26 KINESIOLOGIASLOVENICA 1995; 2 (1): 26-32 
THE PROBLEM OF LEADERSHIP 
IN BASKETBALL 
Zrinka Lučič* 
Nataša Viskič-Štalec* 
Zoran Žugič* 
PROBLEM LIDERSTVA V KOŠARKI 
ABSTRACT 
A classical sociometric measurement of the mem-
bers of a basketbal I team has been carried out on two 
generations. Each member of the team had to name 
an unlimited number of team-mates according to 
two choice criteria of emotional type and two of 
functional type. A method was adopted that is ana-
logous to metric multidimensional scaling with an 
oblique transformation of the initial dimensions. 
The first generation gave two and the second five 
taxonomic dimensions that differentiate the players 
according to the used choice criteria. The resu lts 
confirm the known fact on the change of individual 
status within the group due to changes in group 
membership. 
Key words: microsociology, sociodynamics, basket-
ba/1, juniors, multidimensional scaling 
• Faculty of Physical Education, University of Zagreb, Croatia 
IZVLEČEK 
Z uporabo klasične metode je bilo opravljeno so-
ciometrijsko merjenje članov nekega košarkaškega 
moštva skozi dve generaciji . Vsak respondent je smel 
imenovati neomejeno število soigralcev na osnovi 
dveh kriterijev izbire emocionalnega tipa in dveh 
funkcionalnega tipa. Uporabljena je metoda, ki je 
analogna metričnemu multidimenzionalnemu skali-
ranju, s poševnokotno transformacijo osnovnih di-
menzij . 
V prvi generaciji sta dobljeni dve, v drugi pa pet tak-
sonomskih dimenzij, ki razlikujejo igralce glede na 
uporabljene kriterije izbire. Rezultati potrjujejo poz-
nano resnico o spremembi individualnega statusa 
znotraj skupine, v primeru spremembe članov 
skupine. 
Ključne besede: mikrosociologija, sociodinamika, 
košarkaši, juniorji, multidimenzionalno skaliranje 
Znnka Lučič, Nataša Viskič-Štalec, Zoran Žugič 
THE PROBLEM OF LEADERSHIP IN BASKETBALL 
1. INTRODUCTION 
The mi ero-social structure of sports groups plays a 
significant role in the successfulness of the team. 
Namely, the successfulness of the team does not 
depend only on the fact that it consists of the best 
individuals, but also on the best possible interaction 
between them. A successful social integration of the 
team members, coaches and team management 
enables the team to achieve stable results in tirne 
and, at the same tirne, a higher tolerance towards 
frustration. Ali this is especially true for top sports 
teams. Therefore the knowledge on group dynamics 
should become an integral partof the programming 
and control of training in sport. 
The relation between the formal and the informal 
structure of the group can have a crucial character 
for the team's success. Of course, the specificities of 
the individual sport or kinesiological activity play a 
significant part in all of this. 
The resu lts presented here deal with two generations 
of a basketball team, which both placed first in their 
competition level. Therefore it was of interest to 
analyse the micro-social structure in such teams 
taken as whole entities and also to analyse what 
happens with those players that were present in both 
generations. This means checking if their position in 
the team changes in accord with the change in the 
team's membership, i.e. with the partingand coming 
of team players. 
When the matter of studying micro-social groups 
and their dynamics is discussed, two questions on 
the reasons and needs for such research can be 
posed. The first is, why study small groups and the 
second why study (small) sports groups. 1 n answer to 
the firstquestion the following reasons might be sta-
ted: pragmatic, socio-psychologic, sociologic and 
comparative (Mills, 1967). In answer to the second 
question, four valid reasons can be given (Schafer, 
1966) for their research, as sports groups have com-
mon structural characteristics favourable for gener-
alisation. The first reason is, thatthe sports group is a 
"natural" group and not an artificial one, or even a 
" laboratory" group. The second reason deals w ith 
the possibility of keepingthe variables that represent 
the constant of group's micro-structure (size of the 
group, structure of roles, rules of conduct) under 
control. The th i rd reason is in the existence of a com-
mon goal, in the realisation of which we can monitor 
the development of the relations of competitiveness, 
homogenisation or conflict, outside the group or 
within the group. And at the end, studies of sports 
groups enable exact measuring of group effects, 
w hich can be quantified, seldom so well in anyother 
27 
kind of group, for example in terms of the number 
of committed errors, number of lost or gained balls, 
etc. 
