Discussion: Develop a Literature Review Draft

Discussion: Develop a Literature Review Draft ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: Develop a Literature Review Draft I’m working on a Writing exercise and need support. Develop an initial literature review draft. The literature review draft should be based on at least 10 to 12 peer-reviewed original sources within the past five years. Do not include book sources, secondary summary sources, or sources older than five years, unless the source is a peer-reviewed, original, seminal study essential for the foundational synthesis of the related research. Your literature review draft should provide an objective discussion and synthesis of the related concepts from the previous research findings, any identified contradictory concepts, and underlying related theoretical framework(s) supported by APA formatted reference citations. Discussion: Develop a Literature Review Draft Length: 8-10 pages, not including title or reference pages Your assignment should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy. This literature review is on Sports Management All article MUST BE PEER REVIEWED. All citation must be in APA format Reference Page (references must be single spaced) Please attach links or PDF of all articles used. Things to help you out https://guides.library.vcu.edu/lit-review https://www.uwb.edu/wacc/teaching/writing/reviews Attached are PDF of peer reviewed articles on the topic leading_from_the_centre_a_com.pdf advancing_leadership_in_sport.pdf investigating_the_importance_o.pdf leadership_styles_and_organiza.pdf from_classroom_to_courtside_a.pdf RESEARCH ARTICLE Leading from the Centre: A Comprehensive Examination of the Relationship between Central Playing Positions and Leadership in Sport Katrien Fransen1*, S. Alexander Haslam2, Cliff J. Mallett3, Niklas K. Steffens2, Kim Peters2, Filip Boen1 1 Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 2 School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, 3 School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia * [email protected] a11111 Abstract Research aims OPEN ACCESS Citation: Fransen K, Haslam SA, Mallett CJ, Steffens NK, Peters K, Boen F (2016) Leading from the Centre: A Comprehensive Examination of the Relationship between Central Playing Positions and Leadership in Sport. PLoS ONE 11(12): e0168150. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168150 Editor: Cheng-Yi Xia, Tianjin University of Technology, CHINA Received: June 3, 2016 Accepted: November 26, 2016 Published: December 15, 2016 Copyright: © 2016 Fransen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Funding: This research was supported by a grant from Internal Funds KU Leuven, awarded to Katrien Fransen. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The present article provides a comprehensive examination of the relationship between playing position and leadership in sport. More particularly, it explores links between leadership and a player’s interactional centrality—defined as the degree to which their playing position provides opportunities for interaction with other team members. This article examines this relationship across different leadership roles, team sex, and performance levels. Results Study 1 (N = 4443) shows that athlete leaders (and the task and motivational leader in particular) are more likely than other team members to occupy interactionally central positions in a team. Players with high interactional centrality were also perceived to be better leaders than those with low interactional centrality. Study 2 (N = 308) established this link for leadership in general, while Study 3 (N = 267) and Study 4 (N = 776) revealed that the same was true for task, motivational, and external leadership. This relationship is attenuated in sports where an interactionally central position confers limited interactional advantages. In other words, the observed patterns were strongest in sports that are played on a large field with relatively fixed positions (e.g., soccer), while being weaker in sports that are played on a smaller field where players switch positions dynamically (e.g., basketball, ice hockey). Beyond this, the pattern is broadly consistent across different sports, different sexes, and different levels of skill. Conclusions The observed patterns are consistent with the idea that positions that are interactionally central afford players greater opportunities to do leadership—either through communication or through action. Significantly too, they also provide a basis for them to be seen to do leadership by others on their team. Thus while it is often stated that “leadership is an action, not a PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0168150 December 15, 2016 1 / 19 Interactional Centrality of Athlete Leaders position,” it is nevertheless the case that, when it comes to performing that action, some positions are more advantageous than others. Introduction The presidential speechwriter James Humes once observed that “the art of communication is the language of leadership” [1]. To increase access to their audience, it is therefore common for powerful people to occupy a conspicuous position in their group. Political leaders are placed on a podium, teachers are positioned in the front of a class, and managers are seated at the head of the table. All these leaders seek out these prominent positions with the aim of maximizing their visibility and increasing their influence over other group members. Discussion: Develop a Literature Review Draft Because these positions allow leaders to engage with team members, we will refer to them as interactionally central positions (i.e., comprising a high degree of interactional centrality). In any social context, the most interactionally central position is the one that affords the greatest potential to interact with other group members (e.g., an audience, pupils, or employees). This construct will often be highly correlated with, but nevertheless differs from, what we can refer to as spatially central positions— in which a person is simply physically close to other group members (i.e., a central position on a playing field [2]). In a theatre, for example, the actors on stage will typically be interactionally but not spatially central. Organizational research studying communication networks (e.g., [3, 4]) has demonstrated that members who occupy interactionally central positions in their organization also tend to emerge as leaders (for reviews, see [5, 6]). A key reason for this is that these members are in a better position to communicate with other team members. Interactional centrality puts them in a better position to control the flow of information and to coordinate the group’s activities. Indeed, on the basis of a review of relevant research, Grusky [7] concludes that “all else being equal, the more (interactionally) central one’s location: (1) the greater the likelihood coordinative tasks will be performed, and (2) the greater the rate of interaction with the occupants of other positions.” Effective communication is vital, not only in organizations, but also in sports