MSc Sport and Exercise Psychology
PSCY 1096
Social and Cognitive Processes in Performance
Page 1 of 15
Coursework Title: Critically review the high-performance literature and suggest 2 evidenced
based ways in which sport psychologist can improve sporting environments for better
performance or well-being.
A high-performance environment (HPE) refers to the conditions in which elite athletes
operate, designed to motivate and improve athletic performance in specific sports (Jones, 2002).
Elite athletes often encounter internal and external pressure, making it essential to manage
stress and maintain optimal performance to achieve success (Harmison, 2006; Krane &
Williams, 2006). Therefore, creating an optimal HPE that supports athletes in the face of these
challenges is crucial (Woodman & Hardy, 2001). In addition, the well-being of team members
in the environment is also an essential issue (Uzzell et al., 2022). Well-being is a subjective
personal phenomenon that is based on individual values and goals, influencing people's
experiences; changes in well-being are characterised by a series of emotional, cognitive, and
behavioural indicators that are specific to each individual and are influenced by their personal
definition of well-being (Bentzen et al., 2016; Uzzell et al., 2022; Well-Being Concepts | HRQOL |
CDC, 2018). Pursuing short-term high performance may damage individuals' environmental
well-being (Barker et al., 2014). Although the well-being of athletes is also given attention, the
well-being of other team members, such as coaches, is often overlooked (Hackfort & Schinke,
2022). This has resulted in several studies finding that coaches' well-being is generally poorer in
elite sports teams (Bentzen et al., 2016, 2020; Carson et al., 2019). In elite sports, improving
performance and enhancing well-being may not be mutually exclusive, as enhancing well-being
can lead to improved performance (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016). Therefore, an HPE should not
only facilitate athletes in achieving their optimal performance but also maximise the well-being
of all team members. (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Sotiriadou & De Bosscher, 2018).
HPE models provide a general concept to sports psychologists to build an optimal HPE
practically and help them overcome the many challenges that come with it (Eubank et al., 2014;
Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jones et al., 2009; Purcell et al., 2019).
This article aims to introduce two models of HPE, analyse their advantages and limitations
Page 2 of 15
when applied to sports, and compare them. Additionally, two suggestions based on these
models will be provided, which are expected to assist sports psychologists in improving the
environment or culture in which athletes operate, thereby enhancing their performance and
well-being.
The High Performance Environment Models
The HPE model is a theoretical framework that depicts how various components interact
within a complex environment, exerting significant organisational influences on athletes' wellbeing and performance (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jones et al., 2009). The model comprises
four core components and several subcomponents, including leadership (vision, support,
challenge), performance enablers (information, instruments, incentives), people (attitudes,
behaviours, capacity), and organisational culture (achievement, well-being, innovation, internal
processes) (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jones et al., 2009). These four components interact with
one another, with leadership being the critical factor impacting all other components, making it
the model's core (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jones et al., 2009).
The HPE model has its strengths and limitations. It is crucial to evaluate it critically.
Although there is still a lack of academic data on the practical application of this model in
sports, all of its components are based on proven psychological theories (Fletcher & Streeter,
2016; Jones et al., 2009). Additionally, it has proven effective in qualitative research on elite
swimming teams (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016).
One strength of the HPE Model is that it takes a holistic approach to high performance,
addressing the physical aspects of performance and the psychological, social, and organisational
factors that can impact performance (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jones et al., 2009). Considering
all these factors, the model provides a comprehensive framework for coaches and teams to
create an environment that supports and sustains high performance.
Another notable strength of the HPE Model is its emphasis on the significance of
leadership in establishing an HPE (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jones et al., 2009). The model
Page 3 of 15
acknowledges that coaches and team leaders hold a pivotal role in shaping the team's culture
and setting the tone, thus guiding how to develop a culture that values high performance
(Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jones et al., 2009).
