The Psychology of Effective Coaching

SPORTS AND ATHLETICS PREPARATION, PERFORMANCE, AND PSYCHOLOGY
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EFFECTIVE

COACHING AND MANAGEMENT
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
SPORTS AND ATHLETICS PREPARATION,
PERFORMANCE, AND PSYCHOLOGY
Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

under the Series tab.
Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

under the e-book tab.
SPORTS AND ATHLETICS PREPARATION, PERFORMANCE, AND PSYCHOLOGY
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EFFECTIVE

COACHING AND MANAGEMENT
PAUL A. DAVIS
EDITOR
New York
Copyright © 2016 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher.
We have partnered with Copyright Clearance Center to make it easy for you to obtain permissions
to reuse content from this publication. Simply navigate to this publication’s page on Nova’s
website and locate the “Get Permission” button below the title description. This button is linked
directly to the title’s permission page on copyright.com. Alternatively, you can visit
copyright.com and search by title, ISBN, or ISSN.
For further questions about using the service on copyright.com, please contact:
Copyright Clearance Center
Phone: +1-(978) 750-8400 Fax: +1-(978) 750-4470 E-mail: info@copyright.com.
NOTICE TO THE READER

The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or
implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of
information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special,
consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or
reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated
and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.
Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in
this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage
to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise
contained in this publication.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the
subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not
engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert
assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A
DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.
Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN: (eBook)
Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

CONTENTS
Preface v
Chapter 1 Current Perspectives on Psychological Aspects Associated with the
Development and Practice of Effective Coaching and Management 1
Paul A. Davis
Chapter 2 A Holistic Model of the Coaching Process:
Conceptualizing the Challenge of Effectiveness in Practice 13
Edward Thomas Hall, Shirley Gray, John Kelly,
Amanda Martindale and John Sproule
Chapter 3 Effective Coach Learning and Processes of Coaches’ Knowledge
Development: What Works? 35
Anna Stodter and Christopher J. Cushion
Chapter 4 Learner-Centered Teaching: A Consideration for
Revitalizing Coach Education 53
Kyle Paquette and Pierre Trudel
Chapter 5 Concept Mapping: Its Use for High Performance Sport
Coach Development 71
François Rodrigue, Chao He and Pierre Trudel
Chapter 6 Dynamic, Evolving and Social:
The Learning Interactions of Parasport Coaches 91
Shaunna Taylor, Penny Werthner and Diane Culver
Chapter 7 Tools and Techniques Used in the Observation of Coach Behavior 111
Matthew Vierimaa, Jennifer Turnnidge,
M. Blair Evans and Jean Côté
Chapter 8 Positive Youth Development in Sport:
Enacting the Roles of Coaches and Parents 133
Julie P. Johnston and Chris G. Harwood
Chapter 9 Coaching for Positive Youth Development:
From Theory to Practice 155
Thaddeus France, Albert Petitpas and Judy L. Van Raalte
vi Contents
Chapter 10 Challenging Coaching Orthodoxy:

A Self-Determination Theory Perspective 167
Clifford J. Mallett, Martin Rabjohns and Joseph L. Occhino
Chapter 11 What Is the Role of Perceived Coach-Athlete Interactions in
Relation to Markers of Goal Progress? An Application of
Self-Determination Theory 183
J. Paige Pope, Philip M. Wilson, Diane E. Mack
and Sarah Deck
Chapter 12 The Dynamic Management of Athletes’ Role Expectations 203
Alex J. Benson, Mark Surya and Mark Eys
Chapter 13 The Self-Regulation of Sport Coaches:
How Coaches Can Become Masters of Their Own Destiny 217
Natalie Durand-Bush, Kylie McNeill and Jamie Collins
Chapter 14 Strengths-Based Coaching: Case of Mental Toughness 267
Sandy Gordon
Chapter 15 Emotions and Emotion Regulation in Coaching 285
Paul A. Davis and Louise Davis
Chapter 16 The Use of Self-Talk in the Organization of a Lesson in Sport,
Physical Education and Exercise Settings 307
Nikos Zourbanos, Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis,
Athanasios Kolovelonis, Alexander T. Latinjak
and Yannis Theodorakis
Chapter 17 Considering the Role of Individual Differences Associated with
Psychological Characteristics When Coaching Elite Senior Male
Basketball Players 321
Joško Sindik
Chapter 18 Managerial Coaching: A Practical Way to
Apply Leadership Theory? 353
Julia Milner and Grace McCarthy
Chapter 19 How New Zealand Rugby Stays at the Top:
Considerations for Coaches 369
Peter Russell, Edmond Otis and Roberta Cox
Chapter 20 Sport Psychology Professionals As Trusted Advisors in
High Performance Environments 385
Larry Lauer, Andy Driska and Ian Cowburn
Chapter 21 What Is Missing and Why It Is Missing from
Coach Burnout Research 407
Erik Lundkvist, Henrik Gustafsson and Paul A. Davis
Index 429
PREFACE
The Psychology of Effective Coaching and Management is a valuable resource for

students, researchers, practitioners, educators, and administrators that want to increase their
knowledge of psychological aspects associated with the development and practice of
coaching and management. The reader is guided through models of the coaching process,
approaches to coach learning, context specific education, and tools for observing coaching
behaviors. Additionally, considerations for enhancing positive youth development,
motivational climate, group dynamics, self-regulation, emotions, and mental toughness are
outlined. The application of mental skills such as self-talk, the consideration of an athlete’s
personality in coaching practice, and leadership theories in management are also reviewed.
Examples of highly effective sport organizations and approaches to optimizing relationships
with support staff are presented, as well as research and implications of coach burnout.
The book is written by world leading scholars, sport psychologists, coaches, and
managers from the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Spain, Greece, Croatia
and the UK. Each chapter presents current research and offers suggestions for optimizing
effective coaching and management. The chapters are written to be accessible to a wide range
of readers, and each chapter offers a set of key considerations for enhancing practice. The aim
of the book is to present up-to-date knowledge of the theories and research undertaken in
sport coaching and management, with a particular focus upon applying understanding to
maximize effective practice. This book will serve as essential reading for scholars and
students; it can be used as a key text in sports coaching or coach education programs.
Furthermore, coaches as well as their athletes will benefit from the recommendations for
practice presented in the book.
In: The Psychology of Effective Coaching and Management ISBN: 978-1-63483-787-3
Editor: Paul A. Davis © 2016 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 1
CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL

ASPECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
AND PRACTICE OF EFFECTIVE COACHING
AND MANAGEMENT
Paul A. Davis*
Northumbria University, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
Research investigating the psychology of coaching and management has advanced
knowledge and enhanced practice. As a result, the development and education of coaches
to maximize effectiveness has been informed by extensive research. This chapter serves
as an introduction to the book, “The Psychology of Effective Coaching and
Management” and highlights the research presented across the chapters. Specifically, a
holistic model of the coaching process, approaches to coach learning, context specific
education, and tools for observing coaching behaviors are reviewed. Additionally,
considerations for enhancing positive youth development, motivational climate, group
dynamics, self-regulation, emotions, and mental toughness are outlined. Also the
application of mental skills such as self-talk, the consideration of an athlete’s personality
in coaching practice, and leadership theories in management are reviewed. Examples of
highly effective sport organizations and the staff that comprise coaches’ support teams
are discussed. Finally, the research and implications of coach burnout are also presented.
This chapter and the associated book provide a summary of current knowledge and offer
future research directions for enhancing the psychology of effective coaching and
management.
Keywords: Coaching, psychology, management, education
*
Corresponding Author address: Email: paul.davis@northumbria.ac.uk
2 Paul A. Davis
INTRODUCTION
The current popular interest and research activity associated with the psychology of
coaching and management is rapidly expanding theoretical knowledge and enhancing applied
practice in a range of professional domains. International psychology societies (e.g., British
Psychological Society, Australian Psychological Society) have developed related special
interest groups centered on coaching psychology and dedicated to the advancement of
knowledge associated with the enhancement of wellbeing and performance in personal and
professional life. The roots of modern day coaching psychology have been identified as
growing from the Humanistic movement of the 1960’s and relate to theory and reseach
associated with counselling and educational psychology (Palmer & Whybrow, 2014). That
said, the pioneering work of Coleman Griffith in the early 1900’s is widely acknowledged as
the starting point of sport psychology, and focused upon the role and methods of the coach. In
particular, one of Griffith’s key research areas was the study of increasing the effectiveness of
coaching methods (Griffith, 1926). Griffith’s preliminary research laid the foundation for the
study and development of psychological aspects of coaching and management in sport and
beyond.
Over time, the psychological aspects underlying coaching and management have been
studied extensively within sport and other performance domains, with knowledge and
practices being transferred across areas (Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009; Jones, 2002). For
example, emotions and attempts to manage them for optimal health and performance
outcomes have been the focus of a wide body of research in sport psychology (Jones, 2003;
Woodman, Davis, Hardy, Glasscock, & Yuill-Proctor, 2009) and within work settings
(Ashforth, & Humphrey, 1995; Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007). More specifically, the
concept of emotional intelligence has risen to prominance as being highly influential for
effective leadership both in the workplace (Carmeli, 2003) as well as sport coaching (Chan &
Mallett, 2011).
Beyond emotions, there is a wide range of psychological aspects that influence effective
coaching and management. These psychological features not only influence the practice of
coaching and management but also relate to the development, education, and measurement of
effectiveness. This book aims to provide a snapshot of current perspectives on the psychology
of effective coaching and management. It is by no means an exhaustive account of all the
related psychological concepts underlying coaching and management, but provides an
overview of the research and practice being undertaken by international experts and research
centers committed to the development of excellence in coaching and mangement. This book
is organised into sections that delineate current knowledge of: models conceptualizing the
coaching process; coach education and development; the measurement of effective coaching
behaviours; coaching contexts; psychological aspects and skills underlying coaching practice;
and outcomes of (in)effective coaching.
The increasing attention to the role of psychology in coaching and management has
relatedly amplified demands for effective practice and maximized outcomes. Accountability
and the meeting of expectations are inherent to the results driven contexts of business and
sport. However the complex nature, and somewhat multitudinous variables underlying
performance outcomes, are a challenge to both coaches and organizations responsible for
putting the ideal conditions in place to optimize chances for success. Related to this, the
Current Perspectives on Psychological Aspects Associated with the Development … 3
construction of a roadmap to being an effective coach or manager is elusive if not misguided.

The complexities that comprise the coaching setting require coaches to balance the demands
of the situation (e.g., participation vs. competition) as well as the expectations of those with a
vested interest (e.g., athletes, parents, performance directors).
Côté and Gilbert’s (2009) integrative definition of coaching effectiveness recognizes the
need for differentiation in the determination of effectiveness across contexts. Further, the
coach’s knowledge as well as the athlete-specific outcomes also factor into the assessment of
coaching effectiveness. The present book does not offer a new definition for effective
coaching; it largely operates within the definition of coaching effectiveness put forward by
Côté and Gilbert (p. 316):
The consistent application of integrated professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal

