Multivariate analysis of program goals, leadership style, and occupational burnout among intercollegiate sport coaches.

Ryska, Todd A.

Although sport coaches, trainers, and referees have been reported to experience relatively high levels of stress associated with their jobs, few studies have examined the development of burnout among these athletic personnel from a theoretical perspective (Kallus & Kellmann, 2000; Kelly, Eklund, & RAtter-Taylor, 1999; Price & Weiss, 2000; Raedeke, Granzyk, & Warren, 2000). For example, early studies linked occupational stress reported by athletic personnel to demographic factors such as gender (Hendrix, Acevedo, & Hebert, 2000; Kelly, 1994), type of institution (Pastore & Judd, 1993), sport type and team record (Caccese & Mayerberg, 1984), marital status and coaching experience (Kelly & Gill, 1993), multiple role conflict (Drake & Hebert, 2002), and workplace structure (Chelladurai & Danylchuk, 1984). However, stress research has established that occupational burnout is best evaluated in terms of the organizational norms and expectations operating within the work setting such as leadership style (Lobban, Husted, & Farewell, 1998), organizational commitment (Kalliath, O'Driscoll, & Gillespie, 1998), decision-making policies (Cotton, 1995), situational constraints (Jex, 1998; Jex & Beehr, 1991), and organizational climate (Johnstone & Johnston, 2005). Generally, organizational norms and expectations contribute to stress of personnel when they conflict with personnel attributes, preferences, and skills (Anderson, Cooper, & Willmott, 1996; Coverman, 1989; Revicki & May, 1989). Sport-related research using this theoretical framework has linked elevated job strain among sport coaches to leadership behaviors (Price & Weiss, 2000), feelings of entrapment (Raedeke, 2004), high work overload, and low perceived control (Vealey, Udry, Zimmerman, & Soliday, 1992). However, while leadership styles and administrative goals have been associated with occupational stress among athletic personnel, few studies have addressed the role of these factors in the development of burnout among sport coaches. This absence in the stress literature is important given that the relationship between perceived administrative requirements and interpersonal styles may explain occupational burnout better than dispositional or situational factors alone (Lazarus, 1990).

Organizational behavior research provides insight into how these two factors may influence the levels of occupational burnout experienced by sport coaches. Person-Environment (P-E) Fit theory (Caplan & Harrison, 1993; Harrison, 1978) all propose that job-related burnout largely results from the misalignment of personal occupational attributes (e.g., leadership skills/attitudes) and situational characteristics of the work environment (e.g., interpersonal resources/demands, administrative goals). The extent to which these personal attributes either facilitate or hinder the completion of occupational goals constitutes the relative P-E fit between personnel and their work setting. Excessive occupational strain typically results from a relatively high degree of P-E misfit (Harrison, 1985).

Due to the multifaceted demands of their profession, intercollegiate sport coaches may be at greater risk of stress-related reactions than personnel in other professions requiring a high degree of interpersonal interaction (Horine & Stotler, 2003; Kelly, 1994). The thrust of the occupational stress research indicates that burnout among sport coaches may, in part, result from the particular leadership styles coaches employ to achieve specific program goals. A better understanding of this interaction may benefit sport psychologists, athletic directors, and workplace counselors as they help coaches excel within their demanding profession. Thus, within the framework of P-E Fit theory the present study was designed to determine the multivariate relationship between the administrative goals, leadership styles, and various manifestations of occupational burnout reported by intercollegiate sport coaches.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The sample was comprised of 345 coaches (267 males, 78 females) from National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I programs in the sports of soccer (n = 86), tennis (n = 80), golf(n = 68), volleyball (n = 67), and baseball (n = 44). Respondents ranged in age from 26 to 64 years (M= 36.4; SD = 3.84) and represented the following ethnic origin groups: Anglo-American (n = 185, 53.6%), African-American (n = 89, 25.8%), Latino-American (n = 42, 12.2%), Asian-American (n = 23, 6.6%), and Middle Eastern-American (n = 6, 1.7%). Respondents ranged in head coaching experience at the college level from 1 to 38 years (M= 6.2, SD = 4.47).

