The Coach & The Athlete

Overview:

1. Coaches’ Impact on Athletes

2. Perceptions in Coaching

• Gender Perceptions in Coaching

3. The 5 Themes of Poor Coaching

4. Building the Bridge between Coaches and Athletes

5. Self-Determination Theory 

6. Coach-Athlete-Team Relationship

7. Evaluation of Coaching 

8. Conclusion 

 

In a middle school biology class, students learn about symbiotic relationships.  A symbiotic relationship is a connection or interaction between two organisms.  In class, boys and girls learn there are three distinctive types of symbiotic relationships: mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism.  The type of relationship can be determined by whether one or both organisms benefit from the bond.  

Mutualism can be described as a partnership where both parties benefit.  The process of pollination between a bee and a flower is a perfect example of mutualism.  A bee receives a food source secreted by the flower, while the flower is able to reproduce and thrive for generations by attaching certain particulars to the bee for distribution.  Another type of symbiosis is commensalism.  This type of relationship is defined as a bond between two organisms in which one benefits from another without any harm inflicted.  For example, a tree frog utilizes plants for protection from predators.  However, parasitism is the opposite of commensalism.  Parasitism involves one party of the partnership harming the other for its own gain.  Deer ticks feed off of animals while the animals become ill from the Lyme disease the tick carries.   

Symbiotic relationships can be found not only in nature, but also in the world of athletics.  Specifically, the relationship between a coach and an athlete can fall under one of the three types of symbiosis.  The bond or interactions between athletes and coach can and will affect performance levels.  

This article will take an in-depth examination of the effects of coaches on athletes; athletes’ perceptions of coaches; how coaches can build better relationships with athletes; and how we can evaluate coaches more effectively.  

 

Coaches’ Impact on Athletes

 

      What is a coach?  According to Google, a coach is a horse-drawn carriage.  However, a coach is more than a mode of transportation.  In the world of sports, coaches are instructors who give specialized training aimed at teaching athletes from the fundamentals to advanced strategies and skills.  Additionally, coaches affect athletes in a number of ways that are both positive and negative.  However, how can a coach’s impact on their athletes be gaged? 

In the United States, people have an obsession with winning and winners.  Legendary NFL Head Coach, Vince Lombardi can be quoted saying, “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” Many believe effective coaching styles are associated with success and winning (Gearity, 2009).  Therefore, the more one wins, the more effective one’s coaching style is.  This is why there are numerous studies and books examining the coaching styles and behaviors of winning coaches, and as to why countless coaches try to emulate “successful” coaches.

However, winning doesn’t always directly correlate to or exemplify positive behaviors of effective coaches.  Bobby Knight, former collegiate basketball coach, and Bill Belichik, Head Coach of the New England Patriots, has been accused of abusing players (Gearity, 2009).  Are these kinds of behaviors worthy to be idolized?  Can these examples be considered parasitic relationships between athletes and coach?  

Coaching is more than wins and losses.  Coaches have a profound effect on athletes, and this effect is rarely examined in research.  When taking a closer look, coaches and their behaviors have a significant impact not just on an athlete’s overall experience within sport, but on an athlete’s mental well-being. For example, a coach can even control an athlete’s happiness (Kerr-Cumbo, 2011).  Coaching goes beyond providing instruction on sport skills and strategies.  A number of athletes have seen their coaches as teachers, mentors, friends, and even parental figures (Gearity, 2009).  This calls attention to the significant impact that coaches have on the athletes they work with.  As a result, why does research primarily look at how successful a coach is by focusing on their total number of wins? 

 

Perceptions in Coaching 

 

            The Rorschach test was developed in 1921 by Hermann Rorschach as a way to identify mental illness in subjects.  The assessment is made up of abstract inkblot images.  It is administered by having the subjects voice their interpretations of what the image looks like.  The beauty of the Rorschach test is the analysis of the image is a result of an individual’s past experiences.  Meaning any individual may have a different or similar perception of a picture than another person.  