Furthermore, the organisational culture component of this model involves not only the
celebration of success and recognition of achievements at all levels of the organisation but also
the promotion of physical and mental health among athletes and coaches, as well as the
cultivation of a culture that values creativity, experimentation, and continuous learning
(Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jones et al., 2009). It has been demonstrated that this approach can
enhance the well-being of athletes (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Lundqvist, 2011). Moreover, this
model posits that organisational members within an HPE should be regarded as a cohesive unit
(Fletcher & Streeter, 2016). Extensive research has demonstrated that team cohesion can
enhance the well-being of not only athletes but also other members of the sports team, such as
coaches, while improving team performance (Blanchard et al., 2009; Carron, Bray et al., 2002;
Carron, Colman, et al., 2002; Gagné & Blanchard, 2007; Mach et al., 2010; Mullen & Copper,
1994; Patterson et al., 2005; Ruan & Liu, 2021). Furthermore, the leadership component of the
HPE model is based on the theory of transformational leadership (TL), which has also been
found to enhance team cohesion, thereby providing further evidence of the interconnectedness
of the sub-components within the model (Callow et al., 2009; Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jones
et al., 2009).
Despite its strengths, some potential limitations of the HPE Model must be considered. One
such limitation is its practical implementation, which may pose a challenge. The model
encompasses many subcomponents, and coaches and teams may find it overwhelming to
address them all at once. Moreover, the difficulty of addressing some subcomponents may vary,
depending on the team's available resources and support.
Another potential limitation of the HPE Model is its limited applicability in different sports
or contexts. The model was created in the context of elite team sports and may not be as
Page 4 of 15
pertinent or beneficial in individual sports or non-elite levels of competition. Furthermore, the
model may require adaptation to suit various cultural or organisational settings.
In conclusion, the HPE Model is a valuable framework for creating an HPE in sports.
However, its applicability should be critically evaluated concerning the specific team and sport
context, and appropriate adaptations made where necessary.
Another type of HPE model was created by the renowned basketball coach Phil Jackson
(Jackson, 2015; Jeffreys, 2020). It comprises five components: clear vision, challenge,
supportive, motivated and effective communication (Jackson, 2015; Jeffreys, 2020).
This model is based on the author's understanding of HPEs as a top coach in the industry,
drawing on his knowledge and experience (Jackson, 2015). Despite being an empirical product
lacking academic evidence, given the author's achievements, the model should still be taken
seriously.
The three components of this model (vision, supportive, and challenge) are similar to the
sub-components under the leadership component in the previous HPE model mentioned in this
article (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jackson, 2015; Jeffreys, 2020; Jones et al., 2009). Another
component in this model (motivated) is the same as one of the sub-components under the
Performance Enablers component in the previous HPE model (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016;
Jackson, 2015; Jeffreys, 2020; Jones et al., 2009). Therefore, it can be inferred that both models
value the impact of leadership in improving HPEs (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jackson, 2015;
Jeffreys, 2020; Jones et al., 2009). Phil Jackson’s model focuses more on leadership, which
could be attributed to the author's coaching background (Jackson, 2015). More concentrated
focus on a particular aspect often leads to more straightforward implementation. In Phil
Jackson's case, his emphasis on leadership has yielded excellent results, as he has successfully
created several HPEs (Jackson, 2015). However, this may also lead to overlooking other factors
that have an essential impact on HPEs, which could be detrimental to further improving them.
Effective communication is a component of Phil Jackson's model but was not particularly
Page 5 of 15
emphasised in the previous HPE model (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jackson, 2015; Jones et al.,
2009). Effective communication has been shown to improve performance in fields beyond
sports, and some studies suggest that it can enhance both performance and the well-being of
team members within the sports and elite sports domains (Cronin & Allen, 2018, 2015; Ishak,
2017; Lausic et al., 2009; Marlow et al., 2018; Snyder & Morris, 1984). The previous HPE
model may need to place greater emphasis on effective communication.