Upon written approval by the institutional review board committee and both national and regional athletic governing bodies, packets containing cover letters, standardized instructions, and questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of head coaches generated from a published list of NCAA member programs. Sampling was stratified according to NCAA conference in order to produce a geographically representative sample of head coaches by conference. A one-time follow-up mailing secured 52.3% of the 660 surveys originally distributed. The demographic make-up of the resulting 345 coaches was proportionate to the initial sampling with regards to age, gender, ethnicity, coaching experience, and win-loss record. The sports of soccer, tennis, golf, volleyball, and baseball were chosen for inclusion in the study as they represented both coactive and interactive non-revenue sports. Finally, each survey participant was invited to request a written summary of the study results upon completion of the project.

Instrumentation

Program goals. The Scale of Athletic Priorities (SAP; Chelladurai, Inglis, & Danylchuk, 1983) was used to measure the degree to which coaches emphasized various administrative goals within their respective sport program. Each of the six subscales contains its own introductory stem and four corresponding items. Respondents rate each statement on a 7-point scale anchored by 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important). SAP subscales included 1) Entertainment- provides a source of entertainment for students, faculty, alumni, and the greater community; 2) Career Opportunities- provides athletic experiences that increase the career opportunities for athletes; 3) Public Relations- enhances relations between the school and surrounding community; 4) Athlete Personal Growth- promotes the physical, mental, and emotional development of athletes; 5) Prestige- enhances the prestige of the program, school, students, faculty, and the greater community; 6) Achieved Excellence- supports athletes in striving towards competitive sport excellence. The internal consistency and stability estimates of the SAP subscales typically range from .66 to .89 (M= .78) and .62 to .83 (M= .73), respectively (Chelladurai et al., 1983; Chelladurai & Danylchuk, 1984).

Leadership style. The Styles of Leadership Survey (SLS; Hall & Williams, 1986) was used to assess how coaches approach decision-making, problem-solving, and situational adaptation dilemmas within the context of their job-related duties. Participants responded to SLS items along a I 0-point scale ranging from 1 (completely uncharacteristic) to 10 (completely characteristic) to represent five independent factors of leadership style (i.e., Directive, Supportive, Bureaucratic, Strategic, and Collaborative). Each of the five leadership style subscales contains 12 items.

The Directive style is indicative of coaches primarily concerned with measuring organizational output as well as ensuring strict adherence to authority. This leadership style focuses on task completion and organizational purpose, and provides little consideration of the social and psychological needs of team members and support staff. Supportive style coaches seek to achieve happiness and harmony among team members and athletic personnel with little concern for organizational goals or purpose. Supportive coaches tend to view individuals within the organizational structure as vulnerable and thus needful of the coach's protection. The Bureaucratic style emphasized neither organizational purpose nor positive relationships among members but seeks to avoid risk, meet minimum job requirements, and postpone dealing with organizational conflict. Strategic coaches rely on compromise to balance the incompatibility between organizational demands and the needs of athletes and athletic personnel. This style is considered to be manipulative in that strategic coaches seemingly allow members input into decision-making yet maintain strict control over the team environment. Lastly, Collaborative style coaches value athlete and support staff involvement in organizational processes and emphasize relationships which are properly based on task issues. These coaches consider organizational conflict a natural outgrowth of interaction between involved and committed members, and take an active role in both confronting and resolving such conflict. The internal consistency and construct validity of the SLS subscales have ranged across a variety of settings from .68-.89 and .78-.85, respectively (Blake & Mouton, 1978; Hawker & Cole, 1981; Nwafor & Eddy, 1993).