teams. Coaches, for example, need to demonstrate high-quality communication skills in their interactions with players, assistant coaches, club management, and media [8]. Within the team communication is also central to team effectiveness [9, 10], and here athlete leaders (i.e., athletes who occupy a leadership role) have a key role in optimizing communication flow within the team (for a review on athlete leadership, see [11]). Accordingly, an interactionally central position should benefit athlete leaders by facilitating their communication with other team members (both verbally and non-verbally). Furthermore, a central position of this form should allow athlete leaders to have more influence on the game than a peripheral position. In line with this logic, several studies of sports teams have revealed a link between athlete leadership and interactional centrality. In particular, Lee, Patridge, et al. [12] found that professional soccer players who occupied an interactionally central playing position (i.e., as a midfielder or central defender) were more likely to be given the role of team captain. Melnick and Loy [13] corroborated these findings in rugby union—observing that 35.5% of team captains occupied the two most spatially central positions (i.e., the half back and Number 8), while there was not a single captain who held one of the three most peripheral spatial positions on the field. Furthermore, the authors noted that these positions were not only spatially central (i.e., centrally located on the field), but also interactionally central in so far as they constituted the crucial link between the forwards and the backs. Similar patterns have also been observed PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0168150 December 15, 2016 2 / 19 Interactional Centrality of Athlete Leaders in baseball, where more effective leaders (based on coach ratings) tend to occupy more interactionally central field positions [14]. However, not all studies have observed this link between athlete leadership and interactional centrality. For example, Tropp and Landers [15] found that captains in female field hockey teams were less likely to play in an interactionally central position. They also found that goalies (i.e., the least interactionally central position) received the best leadership ratings. In ice hockey too no link was observed between leadership and interactional centrality [16]. However, because the sports in which these studies were conducted vary on a range of dimensions, this discrepancy might be attributable to a number of factors specific to the different contexts (e.g., the nature of the sport, the level at which it was being played, players’ sex). The Present Research The study reported below attempts to address the relationship between leadership and interactional centrality and to resolve some of the inconsistencies between findings identified in the foregoing review. It does so by addressing four limitations that are inherent to the extant literature. First, all previous studies have relied on a very specific sample. As a result, they are unable to shed light on the extent to which the importance of interactional centrality for leadership is contingent upon features of a particular sport (e.g., rugby vs. field/ice hockey), the sex of the players, or on the performance level (e.g., professional versus recreational). Discussion: Develop a Literature Review Draft More specifically, it is likely that sport-specific characteristics such as the number of players, the size and shape of the field, position specificity, and the extent to which players switch positions during the game impact upon the distribution of interactional centrality within a team. For example, in soccer (in which there are many players, a large field, and relatively fixed positions) there are considerable differences in the opportunities for communication that are available to players in central and non-central positions (e.g., to a midfielder vs. a goal keeper).Yet in other sports, such as basketball (where there are a small number of players, who dynamically switch positions during a game, and where the court is relatively small), it is easy for all players to interact with their teammates. As a result, there is less variance in the interactional centrality of different team members. By collecting samples from multiple sports, male and female teams, and different performance levels, the present research aims to gain more insight into the role that these various features play in the relationship between athlete leadership and interactional centrality. Given that group processes are assumed to be no different for male and female sport participants, we expect support for our hypotheses in both male and female teams. Relatedly, since sport-specific field positions and associated regulations do not differ across performance levels (e.g., national, regional, or youth), we also expect generalized support for our hypotheses across performance levels. However, on the basis of the above reasoning, we hypothesize that: H1: Different sports will be associated with more or less variability in interactional centrality and this will be associated with stronger or weaker relationships between interactional centrality and leadership. More specifically, we hypothesize that the link between interactional centrality and leadership will be stronger to the extent that there is high variability in interactional centrality of the different players because the sport is played (a) in a large area, (b) with more players, and (c) with players occupying relatively fixed positions. This means, for example, that the relationship between interactional centrality and leadership should be stronger in soccer, rugby, field hockey and water polo than in basketball, handball, volleyball and ice hockey. PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0168150 December 15, 2016 3 / 19 Interactional Centrality of Athlete Leaders A second limitation of previous research is that it has tended to equate leadership with the role of team captain and hence focused on the interactional centrality of those who occupy this role. However, recent research points to the fact that team captains are not always perceived to be the best leaders of their team. Instead, it seems that most leadership roles are occupied by informal leaders [17]. Accordingly, in the present research, we are interested not only in the position of formal leaders (e.g., team captains), but also in the position of informal leaders. To this end, we will use social network analysis to identify the leadership quality of all players in a team (based on the perceptions of all other team members) regardless of their leader status. A third limitation of previous work is that it has been concerned with leadership a single unitary construct. However, recent research has observed that there is a range of different ways in which athletes can perform leadership with a team. In particular, Fransen, Vanbeselaere, et al. [17] distinguish between four leadership roles that athletes can occupy both formally and informally: the task and motivational leader on the field and the