knowledge to improve athletes’ competence, confidence, connection, and character in specific
coaching contexts.
This definition of coaching effectiveness also serves to reinforce the importance of the
areas addressed in the chapters that comprise the present book. Specifically, the development
of knowledge and expertise of the coach and how these relate to the requirements of the
organization largely responsible for educating and accrediting its coaches; the inter and
intrapersonal knowledge required by the coach to be able to work with others in
accomplishing outcome goals; and appreciation of the unique contexts that coaches and
managers operate within.
As a starting point in the next chapter Hall, Gray, Kelly, Martindale, and Sproule offer a
holistic model of the coaching process. The aim of this model is to provide a framework for
reflection within which the opportunities as well as the challenges for coaching effectiveness
can be considered. In particular, Hall and colleagues highlight the role of associates in the
coaching context and how interactions with these significant others can shape the coaching
process. The social nature of coaching is inherent to the context, yet it is not always obvious
in terms of its influence upon practice and effectiveness (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003).
Hall and colleagues’ model seeks to identify the focus of coaches’ reflection within the
coaching process; this process of reflection can serve as a starting point for professional (and
personal) development (Gilbert & Trudel, 2005).
Professional development is central to the advancement of knowledge and expertise in
coaching (Armour, 2010; Lyle, 2007). The processes of coaches’ knowledge development
and coach learning is the focus of Stodter and Cushion’s following chapter. Ongoing learning
is necessary for coaches to remain knowledgeable and flexible in order to meet the demands
of unique coaching contexts (Werthner & Trudel, 2009). Côté (2006) suggests individuals’
biographies and contexts are central to the design and delivery of coach learning
opportunities. Stotder and Cushion contend that existing coach learning research has not
substantiated how learning opportunities function for diverse individual coaches, thus
impinging the development of frameworks to improve learning and practice within varied
coach populations. Stotder and Cushion present a grounded model of coaches’ learning
processes and highlight that learning opportunities have to connect with the individual coach
in order to be effective in developing effective practitioners.
Lerner-centered approaches have been forwarded in response to ineffectual coach
education programs based upon traditional, positivist views of learning. Paquette and Trudel’s
4 Paul A. Davis
chapter provides support for coach educators that put the coach/learner at the center of their
development programs. They offer a theoretical overview of the learner-centered literature
and outline a framework along with tools for implementing learner-centered education
programs. Although resistance from stakeholders (e.g., administrators, coaches) may arise,
Paquette and Trudel suggest that open communication can facilitate the development of a
shared vision for coach education programs and ultimately enhance their effectiveness.
The organizations providing the education programs are highly influential in the
effectiveness and outcomes of the training. In their chapter, Rodrique, He and Trudel attest
that organizations must align their educational efforts with the learner to optimize outcomes.
Rodrique and colleagues propose that using concept maps are a useful method for developing
coaches’ tacit knowledge. A step by step approach is offered by Rodrique, He and Trudel
with the aim of assisting organizations in supporting their coaches’ learning pathways and
development of expertise. This is especially important as the learning pathways of coaches
are idiosyncratic (Gilbert, Côté, & Mallett, 2006; Mallett, 2010; Werthner & Trudel, 2009)
and are influenced heavily by the specific context in which the coaches work.
The context coaches work within influences the social networks that exist around them
and the social learning systems that can augment coaches’ development (Culver & Trudel,
2006). Specifically, coaching within the context of parasport presents unique conditions that
can require coaches to have specialist knowledge and education (Burkett, 2013). The social
learning systems of coaches in parasport are explored by Taylor, Werthner and Culver in their
chapter. Taylor and colleagues highlight the role of collaborators and the development of
expertise that is facilitated through communities of practice and dynamic social networks.
Suggestions for coach educators and sport organizations are presented by Taylor, Werthner
and Culver with the aim of fostering the growth of parasport coaches’ relationships within
social learning systems.
A useful tool for coach educators and sport organizations in the development of coach
learning is the use of systematic observation of coach behaviors (Cushion & Jones, 2001;
Ford, Yates, & Williams, 2010). In the chapter by Vierimaa, Turnnidge, Evans and Côté a
review of 40 years of observational analysis conducted in coaching research is presented; a
variety of tools designed to record coaching behaviors and consider different approaches
ranging from qualitative methods to complex systematic coding of dynamic interactions are
also identified. In particular, the coaching observation approaches used in both training
sessions and competition are critically evaluated in relation to their sensitivity to evaluate the
behaviors underpinning effective coaching. The use of technology to facilitate coach learning
though observational analysis offers a means to comprehensively consider the complex,
multi-faceted nature of the coaching process. Viermma and colleagues at the Performance
Lab for the Advancement of Youth Sport in Sport lead by Jean Côté at Queen’s University,
propose that the development of innovative approaches to measuring dynamic coach-athlete
interactions can promote the development of effective coaching and expertise across contexts.
The context of youth sport is influenced by the roles of not only coaches but also parents
(Côté, 1999; Holt, Tamminen, Black, Mandigo, & Fox, 2009). ‘Wanting the best for their
child’ parents often view sport as a vehicle for optimal growth and development; however,
parents’ subsequent degree of involvement can vary dramatically and result in a number of
implications for the coach (Harwood & Knight, 2015; Hellstedt, 1987). Considering the role
of sport in positive youth development, Johnston and Harwood outline the roles that coaches
and parents can adopt in an effort to promote an environment that positions young people
with the optimal conditions to thrive. Further, Johnston and Harwood’s chapter presents the
theoretical underpinnings of coach and parent roles in developing desirable psychosocial
assets as well as how these roles may be performed within the domain of youth sport.
In the context of youth sport, there is limited knowledge about how coach education
programs develop coaches’ expertise to effectively implement strategies that promote positive
youth development. Sport has been identified as a potential arena to promote positive youth
development through the acquisition of knowledge, experience, and skills, needed to facilitate
a healthy transition from adolescence to adulthood (Côté, Strachan, & Fraser-Thomas, 2008;
Schulman & Davies, 2007). In the chapter by France, Petitpas, and Van Raalte the education
of coaches aimed at cultivating the expertise required to be youth development specialists is
examined. Specifically using the example of a highly successful program France, Petitpas,
and Van Raalte outline an established framework for planning sport-based youth development
programs, review autonomy supportive coaching, and put forward strategies to educate
coaches on how to promote positive youth development.
Autonomy supportive coaching has been associated with positive outcomes including
enhanced psychological well-being (e.g., increased feelings of self-worth), as well as superior
performance and effort (Occhino, Mallett, Rynne, & Carlisle, 2014). The motivational climate
created through autonomy supportive coaching behaviors influence athletes’ thoughts,
emotions, and actions and has implications for athletes’ motivation (Amorose & Anderson-
Butcher, 2007; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Briere, 2001). In their chapter, Mallett,
Rabjohns, and Occhino review the application of the theoretical framework of Self-
determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) for understanding how coaches can get the best
from athletes by considering the motivational processes. Further, Mallett and colleagues
highlight the important role of coaches in shaping the motivational climate, and subsequent
athlete outcomes. Mallett, Rabjohns, and Occhino propose recommendations for coaches to
implement in order to become more autonomy supportive in their coaching practice.
The use of coaching behaviors characterized as being autonomy supportive may have a
differential impact upon athletes given the circumstances that comprise the coaching context
(Cowan & Taylor, 2015). The chapter by Pope, Wilson, Mack and Deck reports findings from
their examination of changes in perceived autonomy support, structure, and involvement
provided by a head coach to university-level rugby players over the latter portion of a
competitive season. Specifically, Pope and colleagues highlight changes in perceived
autonomy support are linked with fluctuations in athletes’ efforts to achieve their goals and
their sense of goal attainment. Pope, Wilson, Mack and Deck suggest that the latter half of a
competitive season may be a critical timepoint for coach-athlete interactions and may
represent an important timeframe for coaching strategies designed to bolster goal progress as
a function of enhancing support from the coaching staff.
Coaching behaviors underlying coach-athlete interactions can have an impact upon
performance outcomes as well as group dynamics (Davis, Jowett, & Lafrenière, 2013;
Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Communication can be linked with the potential for
interpersonal conflict, yet it can also manage disagreements by outlining clear expectations
within groups (LaVoi, 2007). In their chapter Benson, Surya, and Eys outline processes
underlying the development and communication of role responsibilities, and discuss key time
frames that influence athletes’ understanding of their role expectations. In particular Benson
and colleagues discuss the sources of information athletes rely on to inform their
understanding of their role responsibilities. Changes in the composition of the team (e.g.,
6 Paul A. Davis
newcomers) can influence the psychological structure and group dynamics of a team; Benson,
Surya and Eys describe how coaches and athletes adapt and respond to unanticipated events
that disrupt the equilibrium of the group (e.g., major injury). Addressing these issues,
recommendations for how coaches can address role-related obstacles that arise from these
events are put forward.
How a coach regulates themselves during unanticipated or emotional events can
influence their coaching behaviors and impact upon their athletes (Davis, 2011; Hill & Davis,
2014). Self-regulation has a key role in sport; in order to be effective coaches would benefit
by developing their self-regulation skills and those of their athletes. Durand-Bush, McNeill,
and Collins highlight in their chapter self-regulatory phases, processes, and strategies deemed
valuable for learning and performance. Further, Durand-Bush and colleagues identify co-
regulation processes in which coaches can assist their athletes in shifting toward independent
regulation. A self-regulation program designed to help coaches effectively perform and
achieve adequate levels of well-being is presented by Durand-Bush, McNeill and Collins.
The ability to self-regulate underlies a number of personal characteristics that are
highlighted within mental toughness (i.e., striving, surviving, and thriving; Mahoney,
Ntoumanis, Mallett, & Gucciardi, 2014). In his chapter Gordon outlines how a strengths-
based approach can be used by coaches to promote behaviors associated with mental
toughness. Considering principles from applied positive psychology, appreciative inquiry,
appreciative inquiry coaching, as well as strengths-based coaching, Gordon provides
examples from his experience working with professional athletes and teams in Australian
football, basketball, cricket and golf. From his experience, Gordon recommends that coaches
need to consider the developmental stage of athletes when promoting the development of
mental skills or mental toughness behaviors. Specifically, with novice athletes or athlete’s
that are early into their career, a program that combines traditional mental skills training with
strengths-based approaches would likely be optimal. However, Gordon encourages sport
psychology practitioners and coaches to consider trialing strengths-based approaches to
developing mental toughness behaviors in any sport at any age and at any competitive level.
Mental toughness is associated with the ability to cope and control emotions (Gucciardi,
Hanton, Gordon, Mallett, & Temby, 2015). Coaching is an emotional undertaking and
emotions can have a differential influence on coaches’ behaviors depending on their ability to
regulate their emotions (Lafrenière, Jowett, Vallerand, & Carbonneau, 2011; Chan & Mallett,
2011; Hill & Davis, 2014). In the chapter by Davis and Davis a summary of the influence of
emotions on both cognitive and physical functioning is provided; the psychophysiological
influence of emotions upon the coaching process is also discussed. We outline the
implications of failures to regulate emotions (e.g., inappropriate expressions of anger;
burnout) and offer emotion regulation strategies that have been found to effective in sport and
as well as other domains. Coaches’ and athletes’ emotions and emotion regulation are
augmented by individual differences (Davis, 2011; Davis & Jowett, 2010; Davis, Woodman
& Callow, 2010), we consider how best to approach the use of emotion regulation strategies
(e.g., self-talk) whilst appreciating the influence of an individual’s personality.
Extensive research of the effectiveness of self-talk strategies to facilitate learning and
enhance performance through the activation of appropriate responses has been documented in
sport literature. In their chapter, Zourbanos, Hatzigeorgiadis, Kolovelonis, Latinjak and
Theodorakis present specific training/lesson plans that include the integration of self-talk in
sport as well as physical education and exercise settings. They provide a definition of self-talk
as well as a review of the latest findings for the effectiveness of self-talk; also they provide
suggestions pertaining to the implementation of effective self-talk interventions for coaches
and learners in a range of domains.
The personality of an athlete can influence his/her receptiveness to coaching behaviors
(Jowett, Yang, & Lorimer, 2012; Lanning, 1979). Emotional intelligence, mental toughness,
perfectionism, and hardiness are individual differences that reflect an athlete’s personality;
and are very often highlighted in relation to an athletes’ performance (Laborde, Breuer-
Weißborn & Dosseville, 2013). In Sindik’s chapter he presents how the psychological
characteristics related to personality can be consider for coaching practice. Specifically, he
outlines how hardiness, perfectionism and the big five personality variables can link with
group cohesion in professional basketball teams. In particular, hardiness training has been to
be found to be effective in other performance domains (e.g., military); in particular, aspects of
performance associated with leaderships skills can be enhanced (Maddi, 2007).
Providing leadership is highlighted as a central responsibility of coaches and managers.
As such, leadership has received extensive research attention; in particular, transformational
leadership is one of the most researched leadership theories (Arthur & Tomsett, 2015).
However, in their chapter Milner and McCarthy outline how transformational leadership is
sometimes misunderstood by managers who believe that to be a transformational leader
requires them to be charismatic and in some way extraordinary. In their chapter, several
similarities and differences are identified between managerial coaching and transformational
leadership. Milner and McCarthy argue that where there are similarities, adopting coaching
practices can assist managers in applying transformational leadership and gain the associated
benefits, whether in business or sporting organizations.
Organizational structures that integrate effective coaching can increase performance
outcomes and realize long-term benefits. In their chapter Russell, Otis and Cox, present their
conceptual insight into the competitive and developmental principles that are at the
foundation of New Zealand rugby. They highlight the key to long and short-term group
competitive success, in both sporting and non-sporting environments, is cultural adherence to
universally shared principles. The “core principles” model creates a flexible plan for both
individual and teams success. Within rugby in particular, New Zealand trained coaches use
six core principles to build a methodology ensuring that the positional criteria of the team is
defined and constructed to maximize quality across each positional discipline. Russell and
colleagues discuss why such a simple working template is at the core of one of the world’s
most successful sports team, producing some of the most skilled and talented rugby players in
world rugby. Further, Russell, Otis and Cox highlight the role of support staff that facilitate
coaching and performance excellence.
The support staff that surrounds the coach can enhance (or reduce) coaching
effectiveness. In high performance team environments coaches are required to not only
manage individual players but also the team as a whole. As a result many coaches call upon
assistant coaches, advisors, and support staff including sport psychology consultants, to assist
in the coaching of the players. In their chapter Lauer, Driska, and Cowburn describe best
practices for consultants working with coaches in a high performance environment and as a
member of a performance team. In particular, the role of the trusted advisor is explored as
they suggest how a service-provider of mental skills training can evolve into to a trusted
advisor and member of the performance team is described. Lauer and colleagues provide a
comparison of approaches to resolving common team problems, the process of problem-
8 Paul A. Davis
setting, and the specific skills needed to serve in a trusted advisor role are described, along
with the GROW model of questioning (Whitmore, 2009). Their chapter details the
experiences of the authors in collaborating with coaches and navigating conflicts of interest in
consulting relationships. Lauer, Driska and Cowburn emphasize the importance of having
coach advisors that understand the psychosocial dynamics in high performance team sport
and their link to a scientific base of knowledge.
In the absence of support, the coaching process and associated behaviors can suffer.
Further, the wellbeing of the coach can also be impacted upon negatively. Prolonged stressful
conditions and poor coping can manifest symptoms of burnout. The topic of burnout in sport
has been the extensivly studied, however a limited number of studies have focused upon
coach burnout. The implications of burnout can be realized in the coaching process, social
interactions, and general wellbeing. Lundkvist, Gustafsson and Davis in their chapter provide
a brief review of the coach burnout research to date and suggest how research in the area will
evolve in the future. Specifically, Lundkvist and colleagues outline theoretical frameworks
that can advance knowledge of burnout and promote diverse lines of inquiry. Additionally,
the use of a range of research designs with more sensitive data collection are forwarded to
advance knowledge of coach burnout. Lundkvist, Gustafsson also provide applied
suggestions for burnout prevention and optimising the wellbeing of coaches.
The wellbeing of coaches is central to the development of effective coaching. Moreover,
the complex nature of coaching places numerous demands on coaches and increases the
challenges experienced by coaches. The areas outlined in the following chapters address a
range of psychological aspects that underly effective coaching and management. The
contributors to this book provide a strong foundation by detailing the contributing factors to
coach education, development, measurement, and applied practice. This book serves not only
to take stock of advances made in coaching and management research to date; it also offers a
guide for the directions future studies may take.
REFERENCES
Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and self-
determined motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-determination
theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 654–670.
Armour, K. M. (2010). The learning coach…the learning approach: Professional development
for sports coach professionals. In J. Lyle, & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching:
Professionalisation and practice (pp. 153-164). London: Churchill Livingstone.
Arthur, C. A., & Tomsett, P. (2015). Transformational leadership behaviour in sport. In S.
Mellalieu & S. Hanton (Eds.), Contemporary Advances in Sport Psychology: A Review
(pp. 175- 201). London: Routledge.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human
relations, 48(2), 97-125.
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: the role of
supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357.
Burkett, B. (2013). Coaching athletes with a disability. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, J. Denison.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 196-209). London, England:
Routledge.
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes,
behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of managerial
psychology, 18(8), 788-813.
Chan, J., & Mallett, C. (2011). The value of emotional intelligence for high performance
coaching. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 6(3), 315-328.
Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The Sport
Psychologist, 13, 395–417.
Côté, J. (2006). The development of coaching knowledge. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 1(3), 217-222.
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and
expertise. International journal of sports science and coaching, 4(3), 307-323.
Côté, J., Strachan, L., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2008). Participation, personal development and
performance through youth sport. In N.L. Holt (Ed.). Positive youth development through
sport (pp. 34-45). New York: Routledge.
Cowan, D. T., & Taylor, I. M. (2015). The importance of disaggregating within-person
changes and individual differences among internalized motives, self-esteem and self-
efficacy. Motivation and Emotion, 1-9.
Culver, D. & Trudel, P. (2006). Cultivating coaches’ communities of practice: developing the
potential for learning through interactions. In R.L. Jones (Ed.), The sport coach as
educator: Re-conceptualising sports coaching. (pp. 97-112). London, England:
Routledge.
Cushion, C.J., Armour, K.M., & Jones, R.L. (2003). Coach education and continuing
professional development: experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55, 215–230.
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2001). A systematic observation of professional top-level
youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 354-376.
Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2010). Investigating the interpersonal dynamics between coaches and
athletes based on fundamental principles of attachment. Journal of Clinical Sport
Psychology, 4(2), 112-132.
Davis, L., Jowett, S., & Lafrenière, M. A. (2013). An attachment theory perspective in the
examination of relational processes associated with coach-athlete dyads. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 35(2), 156-67.
Davis, P.A. (2011). Angry Athletes: Psychological, Physiological, and Performance
Implications. In J.P. Welty (Ed.) Psychology of Anger: Symptoms, Causes and Coping.
New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Davis, P.A., Woodman, T., & Callow, N. (2010). Better out than in: The influence of anger
regulation on physical performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 457-460.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Fletcher, D., & Wagstaff, C. R. (2009). Organizational psychology in elite sport: Its
emergence, application and future. Psychology of sport and exercise, 10(4), 427-434.
Ford, P. R., Yates, I., & Williams, M. A. (2010). An analysis of practice activities and
instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: Exploring the link
between science and application. Journal of Sport Sciences, 28, 483-495.
10 Paul A. Davis
Gilbert, W., Côté, J., & Mallett, C. (2006). Developmental paths and activities of successful
sport coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 1(1), 69-76.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2005). Learning to coach through experience: Conditions that
influence reflection. Physical Educator, 62(1), 32.
Griffith, C. R. (1926). Psychology of coaching: a study of coaching methods from the point of
view of psychology. New York, NY: Charles Schribner’s Sons.
Gucciardi, D. F., Hanton, S., Gordon, S., Mallett, C. J., & Temby, P. (2015). The concept of
mental toughness: tests of dimensionality, nomological network, and traitness. Journal of
personality, 83(1), 26-44.
Harwood, C. G., & Knight, C. J. (2015). Parenting in youth sport: A position paper on
parenting expertise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 24-35.
Hellstedt, J. C. (1987). The coach/parent/athlete relationship. The Sport Psychologist, 1(2),
151-160.
Hill, A. & Davis, P.A. (2014). Perfectionism and emotion regulation in coaches: A test of the
2 x 2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 715-726.
Holt, N.L., Tamminen, K.A., Black, D.E., Mandigo, J.L., & Fox, K.R. (2009). Youth sport
parenting styles and practices. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 37-59.
Jones, G. (2002). Performance excellence: A personal perspective on the link between sport
and business. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(4), 268-281.
Jowett, S., Yang, X., & Lorimer, R. (2012). The role of personality, empathy, and satisfaction
with instruction within the context of the coach-athlete relationship. International
Journal of Coaching Science, 6(2), 3-20.
Lanning, W. (1979). Coach and athlete personality interaction: A critical variable in athletic
success. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1(4), 262-267.
Lafrenière, M. A. K., Jowett, S., Vallerand, R.J., & Carbonneau, N. (2011). Passion for
coaching and the quality of the coach-athlete relationship: The mediating role of coaching
behaviors. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(2), 144-152.
LaVoi., N. M. (2007). Interpersonal communication and conflict in the coach–athlete
relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport, Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Lyle, J. (2007). A review of the research evidence for the impact of coach education.
International Journal of Coaching Science, 1, 17-34.
Maddi, S. R. (2007). Relevance of Hardiness Assessment and Training to the Military
Context. Military Psychology, 19(1), 61–70.
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of sports science, 21(11), 883-904.
Mahoney, J., Ntoumanis, N., Mallett, C., & Gucciardi, D. (2014). The motivational
antecedents of the development of mental toughness: a self-determination theory
perspective. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 184-197.
Mallett, C. J. (2010). Becoming a high-performance coach: Pathways and communities. In J.
Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching: Professionalisation and practice (pp. 119-
134). London: Elsevier.
Laborde, S., Breuer-Weißborn, J., & Dosseville, F. (2013). Personality-Trait-Like Individual
Differences in Athletes. In C. Mohiyeddini (Ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Sports
and Exercise. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Occhino, J. L., Mallett, C. J., Rynne, S. B., & Carlisle, K. N. (2014). Autonomy-supportive
pedagogical approach to sports coaching: Research, challenges and opportunities.
International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 9, 401–416.
Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A. (2014). Coaching psychology: An introduction. In Palmer, S., &
Whybrow, A. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of coaching psychology: A guide for
practitioners. Routledge.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations among
perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective
study. Motivation and emotion, 25(4), 279-306.
Schulman, S., & Davies, T. (2007). Evidence of the impact of the ‘Youth Development Model’
on outcomes for young people – A literature review. London: The National Youth
Agency: Information and Research.
Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2009). Investigating the idiosyncratic learning paths of elite
Canadian Coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4, 433-449.
Woodman, T., Davis, P. A., Hardy, L., Callow, N., Glasscock, I., & Yuill-Proctor, J. (2009).
Emotions and sport performance: An exploration of happiness, hope, and anger. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31(2), 169.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr Paul A. Davis is a Chartered Psychologist and Associate Fellow of the British
Psychological Society. He is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sport, Exercise and
Rehabilitation and the Research Lead for Sport Coaching and Psychology at Northumbria
University in the United Kingdom.
His research focuses on emotions, personality and interpersonal relationships in sport,
exercise and health. He has conducted research and consultancy work with a wide range of
populations including professional and Olympic coaches and athletes, the armed forces,
chronic pain patients, health professionals, and performing artists. Paul has also worked with
the British National Health Service as well as crime reduction charities and community
organizations in the development of health promotion initiatives using physical activity to
enhance the health of communities and individuals. He is a qualified coach with international
experience of working with athletes ranging in ability across a number of sports (e.g.,
football, rugby, squash, speed skating). Paul and his wife Louise live on the edge of the
Northumberland National Park in the United Kingdom, with their three young (and very
active) boys.
Chapter 2
A HOLISTIC MODEL OF THE COACHING PROCESS:

CONCEPTUALIZING THE CHALLENGE OF
EFFECTIVENESS IN PRACTICE
Edward Thomas Hall1*, Shirley Gray2, John Kelly2,

Amanda Martindale2 and John Sproule2
1
2
The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
This chapter introduces a holistic model of the coaching process, which was
developed during a mixed-methods, longitudinal case study in international rugby union.
Fundamentally, it shows that the coaching process is constituted of the interactions of a
coach and their associates within a coaching context. Each of these personal, social and
contextual influences on coaching practice are described and explored using practical
examples. Numerous constraints and opportunities experienced by coaches in their
complex work are highlighted and key considerations for practitioners in different
contexts are raised. The holistic model is presented in order to help coaches from diverse
backgrounds to think critically about the intricacies of their own coaching practice. More
specifically and against the backdrop of this book’s title, it is hoped that the holistic
model will act as a framework for reflective practice and awareness building for readers
who wish to be effective coaches. Moreover, we hope to stimulate further discussion
about the coaching process as a sophisticated, holistic and contingent project, one imbued
with interconnected idiosyncracies, possibilities and challenges, as well as significant
breadth and depth.
Keywords: Coach process, coaching practice, coaching context, holistic model
*
Corresponding Author address: Email: edward.hall@northumbria.ac.uk
14 Edward Thomas Hall, Shirley Gray, John Kelly et al.
INTRODUCTION
Being “effective” is a very appealing aim for sports coaches. Yet, grasping what is meant
by effectiveness, what it will look like and how it should be achieved in the messy realities of
coaching practice is a challenge for practitioners and scholars alike. Indeed, coaching
involves a variety of roles and is subject to various pressures not least of trying to work with
diverse individuals and in distinctive and dynamic socio-cultural contexts (Jones, Armour, &
Potrac, 2002). The coaching process must therefore be recognised as a highly complex and
inescapably contingent phenomenon. For example, Saury and Durand (1998) highlighted how
training sessions in Olympic sailing were contingent upon changeable weather conditions.
Moreover, if you were to compare the needs of gymnasts in a local, junior-level club with
those of an elite, senior-level team you might well find similarities, but they would also be
sufficiently distinct so as to make “one-size-fits-all” recommendations for “effective” practice
inappropriate and of little practical value to their coaches (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003;
Jones & Wallace, 2005).
In the best example to date of efforts to unpack this thorny issue, Côté and Gilbert (2009)
suggested that an effective coach will be sensitive to the idiosyncratic needs of their athletes
and to the challenges and opportunities of their coaching context. Certainly, a coach’s
knowledge, practice and continuing learning need to be fit for purpose within the unique
environment of their deployment. It is therefore ironic that formal coach education tends to
deliver standardised content, en mass and in decontextualised, passive settings to those
enrolled (Cushion et al., 2010). Such a “broad-brush” approach simply cannot correspond to
the specific needs of all practitioners or the diverse circumstances of their work. In order to
deal with and learn from the complex and emergent nature of the coaching process, coaches
should instead be supported in their development of critical judgement, decision-making and
reflective skills (Nash, Martindale, Collins, & Martindale, 2012). With these points in mind,
the purpose of this chapter is to introduce a holistic model of the coaching process. This
model is intended to help novice and experienced coaches operating at various levels and in
different sports to think more clearly about the intimately interconnected intricacies of their
own coaching practice. We set out to highlight a framework for thinking critically about the
factors that impinge upon or create opportunities for effective practice. We do this in the
belief that it is only by making explicit those things that often go unnoticed as practitioners
get on with the everyday business of coaching that their practice can become more
deliberately effective. As Abraham et al. (2006 p.550) stated, “unless you know how the
process works, how can you optimally develop it?”
DEVELOPING A HOLISTIC MODEL

In sport coaching it is typical for abstracted understandings of the coaching process to be
rendered into conceptual models or schematics (e.g., Abraham et al., 2006; Côté, Salmela,
Trudel, Baria, & Russell, 1995; Groom, Cushion, & Nelson, 2011). Models of coaching, those
based upon empirical research, provide particularly useful insights into the factors (and the
relationships between factors) that shape coaching practice. For example, Côté and
colleagues’ (1995) influential Coaching Model highlighted that coaches’ and athletes’
A Holistic Model of the Coaching Process 15
personal characteristics will impact upon the coaching process. However, most other models,
despite often setting out to explain all coaching in every context, have been limited by their
characteristic lack of empirical data, their single-method designs and their narrow focus on
disconnected episodes or isolated features of the coaching process1. As a result of these
issues, it is little wonder that few if any coaches make reference to existing coaching models
when describing what it is that they do (Gilbert, 2007).
The holistic model presented in this chapter was developed during a longitudinal project
that explored the coaching process in international women’s rugby union. A mixed methods
ethnographic research design was conceived in order to develop a “theory that is true to the
complex realities of sports coaching” (Smith & Cushion, 2006 p.356). Data were gathered
across a competitive international season though participant observations of the team’s
coaches, players and other staff, which were recorded in a field journal.
By being embedded in the coaching process, the lead author (Edward) was able to
observe coaching practice in situations that stretched beyond the typical confines of the
training or match pitch. Thus, he was present on the team’s bus and in their hotels, during
meetings, half-time talks and video analysis sessions, and at social and media events. More
objective systematic observations of the head coach’s behaviors and activities, developed
from video recordings of training sessions and matches, helped to confirm and challenge
entries in the field journal. A new tool, the Rugby Coach Activities and Behaviours
Instrument (RCABI), was developed for this purpose (Hall, Gray, & Sproule, 2015). In
addition, numerous semi-structured interviews were conducted with the head coach, focusing
on her experiences within the coaching process. Similarly, stimulated recall interviews were
carried out throughout the season (see Lyle, 2003), where the head coach recalled and
reflected upon audio-visual recordings of her coaching practice in various on- and off-pitch
settings. This combination of methods was essential to connect the specifics of coaching
practice to the more general circumstances of the coaching context. Analysis of the
information gained through the mixed methods ethnographic research design was informed
by the principles of grounded theory. Grounded theory is particularly suited to study the
complex and holistic coaching process because it focuses upon the subjective meanings
derived from people’s experiences and how these guide practice (Tesch, 1990). In other
words, it helps to turn the spotlight on understanding why coaches do what they do when they
coach. The process included collecting data, analyzing it and comparing it to relevant
literature, following which further data were collected to help refine concepts, and so on
throughout the project’s duration (Weed, 2009). This iterative process culminated in a
grounded theory, the holistic model, which is an abstract, theoretical construct of the coaching
process in action presented from the point of view of the coach. Findings derived from the
RCABI were beneficial in the development of the holistic model, but are less valuable to its
explanation here and so extensive that they are reported in detail elsewhere (e.g., Hall et al.,
2015). Indeed, our purpose in this chapter is not to describe in such micro-detail what one
coach did, but to present a flexible, abstracted framework that other coaches might use to
reflect on their own coaching process in more critical detail.
The holistic model presented here is, in accordance with the pragmatism of John Dewey’s
view of theories, more a useful tool than a universal theory per se (Bryant, 2013). As a useful
1
Lyle (2010) and Cushion, Armour and Jones (2006) provide further discussion of the limitations inherent in the
modeling approach.
tool, we do not claim that the model currently accounts for all the variables that shape all the
practice of all coaches in all contexts. Instead, we suggest that the value of the model is to
provide a conceptual framework from which similarities and differences in other coaching
contexts and with other participants might be explored. We present the holistic model to
practitioners as an aid to reflection and awareness building, a sensitizing device or a way of
looking at the coaching process that might help them to identify the intricacies of their own
practice. In other words, as Strauss and Corbin (1998) describe of grounded theory, we regard
one of the strengths of the holistic model to be its potential for qualification and modification
by those who refer to it. Consequently, we expect that coaches and researchers might amend
and append in various ways our framework in order to develop models that best describe their
own coaching contexts. Moreover, we invite readers to respond to this chapter with their own
examples, which might usefully be combined within a database to identify the similarities and
differences of the coaching process as yet so little understood.
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS

For clarity, we set out working definitions for several key terms used in the holistic
model and throughout this chapter. These definitions draw heavily upon the work of John
Lyle (e.g., Lyle, 2002, 2011).
Associates
Associates encompass all of the social actors who interact with the coach during the
coaching process. By definition this will include an athlete or athletes, but we also recognize
the influence of a multitude of others upon the coaching process in different contexts (e.g.,
assistant coaches, medical staff, officials). Thus, our holistic model of the coaching process
extends previous models in which only the coach-athlete relationship was acknowledged.
Coach
The coach is someone who works with an athlete or athletes for the purpose of
performance development. This is not to say that other goals or objectives do not exist for
those involved (e.g., positive youth development outcomes), but that the idea of supporting
athletic improvement is fundamental to how we distinguish a coach from any other role or
profession. The “coach” referred to in the holistic model could be a head or assistant coach, a
novice or master coach, volunteer or professional, male or female etc.
Coaching Context
The coaching context describes a set of circumstances surrounding the coaching process.
From a demographic perspective, the context may be discussed in terms of sport type,
competitive level and the age, gender or professional/amateur status of athletes. From a
functional point of view, the unique context will be comprised of an almost innumerable
number of factors that impact how any stakeholder engages in or experiences the coaching
process. For example, the characteristics of the immediate physical environment (e.g.,
weather conditions), other unpredictable variables (e.g., opposition performance during
competition) as well as historical and cultural factors (e.g., the team’s record in competition;
team traditions) might all influence the coach’s practice.
Coaching Practice
Coaching practice includes all of the behaviors, activities and interactions undertaken by
the coach as a practical function of their role within the coaching process (e.g., planning,
feedback, instruction etc.).
Coaching Process
The coaching process is the comprehensive program of tasks and activities entered into
by the coach and associates through their work together (e.g., meetings, training, competitions
etc.). The roles, responsibilities, level of involvement and impact of any one person in the
coaching process will be determined by the nature of the coaching context and what is agreed
(implicitly or explicitly) with other stakeholders.
OVERVIEW OF THE HOLISTIC MODEL

The holistic model (Figure 1) represents the primary constituents as well as their
principal properties and key relationships within the coaching process. The model is
presented from the perspective of the coach. Accordingly, at the heart of the coaching process
is what the coach does, their coaching practice. The bold arrows show that this practice,
inclusive of the coach’s behaviors, activities, tasks, actions, inactions and interactions, is
influenced by factors related to the coach, various associates and the coaching context. These
arrows also show that this influence is bi-directional; the coach’s practice will impact upon
each of the aforementioned factors in ways that reflect and contribute to the ever-changing
and serial nature of the coaching process. Thus, although it is shown here as a two-
dimensional schematic for ease of communication, the coaching process should not be
considered inanimate, stable or timeless. The coaching process is instead inherently human,
inescapably vulnerable, largely unstable and constantly emerging.
To help readers reflect upon the unique nature of their own coaching process, each of the
primary constituents of the holistic model will now be discussed and examples from practice
given. However, owing to the breadth of the model, only so much detail can be given in the
space available. Thus, we attempt to highlight links between the model’s components and
existing theories or lines of research so that the reader is able to explore them in greater depth.
Figure 1. The holistic model of the coaching process.
SETTINGS OF THE COACHING PROCESS

The coaching process is operationalized (practiced) in three main settings: organization,
preparation and competition. These three settings are largely similar to those identified by
Côté et al. (1995); however, their reference to “training” suggested a very traditional but
limited image of on-the-pitch, in-the-pool or at-the-track skill development. The holistic
model identifies other scenarios where facilitative coaching practice takes place in
preparation for competition. Each setting is described below.
Organization
The organization setting includes activities and tasks related to planning, scheduling,
managing, monitoring and evaluating the coaching process. Especially for volunteer coaches,
time pressures might limit the extent of planning to brief considerations of content
immediately prior to individual training sessions. Conversely, professional coaches working
at international level will likely plan across and within four-year World Cup, Olympic or
Paralympic cycles, with reference to in-season competition schedules and with athletes’
physical and technical development strategies set out week-by-week. In each case, the scope
and detail included in planning will depend upon other factors related to the coaching context.
For instance, individual, predominantly physiological sports (e.g., endurance running) tend to
be characterized by more exhaustive and definitive planning of physical development goals
(peaking; Le Meur, Hausswirth, & Mujika, 2012); while in skill-based team sports, with more
varied training objectives and weekly matches, detailed planning over longer periods is more
challenging (Gamble, 2004; Lyle 2010). Depending on the context, the coach will need to co-
ordinate the involvement of other associates in the organization setting. In top-level rugby, for
example, this might include a performance manager monitoring the progress of key
performance indicators (KPIs), medical staff recording athletes’ injury management and
return-to-play protocols, and a team manager outlining daily itineraries for travel, rest and
meal times. Given these challenges, the planning of head coaches in skill-based team sports is
an important area for further research.
Preparation
Preparation incorporates all activities involved in helping athletes to prepare for as well
as to recover and learn from competition. Alongside the requisite training sessions,
preparation might also include meetings between coach and athlete(s), video analysis
activities, strength and conditioning work and rehabilitation appointments. Considering the
talent development domain, where regional or national representative coaches often have
limited direct contact with athletes for much of the season, regular interactions through phone
calls, emails or an online training diary may be essential to the development of an effective
coach-athlete relationship and to the advancement of the coaching process. Furthermore, just
as preparation brings with it distinctive tasks not usually part of organization or competition,
so too it can include associates who are less involved or absent from these other settings.
Thus, specialists might be frequently involved in supporting specific aspects of an athlete’s
preparation (e.g., a specialist kicking coach, psychologist etc.), but have minimal input into
organizing the coaching process or during competition. To date, “off-pitch” activities have
attracted less attention from researchers than the more obvious sites of training and
competition, but Groom, Cushion and Nelson’s (2011) work on video analysis highlights the
value of reflecting more broadly upon the roles of the coach in different settings.
Competition
The competition setting includes tasks, activities and actions immediately before, during
and after competitive performance. For most coaches this will include a warm up, in-
competition interventions (e.g., substitutions, feedback and time outs), and cool down. Again,
the coaching context will determine that some coaches also have to be aware of and take part
in media engagements, post-competition social receptions, athlete doping control procedures,
result reporting and dealing with injuries. Naturally, these and other activities will bring the
coach into contact with yet more varied associates. In youth sport, for example, parents might
frequently be present during competition, and the coach will need to carefully consider how
this might impact upon the coaching process. Indeed, Knight, Boden and Holt (2010)
highlighted that junior tennis players would prefer parents to comment on effort and attitude,
but to avoid offering technical and tactical advice during competition. By understanding
athlete needs and expectations (see Associate Factors) the youth coach can play a crucial if
challenging and potentially contested mediating role in enhancing parental involvement in
athletes’ sporting lives. A different consideration during competition, this time for lone youth
team-sport coaches, is what will happen if an athlete needs to be taken to hospital due to
injury? If you are the only responsible adult with the team, it will be impossible to accompany
the injured athlete in the ambulance and to continue to coach the rest of the team as they
finish the game. These examples highlight the value of using the holistic model to identify
factors that impinge upon or create opportunities for effective practice and how they can vary
between different settings within the coaching process.
Considering a number of now popular and related athlete-centered philosophies (e.g.,
humanism; holistic positive development; empowerment), it is important to point out that
athletes might benefit from playing prominent roles in each of the three settings described.
For example, they might contribute to the design and modification of favored training
activities, take active roles in negotiating codes of practice for athletes, coach and associates,
and assume the lead in analyzing their performances. Similarly, head coaches should consider
how assistant coaches and other associates could benefit from being involved in different
ways in these settings. For instance, an inexperienced assistant coach might find that
contributing extensively in the organization setting would allow them to synthesize
information with less perceived pressure than during preparation or competition. These
examples emphasize the point that coaching practice is not only shaped by the actions and
interactions of associates and the coaching context, it also shapes the experiences of
associates and the nature of the coaching context. Thus, in constructing your own practice,
you must be aware of what influences you and what you influence within the coaching
process. In sum, building upon Côté and Gilbert’s (2009) definition, the effectiveness of
coaching practice in each setting of the coaching process will actually be determined by its
sensitivity to the needs of various associates and to the challenges and opportunities of the
coaching context.
THE COACH: PERSONAL FACTORS