An overview of the existing literature according to 
this criterion leads to the following conclusions: 
works that belong to the functional istic theories deal 
with the relation sportsman-coach, tryingto give this 
relation a widersocial-system frame (Hendry, 1973), 
or deal with the identification of methodological 
problems that emerge when one studies small 
groups in sport with functional and social structural 
analysis (Luschen, 1986). Fram the olderworks, one 
should point to those that study the relations 
between certain situational variables of competition 
and success and problems of group conformity 
(Myers, 1962). While doing so, the psychological 
and sociological variables are brought into balance, 
combining: personal aspirations of the players, their 
sociometric structure, cohesiveness and motivation 
in order to find an ideal team - in this case the ideal 
five in basketball (Klein, Christiansen, 1966, - all 
cited according to Petrovic, 1973). 
In works that belong to theories of (symbol ic) inter-
actionism the problems in small groups in sport are 
treated above ali in relation captain-the other pla-
yers, i.e. the problem of leadership, the nature of 
bringingaboutthe decisions in the group (Fine, 1986 
and Kjeldsen, 1981 ), the role of the coach in relation 
to the result expectations from the spectators 
(Snyder and Spreitzer, 1979), or even the influence 
of the social structure on the inter-personal commu-
nication in top female basketball teams (Koehler, 
1982). 
In the case of authors that belonged, or sti li do, to 
marxist theory and its various variants, they mostly 
analysed the influence of co-operation, both on the 
leve! of individual-technical quality, and the moral-
psychological criteria, on the successfu lness of sta te 
selections, or the influence of functional correlation 
on the cohesiveness of the group. In a similar way 
they also studied the influence of forma! and infor-
mal leaders in basketball on the relations in the 
group and the succes~fulness of the group (Volkov, 
1967; Stawiarski and Zarek, 1968; Mutafova, 1969 
- ali cited according to Petrovic, 1973). 
To this theory belong also a whole series of studies 
by authors who enriched the methods for observi ng 
interpersonal relations with sociometric methods 
and data on the influence of the micro-social status 
on motivation, values, leve! of aspiration of the pla-
yers and team management, differences in the ap-
proaches to the game covnditioned by generation dif-
ferences etc. (Petrovic, Siftar, 1970 and 1971, cited 
28 
by Petrovic, 1973; Šnajder, 1984; Šnajder and 
Hošek, 1985). 
Fu rther development of m icro-social research in the 
field of socio-dynamics of sports groups will to a large 
extent be made by the redefinition of the strategic 
interests in theoretical foundations, both by general 
sociology, as well as by sport sociology. It seems that 
the greatest obstacle in the development of general 
sociology, but also its special disciplines among 
wh ich we can cou nt also the sociology of sport, is the 
non-existence of a "general theory" . 
This situation has two interpretations among the 
researchers: some experience this asa lack which 
causes general discomfort and uncertainty in the 
operationalisation of the individual tasks, while 
others do not bu rden themselves with it. Therefore, 
while on one side it is felt that it is high tirne to bring 
some order into the great "conceptual and theore-
tical chaos" which is the direct consequence of the 
non-existence of an all-encompassing "mega theo-
ry", on the other, it is felt that the plurality of theo-
retical paradigms in sociology is not only a fact, but 
also a desired state which promotes a diversification 
of possible research approaches. 
Th is change, i .e. the sh ifti ng and concentrati ng of the 
focus from macro-sociological approaches towards 
a, provisionally named, "individualistic sociology" is 
specially needed in those places where they are 
trying to free themselves - from a general point of 
view- the experience of a monistic approach of the 
marxisttheory. Thisshiftshould bringthe researchers 
freedom from the frustrations caused asa result of 
the domination of one ideological and theoretical 
orientation and enable the application of different 
approaches. 
