et al., 2018). All analyses were conducted with IBM SPSS AMOS 29 (IBM, 2022).

4. Results

4.1 Demographic characteristics

Data were analysed from a total of 203 respondents. 64.53% were male and 35.47% female; the youngest participants were 12 years old and the oldest was 51 years old with the standard deviation (SD) of the sample age being 7.18. All participants were active athletes at the time of data collection with the majority from the DACH regions of Austria (n = 142) and Germany (n = 41). Of the total sample of 203 respondents, 106 were amateur athletes, 63 were semi-professional athletes and 34 were professional athletes (See Table 1).

4.2 Measurement model

The model fit assessment for the study was performed with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with a focus on fit indices such as Chi-square divided by Degree of Freedom (CMIN/DF), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI).

The hypothesised model was a suitable fit since the incremental fit indices were closer to 1 and the data were as follows (χ²/df = 2513.661/1461 = 1.721, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.0685, IFI = 0.849, TLI = 0.839, CFI = 0.847). Additionally, the construct reliability and validity assessment was performed. Although AVE was less than 0.05 for some constructs, this is not uncommon in exploratory research or with new measures. We accessed convergent validity as long as the construct reliability (CR) was greater than AVE and construct reliability (CR) was more than 0.7, AVE is accepted in the measurement model despite being lower than 0.5 (Field, 2013). The model fit indices offer insightful information on the model fit for the data, with the rule of thumb being over 0.9. However, while our values are below the commonly accepted threshold for a good fit, they are approaching the threshold, we considered them acceptable due to the complexity of the model, the nature of the data, the research context and the size of the sample (Knoke, 2005). Also, we considered multiple indices (RMSEA, SRMR) in our analysis to provide a more comprehensive understanding by measuring various aspects of the model fit (Kang and Ahn, 2021) (See Table 2).

4.2.1 Model validity measures

4.3 Structural equation model results

All three proposed hypotheses indicated a significant and positive relationship. Hypothesis 1: Coach reputation indicated a significant and positive relationship with athlete creativity (p = 0.003) which demonstrates that coach reputation is significantly and positively related to the creativity of athletes. Hypothesis 2: Knowledge sharing indicated a significant and positive relationship with athlete creativity (p = 0.009) which demonstrates that variable knowledge sharing facilitates creativity among athletes. Hypothesis 3: Openness to experiences indicated a significant and positive relationship with knowledge sharing (p = 0.002) which demonstrates that coach reputation and knowledge sharing are enabled by openness to experiences (See Table 3).

5. Discussion

The results of this study established the correlation between a coach´s reputation and the development of an athlete´s creativity. The correlation was enhanced via knowledge sharing and openness to experiences. Coach reputation influences the creative development of an athlete, with knowledge sharing and openness to experiences being the means of influence.

5.1 Implications

Our study contributes to the literature by investigating the coach’s reputation for the creative development of athletes within team sports which is understudied (Manley et al., 2014; Ratten, 2018). Moreover, our study contributes to the insights of personal reputation literature by establishing the merit of coach reputation in the development of athlete creativity within team sports. Traditionally, research within the sports management literature has focused on widespread leadership concepts such as authentic leadership (Crossan et al., 2021; Mansouri et al., 2022; Paek et al., 2020) or transformational leadership (Bakker et al., 2023; Crossan et al., 2021; Donnelly et al., 2023; Lyubykh et al., 2022) as a source of athlete influence; our study adds reputational leadership to the body of research.

Creativity is encouraged within both professional and nonprofessional teams because of its impact on improving a team’s performance (Ratten, 2018). Although nonprofessional sports are less competitive than professional sports, the increase in professionalism at lower levels of competition requires consistent improvement in athletic performance (Bormann et al., 2016).

Creativity in athletes is critical for several reasons. Playing sports can be complex, requiring athletes to make quick decisions under pressure. Creative athletes devise innovative solutions and strategies that can get the better of opponents in game situations (Zahno and Hossner, 2023). Secondly, creativity contributes to improved performance through the development of unique and effective techniques; this means athletes who regularly engage in creative practice sessions tend to perform better in competitions due to their ability to introduce new elements and combinations (Roca et al., 2021). In sports such as football (soccer) or basketball, athlete creativity can improve performance scores.

Furthermore, creativity plays a significant role in maintaining motivation and engagement. Traditional, repetitive training routines can lead to boredom and burnout among athletes. Integrating creative activities and encouraging creative thinking can make training more enjoyable and mentally stimulating (Cain et al., 2021). Our study deepens the understanding of the role of knowledge-sharing in facilitating coach reputation and athlete creativity. With fewer studies on the effects of coach reputation on athlete creativity, our study fills a gap within the literature.