social and external leader off the field (for full definitions, see Table 1). Although a particular player could theoretically occupy more than one of these leadership roles, previous research indicates that these different leadership roles are often fulfilled by different members of a team [17, 18]. The present research will therefore investigate the relationship between interactional centrality and athlete leadership not only for leadership in general, but also for each of these four distinct roles. Discussion: Develop a Literature Review Draft This will allow us to compare the importance of interactional centrality for on-field and off-field leaders. Moreover, the fact that the leadership function of the social and external leader is enacted off the field, we hypothesize that: H2: Interactional centrality will be related more strongly to task and motivational leadership than to social and external leadership (H2a). Furthermore, given that team captains tend to occupy on-field rather than off-field leadership roles [17], team captains will be more likely than other players to occupy interactionally central field positions (H2b). A final shortcoming of previous research in this area is that it has focused on players’ occupation of a leadership role (i.e., as team captain), rather than on the quality of their leadership. However, having a formal leadership position is not always a good proxy for leadership quality. Accordingly, we will investigate whether having an interactionally central position is also Table 1. Four distinct leadership roles in sport (as defined by Fransen, Vanbeselaere, et al., 2014). Leadership role Definition Task leader A task leader is in charge on the field; this person helps the team to focus on our goals and helps in tactical decision-making. Furthermore the task leader gives his/her teammates tactical advice during the game and adjusts them if necessary. Motivational leader The motivational leader is the biggest motivator on the field; this person can encourage his/her teammates to go to any extreme; this leader also puts fresh heart into players who are discouraged. In short, this leader steers all the emotions on the field in the right direction in order to perform optimally as a team. Social leader The social leader has a leading role besides the field; this person promotes good relations within the team and cares for a good team atmosphere, e.g. in the dressing room, in the cafeteria or on social team activities. Furthermore, this leader helps to deal with conflicts between teammates besides the field. He/she is a good listener and is trusted by his/her teammates. External leader The external leader is the link between our team and the people outside; this leader is the representative of our team toward the club management. If communication is needed with media or sponsors, this person will take the lead. This leader will also communicate the guidelines of the club management to the team regarding club activities for sponsoring. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168150.t001 PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0168150 December 15, 2016 4 / 19 Interactional Centrality of Athlete Leaders linked to player’s perceived leadership quality. For this purpose, we will use social network analysis to establish the perceived leadership quality of every player in a team, as rated by all other team members. On this basis, we can examine whether players with interactionally central playing positions are perceived to be better leaders than those who occupy non-central positions, regardless of their formal leadership status. Moreover, given that an interactionally central field position relates to leadership on rather than off the field, we hypothesize that: H3: Interactional centrality will generally be a better predictor of the perceived quality of task and motivational leaders than of the perceived quality of social and external leaders. Methods To examine the above four hypotheses, we conducted four different studies. In Study 1, we investigated the first research question (i.e., are leaders more likely than their teammates to play in a central position?) by asking players and coaches in nine different sports to complete an online questionnaire. Studies 2, 3, and 4 were designed to answer our second research question (i.e., is interactional centrality related to leadership quality?). Here, the recruitment of complete teams (in contrast to the individual player recruitment in Study 1) allowed us to conduct social network analysis to map the leadership qualities of the whole team and link them to particular playing positions. While we investigated general leadership quality in Study 2, we went more into detail in Study 3 and Study 4 by relating playing positions to the leadership quality of players in each of the four leadership roles (i.e., task, motivational, social, and external leader). Study 4 was designed to replicate Study 3 in a different and larger sample. Procedures All studies used different samples to examine their research question. In Study 1, 8,509 players and 7,977 coaches were invited via e-mail to complete an online questionnaire; 3,193 players and 1,258 coaches replied, resulting in an estimated total response rate of 27% (i.e. 37.5% for players and 15.8% for coaches). In Study 2, 40 teams were invited via e-mail to participate, and 35 teams accepted this invitation (a response rate of 88%). In Study 3, a similar procedure led to the participation of 24 sport teams (a response rate of 77%). For Study 4, we invited 130 sport teams via e-mail, resulting in 64 teams which agreed to participate (response rate of 49%). In Studies 2, 3, and 4, a research assistant attended a training session of the participating teams, where a paper-and-pencil survey method was administered. The design of the different studies was approved by the ethics committee of KU Leuven, Belgium. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, no rewards were given, and full confidentiality was guaranteed. Data from these samples, which were part of a larger project, have been published in other research articles (e.g., [17–20]), but these related to very different research questions (in particular, playing position was not a variable of interest). Participants Study 1. The sample included 4,333 participants, who were active in eight different sports (basketball, volleyball, soccer, handball, field hockey, rugby, water polo, and ice hockey). The original data collection also included 118 korfball participants. However, because korfball is a mixed-gender sport without specific positions (i.e., each player can play every position on the court), we omitted these data from our analysis. Demographic details of all participants are presented in Table 2. In this study (and those below) we focus on the four sports that are most PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0168150 December 15, 2016 5 / 19 Interactional Centrality of Athlete Leaders Table 2. Demographics … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Start off on the right foot this semester. Get expert-written solutions at a 20% discount