The growth of " theoretical pluralism" will facilitate 
the acceptance of those approaches that favour the 
developmentof disciplines such a sociology of sport. 
We see its perspective precisely in the orientation to-
wards theoretical approaches which facilitate the 
development of "individualistic sociology", such as 
symbolic interactionism and neo-interactionism and 
their different derivations: phenomenological ori-
entations and especially "ethno-methodology" (Čal ­
darovic, 1990). In this way a connection might final -
ly be made with the relevantglobal researches in the 
field of micro-sociology and specially also the soci-
ology of sport. 
The aim of this paper is not so much to point at the 
need for studies on sports groups, because this is 
considered after forty years' research in this field no 
longer a d ilemma, but rather to show current limita-
Zrinka Lučič, Nataša Viskič-Štalec, Zoran Žugič 
THE PROBLEM OF LEADERSHIP IN BASKETBALL 
tions and new approaches in micro-social research. 
In short, we see a possibility for a perspective 
research of sports groups in two directions: first, in 
generating a conceptual framework, which by ad-
mission of several leading theoreticians of the soci-
ology of sport (Loy, McPherson, Kenyon, 1978) stili 
does notexist, and second; in the removal of the till 
now noted shortcomings in the methodology of 
empirical research. Also, one should at the same 
tirne combine the existing research procedures, 
without regard to their conceptual origin (Adorno, 
Horkheimer, 1980). 
METHODS 
This study was carried out on members of a junior 
basketball team through two generations. In one, 
thirteen players were invo lved, in the other seven-
teen. 
Both generation players were treated with the clas-
sical method of sociometric measurement, that is the 
players were asked to name an unlimited number of 
co-players accord i ng to a certai n criterion. Four cri-
teria of selection were used, two were of emotional 
type and two of functional type, formulated as 
attraction i.e. provoking positive tendencies. The 
nominations of the co-players were made by the fol-
lowing questions: 
(1) Name those players with whom you would like 
to share a room during trainingaway from home. 
(2) Name those players you would confide in, if you 
had intimate problems. 
(3) Name those players you like to co-operate with 
during the game. 
(4) Name those players whom you think able to be 
the captain of the team. 
The analysis of the micro-social structure of a group 
of entities obtained on the basis of data on multiple 
choosing was performed by a method analogous to 
the method of metric multidimensional scaling (with 
an oblique transformation of the kept dimensions). 
The analysis was performed in the space of entity 
vectors, where each entity that performed a choice 
according to a certain criterion was treated asa se-
parate variable and each chosen entity (by any mem-
ber, including himself and according to any criteri-
on) asa separate entity. The number of dimensions 
was determined in such a way as to reproduce as 
much information included in the data matrix, as 
there is information emitted by dimensions with an 
above-average non-centered variance. The starting 
matrix for determining the initial orthogonal solution 
was the matrix of the scalar products of the entities' 
vectors. 