Organizational burnout. The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach & Jackson, 1986) was used to determine the extent of perceived burnout reported by coaches according to the dimensions of Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Personal Accomplishment. The Depersonalization subscale is comprised of five items and represents respondents' unfeeling and impersonal attitudes towards the individuals they serve. Emotional Exhaustion is a 9-item scale that represents the feeling of being overextended and exhausted by one's workload. The Personal Accomplishment subscale contains 8 items and reflects feelings of personal satisfaction and competence concerning one's work. Relatively high scores on the Depersonalization and Emotional Exhaustion subscales correspond to greater perceived burnout, whereas high Personal Accomplishment scores reflect lower burnout. As suggested by Iwanicki and Schwab (1981), the present study utilized the frequency items of the MBI rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (everyday). Several sport studies have reported acceptable reliability and validity of the MBI among samples of high school and college coaches (Caccese & Mayerberg, 1984; Capel, 1986; Kelly, 1994; Kelly & Gill, 1993).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Basic descriptive statistics for the program goal, leadership style, and occupational burnout variables are presented in Table 1. Each measure exhibited adequate internal consistency (r [greater than or equal to] .70) (Kline, 2000). Equality of the variance-covariance matrices for coach age, gender, experience, sport, and ethnicity was supported via Box M tests with an alpha level set at [alpha] < .005, therefore all data were pooled in subsequent analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006). Multicollinearity was not present among the predictor variable set (program goals, leadership style) and criterion variable set (occupational burnout) as no zero-order correlation (rs = -.38.45) exceeded the criterion level (r [greater than or equal to] .70) established by Tabachnick and Fidell (2006). The distribution of scores on each measure appeared normal upon inspection (Kline, 2000).

Table 1 lists the percentage of scores located in the lower, middle, and upper thirds (low, moderate, high) of the possible score ranges for each variable. The sample appeared to be high in collaborative leadership style and low in both supportive and bureaucratic leadership styles. Coaches also tended to emphasize the personal growth and achieved excellence of their athletes. As a whole, the sample evidenced relatively low levels of job-related burnout, reporting low to moderate levels of both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and moderate to high levels of personal accomplishment.

Multivariate Analyses

In order to determine the multivariate relationship between the study variables, a canonical correlation analysis was employed using the means of the program goal and leadership style subscale scores and the coaching burnout subscale scores as the two linear combinations of predictor (x1) and criterion (x2) variables, respectively. The alternate hypothesis in this analysis states that the largest correlation obtainable between a linear combination of the variables in x1 and a linear combination of the variables in x2 is nonzero, that is, p1 > 0 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006). Each of the canonical correlations was tested in this manner. First, the overall multivariate relationship was significant, Wilk's Lambda = .612, F (11,330) = 4.21, p < .0001, which confirmed that the program goal and leadership style variables were related to the burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment.

A canonical analysis with likelihood ratio tests revealed two canonical correlations with the first canonical variate (rc1 = .521, p <.001) and the second canonical variate (rc2 = .437, .p <.01) contributing significantly to the multivariate relationship (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006). According to the variance overlap standard of Rc2 <. 10 established by Pedhazur (1997), CV 1 (Rc2 < .27) and CV2 (Rc2 <. 14) were significant, thus both canonical variates were used in the interpretation of the relationships among the program goal, leadership style, and burnout variables. Redundancy statistics were calculated for each of the canonical variates in order to determine the proportion of total variance in burnout that is extracted by the predictor variables. The first and second canonical variates accounted for 26.3% and 19.7% of the total variance in burnout, respectively.

Structure and scoring coefficients may depict substantially different patterns of relationships within the linear set of variables, therefore both types of coefficients should be considered when interpreting canonical results (Harris, 1989). Table 2 lists the correlations between the given original variables and the canonical variate scores on a particular function (structure coefficients) as well as the canonical weights used to formulate these canonical functions (scoring coefficients).

The first canonical variate was represented by the predictor set of strategic leadership, collaborative leadership, public relations goals, prestige goals, and the criterion set of emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment. With structure loadings of > .30 considered significant (Pedhazur, 1997), the first canonical variate indicated that coaches who emphasized public relations and prestige program goals through means of a highly strategic and low collaborative leadership style reported greater burnout in the forms of high emotional exhaustion and low personal accomplishment. With regards to the corresponding standardized beta weights (i.e., scoring coefficients), strategic leadership and public relations goals contributed most to this relationship.