Finally, while this article has demonstrated that TL can increase sports team members'
sense of well-being by promoting team cohesion, and TL is proven to promote their well-being
directly, Phil Jackson’s model emphasises performance more than individual team members'
well-being (Jackson, 2015; Jeffreys, 2020; Stenling & Tafvelin, 2014).
In conclusion, applying these two HPE models to the sports field has advantages and
limitations, and their effectiveness still needs to be proven in practice.
Two Suggestions May Improve Sporting Environments
The first suggestion is to provide TL training directly to coaches and other managerial staff
to equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary for TL.
TL has been demonstrated to effectively enhance athletes' performance and sense of wellbeing in sports (Charbonneau et al., 2001; Stenling & Tafvelin, 2014; Yildirim & Koruç, 2021).
In addition, TL has been shown to enhance athletes' intrinsic motivation and self-determined
motivation, perception of competence, self-efficacy, and collective efficacy. Furthermore, TL
has been associated with higher levels of life satisfaction, cohesion, organisational citizenship
behaviour, enjoyment, positive experiences, peak performance, intrinsic satisfaction,
commitment and effort, positive affect, and team resilience (Castillo et al., 2016). It has also
been found to reduce aggression in sports (Castillo et al., 2016).
This supports the validity of the two HPE models presented in this article, emphasising
the importance of TL (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016; Jackson, 2015; Jeffreys, 2020; Jones et al.,
2009). TL can significantly enhance team performance and members' well-being in HPEs.
Page 6 of 15
Outside of the sports domain, a wealth of research has demonstrated that followers of TL
may report high levels of job satisfaction, trust and empowerment towards their leaders, selfefficacy, and team cohesion (Bass et al., 2003; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Berson & Linton, 2005;
Bono & Judge, 2003; Dvir et al., 2002; Nemanich & Keller, 2007; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004, as
cited in Jones et al., 2009). As mentioned earlier, team cohesion has been shown to enhance the
well-being of team members (Blanchard et al., 2009; Carron, Bray et al., 2002; Carron, Colman,
et al., 2002; Gagné & Blanchard, 2007; Mach et al., 2010; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Patterson et
al., 2005; Ruan & Liu, 2021). TL can also indirectly promote team members' well-being
through their perception of an innovative atmosphere (Arnold, 2017; Arnold et al., 2007;
Tafvelin et al., 2011a, 2011b). However, in the sports domain, there is currently no theoretical
or practical understanding of this impact. Adopting innovative training methods may be a
practical approach to implementing this impact.
The most direct way to enhance TL in a team is to provide the team leaders with
knowledge and skills related to TL, which can be achieved through TL training. Quantitative
research, both within and outside the sports field, has consistently shown that providing direct
training to managers can significantly enhance their TL capabilities (Kevin Kelloway et al.,
2000; Vella et al., 2013).
However, TL is not without controversy. For instance, athletes with highly narcissistic
personality traits may perceive the support and expectations of their leaders as pressure, in
which case TL may decrease their level of effort (Arthur et al., 2011). According to a
quantitative study, authentic leadership has been shown to outperform TL in enhancing athletes'
enjoyment and commitment (Malloy & Kavussanu, 2021).
In conclusion, TL training for managers such as coaches is a proven method of effectively
improving the HPEs in sports, increasing performance and well-being. Nevertheless,
practitioners must use it cautiously based on the team’s situation.
The second suggestion is to use dual management or shared leadership within the team
Page 7 of 15
(Cunliffe, 2015; Fletcher & Streeter, 2016).
Research on elite swimming teams has found that team management is decentralised rather
than centralised, and athletes are also involved in the management process (Fletcher & Streeter,
2016). This approach is shared leadership (Fletcher & Streeter, 2016).
In non-sports teams, shared leadership has significantly improved team performance
(Carson et al., 2007; Drescher & Garbers, 2016; Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Nicolaides et al.,
2014, as cited in Zhu et al., 2018).