Knowledge
Various kinds of knowledge are needed in order to coach effectively, which can be
developed through formal (e.g., coach education, university degree), nonformal (e.g.,
workshops) and informal (e.g., experience) means2. Abraham et al. (2006) identified three
broad types of knowledge required by coaches, which they categorized as pedagogical
knowledge, sport-specific knowledge and knowledge of different ‘ologies. The specific
coaching context will inform the relative value attached to different types of knowledge. For
example, in rowing and triathlon, where performance relies heavily upon physiological
factors, coaches will need more advanced knowledge of anaerobic and aerobic energy
systems, periodization principles and recovery strategies. In snooker and golf, where
cognitive processes are key drivers of performance, a deeper understanding of emotion
regulation, attentional focus and decision-making will be key. For coaches of youth sport,
knowledge of maturation will be essential, and for elite-level, professional team-sport coaches
or managers with a large support staff, extensive knowledge in the highlighted areas may be
less important. However, just as some coaches will oversee a team of experts responsible for
specialist skill development, strength and conditioning and performance analysis, so others
will work alone and feel they need to be a polymath in order to be effective. In each case, it is
clear that conceptual knowledge alone is not enough; you also need to gain experience of how
2
See Cushion et al. (2010) for a comprehensive overview of coach learning in the UK.
to apply concepts and theories in the complex realities of the coaching context (Nash et al.,
2012). Here we distinguish between declarative and procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1982),
between knowing what to do and knowing how to do it. Thus, within the coaching process, an
expert coach will be able to call upon a bedrock of relevant declarative knowledge as well as
utilizing solutions developed during an extensive range of past experiences.
For many coaches, an early and important source of knowledge about how to coach
comes from their experiences as an athlete (Cushion et al., 2003). This knowledge is then
further developed after they transition to be an assistant or head coach. Beneficially, learning
through experience like this can help coaches to understand their sport’s rules, customs and
nuanced procedures, as well as enabling them to empathize with athletes (Cushion et al.,
2010). With sensitivity to the needs of athletes and the distinctive context being so important,
knowledge derived from experience may therefore be essential to becoming an effective
coach. Indeed, when large numbers of coaches seemingly operate outside of more formal
systems of coach education in the UK (Nash, Sproule, Hall, & English, 2013), coaching
experience clearly plays a significant role in their development (Nelson & Cushion, 2006).
However, concerns have also been raised about the uncritical perpetuation of traditional
coaching practice that can result from simply copying what someone else does (Cushion et
al., 2003). In the pursuit of effectiveness, doing so will obviously lack sensitivity to particular
nuances in the present coaching context and to the needs of present associates. Therefore, it is
important to be able to learn from personal experience, but in self-aware, perceptive and
critical ways, so that novel, innovative and effective solutions to the complexities of the
practice context may be developed (Nash et al., 2012).
Self-monitoring processes as well as reflection during and following practice have been
promoted as being key to learning from experience (Erickson, Côté, & Fraser-Thomas, 2007).
Reflection is crucial for coaches to develop actionable strategies to overcome the nuanced and
dynamic dilemmas faced when coaching. Gilbert and Trudel (2001) have most clearly
outlined the process of reflection for coaches, identifying troublesome issues as the stimulus
for reflective conversations. These conversations proceed through cycles of strategy
generation, experimentation and evaluation all aimed at solving the context-specific
challenges at hand. Yet, coaches should be aware that simply having an experience does not
guarantee reflection, nor does reflective practice guarantee learning (Boud & Walker, 1998;
Gibbs, 1988). In fact, deep investment in criticality is needed if the coach is to achieve real
impact on their practice. Usefully though, this process can be supported by associates in the
coaching process, perhaps assistant coaches or athletes, who can help to set issues, provide
advice and evaluate solutions (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001). Furthermore, our research and others
(e.g., Carson, 2008) has demonstrated that video footage of one’s coaching can also stimulate
valuable recall and reflection on the effectiveness of practice.
Philosophy
A coaching philosophy is a set of beliefs, principles and values that guide coaching
practice (Nash, Sproule, & Horton, 2008). Considering the previous points in this chapter,
developing a clear picture of your own philosophy can provide direction in the complex and
dynamic world of the coaching process (Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2009). It can also act as a
framework to monitor and reflect upon your work. Thus, a coherent coaching philosophy can
help coaches to develop effective knowledge and practice. Truly philosophical thinking
relates to deep questions concerning axiology (values), ethics (morality), ontology (meaning),
epistemology (knowledge) and phenomenology (experience; Cushion & Partington, 2014)3.
By committing to answer such questions, the coach must delve deep into their actions to
uncover the experiences that have shaped their often implicit and deeply held beliefs.
Moreover, they will critically consider which coaching behaviors most closely align with
their philosophy in order to monitor their use in practice. For example, the virtue of being
honest might be widely agreed, but how easily would you maintain your commitment to
honesty if an athlete was constantly underperforming and was known to be overly self-
critical? Would total honesty serve this athlete best? In another example, the desire to give
equal time in competition to all the athletes in a squad might be admirable, but this will also
have to be resolved against the need to pick a team for the knockout stages of a tournament.
Through these and earlier examples we highlight, as with reflective practice, that deep rather
than surface thinking and acting are needed, and that being aware of one’s philosophy is a
challenging process requiring the significant investment of effort and intellect over extended
periods of time.
When considering your philosophy, you might ask yourself “what things are good/bad in
coaching”, “how they are good/bad” and “how their goodness/badness is related”, as well as
“when have I experienced examples of these things before?” The trick, however, is not to be
satisfied with easily arrived at answers, but to challenge your assumptions. For instance, the
university-level soccer coach who follows a traditionally linear structure of activities during
training, a kind of skills-first, drills-next and games-last approach, may hold unchallenged
epistemological beliefs that athletes’ knowledge of technical skills must be learned in
isolation before tactical appreciation can be developed during games. Yet, a plethora of
research would suggest that game-based activities modified through the application of
different constraints and progressed and regressed in line with athletes’ performance and
development might provide a more effective learning context in soccer (e.g., Davids, Araújo,
Correia, & Vilar, 2013; Gabbett, Jenkins, & Abernethy, 2009; Harvey, Cushion, Cope, &
Muir, 2013). Therefore, coaches should strive to be research informed, and to refine their
practice through real-world experimentation and critical reflection.
It is important to stress again at this point that there is no one right way to coach, but
neither does this mean that all philosophies and coaching practice are equally good or
effective. For this reason, the ambitious practitioner must be a passionate student of coaching,
an “extended professional” in Hoyle’s (1980) terms. Extended professionals – rather than
referring to paid employment – are analytical practitioners who adopt an intellectual and
reason-based approach in their work. Here, the importance of an extensive knowledge base
and higher-level cognitive skills (e.g., critical reflection) are again reinforced. In contrast,
“restricted professionals” rely on experience and intuition and are guided by narrow rhetoric.
One risk of being a restricted professional is that, due to a lack of broader understanding, gaps
may appear between your intentions or the claims you make about practice (what you say you
do) and what you actually do in practice (e.g., Partington & Cushion, 2013). To counter this,
we join with Cushion and Partington (2014) in urging practitioners to take up the challenge of
engaging in philosophical contemplation and critical reflection. In doing so, you will
constantly strive to unpack unquestioned assumptions, to go beyond the limits of subjective
3
For further discussion of these terms in coaching see Hardman and Jones (2013).
experience and to hold accountable the socio-cultural contexts in which your existing
knowledge, coaching philosophy and practice have been developed. The results will be the
extension of your professionalism and the ability to further your development in the day-to-
day realities of the coaching process.
Role Frame
A role frame is how a coach understands the responsibilities, tasks and actions that arise
from their social position. Still, role frame is not a simple catalogue of things to be done, like
some kind of checklist for coaching practice. It must also be sensitive to the complex network
of personal, social and contextual influences upon the coaching role if the coach’s practice is
to be effective. In other words, a role frame is the coach’s means of interpreting their working
environment, a cognitive synthesis of the constraints and opportunities that influence their
practice, which come from their interactions with associates in their unique coaching context.
Echoing earlier findings (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004), role frame can therefore be considered an
integrative framework that helps to guide coaching practice within the social and practical
domains of the coaching process. It is also the pragmatic filter through which our
philosophies and knowledge are deployed in the real world, and through which lessons from
practice are integrated into our evolving future intentions as coaches. In previous work, the
agency or free will of the coach to define their role was emphasized; however, our research
highlights how socio-cultural forces also influence the coach’s role frame. Thus, “coaches act
both as they choose and how they are influenced to choose” (Jones et al., 2002 p.37), and so
we come to understand coaching as a contested and negotiated, power-based activity (Potrac
& Jones, 2009). In this section, we use Raven’s (1983) six-part taxonomy of social influence,
which borrows from the work of Weber (1947), to explain role frame.
Depending upon the context, a coach will be afforded more or less power to define his or
her own role and to determine their decisions and actions within the coaching process. At the
most basic level, this endowment might be made clear by a formal contract or job description,
or as many volunteers will experience, be more ambiguous. For example, a swimming coach
employed by a governing body might have defined responsibilities for overseeing athlete
development, selecting teams for competition and planning training sessions. On the other
hand, when a parent drops their child off at the local tennis courts for a school holiday
coaching camp, the roles expected of the self-employed coach may go completely unspoken4.
In both cases though, the coach has been positioned by others in such a way that they are able
to make demands and decisions that athletes in particular are obligated to obey. Here, they
hold a position of legitimate power (Raven, 1983), where the governing body, parents and
athletes (among others) have accepted and promoted the right of the coach to influence the
lives of others. In this sense, the legitimate power of the coach can be considered a kind of
cultural norm within the social hierarchy of the sporting world.
The legitimacy of the coaching role is not the only way that a coach can exert social
influence within the coaching process. Rewards, coercion, expertise, information and
identification can also be influential (Raven, 2008). For example, the coach often holds both
4
Though parents, athletes and coaches will all still hold some implicit expectations about the roles the coach will
perform.
the reward and coercive power of selection over athletes in team sports. The reward of being
selected or the threat of being dropped could be used to maintain discipline or promote
adherence to a training schedule. Expert power depends upon subordinates attributing
superior knowledge or ability to the coach, while informational power is determined by the
coach’s ability to persuade others through information or logical argument. Finally, the extent
to which a subordinate identifies with or wants to emulate the qualities of the coach can
provide them with referent power within the coaching process. Making use of these bases of
power is undoubtedly important when occupying the role of coach. Indeed, without the social
influence necessary to persuade athletes to commit themselves to a rigorous training program,
to persist even when not selected and to stick to a schedule of injury rehabilitation, it is easy
to see how the coach could struggle to carry out their role irrespective of how ambiguously or
explicitly it is understood. However, social influence is a complex process; the different bases
of power are not mutually exclusive, nor will they always work in unfettered harmony
together. The coach must recognize and respond to nuances in the contexts and targets of their
attempted influence if they are to be effective. With this in mind, the sections that follow
highlight further examples of factors related to associates and the coaching context that might
be incorporated within a coach’s role frame. Despite the coach being positioned above as a
powerful individual who is expected to influence others, this does not mean that they are able
to undertake their roles without compromise. Indeed, a primary function of the holistic model
and this chapter is to highlight various factors that contribute to the contingent, negotiated
nature of the coaching process. Of these, relations with associates are particularly interesting
because assistant coaches, athletes and others are not vacuous, flimsy dependents – they can
also wield power in ways that influence the coach. For example, assistant coaches might
usually have less legitimate power over decisions such as team selection than a head coach
has; but, a head coach might have less expertise in certain sport-specific tactics than their
assistants, or some athletes might identify more closely with the assistant coach than the head
coach. Therefore, the assistant coach might be more effective at providing tactical instructions
or feedback to certain athletes, and we would argue that an effective head coach would
recognize this. In another case, a line manager or wealthy sponsor could influence the coach
through coercion or rewards linked to their professional contract. Thus, the coach’s role frame
acts a pragmatic filter, a cognitive mechanism for understanding what is possible and what
constraints exist within the dynamic circumstances of the coaching process. In summary, the
coach’s role frame moderates (knowingly or unknowingly) between the ideological ways in
which coaches often think and talk about their work (i.e., their knowledge and philosophy)
and the practical ways in which they actually coach (i.e., their practice). Accordingly, the idea
that a role frame is the synthesis of constraints and opportunities arising in the coaching
context perhaps begins to address the liminal space that is currently unaccounted for in
explanations of why coaching practice does not always match more ideological intentions
(e.g., Cushion & Partington, 2014; Partington & Cushion, 2013).
ASSOCIATES: SOCIAL FACTORS

As we have begun to unpack, what the coach does when coaching can only be accounted
for in part by their knowledge and philosophy (usually what they intend to do in an ideal
world). In fact, the coaching process is subject to the vagaries and tensions of human social
interactions. Consequently, the coach must be sensitive to and able to continuously reconcile
their own perspectives with the idiosyncratic needs, expectations and roles of various
associates.
Associate Needs
Effectiveness in coaching has previously been linked to the “fit” between a coach’s
practice and the needs of their athletes (Côté & Gilbert, 2009), but the holistic model adds to
this by advancing the needs of other associates as key shapers of the coaching process. Thus,
effective coaching practice will include (even subtle) differentiation based upon the needs of
different people in the coaching context. For example, the idiosyncratic motives and
personalities of athletes in an elite rugby team might mean that during a pre-game talk a calm
appraisal of strategies that can be used to outwit the opponents would be preferred by one
athlete, while another would prefer an impassioned speech demanding maximum effort.
Another consideration could be that some athletes will like answering questions in front of
their peers, whilst others will hate to be put on the spot. Finally, an inexperienced volunteer
who offers to assist at his daughter’s taekwondo class might initially just want to help to set
out and clear away equipment as they develop their own understanding of the sport. In
contrast, a highly experienced netball coach who has recently moved to the area might desire
more freedom to operate without the sense of being “watched over” all of the time. A “one-
size-fits-all” approach simply would not work in these examples, and so we see the need to be
flexible and adapt coaching practice to “fit” the needs of others.
When reflecting upon the alignment between their practice and the needs, expectations
and roles of associates, we suggest that the concepts of Self-Determination Theory (SDT;
Ryan & Deci, 2002) may be useful to coaches. SDT is a theory of people’s motivation that
highlights how the interpersonal behaviors of significant others (i.e., coaches) can promote
people’s innate potential for personal growth and humanity (or to thwart and deplete these
possibilities). SDT proposes that the engagement of associates in the coaching process is
related to the way in which the coaching context satisfies three basic psychological needs:
feelings of competence, autonomy and relatedness. The notion of competence is the
individual’s feelings of being effective and having opportunities to express their effective
capacities; autonomy is the degree to which the context affords someone opportunities to
express free will; and relatedness is how much a person feels a sense of belonging to and
connection with their context (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Research in this area suggests that if the
coach can support these three basic psychological needs then associates will experience
positive outcomes including enhanced persistence, effort, performance, vitality, self esteem
and well-being (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2009). However, as
noted above, individual needs can conflict and create challenges for coaches, which means
that shaping an effective environment for all concerned is a demanding task. For example,
Cowan, Taylor, McEwan, & Baker (2012) found that coaches’ humor played an important
role in creating emotionally involving relationships with disadvantaged youth soccer players,
which helped to offset the need for more control and less choice with individuals who
typically lacked the confidence and self-esteem to take opportunities to make their own
decisions. In summary, as Côté & Gilbert (2009) suggest, by being sensitive and responsive
to athletes’ needs (to which we add the needs of other associates), the coach can support
positive outcomes within the coaching process.
Associate Expectations
Alongside associates’ needs, their expectations about the coach’s role and the coaching
process will influence coaching practice. Expectations set out in job descriptions and
contracts for coaches have already been discussed, but other, more understated expectations
can also be decisive.
As with associates’ needs, these expectations may be counterproductive to one another or
irreconcilable with the coach’s philosophy and knowledge. For instance, your philosophy
might be to empower an assistant coach by engaging them fully in providing feedback to
athletes on selection decisions; however, the assistant coach could expect this to be a
responsibility of the head coach and resist playing such a prominent role. Similarly, athletes
might expect that the coach will provide clear instructions about tactical strategies, but your
philosophy might be to use a more problem-based approach, where the athletes figure out
solutions to tactical dilemmas for themselves. These tensions are philosophical and practical
in nature, and they, along with other similar issues, will not be easily resolved. Indeed, we are
not suggesting that by being need- and expectation-aware coaches should simply do what
their associates want. The coach must therefore be clear on the goals of the coaching process
and the goals of their associates in order to balance competing priorities and to effectively
inform coaching practice.
Clearly it is important to know one’s associates well in order to understand their needs
and expectations. Although there is little research that explores the effectiveness of coaches’
relationships with a range of associates, there is a good deal of work that focusses upon the
coach-athlete relationship. Findings in this area have highlighted the benefits of developing a
close emotional attachment (closeness) and a cognitive commitment to maintaining the
partnership over time, and of engaging in cooperative or complementary behaviors (e.g.,
being responsive and willing; Davis and Jowett, 2010). In trying to understand how to
achieve these outcomes, Rhind and Jowett (2010) developed the COMPASS model.
Importantly, COMPASS recognizes the contested and negotiated nature of the coaching
process by highlighting actions required to maintain the coach-athlete relationship in the face
of opportunities and challenges. For instance, the authors noted the importance of conflict
management where there are unmet expectations and the need to cooperate during the
discussion of disagreements. Furthermore, attempting to understand each other’s feelings,
motivating each other, giving honest feedback and being adaptable were also raised (Rhind &
Jowett, 2010). These examples reinforce our point that coaching practice is not simply done
by a coach to an athlete in isolated incidents; it is an outcome of the interactions of coach and
associates through time and within the serial, related and evolving context of the coaching
process. Hence, effective practice will be continuously tuned and refined in response to the
way previous practice is produced and its effect on the coach’s relationships with associates.
Associate Roles
The holistic model features one other factor that adds complexity to the initiation,
development and maintenance of relationships within the coaching process: the roles of
associates. As with the coach’s role frame, associates’ roles relate to their positions within the
social milieu of the coaching process. More specifically, two role conditions will influence
the likelihood of need thwarting or need satisfying practice: the proximity of an associate to
the coach and the level of conflict between the coach’s role frame and the associate’s role. To
illustrate these two conditions, consider the relative social positions of a long-standing
assistant coach and a newly selected athlete to the head coach of a field hockey team. It will
take time for the head coach and recently arrived athlete to build their relationship, whereas
the assistant coach has been a close colleague for years. Consequently, the head coach’s role
frame and resulting practice will likely be more easily and accurately aligned to the needs and
expectations of the assistant coach. However, the potential for a kind of role conflict between
the head coach and assistant coach should also be considered. For example, the assistant
coach might feel, given their long service, that they should have more input into important
decisions, which the head coach may feel conflicts with the primacy of decision making
expected of them by their athletes and employer. This could cause disruption to the head
coach-assistant coach relationship, with the head coach’s practice being less likely to meet the
expectations of their assistant. In contrast, the new hockey player will probably pose less of a
challenge to the power of the head coach, and so their relationship might initially flourish as a
result of the coach’s need-satisfying practice.
COACHING CONTEXT: CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

