Author(s): HU, B., FLETCHER, D.1, JOWETT, S.1, ARNOLD, R.2, Institution: LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY, Country: UNITED KINGDOM, Abstract-ID: 2335

Sports coaches are operating in complex and fast-changing environments where the one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate. Research from diverse fields suggests that contradictory yet interrelated behaviours are desired, known as paradoxical leadership. Despite circumstantial evidence of paradoxical leadership in sport, surprisingly, systematic investigation is limited. Therefore, this study is conducted to investigate the influence of paradoxical leadership on athlete well-being and perceived performance and the mediating role of the coach-athlete relationship.
Methods
This cross-sectional study involved self-reported psychometric questionnaires with 279 athletes (male = 150, female = 129) who engaged in diverse sports (e.g., basketball, football, volleyball, athletics, shooting, gymnastics, swimming, badminton, and karate). Respondents in the 18-21 age group accounted for 70.61% of the total respondents (n = 197). The questionnaire assessed six variables: paradoxical leader behaviour, eudaimonic well-being, perceived performance, and 3Cs (i.e., commitment, closeness, and complementary) of the coach-athlete relationship. Items measuring paradoxical leader behaviour were aggregated, with higher ratings indicating that coaches had a greater ability for paradoxical behaviours. Using SPSS 29 to examine the direct and indirect effects, as well as the statistical significance.
Results
Paradoxical leadership predicted eudaimonic well-being (β = .38, p < .001), perceived performance (β = .38, p < .001), commitment (β = .42, p < .001), closeness (β = .55, p < .001), and complementary (β = .47, p < .001). Commitment, closeness, and complementary mediated the direct effect of paradoxical leadership on eudaimonic well-being with the effect size of .08 (95% CI [.03, .14]), .12 (95% CI [.06, .20]), and .10 (95% CI [.04, .17]), respectively; the 3Cs mediated the direct effect of paradoxical leadership on perceived performance, with the effect size of .14 (commitment), .22 (closeness), and .22 (complementary), and 95% CIs were [.00, .31], [.02, .46], and [.07, .41], respectively.
Discussion
The study proposed a paradoxical approach to performance enhancement. Theoretically, the study extended the literature on coaches’ leadership, offering a paradoxical perspective to examine sports leaders’ behaviour. In practical terms, coaches were suggested to recognise the positive effects of the paradoxical approach and refine their behaviours flexibly according to the circumstance in which they find themselves to improve athlete well-being, perceived performance, and the coach-athlete relationship. The dyadic relationship functioned as a mediator in paradoxical coaching, encouraging coaches to develop a quality interpersonal interaction between themselves and athletes. Overall, the study found the facilitative role of paradoxical leadership for athlete performance and highlighted the importance of the coach-athlete relationship in paradoxical coaching.