The results of the study suggest to the stakeholders that team sports are an avenue for creative development among athletes. Coach reputation should be a key metric in addition to other sports expert metrics when hiring a new coach. Thus, sports teams that wish to increase their efficiency should hire coaches with positive behaviours for athletes to emulate. Since the results state that athletes are triggered by the coach’s reputation, coaches need to engage in ongoing professional development by staying informed about contemporary coaching methodologies and sports science through participation in training programmes and courses as their coaching efficiency shapes their reputation. Sporting associations should include courses on building and maintaining reputation in the coaching education curriculum rather than providing just technical knowledge on sports as the data suggests reputation plays an active role in influencing athlete creativity.

Athletes form their initial expectations of a coach based on the coach’s reputation (Ferris et al., 2014) and make a greater effort and pay more attention to an experienced coach with a reputation than an inexperienced coach with little to no reputation (Manley et al., 2014). It is, therefore, vital to appoint a coach with a reputation as an initial step towards influencing the creative development of athletes. Since positive expectations have more powerful effects than negative expectations (Jussim and Harber, 2005), our findings suggest that coaches should make a conscious effort to use positive informational cues to benefit from positive expectations.

Since reputation is built on demonstrated behaviour and accomplishment over time, (Ferris et al., 2014), new coaches should be given opportunities to build their reputation by gaining more coaching experience by assisting more experienced coaches early in their career and assuming more coaching responsibility (Kavussanu et al., 2008). Experienced athletes tend to have higher expectations and demands and have a tendency to perceive inexperienced coaches as less effective (Kavussanu et al., 2008). Consequently, coaches need to communicate with athletes to understand and meet their needs and expectations, by improving their coaching skills and knowledge.

Although assisting an experienced coach can greatly have a positive effect on building a reputation, this may stifle creativity. The overreliance or pressure to adopt the established and tested methods by an experienced coach rather than trying new ideas or methods may lead to a decrease in innovation (Amabile, 1988), meaning new coaches should focus on developing a unique style or method of coaching other than duplicating a proven method (Kim and Mauborgne, 2004). Additionally, the freedom to experiment independently is essential for new coaches as creativity thrives on autonomy (Ryan and Deci, 2000). New coaches need to understand these dynamics as it will aid in the recognition of potential constraints of understudying and urge new coaches to seek diverse opportunities to innovate and develop their unique coaching style.

Unsurprisingly, athletes may place a higher value on a coach´s technical abilities than on interpersonal skills (Keatlholetswe and Malete, 2019). This reinforces the necessity to understand and meet the athletes’ needs. Additionally, coaches seeking effectiveness should focus on team building to understand strategies and yield performance (Bloom et al., 2003).

While coaching effectiveness is linked to results due to the likelihood of producing better performances, the construct has been exposed to little research (Hampson and Jowett, 2012). Understanding the sources of coaching effectiveness would have practical implications for coaches who strive to develop successful teams. Given that coaching experience predicts coaching effectiveness (Kavussanu et al., 2008), coaches who want to be effective should focus on gaining more coaching experience by assisting more experienced coaches early in their careers and assuming more coaching responsibility. On the organizational level, coaching education should focus on developing efficacy by providing coaches with the opportunity to gain more practical experience through internships and mentoring as this would enhance their practical coaching experience (Kavussanu et al., 2008).

Leader behaviours (coach behaviours) are critical mechanisms for influencing the performance of athletes since athletes emulate the demonstrated behaviours of their leaders; this creates regulatory orientation within the team which eventually influences team performance (Owens and Hekman, 2016). Thus, sports teams that wish to increase their efficiency should hire coaches with positive behaviours for athletes to emulate. Wang et al. (2018) used humility as a single factor in establishing influence on follower creativity.

The interaction experienced between coaches and athletes is the most influential within the sporting ecosystem (Davis and Jowett, 2014). The coach-athlete relationship is an interdependent social situation continuously shaped by behaviours, feelings and interpersonal thoughts of the coach and athlete (Jowett et al., 2017) and coaching effectiveness revolves around the coach-athlete relationship (Jowett and Poczwardowski, 2007). Therefore, communication within the coach-athlete relationship must be based on their commitments, duties, and responsibilities (Jowett and Poczwardowski, 2007) and an effective coach-athlete relationship is underlined by trust, stability and dependability (Trzaskoma-Bicsérdy et al., 2007).

The quality of the coach-athlete relationship is a barometer of coaching effectiveness; in a good coach-athlete relationship, both parties invest time, effort, and energy, cooperating and sharing a commitment to achieve the agreed aims and goals. A poor coach-athlete relationship lacks the cooperation, desire and commitment to achieve the agreed aims and goals (Jowett et al., 2017). The coach-athlete relationship is at the heart of coaching and priority should be placed on the needs and characteristics of the athletes rather than just the characteristics of the sports (Trzaskoma-Bicsérdy et al., 2007).