Opportunities and constraints related to various contextual factors will also (implicitly or
explicitly) inform the coach’s role frame and their practice. Within the holistic model, three
types of contextual factors are identified (cultural factors, resources and extraneous factors),
which can be used by coaches to frame reflections on the challenges of their own coaching
environments.
Cultural Factors
Coaching practice occurs within a climate of locally specific and broader cultural
circumstances, which are the distinctive and meaningful characteristics of the unique
coaching context. At a micro level, such factors could include working with athletes who are
used to always being told what to do, which might pose a challenge to a newly appointed
coach who intends to adopt a more open, athlete-centered approach (see Kidman &
Lombardo, 2010). Under other circumstances, the coach of a veteran, social badminton team
might experience resistance from their athletes when they attempt to impose a greater
proportion of fitness activities in usually fun-focused training sessions. At a different level,
the culture of working in elite or professional sport, with its inherent focus on competitive
success, would appear to conflict with more person-driven or humanistic practices (Jenkins,
2010). Similarly, some sports are characterized by traditional practices that might impinge
upon contemporary philosophies of coaching. For instance, martial arts are often based on
control and discipline and practicing techniques that match a predefined, aesthetic style.
Elsewhere, Cushion and Jones (2006, 2014) explored the strength and impact of an
established culture in professional soccer, highlighting how social practice there was linked to
discourses of autocracy and masculinity. On the other hand, the more relaxed, hedonistic
atmosphere that can be argued to prevail in action or extreme sports may promote a less
structured and technique-driven approach as well as more democratic coaching practice. The
potential problem with any such cultural influence is that it normalizes certain practices and
stigmatizes others. Thus, it can stunt innovation by constraining people’s willingness to
critically reflect upon the assumptions that inform their practice (Cassidy et al., 2009). Here
we highlight that the choice to become a reflective, research-informed, extended professional
is not an entirely free one. It too is shaped by cultural forces, forces that may need to be
strongly disrupted (perhaps by this book, coach education, discussions with a mentor, or a
critical incident in practice) if any sustained change is to occur.
Resources
The second type of contextual factors found to influence coaching practice was resources.
This could include available time, human resources, financial resources and physical
resources. In each of the following examples we feature, in parenthesis, the crossover that can
occur between these different types of challenges. Time has previously been identified as a
key stressor for coaches in various sporting contexts (e.g., Olusoga, Butt, Hays, & Maynard,
2009; Saury & Durand, 1998; Thelwell, Weston, Greenlees, & Hutchings, 2008). For
representative coaches, time pressure might be experienced in relation to the number of
training sessions athletes are released to them for by clubs (time and human resources);
professional coaches might bemoan the duration of bans handed to athletes for on-field
infringements of the rules, preventing them from competing (time and human resources); and
coaches of large community clubs might dispute the time allocated to their team to use
communal facilities (time and physical resources). In terms of human resources, volunteer
coaches who work or study on a full-time basis might feel less able to implement their
intentions because of limited time available to plan training sessions (human and time
resources); all coaches will have to live with the impact that injuries to athletes can have on
the coaching process; and professional head coaches could come under pressure to adapt their
intentions if the team’s board cuts the number of assistant or specialist coaches available in
order to save money (human and financial resources). Finally, financial and physical
resources perhaps include the most immediately obvious challenges faced by coaches. For
instance, in different contexts funding is required for travelling to competitions, the
recruitment of athletes, staff-related wages or costs, attending coach education courses and
liability insurance, among a host of other things. In the case of physical resources, constraints
may arise for swimming coaches who only have access to a 25-meter training pool, but
competitions take place in a 50-meter pool. Similarly, sailing or equestrian coaches who
require specialized “equipment” that requires expensive upkeep (physical and financial
resources) and coaches who use even basic equipment including balls, cones, bibs, playing
kit, which needs to be updated, cleaned and maintained on a regular basis (physical and
financial resources), may experience constraints upon their practice. Although is it obvious
that such resource-based issues will impinge upon some coaches’ practice, it is important that
they consider critically how to deal with them. For example, in Partington and Cushion’s
(2013) study of youth soccer coaches, some practitioners claimed that the availability of only
part of a pitch for training (physical resources) prevented them from implementing a more
game-based approach. As the authors point out, soccer games used in training can be
conducted in much smaller spaces than were available to these coaches, which highlights a
potential lack of understanding rather than solely a lack of resources. Consequently, we return
to a key point stressed by the holistic model, that the coaching process is interrelated and
interdependent. In this case, the relationship between a resource-limited context and a coach’s
knowledge of how to adapt practice accordingly will be a key determinant of how effective
their practice is.
Extraneous Factors
The third component of the coaching context that shapes the coaching process is
extraneous factors. Unlike situational factors and resources, over which the coach could have
short- or longer-term influence, extraneous factors will fall largely outside of their control and
may also vary on a day-by-day basis. In many countries and for various sports, challenging
weather conditions are an unpredictable and unavoidable feature of coaching. Saury and
Durand (1998), for instance, highlighted the impact of changeable wind conditions on the
coaching process of Olympic sailing coaches – coaches would switch the emphasis in training
from speed to tactical work depending upon the conditions. Indeed, it is obvious that many
outdoor sports will be particularly susceptible to changes in weather conditions.
The performance of officials and the opposition during competition is another extraneous
factor. Gilbert and colleagues (1999) acknowledged the same factors in their study of
interactive decision making by youth ice hockey coaches during matches. They drew
attention to a large number of unpredictable things including the actions of referees, injuries
to opponents and current score that the coaches attended to in making decisions about
substitutions and providing feedback to athletes (Gilbert et al., 1999).
Rules, regulations and other nuances of the coaching context can also present challenges
to coaches. For example, in basketball, coaches can call timeouts to intervene with their
athletes at strategic intervals, whereas sprinters must complete their performance before the
coach can provide feedback or instruction. In a different example, some tournaments will
require competitors to be named or squads to be confirmed well in advance, potentially ruling
out athletes (human resources) who are recovering from injury at the time but may well be fit
by the time of the tournament.
Finally, there are sports, like karate, where various competition formats are possible (e.g.,
ippon and sanbon kumite), which may influence coaches to change tactics or select different
athletes between events. In sum, given that the coaching process is sensitive to the forces
exerted by cultural factors, resources and extraneous factors, the planning of contingencies
and a flexibility to adapt these plans may be critical to exerting at least some control over the
effectiveness of the coaching process.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
In this chapter we have introduced a holistic model of the coaching process. The model
shows that it is the interactions between a coach and their associates within a coaching
context that shapes coaching practice. Coaching practice is therefore forged by the
interrelationships of personal, social and contextual factors, which have the potential to be
highly nuanced, to evolve over time, and to not always be explicit or immediately obvious.
Thus, we have attempted to highlight the diversity of coaching, its complexity and its
challenging nature. We have also argued, however, that through a commitment to developing
critical judgement, decision-making and reflective skills, coaches may be better able to
identify, comprehend and manipulate the idiosyncratic constraints and opportunities they
experience. In other words, they will move towards being more effective coaches. We have
offered coaches and researchers our holistic model as a tool to reflect on the intricacies of
their own and other coaching contexts. Thus, where reflective practice is positioned as a key
characteristic of contemporary professionalism in many occupations (Martindale & Collins,
2015), we have tried to support coaches by clarifying what they could reflect upon in the
coaching process. Again, we stress that this is a framework to which revisions and depth may
be added to account for variations in other coaching contexts. Accordingly, we conclude by
noting some of the key considerations that have been raised in this chapter for those who wish
to take up our challenge:
 Coaching practice is shaped by the coach’s knowledge, philosophy and role frame,
the needs, expectations and roles of associates, as well as by various contextual
factors (i.e., cultural factors, resources and extraneous factors).
 These create a complex mix of challenges and opportunities that constrain an
unfettered delivery of the coach’s knowledge and coaching philosophy.
 A coach’s role frame acts as a pragmatic and integrative cognitive mechanism to
comprehend this complexity, helping to balance the competing priorities of the
coaching process when guiding their practice.
 The holistic model offers coaches a framework to reflect on the effectiveness of their
practice by examining how responsive they are to their associates and to the coaching
context.
REFERENCES
Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. J. J. (2006). The coaching schematic: validation
through expert coach consensus. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(6), 549-564.
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369-406.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998). Promoting reflection in professional courses: the challenge of
context. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 191-206.
Bryant, A. (2013). The Grounded Theory method. In A. A. Trainor & E. Graue (Eds.),
Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences (pp. 108-125). Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Carson, F. (2008). Utilizing video to facilitate reflective practice: developing sports coaches.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(3), 381-390.
Cassidy, T. (2010). Holism in sports coaching: beyond humanistic psychology: a response to
commentaries. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 5(4), 497-501.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R. L., & Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching: the social,
cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. D. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and
expertise. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(3), 307-323.
Côté, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. J. (1995). The coaching model: a
grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches' knowledge. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 1-17.
Cowan, D., Taylor, I. M., McEwan, H., & Baker, J. S. (2012). Bridging the gap between self-
determination theory and coaching soccer to disadvantaged youth. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 24, 361-374.
Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing
professional development: experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215-230.
Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2006). Locating the coaching process in
practice: models 'for' and 'of' coaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(1),
83-99.
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2006). Power, discourse, and symbolic violence in
professional youth soccer: the case of Albion Football Club. Sociology of Sport Journal,
23(2), 142-161.
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2014). A Bourdieusian analysis of cultural reproduction:
socialisation and the 'hidden curriculum' in professional football. Sport, Education and
Society, 19(3), 276-298. doi: 10.1080/13573322.2012.666966.
Cushion, C. J., Nelson, L. J., Armour, K. M., Lyle, J., Jones, R. L., Sandford, R., &
O'Callaghan, C. (2010). Coach learning and development: a review of the literature.
sports coach UK.
Cushion, C. J., & Partington, M. (2014). A critical analysis of the conceptualisation of
"coaching philosophy.” doi:10.1080 /13573322.2014.958817.
Davids, K. W., Araújo, D., Correia, V., & Vilar, L. (2013). How small-sided and conditioned
games enhance acquisition of movement and decision-making skills. Exercise and Sport
Sciences Reviews, 41(3), 154-161.
Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2010). Investigating the interpersonal dynamics between coaches and
Psychology, 4, 112-132.
Erickson, K., Côté, J., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2007). Sport experiences, milestones, and
educational activities associated with high-performance coaches' development. The Sport
Psychologist, 21(3), 302-316.
Gabbett, T., Jenkins, D., & Abernethy, B. (2009). Game-based training for improving skill
and physical fitness in team sport athletes. International Journal of Sports Science &
Coaching, 4(2), 273-283.
Gamble, P. (2004). Physical preparation for elite-level rugby union football. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 26(4), 10-23.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford:
Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.
Gilbert, W. D. (2007). Modelling the complexity of the coaching process: a commentary.

Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: reflection in
model youth sport coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(1), 16-34.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2004). Role of the coach: how model youth team sport coaches
frame their roles. The Sport Psychologist, 18(1), 21-43.
Gilbert, W. D., Trudel, P., & Haughian, L. P. (1999). Interactive decision making factors
considered by coaches of youth ice hockey during games. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 18(3), 290-311.
Groom, R., Cushion, C. J., & Nelson, L. J. (2011). The delivery of video-based performance
analysis by England youth soccer coaches: towards a grounded theory. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 23(1), 16-32. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2010.511422.
Hall, E. T., Gray, S., & Sproule, J. (2015). The microstructure of coaching practice:
behaviours and activities of an elite rugby union head coach during preparation and
competition. Journal of Sports Sciences. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1076571.
Hardman, A. R., & Jones, C. (2013). Philosophy for coaches. In R. L. Jones & K. Kingston
(Eds.), An introduction to sports coaching (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Harvey, S. S., Cushion, C. J., Cope, E., & Muir, B. B. (2013). A season long investigation
into coaching behaviours as a function of practice state: the case of three collegiate
coaches. Sports Coaching Review. doi:10.1080/21640629.2013.837238.
Hoyle, E. (1980). Professionalization and deprofessionalization in edication. In E. Hoyle & J.
Megarry (Eds.), The professional development of teachers: world yearbook, 1980 (pp.
42-54). London: Kogan Page.
Jenkins, S. (2010). Coaching philosophy. In J. Lyle & C. J. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching:
professionalisation and practice (pp. 233-242). London: Elsevier.
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2002). Understanding the coaching process: a
framework for social analysis. Quest, 54(1), 34-48.
Jones, R. L., & Wallace, M. (2005). Another bad day at the training ground: coping with
ambiguity in the coaching context. Sport, Education and Society, 10(1), 119-134.
Kidman, L., & Lombardo, B. J. (Eds.). (2010). Athlete-centred coaching: developing decision
makers (2nd ed.). Worcester, UK: Innovative Print Communications Ltd.
Knight, C. J., Boden, C. M., & Holt, N. L. (2010). Junior tennis players' preferences for
parental behaviors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(4), 377-391.
Le Meur, Y., Hausswirth, C., & Mujika, I. (2012). Tapering for competition: A review.
Science and Sports, 27(2), 77-87.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: a framework for coaches' behaviour. London:
Routledge.
Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: a report on its use in naturalistic research. British
Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861-878.
Lyle, J. (2010). Planning for team sports. In J. Lyle & C. J. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching:
professionalisation and practice (pp. 85-98). London: Elsevier.
Lyle, J. (2011). What is a coach and what is coaching? In I. Stafford (Ed.), Coaching children
in sport (pp. 5-16). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Nash, C., Martindale, R. J. J., Collins, D., & Martindale, A. (2012). Parameterising expertise
in coaching: past, present and future. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(10), 985-994.
Nash, C., Sproule, J., Hall, E. T., & English, C. (2013). Coaches outside the system: sports
coach UK.
Nash, C., Sproule, J., & Horton, P. (2008). Sport coaches' perceived role frames and
philosophies. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(4), 538-554.
Nelson, L. J., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). Reflection in coach education: the case of the national
governing body coaching certificate. The Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 174-183.
Olusoga, P., Butt, J., Hays, K., & Maynard, I. (2009). Stress in elite sports coaching:
identifying stressors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 442-459.
Partington, M., & Cushion, C. J. (2013). An investigation of the practice activities and
coaching behaviours of professional top-level youth soccer coaches. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23, 374-382. doi: doi: 10.1111/j.1600-
0838.2011.01383.x.
Potrac, P., & Jones, R. L. (2009). Power, conflict, and cooperation: toward a micropolitics of
coaching. Quest, 61(2), 223-236.
Raven, B. H. (1983). Interpersonal influence and social power. In B. H. Raven & J. Z. Rubin
(Eds.), Social Psychology (pp. 399-444). New York: Wiley.
Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal
influence. Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy, 8(1), 1-22.
Rhind, D. J. A., & Jowett, S. (2010). Relationship maintenance strategies in the coach-athlete
relationship: the development of the COMPASS model. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 22(1), 106-121.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci &
R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Saury, J., & Durand, M. (1998). Practical knowledge in expert coaches: on-site study of
coaching in sailing. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(3), 254-266.
Smith, M., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). An investigation of the in-game behaviours of
professional, top-level youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(4), 355-366.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: analysis types and software tools. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Thelwell, R. C., Weston, N. J. V., Greenlees, I. A., & Hutchings, N. V. (2008). Stressors in
elite sport: a coach perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(9), 905-918.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T.
Parsons, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Weed, M. (2009). Research quality considerations for grounded theory research in sport and
exercise psychology. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 10, 502-510. doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.007.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Edward Hall is a Lecturer in Sport Coaching at Northumbria University, UK. Edward
completed his PhD with the Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences at
The University of Edinburgh in 2015. His research interests include the holistic complexities
of the coaching process, the socio-cultural coaching context, and the effectiveness of
coaching practice.
Dr Shirley Gray is a Lecturer in Physical Education at the University of Edinburgh, UK.