The second canonical variate was represented by the predictor set of bureaucratic leadership, collaborative leadership, athlete personal growth goals, achieved excellence goals, and the criterion set of depersonalization and personal accomplishment. Coaches who used a highly collaborative, low bureaucratic leadership style in pursuing athlete personal growth and achieved excellence goals in their programs reported lower burnout in the forms of low depersonalization and high personal accomplishment. The collaborative leadership style and athlete personal growth variables best predicted these burnout dimensions.

Discussion

The adoption of an organizational behavior approach to the prediction of burnout, such as P-E fit theory, may provide a clearer picture of occupational stress reported by intercollegiate coaches. The basic premise of P-E fit theory may help to interpret the two multivariate relationships present among leadership style, organizational goals, and occupational burnout in these college coaches. The congruence, or fit, between workers and their occupational setting represents the extent to which their attributes (e.g., leadership style) meet the salient demands of the job (e.g., program goals). Those workers whose personal attributes are inadequate to meet such demands are increasingly prone to perceive their occupational setting as stressful (Cooper, 1998; Harrison, 1985).

The first multivariate relationship indicates that coaches who emphasize the pursuit of public relations and prestige goals within their sport programs, through highly strategic and lowly collaborative leadership, report greater occupational burnout. These coaches may view the attainment of public relations and prestige goals as incompatible with satisfying the needs of athletes and other personnel, and thus pursue these goals at the expense of team member input, positive task-based relationships, and resolution of program conflict. This perception is understandable when the program goals of such coaches include the promotion of a prestigious program image and the development of positive relations between the program and outside organizations. However, this type of misfit may reflect a paradox such that the more public relations and prestige goals are pursued through highly strategic and non-collaborative leadership behavior, the less likely these goals will be attained.

The second multivariate relationship indicates that coaches who report lower occupational burnout pursue the goals of personal growth and achieved excellence in their athletes through low bureaucratic and high collaborative leadership. In other words, the leadership behaviors of increasing athlete involvement in the program, developing positive task relationships, actively resolving conflict, and taking organizational risks appear to "fit" the pursuit of achieving athlete personal growth and excellence. In turn, this fit may allow coaches to 1) develop a deeper personal connection with others in their program, 2) attribute personal investment in the success of others, and 3) derive greater personal satisfaction from their jobs. These results are consistent with previous research indicating that a match between workers' personal skills and specific occupational demands evokes stress-resilient affect such as selfconfidence and positive responses to challenges (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982). Such a match might explain why highly collaborative coaches in the present study derived a greater sense of personal accomplishment (i.e., lower burnout) from helping athletes develop personal and sport-related competence.

It must be reiterated that as a whole, the present sample of college coaches did not report elevated levels of occupational burnout in the forms of high emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, or low personal accomplishment. However, while burnout was generally low among these coaches, canonical analyses revealed significant interactions between leadership style and program goals which were associated with comparatively higher burnout across the sample.

Before the variables of leadership style and organizational goals are further used to predict occupational burnout in sport-related populations, two important considerations should be addressed. First, a cross-sectional research design does not permit analysis of potential transformation in the relationships among these variables over time. For example, coach leadership behaviors are not only interdependent but may change during the pursuit of particular program goals. While it is plausible that occupational burnout results from a misfit between leadership styles and program goals, coaches may also adopt particular leadership behavior in response to stress resulting from failure to achieve certain program goals. Longitudinal research could clarify these relationships by investigating the stress-reducing effect of attaining valued program goals as well as the contributory role leadership styles play in attaining such goals. Second, although individuals tend to predominate in one leadership style across various job-related situations, sport coaches may employ different styles to achieve qualitatively different program goals. Further work should conduct leadership profiling which would indicate which leadership styles, as applied to specific organizational goals, are related to occupational burnout.