Our findings suggest that coaches should employ a knowledge sharing approach to equip athletes with timely informational resources while athletes should be willing and able to absorb the knowledge being shared. Our study advances the understanding of knowledge sharing as a facilitator of coach and athlete interaction. With that said, in the recruitment of athletes, teams should prioritise athletes who are open to experiencing new ideas and approaches to the game. Also, experienced athletes tend to have higher expectations and demands, and have a tendency to perceive inexperienced coaches as less effective (Kavussanu et al., 2008). Therefore, coaches need to communicate with athletes to understand and meet their needs and expectations by improving their coaching skills and knowledge through coaching education and experience.

5.2 Limitations

This study is not without limitations. Data were collected from athletes within team sports only, not individual sports where coach-athlete interaction might be intensive due to its individuality. Data collected from athletes reflects the perceptions of the coach’s reputation on their creative development and an alternative approach such as mixed methods should be considered in future studies. The sampling of athletes was conducted in a nonprobability way due to the difficulty and bureaucratic nature of gaining access to the athletes. As a result, snowball sampling was used which is not new to quantitative research in the sports industry (Pfister and Radtke, 2009; Webb et al., 2016).

5.3 Future research

The current study is limited to athletes within team sports, such that further studies should include athletes from individual sports and gain a coaching perspective as well. This could pave the way for comparing the differences between team sports athletes and individual sports athletes. However, this study establishes the initial study line of coach reputation and athlete creativity. Since creativity is encouraged within both professional and nonprofessional teams because of its impact on improving a team’s performance (Ratten, 2018), future studies should perform a comparative analysis of the differences between professional athletes and non-professional athletes versus coach reputation.

Also, the gender and race of the coach might be a significant area for enquiry. Coach gender influences the effects of reputation on athletes, with male coaches often being perceived as being more competent than female coaches in terms of technique and game strategy competency (Manley et al., 2010). Due to perceptions of sports being deemed as more “masculine” athletes might expect male coaches to be more competent than their female counterparts, alluding to an element of sexism within sports (Lütkewitte, 2023).

5.4 Conclusion

Our study offers insight and provides evidence that a coach’s reputation is facilitated by knowledge sharing and openness to experiences is an efficient leadership behavioural tool in influencing the creative development of athletes within team sports. Additionally, our study suggests further investigation into coach reputation to gain an enhanced understanding of the concept.

Figures

Figure 1

Proposed hypothetical model for the study

Table 1

Demographic characteristics

Demographic characteristics	Number	%
Gender
Male	131	64.53
Female	72	35.47
Age
Under 18	82	40.39
18–25	73	35.96
26–35	39	19.21
Over 35	9	4.43
Education
Still in school	80	39.41
Secondary school-leaving certificate/Junior High Diploma	11	5.42
General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)	14	6.90
A-levels/International Baccalaureate	12	5.91
University degree	42	20.69
Other school-leaving qualifications	41	20.20
Athlete Tenure
Under 2 years	76	37.44
2–5 years	64	31.53
Over 5 years	63	31.03
Coach Tenure
Under 2 years	105	51.72
2–5 years	73	35.96
Over 5 years	25	12.32
Frequency of training per week
less than 3 times a week	42	20.69
up to 4 times a week	131	64.53
up to 7 times a week	30	14.78
Sports professionalism
Professional sports	34	16.75
Semi-professional sports	63	31.03
Amateur sports	106	52.22
Sports team location
Austria	142	69.95
Germany	41	20.20
Ghana	5	2.46
Other	15	7.39

Source(s): Authors' own creation

Table 2

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	Openness to experiences	Athlete creativity	Knowledge sharing	Coach reputation (leadership Behaviour)
Openness to Experiences	0.802	0.343	0.76	0.826	0.586
Athlete Creativity	0.91	0.46	0.76	0.915	0.872***	0.678
Knowledge Sharing	0.91	0.594	0.088	0.921	0.297***	0.238**	0.771
Coach Reputation (Leadership Behaviour)	0.958	0.443	0.084	0.961	0.289**	0.269**	0.224**	0.666

Source(s): Authors' own creation

Table 3

Hypothesis	Estimate	S.E	C.R	p-value	Conclusions
Hypothesis 1: Coach Reputation (Leadership Behaviour) →Athlete Creativity	0.216	0.074	2.929	0.003*	Supported
Hypothesis 2: Knowledge Sharing → Athlete Creativity	0.247	0.095	2.595	0.009*	Supported
Hypothesis 3: Openness to Experiences → Knowledge Sharing	0.249	0.08	3.115	0.002*	Supported

Note(s): Model fit: χ²/df = 2660.562/1462 = 1.82, RMSEA = 0.064, SRMR = 0.0974,IFI = 0.828, TLI = 0.817, CFI = 0.826, p < 0.05 = ^*, n.s = not significant

Source(s): Authors' own creation

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest to disclose concerning the research, authorship and publication of this article.