Zrinka Lučič. Nataša Viskič-Štalec. Zoran Žugič 
THE PROBLEM OF LEADERSHIP IN BASKETBALL 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
Table 1 a 
SCALAR PRODUCTS OF VECTORS OF 1. GENERATION PLAYERS 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
1 9 
2 1 10 
3 3 7 28 
4 o o 3 4 
s o 1 2 o 5 
6 4 8 25 4 3 31 
7 4 7 18 o 2 19 23 
8 6 1 2 o o 3 3 7 
9 1 3 4 o o s 3 o 
10 3 3 4 o o s 5 3 
11 3 3 15 1 1 15 11 3 
12 1 2 9 o 1 8 7 1 
13 2 6 11 2 1 13 12 2 
Table 1 b 
SCALAR PRODUCTS OF VECTORS OF 2. GENERATION PLAYERS 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
1 6 
2 1 7 
3 o o 7 
4 o 2 o 23 
s 1 1 3 1 6 
6 2 1 o 8 o 21 
7 o o o 1 o 2 6 
8 2 o 1 6 o 6 1 16 
9 1 o 1 1 1 1 o 2 5 
10 2 o o 2 o 4 o 1 1 8 
11 o 2 1 4 o 6 1 6 1 o 
1 2 o 1 o 2 o o o 1 o 1 
13 o 1 2 3 1 5 o 5 1 1 
14 o o 1 o o o 3 o 2 o 
15 o o 1 1 2 1 9 1 5 o 2 
16 1 4 o 8 2 7 3 1 1 3 
17 1 4 o 2 o o o o o o 
Table2 a 
1. GENERATION PLAYERS 
LAMBDA PROPORTION 
O F VARIANCE 
1 94.40265 0.52446 
2 17.6 2961 0.09794 
3 14.38342 0.07991 
Table2 b 
2. GENERATION PLAYERS 
LAMBDA PROPORTION 
OFVARIANCE 
1 55.1877 0.29046 
2 23.4972 0.1 2367 
3 16.3487 0.08605 
4 14.761 23 0 .07769 
5 11 .29360 0 .05944 
6 10.72324 0.05644 
7 9.05589 0.04766 
29 
9 10 11 12 13 
7 
6 10 
o 1 19 
1 1 7 11 
2 2 7 1 16 
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 
6 
o 6 
6 o 11 
o 3 o 1 6 
3 1 3 1 20 
1 4 o o 7 19 
2 o 1 o o 1 8 
CUMMULATIVE 
0.52446 
0.62240 (last sig. val ue) 
0.70231 
CUMMULATIVE 
0.29046 
0.41413 
0.50018 
0.57787 
0.6373 1 (lastsig. value) 
0 .69375 
0.741 41 
30 
Table 3 a 
COORDINATES OF 1. GENERATION PLAYERS 
A OBL 1 OBL2 
1 • 0.64 1.25 
2 • 0.53 -0.19 
3 • 3.88 1.05 
4. 0.51 1.66 
s • 0.55 2.38 
6 1.39 1.31 
7 4.97 -0.37 
8 o.so -0.09 
9 5.13 0.33 
10 0.51 1.02 
11 3.52 - 1.49 
12 1.98 -0.98 
13 2.47 1.14 
Table 3 b 
COORDINATES OF 2. GENERATION PLAYERS 
A OBL 1 OBL2 OBL3 OBL4 OBLS 
1 • 0.13 1.70 1.22 -0.37 -0.42 
2. -0.24 -0.06 0.68 0.38 0.1 5 
3. -0.49 0.00 0.83 1.02 0.24 
4. 0.01 -0.06 1.27 -0.61 0.49 
s . 0.16 -0.05 4.01 0.33 O.OS 
6. --0.77 0.00 0.84 0.16 0.73 
7. -0.38 --0.09 o.so --0.67 1.42 
8. 4-45 0.45 0.25 -0.33 o.os 
9. --0.25 -0.11 1.05 -0.78 0.98 
10 0.06 0.15 0.35 4.24 0.00 
11 0.20 -0.01 0.08 -0.13 3.55 
12 --0.42 -0.03 0.61 --0.28 1.06 
13 0.16 2.54 -0.53 1.29 0.93 
14 0.12 1.24 --0.43 0.64 1.43 
15 -0.36 0.34 --0.24 0.86 0.40 
16 3.18 - 1.1 5 -0.14 1.18 0.28 
17 0.64 1.98 0.31 --0.41 --0.73 
Table4 a 
COSINUS VALUES OF ANGLES OF OBLIMIN 
DIMENSIONS OF 1. GENERATION PLAYERS 
0611 
0612 
1 ~bi 1 
Table4 b 
0612 
COSINUS VALUES OF ANGLES OF OBLIMIN 
DIMENSIONS OF 2. GENERATION PLAYERS 
061 1 0612 0613 0614 0615 
061 1 1 
0612 0.4 1 
0613 0.37 0.00 1 
0614 0.37 0.06 0.27 1 
0615 0.32 0.19 --0.03 0.37 1 
1. GENERATION OF BASKETBALL PLAYERS 
In the diagonal of tables 1 A and 1 B we have the da-
ta on how many players of the group chose some 
Zrinka Lučič, Nataša Viskič-Štalec, Zoran Žugič 
THE PROBLEM OF LEADERSHIP IN BASKETBALL 
FOBL 1 FOBL2 h2 
0.81 1.34 2.20 
0.51 -0.11 0.29 
4.02 1.57 17.21 
0 .73 1.73 3.26 
0.87 2.45 6.31 
1.56 1.50 4.13 
4.92 0.29 24.31 
0.49 -0.02 0.25 
5.1 8 1.02 26.91 
0.65 1.09 1.44 
3.32 - 1.02 13.23 
1.85 --0.71 4.37 
2.62 1.47 8.13 
Fo611 Fo612 Fo613 Fo614 Fo615 h 
0.38 1.61 1.19 -0.05 -0.24 4.3 
0.20 -0.02 0.68 0.52 0.18 0.6 