Notwithstanding these limitations, investigation of the fit between coaches' attributes and their job-related goals may provide a greater understanding of the occupational stress process within sport coaching. By design, situational approaches to the study of occupational stress fail to account for individual differences in how the occupational setting is perceived. Likewise, behavioral approaches disregard differences in the psychological meaning assigned to behavioral responses (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999). In contrast, an assessment of the fit between the person and environment acknowledges workers' perceptions of themselves and their job setting, allowing greater insight into resulting stress responses.

References

Anderson, W. J., Cooper, C. L., & Willmott, M. (1996). Sources of stress in the National Health Service: A comparison of seven occupational groups. Work & Stress, 10, 8895.

Caccese, T. M., & Mayerberg, C. (1984). Gender differences in perceived burnout of college coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 279-288.

Capel, S. A. (1986). Psychological and organizational factors related to burnout in athletic trainers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 321-328.

Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1993). Person-environment fit theory: Some history, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 253-275.

Chelladurai, P., & Danylchuk, K. E. (1984). Operative goals of intercollegiate athletics: Perceptions of athletic administrators. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 9, 33-41.

Chelladurai, P., Inglis, S., & Danylchuk, K. E. (1983). Priorities in intercollegiate athletics: Development of a scale. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 14, 32-45.

Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1984). Stress and strain from family roles and work-role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 252-260.

Cotton, J. L. (1995). Participation's effect on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of Wagner. Academy of Management Review, 20, 276-278.

Coverman, S. (1989). Role overload, role conflict, and stress: Addressing consequences of multiple role demands. Social Forces, 67, 965-982.

Drake, D., & Hebert, E. (2002). Perceptions of occupational stress and strategies for avoiding burnout: case studies of two female teacher-coaches. Physical Educator, 59, 170-183.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 85-129.

Hall, J., & Williams, M. S. (1986). Styles of Leadership Survey. The Woodlands, TX: Teleometrics International.

Harris, R. J. (1989). A canonical cautionary. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 17-39.

Harrison, R. V. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work (pp. 175-205). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Harrison, R. V. (1985). The person-environment fit model and the study of job stress. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagart (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations: An integrated perspective. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Hawker, J. R., & Cole, J. W. (1981 ). Personality correlates of various leadership styles. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwest Psychological Association, Woodlands, TX.

Hendrix, A. E., Acevedo, E. O., & Hebert, E. (2000). An examination of stress and burnout in certified athletic trainers at Division I-A universities. Journal of Athletic Training, 35, 139-144.

Horine, L., & Stotler, D. (2003). Administration of physical education and sport programs. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Iwanicki, E. F., & Schwab, R. L. (1981). A cross validation study of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1167-1174.

Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991 ). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related stress. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 9, pp. 311-364). Greenwich, CT: AI.

Johnstone, A., & Johnston, L. (2005). The relationship between organizational climate, occupational type, and workaholism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 181188.

Kalliath, T. J., O' Driscoll, M. P., & Gillespie, D. F. (1998). The relationship between burnout and organizational commitment in two samples of health professionals. Work & Stress, 12, 179-185.

Kallus, K.W. & Kellmann, M. (2000). Burnout in athletes and coaches. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 209-230). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishing.

Kelly, B. C. (1994). A model of stress and burnout in collegiate coaches: Effects of gender and time of season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 48-58.

Kelly, B. C., Eklund, R. C., & Ritter-Taylor, M. (1999). Stress and burnout among collegiate tennis coaches. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 113-130.

Kelly, B. C., & Gill, D. L. (1993). An examination of personal/situational variables, stress appraisal, and burnout in collegiate teacher-coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 94-101.

Kline, P. (2000). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology, and measurement. New York, NY: Routledge Publishing.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 168-177.

Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-13.

Lobban, R. K., Husted, J., & Farewell, V. T. (1998). A comparison of the effect of job demand, decision latitude, and supervisory style on self-reported job satisfaction. Work & Stress, 12,337-350.