            Perception is an individualized and subjective approach for people to piece together and understand information or an environment presented around them.  A person’s perception is shaped by their previous life experiences, and similar to the Rorschach test, individuals will perceive shared events differently from one another (Kerr-Cumbo, 2011).  As a result, a coach’s and an athlete’s perception in the terms of a coach’s behavior and effectiveness would be different. 

            Research has stated a coach’s effectiveness is the combination of both a coach’s behavior and an athlete’s perception of such behavior.  To maximize performance, it is important for the perceptions of both, the coach and the athlete are taken into consideration (Kerr-Cumbo, 2011).  However, the majority of research examines the views specifically from one of the two stakeholders, instead of in unison. 

            The Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS) was created to assess leadership preferences.  However, the LSS was solely produced from the athlete’s viewpoint.  For example, the LSS was developed into two sections: the way an athlete prefers to be coached and the way an athlete is actually coached (Gearity, 2009).  

            Research has examined athletes’ perceptions of gender for coaches.  Magnusen and Rhea (2009) surveyed NCAA D1 athletes to determine if they had a particular gender preference toward their strength and conditioning coaches.  It was found that female athletes did not report a gender preference towards their strength coach.  However, male athletes showcased negative bias towards female strength coaches and preferred a male strength coach.  The male athletes reported that a female coach would be a distraction and the athletes felt they would not be able to establish a relationship with the coach (Magnusen and Rhea, 2009).  

            Recently, another study provided different results in contrast to those provided by Magnusen and Rhea.  Shuman and Appleby (2016) reported both male and female athletes had no gender preferences towards their strength and conditioning coaches.  Instead, athletes were influenced by other factors regarding their preferences.  The factors cited were: (1) having a positive relationship with their coach, (2) the strength and conditioning coach’s knowledge, (3) reciprocated respect between the athlete and the strength and conditioning coach, (4) professionalism of the strength and conditioning coach, (5) supportive qualities of the strength and conditioning coach, and (6) the strength and conditioning coach’s ability to assist the athlete in increasing his or her athletic performance (Shuman and Appleby, 2016).  This now shows that athletes have no preference of gender for their coaches, but rather are influenced more by characteristics and behaviors that make up the coach.  

 

The 5 Themes of Poor Coaching

 

            In 1960, the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, was published by Harper Lee.  Lee’s novel has been critically acclaimed for depicting a child’s view to the topics of racism and prejudice.  Two years after the book was published, To Kill a Mockingbird became an award-winning film.  Gregory Peck was the actor who played one of the main protagonists, Atticus Finch.  During the film, there is a scene where Finch’s son, Jem, has a frightening encounter with a drunken man one night.  After the experience happens, Peck delivers this quote on screen: 

            

“There’s a lot ugly things in this world, son.  I wish I could keep’em all away from you.  That’s never possible.”

 

With this quote, Atticus Finch is telling Jem that negative experiences cannot be hidden from an individual, and that everyone is going to be shaped by those moments.  

            As stated before, a person’s perception is shaped by past experiences, both positive and negative.  In the world of sports, athletes are going to have highs and lows.  Whether it is winning a championship, losing a championship, having an amazing coach, and/or experiencing a horrendous coach.  Athletes are going to be put through these moments at one point or another.   

            However, what exactly happens when an athlete encounters a bad coach?  What makes up a bad coaching experience?  The perception of a negative coaching experience can create confusion and frustration for an athlete.  Typically, athletes have felt cheated of opportunities for potential development and growth (Gearity, 2009).  From the athlete’s perspective, the athlete believed they could have been performed better, especially if given the chance with a different coach.  

Overall, five themes have come about from research regarding the experience of poor coaching.  Gearity’s (2009) five themes are: 

 

1. Not Teaching: Athletes felt like they had not learned anything from the coach to advance their skills related to the sport.  In addition, coaches did not individualize their instructions per each athlete’s learning ability.  Creating frustration amongst the coach and athlete due to the “lack” of understanding.

2. Uncaring: Coaches were interpreted as being self-centered.  Instead of focusing on the interests of the athletes and team, the coach cared only about his or her own image.  These self-centered coaches would also take all the credit for successes, while putting the blame onto others for failures.  Additionally, these coaches struggled to personally build a relationship with their athletes.  Poor coaches lacked empathy toward their athletes. 