In 2020, Fransen et al. proposed a 5R Shared Leadership Program (5RS) to help
practitioners apply shared leadership (Fransen et al., 2020). A controlled experiment involving
eight national-level basketball teams found that the 5RS enhanced athletes' leadership identity
and skills (Mertens et al., 2020). Compared to athletes under the control condition, those under
the 5RS maintained their intrinsic motivation and commitment to team goals while reporting
improved well-being (Mertens et al., 2020). Moreover, according to previous research on social
therapy, team members who strongly identify with their team also experience better health and
well-being (Haslam et al., 2016; Steffens et al., 2017, as cited in Mertens et al., 2020).
Subsequent research on sixteen high-level basketball teams confirmed this finding and showed
that the 5RS also enhances the available social support within the team, helps players maintain
positivity, and instils confidence in the team's abilities (Mertens et al., 2021).
Although the research did not find direct evidence that shared leadership improves athletes'
performance, shared leadership can enhance intrinsic motivation, mediating between TL and
athletic performance (Charbonneau et al., 2001; Mertens et al., 2020). Therefore, it is suggested
that practitioners combine shared leadership with TL training to enhance performance.
Evidence suggests that situations of high interdependence, where team members need to closely
collaborate, coordinate, and integrate their actions in team processes and emergencies, will
result in higher team performance (Barrick et al., 2007; Stewart & Barrick, 2000, as cited in
Nicolaides et al., 2014). This situation resembles elite sports teams (Bickley et al., 2016). This
Page 8 of 15
further demonstrates the potential for shared leadership to enhance athletic performance.
Shared leadership also has potential drawbacks (Zhu et al., 2018). These include its greater
complexity and time consumption compared to vertical leadership, the potential undesirability
of equal influence among team members, and the potential for negative consequences for
formal leaders (Pearce, 2004; Pearce & Conger, 2002, as cited in Zhu et al., 2018). However, a
study of sixty-four sports teams showed that coaches who utilised shared leadership were
perceived as better leaders (Fransen et al., 2020).
In conclusion, implementing shared leadership through the 5RS effectively improves HPEs
in sports, including increasing team members' sense of well-being. Furthermore, it will likely
enhance performance when implemented with TL training.
Conclusion
This article introduces an HPE model proposed by scholars, and another proposed by an
elite coach: Phil Jackson. While their scopes of focus differ, both models centre around
leadership. There are some controversies surrounding both models, and further research should
address these issues and examine the effectiveness of applying these models to sports teams.
Based on the emphasis on leadership in these two models, this article proposes two suggestions
that have been proven to effectively improve high-performance sports environments,
particularly in enhancing performance and increasing team members' well-being. They are TL
training and creating shared leadership through the 5RS. It is also suggested to combine these
two approaches.
References
Arnold, K. A. (2017). Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: A
review and directions for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
22(3), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000062
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007).
Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of
Page 9 of 15
meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193–203.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193
Arthur, C. A., Woodman, T., Ong, C. W., Hardy, L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2011). The Role of
Athlete Narcissism in Moderating the Relationship Between Coaches’ Transformational
Leader Behaviors and Athlete Motivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
33(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.3
Barker, D., Barker-Ruchti, N., Wals, A., & Tinning, R. (2014). High performance sport and
sustainability: A contradiction of terms? Reflective Practice, 15(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2013.868799
Bentzen, M., Kenttä, G., Richter, A., & Lemyre, P.-N. (2020). Impact of Job Insecurity on
Psychological Well- and Ill-Being among High Performance Coaches. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 6939.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17196939
Bentzen, M., Lemyre, P.-N., & Kenttä, G. (2016). Changes in Motivation and Burnout Indices
in High-Performance Coaches Over the Course of a Competitive Season. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 28(1), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2015.1053160
Bickley, J., Rogers, A., Bell, J., & Thombs, M. (2016). Elephant spotting’: The importance of
developing a shared understanding to work more effectively with talented but challenging
athletes. Sport Exer. Psychol. Rev, 12(1), 43–53.
Blanchard, C. M., Amiot, C. E., Perreault, S., Vallerand, R. J., & Provencher, P. (2009).