0.28 0.09 0.91 1.15 0.44 1.9 
0.41 0.00 1.09 -0.09 0.21 1.5 
1.79 -0.01 4.15 1.47 0.08 17.0 
--0.17 0.12 0.57 0.37 0.51 1.0 
0.01 0.12 0.13 --0.16 1.01 1.5 
4.46 0.62 1.83 1.43 1.45 20.0 
0.16 0.03 0.71 --0.23 0.55 1.4 
1.75 0.39 1.50 4.36 1.61 19.0 
1.33 0.66 0.00 1.29 3.57 12.0 
o.os 0.14 0.34 0.12 0.80 1.0 
0.84 2.79 --0.15 1.70 1.96 11 .0 
0.71 1.55 --0.25 1.18 1.96 5.6 
0.00 0.44 --0.16 0.83 0.67 1.1 
3.60 --0.90 1.35 2.35 1.54 15.0 
0.44 1.85 0.47 --0.25 0.32 4.4 
player in al i the criteria together including self-
choice for each of the four criteria. Below the dia-
gonal we have the data on how the players agree 
w ith the others in their choices. It can be seen that 
no generation shows a great number of choices by 
ali four criteria. In the first generation (table 1 A) the 
highest number of choices goes to player #9, who 
received 31 choices from a possible 52 (if we turn 
this into a relative number, for purposes of compa-
rison with the second generation, we get 0.60). 
Behind him, we have players #7 (0.54), #3 (0.44), 
#11 (0.37) and the rest achieving between 0.21 
(#12) and 0.08 (#2) relative choices. 
The table 2A holds the characteristic values of the 
choice matrix and the proportions that explain the 
number of achieved choices in the first generation. 
Two latent dimensions were isolated, reproducing 
Zrinka Lučič , Nataša Viskič-Štalec, Zoran Žugič 
THE PROBLEM OF LEADERSHIP IN BASKETBALL 
62.24% of the information on the relations in this 
generation of basketbali players, defined by four 
choice criteria. 
The first taxonomic dimension, obtained by a obli-
min transformation of the initial orthogonal solution, 
explaining 52.45% of the choices is defined (table 
3A) by all four choice criteria, even if the criteria 
"sharing a room" and "co-operation in the game" 
are more dominant than the other two. The second 
taxonomic dimension is defined by the emotional 
relationship, dependent on the existence of a so-
called "unstable triad", where two members (who 
make upa diad) choose each other by ali criteria and 
the third occasionally chooses only one of them. It 
should be stressed that this is the only true diad in 
the whole team and that they caused the emergence 
of the second dimension. The dimension defined by 
these team members is almostorthogonal to the well 
structured first dimension (0. 13), but explains only 
9. 79% of the choices in this group of basketbali pla-
yers. 
The choices made in the first generation show the 
homogeneity of the group, as seen through the used 
choice criteria. The position of the player in this ge-
neration is precisely defined already on the basis of 
the first latent dimension. These are player #9 who 
might be considered the leader of the group, then 
player #7 who has some cho ices less, but both are 
located on the extreme right pole of the first dimen-
sion, with nuli projections on the second taxonomic 
dimension. The first dimension is also defined with, 
somewhat less but stili enough choices, by players 
#3; with a somewhat more strong position also on 
the second dimension and #11; on the negative 
pole of the second dimension. They are followed by 
players #13 and #12. Ali remaining players have 
very low choice counts on the first dimension, but 
have their posit ions along the second dimension. 