3. Unfair: All experiences of poor coaching highlighted this theme.  Coaches were found to be dishonest in their promises to their team, they showed favoritism towards particular athletes, and were constantly berating athletes with harsh and negative criticism.  Creating an environment of distrust between the coaches and the athletes.  

4. Inhibiting: As previously stated, athletes perceived their coaches to have stalled, prevented, or blocked their personal and athletic development.  Coaches damaged athletes’ confidence which led to athletes doubting their own abilities.  Resulting in athletes playing more tentative or even worse athletes lost interest in the sport and ended up quitting.

5. Coping: Athletes created strategies of avoidance and ignorance when experiencing poor coaching.  Furthermore, athletes adapted by self-directing their own learning related to sport skills.  Primarily, by studying the technical capabilities of elite athletes.  

 

Building the Bridge Between Coaches and Athletes

 

            The Superbowl is the National Football League’s pinnacle game of the year.  The game brings together the best two teams to compete for the Vince Lombardi Trophy.  In 2020, 99.9 million viewers watched from their televisions as the Kansas City Chiefs came back and beat the San Francisco 49ers in Super Bowl LIV.  However, the dramatic comeback was not the only thing watched on television that night.  

            During timeouts in the game, viewers were entertained with 30-second commercials.  Ever since Apple’s groundbreaking 1984 Super Bowl commercial, where they introduced the Macintosh, companies have entered into a creativity battle of advertisements.  In 2020, a 30-second commercial spot was sold for $5.4 million.  In order for companies to sell their products, they use these overly expensive 30-second windows to try and captivate the attention of the viewer by making a lasting impact.  Through the conscious use of behavioral sciences, advertisers attempt to hit one of the following eight hidden needs (Packard, 1980):

 

1. Reassurance of worth

2. Emotional security

3. Ego gratification

4. Creativity

5. A sense of origin

6. A sense of power

7. To love and be loved

8. Immortality

 

If companies can utilize these hidden needs to fulfill their own agendas and target audiences, couldn’t sport coaches employ these theories in their own way to connect with athletes? 

            In addition to applying methods aimed at these fundamental needs, coaches can simply reverse engineer the five themes that Gearity (2009) stated in his research. Individuals have a need to be loved and reassured and when coaches can foster environments tailored toward an athlete’s needs, athletes will benefit more from their training.  

 

Self-Determination Theory  

 

            Why do people make specific choices in their life?  People make choices for explicit reasons.   Decisions for choices can be extrinsically or intrinsically motivated.  Extrinsic motivation is a reward-based way of operating, where individuals are motivated by factors such as money and fame.  Where on the other hand, intrinsic motivation drives people to make specific choices because these individuals enjoy performing such actions or they see it as a chance to grow towards their potential.  Self-determination theory (SDT) is a theory based off of the motivations behind choices individuals make.  In addition, SDT has been used to explore how coaches affect an athletes’ well-being, motivation, and performance level.  Supporting autonomy and controlling behavior are two types of coaching characteristics that affect an athletes’ performance (Kerr-Cumbo, 2016).  

Determining which behavior, a coach demonstrates is key for defining the success of a relationship between a coach and athlete.  Autonomy supportive coaches acknowledge athletes’ thoughts and feelings, encourages choice, and minimizes the stress associated with forceful control over an athlete.  Whereas, a coach exhibiting controlling behaviors is the complete opposite.  This type of demanding coach will exert dominance and power over an athlete in any and all facets, even utilizing manipulation techniques (Kerr-Cumbo, 2016).  As previously stated, coaches who displayed dishonesty to athletes created an environment of distrust, and this form of behavior could be distracting to an athlete (Gearity, 2009).  Consequently, distractions would force an athlete to break concentration, negatively affecting their sport performance.  