Cohesiveness, coach’s interpersonal style and psychological needs: Their effects on selfdetermination and athletes’ subjective well-being. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(5),
545–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.005
Callow, N., Smith, M. J., Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, J. (2009). Measurement of
Transformational Leadership and its Relationship with Team Cohesion and Performance
Page 10 of 15
Level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 395–412.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200903204754
Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(2), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404102317200828
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in
sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24(2), 168–188.
Carson, F., Malakellis, M., Walsh, J., Main, L. C., & Kremer, P. (2019). Examining the Mental
Well-Being of Australian Sport Coaches. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4601. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234601
Castillo, I., Balague, G., Álvarez, O., & Molina-García, V. (2016). Transformational leadership
on the athletic field: An international review. Revista de Psicología Del Deporte, 25(2),
319–326.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational Leadership and
Sports Performance: The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation1. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 31(7), 1521–1534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02686.x
Coyle, D. (2018). The culture code: The secrets of highly successful groups. Bantam.
Cronin, L. D., & Allen, J. (2018). Examining the relationships among the coaching climate, life
skills development and well-being in sport. International Journal of Sports Science &
Coaching, 13(6), 815–827.
Cronin, L. D., & Allen, J. B. (2015). Developmental Experiences and Well-Being in Sport: The
Importance of the Coaching Climate. The Sport Psychologist, 29(1), 62–71.
https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0045
Cunliffe, M. (2015, January 14). Building a high performance environment: The way the
athletes do it. Linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/building-high-performanceenvironment-way-athletes-do-matthew
Page 11 of 15
Eccles, D. W., & Tenenbaum, G. (2004). Why an Expert Team Is More than a Team of Experts:
A Social-Cognitive Conceptualization of Team Coordination and Communication in Sport.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26(4), 542–560.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.4.542
Eubank, M., Nesti, M., & Cruickshank, A. (2014). Understanding high performance sport
environments: Impact for the professional training and supervision of sport psychologists.
Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 10(2), 30–37.
Fletcher, D., & Streeter, A. (2016). A Case Study Analysis of a High Performance Environment
in Elite Swimming. Journal of Change Management, 16(2), 123–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1128470
Fransen, K., Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., Peters, K., Mallett, C. J., Mertens, N., & Boen, F.
(2020). All for us and us for all: Introducing the 5R Shared Leadership Program.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51, 101762.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101762
Fransen, K., Mertens, N., Cotterill, S. T., Vande Broek, G., & Boen, F. (2020). From Autocracy
to Empowerment: Teams with Shared Leadership Perceive their Coaches to be Better
Leaders. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 32(1), 5–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2019.1617370
Gagné, M., & Blanchard, C. (2007). Self-determination theory and well-being in athletes: It’s
the situation that counts.
Hackfort, D., & Schinke, R. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge international encyclopedia of sport
and exercise psychology. Volume 2: Applied and practical measures / edited by Dieter
Hackfort, Robert J. Schinke (First issued in paperback). Routledge.
Harmison, R. J. (2006). Peak performance in sport: Identifying ideal performance states and
developing athletes’ psychological skills. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
37(3), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.37.3.233
Page 12 of 15
Ishak, A. W. (2017). Communication in sports teams: A review. Communication Research
Trends, 36(4), 4–38.
Jackson, P. (2015). Eleven Rings. Virgin Books.
Jeffreys, I. (2020). Contextology–is this a new approach to effective coaching? Professional
Strength and Conditioning, 56, 25–34.
Jones, G. (2002). Performance excellence: A personal perspective on the link between sport and
business. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(4), 268–281.
Jones, G., Gittins, M., & Hardy, L. (2009). Creating an environment where high performance is
inevitable and sustainable: The high performance environment model. Annual Review of
High Performance Coaching and Consulting, 1(13), 139–150.
Kevin Kelloway, E., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. (2000). Enhancing transformational leadership:
The roles of training and feedback. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
21(3), 145–149.