Martin, J. J., Kelly, B. C., & Eklund, R. C. (1999). A model of stress and burnout in male high school athletic directors. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21,280-294.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nwafor, S., & Eddy, J. (1993). Leadership styles: A study of administrative leadership styles of senior administrators of public universities in Texas. College Student Journal, 27, 102-105.

Pastore, D. L., & Judd, M. R. (1993). Gender differences in burnout among coaches of women's athletic teams at 2-year colleges. Sociology of Sport Journal, 1 O, 205-212.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Relationships among coach burnout, coach behaviors, and athlete's psychological responses. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 391-409.

Raedeke, T. D. (2004). Coach commitment and burnout: A one-year follow-up. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 333-349.

Raedeke, T. D., Granzyk, T. L., & Warren, A. (2000). Why coaches experience burnout: A commitment perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 85-105.

Revicki, D.A., & May, H. J. (1989). Organizational characteristics, occupational stress and mental health in nurses. Behavioral Medicine, 15, 30-35.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Vealey, R. S., Udry, E. M., Zimmerman, V., & Soliday, J. (1992). Intrapersonal and situational predictors of coaching burnout. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 40-58.

Todd A. Ryska

Army Center for Enhanced Performance

Fort Hood, Texas

Address Correspondence to: Todd A. Ryska, PhD, Army Center for Enhanced Performance, Ft. Hood, TX, 76544. Phone: (254) 288-4374. Fax: (254) 288-4672. E-mail: todd.ryska@us.army.mil.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Program Goals,
Leadership Style, and Burnout Variable Sets

                                   Range            Raw Score
Variable                    Low   Moderate   High    M      SD

Program Goals
  Entertainment             23       50       27    5.26   1.33
  Career opportunities      32       43       25    2.89   0.89
  Public relations          65       23       12    4.74   1.21
  Athlete personal growth   13       44       43    5.43   1.09
  Prestige                  27       41       32    3.44   0.79
  Achieved excellence       16       35       49    4.47   0.88

Leadership Style
  Directive                 12       57       31    8.62   2.18
  Supportive                32       54       14    5.34   1.86
  Bureaucratic              45       39       16    3.85   1.02
  Strategic                 25       46       29    2.19   0.62
  Collaborative             15       43       42    7.78   2.19
Occupational Burnout
  Emotional exhaustion      24       65       11    5.84   1.61
  Depersonalization         43       39       18    2.43   0.93
  Personal accomplishment   16       52       32    3.46   1.12

Variable Sets

Variable                    Alpha

Program Goals
  Entertainment              .76
  Career opportunities       .78
  Public relations           .82
  Athlete personal growth    .85
  Prestige                   .81
  Achieved excellence        .74

Leadership Style
  Directive                  .86
  Supportive                 .80
  Bureaucratic               .76
  Strategic                  .78
  Collaborative              .83
Occupational Burnout
  Emotional exhaustion       .89
  Depersonalization          .86
  Personal accomplishment    .76

Table 2. Structure and Scoring Coefficients for the
Predictor and Criterion Variable Sets

                              Canonical        Canonical
                              Variate 1        Variate 2

Predictor Variables

Program Goals
  Entertainment              .115 (.052)      .056 (.023)
  Career opportunities       .099 (.010)      .116 (.028)
  Public relations           .823 (.411)     -.233 (-.108)
  Athlete personal growth   -.266 (-.050)     .681 (.402)
  Prestige                   .615 (.289)      .159 (.031)
  Achieved excellence        .133 (.043)      .453 (.266)
Leadership Style
  Directive                 -.173 (-.086)     .095 (.031)
  Supportive                 .089 (.011)      .114 (.038)
  Bureaucratic               .181 (-.091)    -.412 (-.262)
  Strategic                  .653 (.241)     -.066 (-.112)
  Collaborative             -.351 (-.102)     .763 (.389)

Criterion Variables

Occupational Burnout
  Emotional exhaustion       .771             .098
  Depersonalization          .158            -.505
  Personal accomplishment   -.508             .870