The best position there goes to players #5 and #4 
and the associated triad member # 1 O. The players 
#8, #2, # 1 O and #1 are not interestingfor the oth-
er players on none of the used choice criteria. 
2. GENERATION OF BASKETBALL PLAYERS 
1 n the second generation of basketbali players (table 
1 B) the number of choices is less than in the first ge-
neration. From the possible 68 choices, player #8 
received 23 choices (0.34). After him, according to 
the number of choices by all four criteria, come play-
ers #1 O (0.31 ), # 16 (0.29), #5 (0.28), etc. The 
relative number of choices for the remaining players 
varies from 0.24 (#11 ) to 0.07 (#12). These players 
were not often chosen in pair. The most frequent 
31 
pair-choice (triangle below the diagonal) were play-
ers #8 and # 16, twelve times. 
Table 2B shows even five significant characteristic 
values for the second generation basketball players, 
together explain ing 65% of the information on the 
relations in the group, which is a lot less than in the 
first group. The increase in the number of dimen-
sions did notalso bringaboutan increase in the per-
centage of the explai ned choices. 
It is obvious that, as seen through the proposed 
choice criteria, the relations in the second genera-
tion are more complex and that they condition the 
stratification of the players on the basis of five d i-
mensions. The increase of the number of players 
from thirteen to seventeen isonly partlythe cause of 
this situation. This is seen also from the choices in ta-
bles 1 A and 1 B. In the fi rst generation fou r players 
achieved a greater number of choices than the best 
in the second generation. 
The first taxonomic dimension explains 29.05% of 
the relations in th is group of players. It differentiates 
the players mostly according to thei r playing abilities 
and such personal characteristics (at least as per-
ceived by the others) as to be su itable for acceptance 
of others' problems. The second taxonomic dimen-
sion explains only 12.367% of the relations in the 
group. It differentiates the players according to all 
the analysed criteria, except "choice of captain". It is 
formed by the triad of players #13, #1 and # 17. 
The third taxonomic dimension explains only 
8.605% of the information on the sociometric struc-
ture of the members of the basketball team. It is de-
fined by al l the used criteria. The fourth taxonomic 
dimension explains only 7.769% of the information 
on the relations in the group. It differentiates the 
players in accord to their playing abilities (as does the 
fi rst dimension) in combination with the criterion 
"room sharing". The fifth taxonomic dimension ex-
plains even less than the previous one, only 5 .944%. 
It d ifferentiates players according to the criteria 
"room sharing" and "co-operation in the game", but 
without the criterion "captain" . It seems to be 
amatter of friendly relations between some mem-
bers of the team, but without overestimating their 
playingabilitiesor thei r ability of being the captain of 
the team. 
In the second generation the best positions are tak-
en by players #8 and # 16 on the first dimension, 
less good ones by players #13, # 17, #1 and #14 
on the second dimension, player #5 on the third, 
# 1 O on the fou rth and # 11 on the fifth dimension. 
The other players are grouped around nuli choice 
values. 
 
32 
The first dimension in the second generation bas-
ketball players is orthogonal to the second and 
equally correlated to ali the others. AII the other di-
mensions are almostorthogonal to one another, ex-
cept the fourth with the third and the fifth. 
The five best players: The used computer pro-
gramme analyses the micro-social relations of each 
generation basketball players separately. However, 
if the five best players are present in the first, as well 
as in the second group of players, it is interesting to 
monitor their position in each of these two groups 
separately. In the tables these players carry the num-
bers 1 through S. From the viewpointof micro-soci-
ology the position of the individual in the group is 
determined by the milieu in which he finds himself. 
This is especially true of the special relations be-
tween players in a sports game. So, firstly we will try 
to compare the position of each of these players in 
both groups and then try to extract some common 
explanation for ali five players: 
Player #1: both in the first and second generation 
has a small number of choices in dimension two. 