Krane, V., & Williams, J. (2006). Psychological characteristics of peak performance. Applied
Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance, 5, 207–227.
Lausic, D., Tennebaum, G., Eccles, D., Jeong, A., & Johnson, T. (2009). Intrateam
Communication and Performance in Doubles Tennis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 80(2), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2009.10599563
Lundqvist, C. (2011). Well-being in competitive sports—The feel-good factor? A review of
conceptual considerations of well-being. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 4(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2011.584067
Mach, M., Dolan, S., & Tzafrir, S. (2010). The differential effect of team members’ trust on
team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 771–794. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X473903
Page 13 of 15
Malloy, E., & Kavussanu, M. (2021). A comparison of authentic and transformational
leadership in sport. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(7), 636–646.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12769
Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018). Does team
communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team
communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 144, 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001
Mertens, N., Boen, F., Steffens, N. K., Cotterill, S. T., Haslam, S. A., & Fransen, K. (2020).
Leading together towards a stronger ‘us’: An experimental test of the effectiveness of the
5R Shared Leadership Program (5RS) in basketball teams. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 23(8), 770–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.01.010
Mertens, N., Boen, F., Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Bruner, M., Barker, J. B., Slater, M. J., &
Fransen, K. (2021). Harnessing the power of ‘us’: A randomized wait-list controlled trial
of the 5R shared leadership development program (5RS) in basketball teams. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 54, 101936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101936
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance:
An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210.
Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., &
Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal,
and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 923–942.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.06.006
Patterson, M. M., Carron, A. V., & Loughead, T. M. (2005). The influence of team norms on
the cohesion–self-reported performance relationship: A multi-level analysis. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 6(4), 479–493.
Page 14 of 15
Purcell, R., Gwyther, K., & Rice, S. M. (2019). Mental Health In Elite Athletes: Increased
Awareness Requires An Early Intervention Framework to Respond to Athlete Needs.
Sports Medicine - Open, 5(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-019-0220-1
Ruan, Z., & Liu, W. (2021). Coach authentic leadership connected with performance
satisfaction and psychological well-being of team: The mediating role of team cohesion
and psychological capital. Revista de Psicología Del Deporte (Journal of Sport
Psychology), 30(1), 189–203.
Snyder, R. A., & Morris, J. H. (1984). Organizational communication and performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.461
Sotiriadou, P., & De Bosscher, V. (2018). Managing high-performance sport: Introduction to
past, present and future considerations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 18(1), 1–
7. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2017.1400225
Stenling, A., & Tafvelin, S. (2014). Transformational Leadership and Well-Being in Sports:
The Mediating Role of Need Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26(2),
182–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2013.819392
Tafvelin, S., Armelius, K., & Westerberg, K. (2011a). Toward understanding the direct and
indirect effects of transformational leadership on well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 480–492.
Tafvelin, S., Armelius, K., & Westerberg, K. (2011b). Toward understanding the direct and
indirect effects of transformational leadership on well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 480–492.
Uzzell, K. S., Knight, C. J., & Hill, D. M. (2022). Understanding and recognizing highperformance swimmers’ well-being. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 11(1),
12–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000284
Page 15 of 15
Vella, S. A., Oades, L. G., & Crowe, T. P. (2013). A pilot test of transformational leadership
training for sports coaches: Impact on the developmental experiences of adolescent
athletes. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 8(3), 513–530.
Well-Being Concepts | HRQOL | CDC. (2018, November 5). Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/wellbeing.htm
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2001). A Case Study of Organizational Stress in Elite Sport.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(2), 207–238.
https://doi.org/10.1080/104132001753149892
Yildirim, S., & Koruç, Z. (2021). The Effect of Transformational Leadership and Well-Being
on Performance of Soccer Players: An Inclusive Model. The Sport Psychologist, 35(4),
261–269. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2020-0064
Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art
review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 834–852.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2296
Page 16 of 15