Her background is in both sports coaching and physical education teaching. Her main
interests are coaching/teaching pedagogy, more specifically in relation to teaching decision-
making skills in team games.
Dr John Kelly is a sociologist who lectures in socio-cultural issues and sport at the
University of Edinburgh, UK. He is a member of the Edinburgh Sport Research Group within
the university’s Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences.
Dr Amanda Martindale is a Lecturer in Sport and Performance Psychology at the

University of Edinburgh, UK. She is a Chartered Psychologist and has provided psychology
support to numerous elite level athletes across a range of sports. Her research interests include
accessing expert cognition, developing professional expertise and, in particular, the
development of professional judgement and decision making expertise.
Dr John Sproule is a former Head of Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health
Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, UK and experienced doctoral supervisor, with
coaching experience in UK schools and Singapore on a Loughborough University
project. Consultancy examples: Sport development with the International Baccalaureate
Organisation; coach education with the International Division of the English Sports Council;
sport leadership evaluation for the Australian Sports Commission.
Chapter 3
EFFECTIVE COACH LEARNING AND PROCESSES

OF COACHES’ KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT:
WHAT WORKS?
Anna Stodter1,* and Christopher J. Cushion2

1
Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom
2
Loughborough University, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
Decades of research and anecdotal evidence in coaching suggests that effective
coaches continuously learn from a blend of different situations, having mastered the skill
of learning from their experiences. However, the processes involved and the impact of
different learning experiences on coaches’ knowledge and practice are less well
understood. It has been argued that a specific coach learning theory that can explain how
coaches dynamically interact with the learning environments they encounter is a
necessary addition to move the field forward and enhance professional learning (Cushion
and Nelson, 2013). The chapter will discuss current research-based perspectives in coach
learning, with reference to relevant models of learning and knowledge development from
the broader learning literature, to explain how coaches’ existing experiences, knowledge
and contextual factors influence their learning and resulting coaching knowledge and
practice. In doing so, the chapter will elucidate what works, how and for whom in coach
learning (McCullick et al., 2009).
Keywords: Coach learning, professional development, coaching knowledge, learning

processes
INTRODUCTION
Popular maxims like “it’s what you learn after you know it all that counts” are
commonplace in coaching and management, alongside anecdotes from countless ‘legendary’
*
Corresponding Author: Email: Anna.Stodter@anglia.ac.uk
36 Anna Stodter and Christopher J. Cushion
coaches that place professional learning and knowledge at the heart of exceptional practice
and success. Research in coaching has traditionally followed this thread by investigating the
qualities, skills and behaviors that exemplify ‘expert’ coaching. This research has shown
consistently that extensive knowledge developed through experience forms the basis of
expertise in coaching (e.g., Bloom, Crumpton & Anderson, 1999; Schempp & McCullick,
2010; Tharp & Gallimore, 1976), yet simply collecting experiences is not enough; not every
experienced coach is effective. Coaches that consistently outperform others and reach the
pinnacle of their profession seem to be united by a common characteristic; ‘always learning’
and ‘always thinking’, they have effectively mastered the skill of learning from the multitude
of experiences they encounter (Schempp & McCullick, 2010; Werthner & Trudel, 2009). In a
similar vein, there have been calls for professional learning that can develop ‘imaginative,
dynamic, and thoughtful coaches’ (Cushion, Armour & Jones, 2003, p. 216), equipped to
creatively and successfully negotiate the ‘swampy lowlands’ of day-to-day coaching (Schön,
1987). Again, such an interpretation of effective coaching relies on the assumption that the
coach will be able to draw on a base of applied knowledge relevant to sports performance,
learning, the technical and tactical aspects of the sport, understanding interaction and
appreciating the consequences of one’s own behaviors in achieving desired ends (Cushion,
Nelson, Armour, Lyle, Jones, Sandford & O’Callaghan, 2010).
Despite this, research in coach learning is yet to provide specific, structured, evidence
based suggestions that coaches can use to enhance their learning and effectiveness (Abraham
& Collins, 2011). Indeed, formal coach education programs, thought of as key to coaches’
development (Turner & Nelson, 2009), have been criticized as a low-impact endeavor with a
number of failings linked to a lack of concern for how coaches learn (Abraham & Collins,
1998). Following a review, Lyle (2007) identified four key themes of recommendations that
coaching scholars have put forward as changes to bring about ‘better’ coach education. These
are: 1) designs more closely linked to the perceived demands of coaching; 2) development of
personal models of coaching; 3) use of learning theories; and 4) more attention towards the
cognitive skills underlying desirable practice. In the same review, however, Lyle (2007) noted
that such ideas are rarely properly evidenced or transferred into practice, while coach
educators are often unaware of the multitude of frameworks that could underpin and guide
their practices. Generally, although many scholars have made similar idealistic prescriptions
for coach learning, the underpinning evidence of coach learning is incomplete (Nelson,
Cushion & Potrac, 2006). The coaching literature has been quick to offer solutions to
problems that are poorly understood (Armour, 2010; Lyle, 2007; Piggott, 2012). Thus, there
is a need for more robust empirical research that can explain how coaches’ learning works,
allowing the development of pertinent frameworks that can improve learning and practice
within different populations of coaches. This chapter will present current perspectives on how
coaching knowledge is developed, placing particular emphasis on the processes involved with
a view to enhancing learning opportunities for coaches. It will draw on recent research in
coaching, including our own work investigating coaches’ learning over time, and wider
theoretical frameworks of learning and knowledge development to elucidate what works, how
and for whom in coach learning (McCullick, Schempp, Mason, Foo, Vickers & Connolly,
2009).
Effective Coach Learning and Processes of Coaches’ Knowledge Development 37
Coaches’ Learning: A Complex Blend
It seems clear that the learning experiences that enable effective coaching are gained in a
variety of situations, from day-to-day episodes of coaching practice, observing and working
with other coaches, to coach education programmes, workshops and reading (e.g., Deek,
Werthner, Paquette & Culver, 2013). The idea that coaches make use of a complex mix of
different learning experiences is nothing new, and has been reiterated in the literature over the
past decade (e.g., Cushion et al., 2003). For example, several years of research employing life
story narratives and case studies (e.g., Gearity, Callary & Fulmer, 2013; Jones, Armour &
Potrac, 2003; 2004; Nash & Sproule, 2011), learning profiles (e.g., Gilbert, Lichtenwaldt,
Gilbert, Zelezny & Côté, 2009; Winchester, Culver & Camiré, 2012), and qualitative
interviews (e.g., Abraham, Collins & Martindale, 2006; Lemyre, Trudel & Durand-Bush,
2007) have set out to explore what coaches believe is most important in their development.
This literature has identified numerous learning sources valued by a range of coaches in
different settings and domains around the world. The specific populations of coaches
investigated include high school teacher-coaches (Camiré, Trudel & Forneris, 2012;
Winchester, Culver & Camiré, 2011; 2013) disability sport coaches (McMaster, Culver &
Werthner, 2012) and experienced female coaches (Callary, Werthner & Trudel, 2012) in
Canada; elite national and international coaches in the U.S. (Gould, Gianni, Krane & Hodge,
1990); high performance institute of sport coaches in Australasia (Rynne & Mallett, 2012;
Rynne, Mallett & Tinning, 2010); ‘expert’ case studies in the UK (e.g., Jones, Armour &
Potrac, 2003; Nash & Sproule, 2011); high-performance international coaches in Ireland
(Bertz & Purdy, 2011); and Portugese coaches (Mesquita, Isidro & Rosado, 2010). These
studies have provided insight into the learning pathways of a number of quite restricted
groups, without necessarily explaining the reasons for coaches’ use of these sources, what is
learned in certain situations, or why it is that some individuals are able to ‘learn better’ and
become more successful through their particular trajectory.
Another thread in the coach learning literature addresses discrete learning situations such
as reflection (e.g., Gilbert & Trudel, 2001; Peel, Cropley, Hanton & Fleming, 2003),
mentoring (Jones, Harris & Miles, 2009), communities of practice (e.g., Culver & Trudel,
2006; 2008), or formal coach education programmes (e.g., Deek et al., 2013; McCullick,
Belcher & Schempp, 2005). Such studies have provided more depth of understanding around
coaches’ perceived learning in each type of learning situation, to some extent highlighting
useful models or theories to analyse what happens when coaches participate in them. For
example, Lave and Wenger’s Situated Learning theory (e.g., Culver, Trudel & Werthner,
2009), studentship and impression management (e.g., Chesterfield, Potrac & Jones, 2010),
and Gilbert and Trudel’s (2001) grounded process of reflection each provide valuable and
distinct perspectives on the processes of coaches’ learning in different situations.
Nevertheless, these are some of only a handful of theoretically and empirically informed
studies in coach learning, none of which have presented direct links to any measures of
learning, meaning it is once again unclear whether and how these experiences change
coaches’ knowledge, skills or practice (Cushion et al., 2010). Treating different ‘categories’
of learning situations as standalone concepts in this way, investigating the chosen source or
situation without reference to other ways of learning or the coach’s development as a whole -
means that this research is unable to explain how different experiences combine to bring
about the development of effective practitioners (McCullick et al., 2009). In short, the
processes involved and the impact of different learning experiences on coaches’ holistic
knowledge and practice are not yet well understood.
Overall, retrospective self-report studies have indicated that coaches develop through a
complex blend of different opportunities (Werthner & Trudel, 2009), yet identifying coaches’
learning sources in this way tells us very little about what works in these particular situations,
how, why, and for whom. In their schematic of the coaching process based on interviews with
16 ‘expert’ UK coaches, Abraham et al. (2006) noted the use of a broad range of development
methods across individuals, with serendipity the only uniting structure. Likewise, Werthner
and Trudel (2009) found that 15 Canadian Olympic coaches sought out learning sources
according to their individual needs and took advantage of opportunities as they happened to
arise in an idiosyncratic manner. These studies demonstrate that although formal-informal,
acquisition-participation and mediated-unmediated frameworks are used to delineate the
various learning situations coaches utilize, multiple sources are interconnected modes of
learning rather than discrete entities (Nelson et al., 2006). Moreover, each situation a coach
encounters can comprise a blend of more than one mode of learning existing simultaneously,
and it is this blending rather than separation that is key to learning overall (Colley, Hodkinson
& Malcom, 2003). This suggests that any one learning situation or type of learning cannot be
understood in isolation. Certainly, the development of each coach is unique, with individuals
encountering and using different situations and sources of information in diverse ways
(Cushion et al., 2003; Werthner & Trudel, 2009). It appears that coaches take advantage of a
multitude of learning opportunities in a non-systematic manner; they develop “through
serendipitous methods... [they] are magpies not filing cabinets” (Abraham et al., 2006, p.560).
The Processes of Coach Learning
It has been suggested that idiosyncrasies in coaches’ learning originate with each
individual’s past experiences and networks of existing knowledge, beliefs and emotions
(Cushion et al., 2003; Leduc et al., 2012; Stodter & Cushion, 2014; Werthner & Trudel,
2009). Biography, the sum of an individual’s experiences, guides what they choose to notice
and learn (Jarvis, 2006; Moon, 2004; Trudel, Gilbert & Werthner, 2010). Coaches’
knowledge and experiential foundations act like a filter through which new situations will
pass, exerting a continuing influence over the way they see and interpret them, and thus their
learning and behavior (Cushion et al., 2003). Therefore, the same learning opportunity will
have a different impact on the individual coaches that experience it, depending on their
unique starting points and approaches to the situation (Griffiths & Armour, 2013; Leduc et
al., 2012; Trudel et al., 2013). This view of learning as a process of building on existing
knowledge and experience to alter individual conceptions and structures of knowledge, stems
from cognitive psychology. Learning theories like cognitivism can function as a helpful tool
to elucidate the nuances and processes of learning. Nevertheless, explanation is complicated
by the variety of different ways of understanding learning, all of which are informed by
underlying philosophical assumptions about the person, the nature of reality and the nature of
knowledge (Brockbank & McGill, 2007; Cushion et al., 2010). Since these values, and the
theories they give rise to, can be contested and incompatible, there is no one comprehensive
theory of learning upon which to base research and effective practice in coaching (Cushion et
al., 2010). Theories of learning can be typified in different ways, however the most significant
originate from psychology and are often designated into one of three ‘camps’; behaviorism,
cognitivism, and constructivism (Brockback & McGill, 2007; Tusting & Barton, 2003).
Behaviorism views learning only as the observable outcomes of a stimulus without social
meaning or internal thought, and emphasizes ‘training’ through repetition and reinforcement;
while cognitivism relates to internal information processing and individual reorganization of
mental structures by relating new information to pre-existing knowledge structures (Schunk,
2009; Tusting & Barton, 2003). Constructivist approaches, meanwhile, generally view
learners as playing an active role in constructing shared understanding, knowledge, meanings
and actions through interactions with the environment and other people. Therefore,
engagement in real world, authentic social practice, and structuring the environment to
support learning becomes key (Mason, 2007). Many coaches may have become familiar with
aspects of these contrasting approaches to learning reflected in the implicit ‘theory-in-use’
(Brockbank & McGill, 2007) of the formal coach education courses they have participated in.
These three ways of understanding learning are presented as conceptually distinct to clarify
their characteristics and highlight the diversity of underpinning assumptions. At the same
time, given that ‘blending’ is central to coaches’ overall development, all models of learning
may have potential relevance to any particular situation (Colley et al., 2003).
Learning, like coaching and learning to coach, needs to be seen as involving many
interrelated contexts, purposes and practices (Tusting & Barton, 2003). The contrasting
philosophies and assumptions of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism reflect the
richness and complexity of learning, and rather than accepting them as right or wrong,
associated models can be appreciated as contributing to one another, adding to a general
understanding of the different ways of learning (Tusting & Barton, 2003). Since coaching
itself involves multiple, dynamic types of knowledge and skills, and each coach learns in their
own idiosyncratic way, scholars, practitioners and coach educators would benefit from
recognizing that there are various types of learning. Therefore theoretical eclecticism,
directed towards developing specific ‘coach learning’ theory, is preferable to choosing just
one model or approach as ‘the only’ way (Cushion et al., 2010; Tusting & Barton, 2003). It
has been argued that a unifying framework specifically relevant to coach learning, that can
explain how coaches dynamically interact with the learning environments they encounter, is a
necessary addition to overcome some of the previously identified issues in the literature,
move the field forward and enhance coaches’ professional learning (Cushion & Nelson,
2013).
A Contemporary Theory of Coaches’ Learning
This leads us to present some recent empirical research that resulted in a substantive
model of the processes of coaches’ learning, highlighting ‘what works’ and why. Based on
longitudinal semi-structured and practice-linked stimulated recall interview data (see Stodter
& Cushion, 2014) from 25 English youth soccer coaches taking part in formal and informal
learning alongside their regular coaching practice, a grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin,
1998) was developed (see Figure 1). This framework begins to elucidate the mechanisms
involved in the cognitive filter process referred to by several coaching scholars including
Cushion and colleagues (2003), whereby coaches’ existing biography (experiences,
knowledge, beliefs and practice) forms a screen through which all future events will pass. As
a result, apparently similar learning situations can result in entirely different outcomes for
individual coaches (Leduc et al., 2012; Stodter & Cushion, 2014).
The learning filter process (Figure 1) represents coaches’ accounts of how they approach
and learn from different experiences. Actions, conditions and consequences are shown in
boxes, while arrows represent the links between these, depicting directional processes.
The multi-level approach taken here is epitomized by two of the central elements within
Figure 1 that make up a double-loop filter process (Stodter & Cushion, 2014). The coach’s
knowledge, beliefs and practice at the individual level precede a secondary level contextual
filter. The elements of any learning experience engaged in by the coach must therefore pass
through these two levels before new knowledge can be translated into practice and ‘tried out’,
for potential full integration within the coach’s biography. Thus new concepts move through
the process from beliefs and knowledge towards practice. In addition, reflective processes
also have a role in the adaptation of constructed knowledge. A significant theme throughout,
often a key driver in adult learning (e.g., Knowles, 1980) is the expressed pragmatic desire for
relevant, practical knowledge that ‘works’ and leads to enhanced coaching ability (c.f.
Nelson, Cushion & Potrac, 2012).
Coaches report perceiving wider learning experiences in terms of the various ideas, or
‘bits’ of knowledge available. This is equivalent to the idea of knowledge concepts set out by
Entwistle, Skinner, Entwistle and Orr (2000) and referred to in coaching by Abraham and
colleagues (2006). Often encountered through formal education, concepts have a shared
rather than personal meaning (Entwistle & Peterson, 2004), characterized by specific
procedural knowledge, and underpinned by associated declarative knowledge (Abraham et
al., 2006). An initial cognitive filter process takes place at the individual level, with coaches
reporting the identification of new knowledge concepts as matching, mismatching, or fitting
in with their personal existing knowledge, beliefs and practice. Each of these alternatives has
different consequences for actions further down the process chain, and therefore for
subsequent implementation and behavior. While matching concepts leads to confirmation and
reinforcement, or non-reflective assimilation (Moon, 2001), mismatching concepts were
‘filtered out’ and quite swiftly rejected. This process of collecting evidence to confirm pre-
existing knowledge, meanwhile rejecting concepts that are more challenging, has been
labelled ‘safe simulation’ and is relatively commonly reported in the literature (e.g., Abraham
et al., 2006; Chesterfield et al., 2010; Cushion, 2013; Cushion et al., 2003). Other concepts
that are new to coaches, yet fit in with their biography, are tried out if the coach believes they
would work in context. Coaches describe this as experiential, trial and error learning,
regardless of the original source of the ideas being tested. Abraham et al. (2006) explained
this process as the internalization of concepts, which become conceptions as they are applied
to a particular context meaningful to the practitioner. With the addition of the ‘try out’
reflective loop’ in the current model, each particular conception becomes available for use in
the same type of situation it was implemented in; its meaning embedded in experiences of
using it (Entwistle et al., 2000; Eraut, 2000). Consequently, coaches put great emphasis on
‘what works’ in practice, judgements of which, and consequent rejections or adaptations, are
based on a feedback loop process.
Figure 1.
Knowledge and practice, as well as beliefs about coaching and ‘what works’, are closely
intertwined and shown as framing the entire phenomenon; their different elements playing
roles in all stages of the learning process. The model therefore adopts the characteristic
individual focus of cognitive behavioral approaches, but places the individual as an active
agent in the process, which takes place in interaction with others in wider contexts. Learning
scholars such as Vygotsky (1978), Mezirow (2009) and Jarvis (2009) adopt a similar
perspective, which has been endorsed in the coaching literature (e.g., Jones, Edwards &
Viotto Filho, 2014), yet only recently applied, utilizing “complex-aware rhetoric” (Jones et
al., 2014, p. 2).
When coaches perceive that the new learning does not work in practice having tried it
out, they progress to either reject it or enter into a cycle of continuous adaptation and
experimentation, akin to Schön’s (1987) ‘reflective conversation’ (see Gilbert and Trudel,
2001). If the outcome of using the new knowledge in context is satisfactory, the individual
adopts it as part of their “tried and tested” practice repertoire for sustained use, integrating it
into their coaching biography. In this way, participants are constantly working through a
cycle of constructing and linking new knowledge, tightly bound to context-specific practice,
into their existing knowledge structures. Newly updated biography in turn acts as a filter for
the next learning experience engaged in, meaning that the coach’s knowledge, beliefs and
practice are in a constantly dynamic state of flux (Jarvis, 2009).
The choice between rejecting and adapting conceptions, as part of the reflective feedback
loop, is therefore identified as a significant feature of the learning process. Coaches refer to
their own personal openness and contextual factors when discussing this (often tacit)
reflective practice. Gilbert and Trudel (2001) similarly found that coaches’ selection of
options was influenced by access to peers, stage of learning, issue characteristics and
coaching environment; that is, the influence of parents and league administrators. Since
coaching and management are strongly associated with maximizing performance success and
winning, with practitioners accountable for and dependent on achievement of such outcomes,
it is perhaps understandable that they “are reluctant to take risks or depart too far from the
status quo of accepted practice” (Light & Robert, 2010, p. 113). Coaches’ reflective cycles of
learning are bound up with coaching practice that often takes place in contexts subject to
power relationships and deeply held anti-intellectual beliefs (Abraham et al., 2009;
Thompson, Potrac & Jones, 2013). Consequently, while learning situated in everyday practice
is essential, coaching environments are not often conducive to generating new ideas,
supporting active experimentation, or facilitating transfer from knowledge to implementation
(Abraham et al., 2009; Light & Robert, 2010). In this research, coaching contexts interacted
with personal openness to impinge on coaches’ reflective feedback cycles and the overall
‘quality’ of their learning. Individual subscription to ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways of coaching
underpinned by legitimate knowledge provided by authority, such as club bosses, follows a
dualistic assumption about knowledge (Entwistle & Peterson, 2004). Individuals holding
these more absolute, closed ideas about knowledge tend to also approach learning as simple
reproduction of the accepted norm (Entwistle & Peterson, 2004; Piggott, 2012). As people
begin to recognize knowledge as provisional and relative, evidence is used to reason among
alternatives (Entwistle & Peterson, 2004); in other words, experimenting with and critically
evaluating new conceptions in practice based on ‘what works’. Abraham and colleagues
(2009) compared such practitioners to chefs who use in-depth knowledge of ingredients to
develop new ideas and orchestrate successful outcomes, as opposed to ‘cooks’ who live by
other peoples’ tried and tested recipes as safe simulators (Cushion, 2013). Alongside an
appreciation of the relative nature of coaching knowledge, learning is said to become more
reliant on individuals’ efforts to fully understand ideas for themselves, by relating them to
previous knowledge and experiences, thereby seeing things in a different light (Entwistle &
Peterson, 2004). Thus the idea of meaningful, transformative learning (Mezirow, 2009) rests
on the open-minded transformation and implementation of conceptions in practice, through
reflective linkage with existing knowledge (Moon, 2001), as presented in the model (Figure
1). These characteristics bring to mind the creative, dynamic and successful coaches that
coach education should aim to develop (Cushion et al., 2003).
Summarizing the Process of Learning
The following participant coach sums up the entire process represented in Figure 1 with
respect to his learning from two formal education courses, which advocated contrasting
coaching methods and approaches to knowledge and practice. He described how at the
individual level, ideas that contradicted his previous practice and beliefs were rejected, unless
he was persuaded that it would work, in which case he would try it out and adopt it if it works
and fits within the specific context. He also demonstrated a move from absolute views of
Youth Module coaching knowledge being ‘correct’, to a personally reasoned perspective that
allowed him to select different knowledges according to their particular benefits in context:
If I already had experience of it not working or some sort of method not working or a
certain style maybe, I don’t know, then I would perhaps dismiss it pretty quickly. But if it’s
something that I’d not really thought about before, something that I’d not really considered
before, or I’ve seen, they’ve given me a demonstration of how it might work and then it has
actually worked, then I’d be quite happy to turn round and say, ‘Well, okay we’ll give it a go,’
then maybe, I’d see what it was like. The problem that I had, going in to say, my B Licence
course, I’d done my modules between [the B Licence and the previous Level 2]. So going
from that way of coaching into the B Licence was difficult, and straight away I had barriers up
in terms of the way in that should be coached because I agreed a lot with a lot of the
modules…was much more beneficial for me as a coach and the way that I am in my
personality. But also the players that I was working with could see benefits in that. Whereas I
couldn’t see so many benefits in the Level 2 that I’ve done and perhaps the B Licence…But as
it’s gone through and I’ve had demonstrations given to me, of, ‘Maybe this’ll work,’ or, ‘That
should work,’ or – I’ve opened up a little bit more to it and accept that there are one or two
things that that B Licence will give me and will help me with, which is why doing the sessions
now, having stepped in and told a lot of the players, ‘This is where you need to be; this is what
you need to do,’ that’s off the back of the B Licence and what I’ve learnt on that or what I’ve
taken away from that. Not just because of practicing for my assessment, but because it
actually – it just needs it at the time.
This section has presented a substantive grounded theory of coaches’ learning processes
and made explanatory links to other literature in coaching, learning and professional
development. Although coaches and their contexts are all unique, they and their learning also
share enough commonalities with other coaches to ensure that we can learn from them
(Armour & Yelling, 2007); in other words, “there is a sameness about our uniqueness”
(Cushion & Lyle, 2010, p. 10). The discussion has highlighted the ‘commonality’ of several
aspects of the process to other studies in coaching and learning, suggesting wider relevance to
other coaches in similar learning situations (Holt, Knight & Tamminen, 2012). While “tidy
maps of knowledge and learning are usually deceptive” (Eraut, 2000, p. 133), the model
represents a useful representation of the way this particular group of coaches actively
constructed and adapted knowledge for use in socially situated coaching practice, through
double-loop individual and contextual-level filters, and ‘reflective conversations’. The
framework essentially follows cognitive approaches to learning, yet touches on principles
from other more constructivist-informed theories in combination (e.g., Entwistle & Peterson,
2004; Eraut, 2000; Gilbert & Trudel, 2001, Moon, 2001; Schön, 1987). It therefore meets the
suggestions of Colley (2003) and Cushion et al. (2010) in providing a specific ‘coach
learning’ theory that draws on an eclectic mix of relevant explanatory frameworks. Further
work in this vein can produce a general theory of coach learning that is grounded in the
specific realities of day-to-day coaching practice. The resulting, theoretically eclectic,
understanding of coaches’ learning processes can and should be applied directly to create and
implement better, more conceptually informed learning opportunities, facilitating better
coaching.
Enhancing Meaningful Learning
The model re-affirms that two prominent variables must be considered and accounted for
in the design and delivery of coach learning opportunities (Côté, 2006); individuals’
biographies and contexts. It is not a novel concept that new ideas or learning experiences are
negotiated and not simply accepted by coaches, with their belief systems exerting huge value
and power in constructing their coaching practice (Schempp & Graber, 1992). Nevertheless,
the design and provision of coach learning opportunities has consistently failed to
accommodate this well-established process (Chesterfield et al., 2010; Cushion et al., 2003;
Stodter & Cushion, 2014). The model adds a further level of contextual complexity and
shows overwhelming support for the argument that ‘one size does not fit all’ (Nelson &
Cushion, 2006) in coach education, and that individualized, contextually and practically
relevant learning opportunities are most valuable for coaches in any learning situation.
Coaches’ ‘filter’ and reflective processes are often uncritical and inadvertent, based on
tacit understanding of how to implement concepts in context and implicit judgements of
‘what works’. These processes could usefully be targeted to enhance the impact of learning
situations (Abraham & Collins, 1998; 2011). The model itself could be used as an intuitive
visual heuristic for coaches and coach educators to guide coach development, and potentially
structure critically reflective conversations. While reflective practice is often identified as
beneficial for coaches’ development (e.g., Chesterfield et al., 2010; Knowles et al., 2001;
2005; Nelson & Cushion, 2006), formal education provision fails to provide adequate support
for the process (Knowles et al., 2001). The model shows that educators should not continue to
assume that explicit reflection will ‘just happen’ as a naturally occurring phenomenon
(Knowles et al., 2001; Moon, 2004). Coaches need more support to uncover and link their
underlying reasoning, assumptions and values to disjunctive concepts, transforming them for
integration into biography (Jarvis, 2006) thus deepening meaningful learning.
This could be achieved through a number of avenues. Firstly, reflection should be