According to research on SDT, human motivation depends on satisfying psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.  As a result, autonomy supportive coaching behaviors prove to positively affect athletes’ performance and their relationship with a coach.   An autonomous supportive environment will give athletes the ability to offer control over their training, input on decision making, and connection with their coach (Kerr-Cumbo, 2016).  For example, research has reported athletes stating great coaches constructed an environment of open communication where the coach was approachable and accessible.  However, a bad coach was never available for his or her athletes (Gearity, 2009).  

Promptly this brings up the question, how does a coach create an environment of open communication? In the book Humble Inquiry, Edgar H. Schein suggests utilizing a question based style of interaction to open lines of communication, allow information to be passed freely, and demonstrate care for all individuals involved.  Schein believes exhibiting the willingness and vulnerability to better understand an individual will make way for a healthier and stronger relationship.  Coaches can practice Schein’s method of communication with their athletes as a way to build supportive environments.  

 

Coach-Athlete-Team Relationship

 

            Building a relationship is a difficult and strenuous process, but a successful bond can be built over time.  It requires a lot of work from all parties in the relationship.  The coach-athlete relationship is no exception.  Coaches and athletes each have to put effort in.  However, coaches still need to put more work in than athletes.  Why is that? Majority of athletes only have to deal with one, maybe two, coaches.  Whereas, coaches are dealing with more than one athlete (Kerr-Cumbo, 2016).  For example, a head coach for a collegiate football team is dealing with at maximum 85 athletes.  Could a coach build a successful relationship with every single athlete and still be an effective coach?  

            

Evaluation of Coaching 

            

            As stated previously, people are going to have different perceptions on specific topics, events, or behaviors.  Coaches and athletes are not always going to see eye to eye.  For example, research surveyed coaches and their behaviors.  Coaches believed they demonstrated high amounts of autonomy supportive behaviors.  However, according to the athletes on the teams of the coaches participating, research reported athletes did not feel the same as their respective leaders (Kerr-Cumbo, 2016).  

            Therefore, how can coaches effectively be evaluated?  A proactive, systematic process of feedback and evaluation is needed for coaches.  Athletes would be given the opportunity to provide crucial feedback on how they perceive a coach.  Additionally, this would allow coaches to be graded on more than wins and losses (Gearity, 2009).  It is not unheard of for many sport programs to have end of year meetings between coaches and players.  This would be the perfect opportunity for both sides to share candidly on opportunities of growth.  However, this would entail that an environment of open communication has already been built.  If not, then feedback may not be completely honest or the conversation may be completely one sided.  

 

Conclusion

 

            Performance levels can be determined by the type of symbiotic relationship between athlete and coach.  However, when examining relationships between the two parties, the majority of research observes the behaviors and tactics of “winning” coaches.   

As a result, many leaders try to emulate the behaviors of those coaches glorified, whether the behaviors are positive or negative.  Conversely, most research fails to study the effects of a coach’s behaviors on athletes.  A coach may see themselves acting in a specific way, whereas the athletes may perceive actions differently.  Thus, effective coaches cannot be defined by wins and losses. 

Athletes would like coaches to treat them as individuals, demonstrating fairness and care towards them as the athletes climb towards their potential.  Additionally, athletes would like the ability to offer input on decision making, which would require an environment of open communication.  Once an atmosphere of openness is achieved, coaches and athletes can grow to their full potential.  

References: 

1.    Gearity, B. (2009). Athletes’ Experience of Poor Coaching. Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange, 1–115. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/17%0Ahttp://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/17

2.    Kerr-cumbo, R. (2016). Athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of the coach’s behaviour by renzo kerr-cumbo. August.

3.    Magnusen, M. J., & Rhea, D. J. (2009). Division I Athletes’ Attitudes Toward and Preferences for Male and Female Strength and Conditioning Coaches. 18, 1084–1090.

4.    Packard, V. (1980). The Hidden Persuaders. Canda: Pocket Books. 

5.    Schein, E. H. (2013). Humble Inquiry: the gentle art of asking instead of telling.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 

6.    Shuman, K. M., & Appleby, K. M. (2016). Gender Preference? National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Student-Athletes and Strength and Conditioning Coaches.