Player #2: does not hav_e any significant position, ei-
ther in the first, nor in the second generation. 
Player #3: extremely highly figures in the firstgroup 
on dimension one, and somewhat lower also ondi-
mension two. In the second generation he holds a 
prominent position only on dimension four. 
Obviously a significant drop of this player's position 
occurred on the hierarchical scale of the team. This 
is seen also on the basis of the values of communa-
lities in the two analysed generations. 
Player #4: has a prominent position on the second 
dimension in the first generation. In the second ge-
neration, he assumes such a position on the third 
dimension. 
Player #5: holds a high position on the second 
dimension in the firstgeneration, and an even high-
er one on the third dimension in the second gene-
ration. The value of the communality of this player is 
third by ran k in the second generation and only sixth 
in the previous one. It is the task of the coach to ana-
lyse the reasons that bringaboutsuch changes in the 
status of players in the team, being caused by some 
events that can sometimes be influenced by the 
coach. 
CONCLUSION 
From the problems thatemerged from the tradition 
of empirical research of sociodynamics of small 
groups, especially sports groups, at least three should 
Zrinka Lučič, Nataša Viskič-Štalec, Zoran Žugič 
THE PROBLEM OF LEADERSHIP IN BASKETBALL 
be mentioned here (see in Petrovic, 1973) . lnto the 
first group fall those that are connected w ith a non-
representative sample of respondents and/or vari-
ables in existent researches. lnto the second group 
ali those that are a consequence of reducing the 
complete scale of ties and relations j ust to those that 
can be quantified through simplified metric proce-
dures and techniques, such as the Moren sociogram 
and its modifications. lnto the third group we can 
classify problems that come from another simplifi-
cation -due to strivings, evident in many researches, 
to bring atany cost into (cor)relation success in some 
kinesiological activity and the level of cohesiveness 
of a group, as an evident proof for constructinga the-
ory of the team's success. 
In spite of ali, the performed research showed the 
value of such studies, which is above ali in the possi-
bility of predicting those respondents that will spon-
taneously emerge as "natura! leaders" of the team in 
the process of natura! selection. 
REFERENCES 
1. Adorno T, Horkheimer T. Sociološke studije (Sociological 
studies). Zagreb: Škalska knjiga, 1980 
2. Čaldarovič O. O pristupima klasifikaciji suvremenih socio-
loških teorija (On approaches to classification of modem 
sociological theories). Kulturni radnik 1990; (2): 95-119 
3. Horga S, Milanovič D. Utjecaj konativnih regulativnih meha-
nizama na uspješnost u košarci (Influence of conative regula-
tive mechanisms on success in basketball), Kineziologija, 2: 
45-51, 1983. 
4. Karalejič M. Relacije izmedu nekih konativnih karakteristika 
i uspjeha u košarci (Relations between some conative cha-
racteristics and success in basketball). Magistarski rad na 
Fakultetu za fizičku kulturu. Zagrebu, 1985 
5. Petrovič K. Neki problemi povezani s modelirna primjenje-
nim u dosadašnjim istraživanjima grupne d inamike u kinezi-
ologiji (Some problems connected with the models used in 
existant researches of group dynamics in kinesiology). 
Kineziologija 1973; 3: 39- 50 
6. Šimenc Z. Analiza mikrosocialne strukture vaterpolo ekipa 
metodam multidimenzionalnog skaliranja (Analysis of 
microsocial structure of waterpolo teams using the multidi-
mensional scaling method). Disertacija na Fakultetu za fizičku 
kulturu sveučilišta u Zagrebu. Zagreb, 1985 
7. Šnajder G. Utjecaj urgentne takmičarske situacije na mikro-
socialnu strukturu jedne vrhunske odbojkaške momčadi 
(Influence of an urgent competitive situation on the micro-
social structure of a top vol leybal l team). Kineziologija 1982; 
14(2): 199-205 
8. Šnajder G. Utjecaj social nog statusa na formiranje grupa u 
jednoj vrhunskoj ekipi (Influence of social status on the for-
mation of groups in a top competitive team). Kineziologija 
1985; 17(2): 137- 144