structured around coaches’ existing authentic practice. It is suggested that an emphasis on
drawing links between new concepts and tacit knowledge for implementation, as well as live
experimentation and adaptation, would be effective in terms of impact on learning. Linked to
this, the notion of ‘what works’ is significant in coaches’ choices to implement and adopt
certain conceptions over others. Educators could help individuals examine and challenge what
practice that ‘works’ looks like in context, deconstructing ‘assumed know-how’ and
demonstrating how it may constitute a limited base for practice (Chesterfield et al., 2010).
Video can be a powerful and flexible tool to facilitate judgements of ‘what really works’
and reflective practice more generally (Trudel, Gilbert & Toulon, 2001). There are a number
of ways that video could usefully be employed; for example, coaches could be supported to
cultivate their own peer video reflection groups (Trudel et al., 2001); while coach educators
could facilitate coaches’ deep learning by using video to explicate tacit cognitive processes
vital for the implementation of knowledge. In addition, video could also quite
straightforwardly enhance the impact of coach educators on coaches’ learning, by helping to
construct their own knowledge of learners’ individual biographies. Videos of candidates’ pre-
course coaching sessions or even meetings of a format similar to the stimulated recall
interview protocol (see Stodter & Cushion, 2014) could help coach educators understand and
work with the starting points and ‘frames of reference’ of individual learners. With constant
improvements in the sophistication and availability of portable technology and application
software, these points are simple to implement and could have a tangible impact on coaches’
learning. Many of these implications rely on the skills of coach educators to be able to
facilitate learning through active listening and effective questioning (Charteris & Smardon,
2013), and build reflective partnerships free from micro-political maneuverings such as those
experienced by coaches in recent studies (e.g., Chesterfield et al., 2010; Thompson et al.,
2013).
The reflective feedback loop mechanisms identified in this model also suggest that
coaches need opportunities to experiment with implementing new knowledge in contexts that
are highly realistic, yet open to innovation and occasional failure. Realism is vital to allow
practitioners to make valid links between concepts and implementation, since conceptions are
understood and linked primarily to the types of situations in which they are learned (Eraut,
2000). Coach educators can support practitioners integrating knew ideas into situated action
by scaffolding the reflection and adaptation process as above (Vygotsky, 1978); yet more
challenging contexts may require further strategies. As well as setting an ‘open’ example
within NGBs and coach education courses (Piggott, 2012; 2013), frank discussions about the
micro-political issues and barriers hindering implementation can be a starting point to
increase tolerance (Piggott, 2013) and generate possible solutions. A compelling strategy in
this respect could be using evidence to persuade coaches and clubs that the desired practices
work. Since for practitioners, “seeing is believing” (Nelson et al., 2012, p.7), coach education
providers could provide clear demonstrations of the worth of different approaches, and ways
to apply them in specific contexts, rather than attempting to initiate change through shifting
deeply ingrained values and cultures (Guskey, 2002; Nelson et al., 2012).
CONCLUSION
We have argued in this chapter that the existing coach learning research has not yet
generated evidence explaining how learning opportunities work for different individuals,
leading to limited development of frameworks that can improve learning and practice within
different populations of coaches.
We presented a grounded model of coaches’ learning processes, which could highlight
some ‘commonalities’ of use to the wider learning literature. Overall, coach learning needs
more longitudinal, rigorous empirical research that directly examines the impact of learning
experiences on coaches’ knowledge and day-to-day practice, in order to facilitate meaningful
learning opportunities that ‘work’ for each individual and develop dynamic, innovative and
effective practitioners.
EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

IN PRACTICE
 Effective learning cannot be ‘one-size-fits-all’; it needs to be personalized to

participants’ existing biography and coaching context. This can be facilitated through
explicit critical reflection or video feedback, centering on coaches’ authentic
practice.
 See conflict or ‘disjuncture’ as a moment of potential for learning and support
coaches to forge links with their existing knowledge. Authentic social practice,
guided by more knowledgeable others, can facilitate meaningful learning by
converting concepts to personal conceptions. In other words, facilitate open
‘reflective conversations’ on how to apply learning to specific contexts.
 Be aware of the processes leading to rejection of concepts, and the risk of
disregarding information that could otherwise be highly valuable. Without support
through disjunctive experiences and an environment conducive to trying out new
knowledge, coaches may revert to type and continue to practice in ‘tried and tested’
ways, reproducing stagnant knowledge and practice ‘norms’.
 ‘Seeing is believing’ – coaches are highly focused on ‘what works’. They may be
more likely to try out new concepts if they are shown that it could work in their
particular context, and may also be more likely to adopt their new learning if they
believe it does work having tried it out.
REFERENCES
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (1998). Examining and extending research in coach development.
Quest, 50, 59-79.
Abraham, A., & Collins, D. (2011). Taking the next step: Ways forward for coaching science.
Quest, 63, 366-384.
Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. (2006). The coaching schematic: Validation
through expert coach consensus. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 549-564.
Abraham, A., Collins, D., Morgan, G., & Muir, B. (2009). Developing expert coaches
requires expert coach development: Replacing serendipity with orchestration. In A.
Lorenzo, S. J. Ibanez & E. Ortega (Eds.), Aportaciones Teoricas Y Practicas Para El
Baloncesto Del Futuro. Sevilla: Wanceulen Editorial Deportiva.
Armour, K.M. (2010). The learning coach...the learning approach: professional development
for sports coach professionals. In: J. Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports Coaching:
Professionalisation and Practice (pp. 153-164). China: Elsevier.
Armour, K.M., & Yelling, M. (2007). Effective professional development for physical
education teachers: the role of informal, collaborative learning. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 26, 177-200.
Bertz, S., & Purdy, L. (2011). Coach education in Ireland: observations and considerations for
high performance. Journal of Coaching Education, 4(3), 29-43.
Bloom, G.A., Crumpton, R., & Anderson, J.E. (1999). A systematic observation study of the
teaching behaviors of an expert basketball coach. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 157-170.
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education.
London: Open University.
Callary, B., Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2012). How meaningful episodic experiences
influence the process of becoming an experienced coach. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 4(3), 420-438.
Camiré, M., Trudel, P. & Forneris, T. (2012). Examining how model youth sport coaches
learn to facilitate positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
19(1), 1-17.
Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2013). Second look – second think: a fresh look at video to
support dialogic feedback in peer coaching. Professional Development in Education,
39(2), 168-185.
Chesterfield, G., Potrac, P., & Jones, R. (2010). ‘Studentship’ and ‘impression management’
in an advanced soccer coach education award. Sport, Education and Society, 15(3), 299-
314.
Colley, H. (2003). Mentoring for social inclusion: A critical approach to nurturing mentor
relationships. London: Routledge.
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2003). Informality and formality in learning: a
report for the learning skills research centre. London, Learning and Skills Research
Centre.
Côté, J. (2006). The development of coaching knowledge. International Journal of Sports
Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (2006). Cultivating coaches’ communities of practice: Developing
the potential for learning through interactions, in: Jones, R. L. (Ed.) The sports coach as
educator: Re-conceptualising sports coaching (pp. 97-112). London: Routledge.
Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (2008). Clarifying the concept of communities of practice in sport.
Culver, D., Trudel, P., & Werthner, P. (2009). A sport leader’s attempt to foster a coaches’
community of practice. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,4(3), 365-
383.
Cushion, C.J. (2013). Applying Game Centred Approaches in coaching: a critical analysis of
the ‘dilemmas of practice’ impacting change. Sports Coaching Review, 2(1), 61-76.
Cushion, C.J., & Lyle, J. (2010). Conceptual development in sport coaching. In: J. Lyle & C.
Cushion (Eds.) Sports Coaching: Professionalisation and Practice (pp. 1-13). China:
Elsevier.
Cushion, C.J., & Nelson, L. (2013). Coach education and learning: developing the field. In P.
Potrac, W. Gilbert & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sports Coaching (pp.
359-374). Abingdon: Routledge.
professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55, 215-230.
Cushion, C.J., Nelson, L., Armour, K.M., Lyle, J., Jones, R.L., Sandford, R., & O’Callaghan,
R. (2010). Coach learning & development: A review of literature. Leeds: Sports Coach
UK.
Deek, D., Werthner, P., Paquette, K.J., & Culver, D. (2013). Impact of a large-scale coach
education program from a lifelong-learning perspective. Journal of Coaching Education,
6(1), 23-42.
Entwistle, N.J., & Peterson, E.R. (2004). Conceptions of learning and knowledge in higher
education: relationships with study behavior and influences of learning environments.
International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 407-428.
Entwistle, N., Skinner, D., Entwistle, D., & Orr, S. (2000). Conceptions and beliefs about
‘good teaching’: an integration of contrasting research areas. Higher Education Research
& Development, 19(1), 5-26.
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113-136.
Gearity, B.T., Callary, B., & Fulmer, P. (2013). Learning to coach: a qualitative case study of
Phillip Fulmer. Journal of Coaching Education, 6(2), 65-86.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in model
youth sport coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 16-34.
Gilbert, W., Lichtenwaldt, L., Gilbert, J., Zelezny, L., & Côté, J. (2009). Developmental
profiles of successful high school coaches. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 4(3), 415-431.
Gould, D., Gianni, J., Krane, V., & Hodge, K. (1990). Educational needs of elite U.S. national
team, Pan American, and Olympic coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
9, 332-344.
Griffiths, M.A., & Armour, K.M. (2013). Volunteer sport coaches and their learning
dispositions in coach education. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,
8(4), 677-688.
Guskey, T.R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Holt, N.L., Knight, C.J., & Tamminen, K.A. (2012). Grounded theory. In: K. Armour & D.
Macdonald (Eds.), Research methods in physical education and youth sport, (pp.277-
294). Routledge: Abingdon, UK.
Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. London: Routledge.
Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M., & Potrac, P. (2003). Constructing expert knowledge: A case
study of a top-level professional soccer coach. Sport, Education and Society, 8(2), 213-
229.
Jones, R.L., Armour, K.M., & Potrac, P. (2004) Sports coaching cultures: from practice to
theory. London, Routledge.
Jones, R.L., Edwards, C., & Viotto Filho, I.A.T. (2014). Activity theory, complexity and
sports coaching: an epistemology for a discipline. Sport, Education and Society, DOI:
10.1080/13573322.2014.895713.
Jones, R.L., Harris, R., & Miles, A. (2009). Mentoring in sports coaching: a review of the
literature. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 267-284.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy.
Chicago: Follett.
Knowles, Z., Borrie, A., & Telfer, H. (2005). Towards the reflective sports coach: issues of
context, education and application. Ergonomics, 48(11), 1711-1720.
Knowles, Z., Gilbourne, D., Borrie, A., & Nevill, A. (2001). Developing the reflective sports
coach: a study exploring the processes of reflective practice within a higher education
coaching programme. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary
Perspectives, 2(2), 185-207.
Lemyre, F., Trudel, P., & Durand-Bush, N. (2007). How youth-sport coaches learn to coach.
The Sport Psychologist, 21, 191-209.
Light, R., & Robert, J.E . (2010). The impact of game sense pedagogy on Australian rugby
coaches’ practice: a question of pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
15(2), 103-115.
Lyle, J. (2007). A review of the research evidence for the impact of coach education.
International Journal of Coaching Science, 1, 17-34.
Mason, L. (2007). Introduction: bridging the cognitive and sociocultural approaches in
research on conceptual change: is it feasible? Educational psychologist, 42(1), 1-7.
McCullick, B.A., Belcher, D., & Schempp, P.G. (2005). What works in coaching and sport
instructor certification programs? The participants’ view. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 10(2), 121-137.
McCullick, B.A., Schempp, P., Mason, I., Foo, C., Vickers, B., & Connolly, G. (2009). A
scrutiny of the coaching education program scholarship since 1995. Quest, 61, 322-335.
McMaster, S., Culver, D., & Werthner, P. (2012). Coaches of athletes with a physical
disability: a look at their learning experiences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise
and Health, 4(2), 226-243.
Mezirow, J. (2009). An overview on transformative learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.),
Contemporary Theories of Learning (pp. 90-105). Abingdon: Routledge.
Mesquita, I., Isidro, S., & Rosado, A. (2010). Portugese coaches’ perceptions of and
preferences for knowledge sources related to their professional background. Journal of
Sports Science and Medicine, 9, 480-489.
Moon, J. (2001). Short courses & modules: improving the impact of learning, training &
professional development. London: Kogan Page.
Moon, J. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning – theory and practice.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Nash, C., & Sproule, J. (2011). Insights into Experiences: Reflections of an expert and novice
coach. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 6(1), 149-161.
Nelson, L.J., & Cushion, C.J. (2006). Reflection in coach education: The case of the national
governing body coaching certificate. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 174-183.
Nelson, L., Cushion, C.J., & Potrac, P. (2006). Formal, nonformal and informal coach
learning: a holistic conceptualisation. International Journal of Sports Science &
Coaching, 1(3), 247-259.
Nelson, L., Cushion, C., & Potrac, P. (2012). Enhancing the provision of coach education: the
recommendations of UK coaching practitioners. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
DOI:10.1080/17408989.2011.649725.
Peel, J. Cropley, B., Hanton, S., Fleming, S. (2013). Learning through reflection: values,
conflicts, and role interactions of a youth sport coach. Reflective Practice, DOI:
10.1080/14623943.2013.815609.
Piggott, D. (2012). Coaches’ experiences of formal coach education: a critical sociological
investigation. Sport, Education and Society, 17(4), 535-554.
Piggott, D. (2013). The Open Society and coach education: a philosophical agenda for policy
reform and future sociological research. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. DOI:
10.1080/17408383.2013.837435.
Rynne, S.B., & Mallett, C. (2012). Understanding the work and learning of high performance
coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, DOI:10.1080/17408989.2011.621119
Rynne, S.B., Mallett, C., & Tinning, R. (2010). Workplace learning of high performance
sports coaches. Sport, Education and Society, 15(3), 315-330.
Schempp, P.G., & Graber, K.C. (1992). Teacher socialization from a dialectical perspective:
pretraining through induction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 329-348.
Schempp, P.G. & McCullick, B. (2010). Coaches’ expertise. In: J. Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.)
Sports Coaching: Professionalisation and Practice (pp.221-231). China: Elsevier.
Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stodter, A., & Cushion, C.J. (2014). Coaches’ learning and education: a case study of cultures
in conflict. Sports Coaching Review, 3(1), 63-79.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedure for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). Basketball’s John Wooden: what a coach can teach a
teacher. Psychology Today, 9(8), 74-78.
Thompson, A., Potrac, P., & Jones, R. (2013). ‘I found out the hard way’: micro-political
workings in professional football. Sport, Education and Society, DOI:
10.1080/13573322.2013.862786.
Trudel, P., Culver, D., & Werthner, P. (2013). Looking at coach development from the coach-
learner’s perspective: considerations for coach administrators. In: P.Potrac, W. Gilbert
and J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching. (pp. 375-387). Abingdon:
Routledge.
Trudel, P., Gilbert, W., & Tochon, F.V. (2001). The use of video in the semiotic construction
of knowledge and meaning in sport pedagogy. International Journal of Applied
Semiotics, 2(1-2), 89-112.
Trudel, P., Gilbert, W., & Werthner, P. (2010). Coach education effectiveness. In: Lyle, J. &
Cushion, C. (Eds.), Sports coaching: Professionalisation and practice (pp. 135-152).
China: Elsevier.
Turner, D., & Nelson, L. (2009). Graduate perceptions of a UK university based coach
education programme, and impacts on development and employability. International
Tusting, K., & Barton, D. (2003). Models of Adult Learning: A Literature Review. London:
NRDC.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Canadian Coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4, 433-449.
Winchester, G., Culver, C., & Camiré, M. (2011). The learning profiles of high school
teacher-coaches. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(4), 216-233.
Winchester, G., Culver, C., & Camiré, M., (2013). Understanding how Ontario high school
teacher-coaches learn to coach. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(4), 412-426.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Anna Stodter completed her PhD in coach learning and education in 2014, research
that evaluated the impact of formal and informal learning on soccer coaches’ knowledge and
practice. Anna has worked in talent development for Archery GB and is currently a Lecturer
in Sports Coaching at Anglia Ruskin University.
Dr Chris Cushion is a Reader in Sport Coaching at Loughborough University where he

is the Programme Director for the MSc in Sport Coaching. His research interests are in
understanding coach learning, coaching practice and coach behaviour, within a framework of
developing a sociology of coaching.
Chapter 4
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING:
A CONSIDERATION FOR REVITALIZING
COACH EDUCATION
Kyle Paquette* and Pierre Trudel

University of Ottawa, Canada
ABSTRACT
Sports coaching researchers are urging their peers to look at coach development
using perspectives and methodologies that recognize and embrace the role of the coach as
a learner. Although the study of traditional coach education programs has yielded
discouraging findings, coach education can be significant in its contribution to coach
development when it centralizes the learner and caters to his/her individual needs. As
such, the conversation has shifted to the integration and implementation of learner-
centered (LC) approaches. The purpose of this article is to support the practical efforts of
coach educators looking to transition to LC approaches and to stimulate dialogue among
researchers and practitioners that explores the breadth of possibilities and benefits of
adopting these approaches to help revitalize coach education. To this end, a theoretical
overview of the LC literature is presented, along with a popular framework and practical
tool for facilitating change and assessment of LC programs. Finally, the relationship
between the LC framework and the current landscape of coach education literature is
explored, and critical considerations for leading LC coach education are discussed.
Keywords: Coach development, coach educators, constructivism, learning, paradigms
INTRODUCTION
Learning is said to be central to quality coaching and coach development (Armour, 2010;
Nelson, Cushion, Potrac, & Groom, 2014). Sports coaching researchers are urging their peers
*
Corresponding Author address: Email: kpaqu098@uottawa.ca
54 Kyle Paquette and Pierre Trudel
to look at coach development using perspectives and/or methodologies that recognize and
embrace the role of the coach as a learner (e.g., Armour, 2010; Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac,
2009; Trudel, Culver, & Werthner, 2013). Due to the methodological challenges of meeting
the individual needs of coach learners, the ability of existing coach education to positively
impact coaches’ learning and long-term development has been questioned (e.g., Mallett,
Trudel, Lyle, & Rynne, 2009; Trudel, Gilbert, & Werthner, 2010). Up until the last few years,
the literature has painted a dismal picture of coach education, maintaining that it plays a
minimal role in coaches’ development, resulting in it being “widely criticized by scholars and
coaches alike” (Nelson & Cushion, 2006, p. 175). However, Piggott (2013) has argued that
“researchers have perhaps been hasty in drawing simple conclusions” (p. 3). When examining
the literature in question more carefully, the vast majority of research criticizing coach
education stems from the study of programs informed or underpinned by “behaviourist”
(Piggott, 2013) and more broadly “positivist” assumptions (Paquette, Hussain, Trudel, &
Camiré, 2014) – programs that do little in the way of centralizing the learner. Instead of a
scrutiny of coach education in general, the findings from this body of research may perhaps
be more accurately summarized as having revealed a significant limitation to programs
designed and delivered according to traditional, positivist views of learning. The fact is, coach
education can be significant in its contribution to coach development (e.g., Collins, Abraham,
& Collins, 2012; Griffiths & Armour, 2013; Trudel et al., 2013). There is a flourishing body
of research that is yielding encouraging findings for programs that use novel educational
approaches that are aligned with constructivist learning principles (e.g., Leduc, Culver &
Werthner, 2012; Morgan, Jones, Gilbourne, & Llewellyn, 2012; Paquette et al., 2014) –
programs that are designed to put a greater emphasis on the learner and to better cater to
his/her key individual differences.
The conversation has indeed shifted to the integration and implementation of learner-
centered (LC) approaches and materials to support the renewal of coach education (Lyle,
Jolly, & North, 2010; Nelson et al., 2014; Paquette et al., 2014). While coach education
programs around the world are increasingly making their claims to employ LC approaches
(e.g., Canada’s National Coaching Certification Program, Coaching Association of Canada,
2013; United Kingdom Coaching Certificate, Lyle, 2007), our understanding of what it means
to be LC remains limited. As it stands, with the exception of Nelson and colleagues’ (2014)
notable effort to explore the foundations of Carl Rogers’ theorizing about person-centered
learning, a lack of scholarship addressing the LC paradigm and its implications for coach
education has seemingly created a “loose-patchwork of assumed related notions… [and has
done] little to deepen its conceptual underpinnings or support recommendations for practice”
(Nelson et al., 2014, p. 3).
Given that the complexity of educating coaches is magnified when focusing on the
learner and his/her needs (Collins et al., 2012; Nelson et al., 2014; Trudel et al., 2010), more
than ever there is a need for theoretically informed resources to support the practical efforts of
coach educators looking to transition to LC approaches. As such, the purposes of this chapter
are: (a) to provide a theoretical overview of the LC literature; (b) to present a practical
framework for facilitating LC change and assessment; and (c) to discuss critical
considerations for leading LC coach education.
Learner-Centered Teaching 55
PART 1: A LOOK AT THE LC LITERATURE

Barr and Tagg: From Teaching to Learning
There is a consensus in the education literature that the mass interest in learner-
centeredness was sparked by Robert Barr and John Tagg’s (1995) groundbreaking article in
Change, From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education
(Cullen, Harris, & Hill, 2012; Fear et al., 2003; Weimer, 2002). The authors presented
evidence of a fundamentally flawed higher education system in which learning was being
overshadowed by the activity of teaching (p. 13):
We are beginning to recognize that our dominant paradigm mistakes a means for an end.
It takes the means or method – called ‘instruction’ or ‘teaching’ – and makes it the college’s
end or purpose. To say that the purpose of colleges is to provide instruction is like saying
General Motors’ business is to operate assembly lines or that the purpose of medical care is to
fill hospital beds. We now see that our mission is not instruction but rather that of producing
learning with every student by whatever means works best.
Barr and Tagg (1995) highlighted a need for higher education to shift its focus and
systematic efforts from teaching to the process of student learning. As such, central to their
article, the authors compared and contrasted two opposing educational paradigms: the
instruction paradigm and the learning paradigm. A detailed description of the two paradigms
was outlined in terms of their mission and purposes, criteria for success, teaching/learning
structures, underpinning learning theory, and nature of faculty roles. In short, they described
the instruction paradigm, often referred to as the traditional or dominant paradigm in
education, as one of competition, control, and isolation. Based on learning theory that
subscribes to a belief in objective truth and the ownership of knowledge, commonly
associated with positivism (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), the primary objectives of the
instruction paradigm are the provision of instruction and the transfer of knowledge from
faculty to student. Within this paradigm, efforts from national commissions and task forces to
enhance the quality of education are often motivated by the goal of improving the quality of
instruction. Conversely, the learning paradigm is one of cooperation, collaboration, support,
and knowledge creation. Based on learning theory aligned with constructivism (Denzin &
Lincoln, 2011), the learning paradigm aims to produce learning, create meaningful learning
environments, and elicit student discovery and joint construction of knowledge in order to
achieve specified learning outcomes.
Barr and Tagg (1995) admitted that the two opposing paradigms are, in practice, never as
“neatly parallel” as they are presented in summary charts designed according to a visibly
distinct and well-established set of parameters. Furthermore, the authors noted that “not all
elements of the new paradigm are contrary to corresponding elements of the old; the new
includes many elements of the old within its larger domain of possibilities” (p. 15). For
example, they pointed to the act of lecturing, and suggested that although it is a teaching
activity that has been largely entrenched in the instruction paradigm, it is not prohibited in the
learning paradigm. Instead, it becomes one of many options for teachers based on its
appropriateness to promote learning. As a result, the authors recognized that the transition
from one paradigm to another would be a challenging and timely process requiring a
systematic and concerted effort on behalf of educators and institutions. In the years that
followed the publication of Barr and Tagg’s article, the study of the learning paradigm was
launched (e.g., Cambridge, 1996; Fear et al., 2003; Tagg, 2003). Due to the central role of
teaching in education, significant efforts were made by researchers and practitioners to better
understand what teachers should do in order to maximize learning in their students, and with
that, the term learner-centered teaching (LCT) was coined (Weimer, 2002).
Weimer and Blumberg: Learner-Centered Teaching
Among the LC enthusiasts leading the charge, Maryellen Weimer, now a highly regarded
authority on LCT (Blumberg, 2009; Doyle, 2011; Harris & Cullen, 2010), published a
seminal book which explored the changes to teaching practices required by educators in order
to transition to LCT. Weimer (2002) set out by first making an explicit and significant
distinction between what it means to take a learner-centered approach compared to a student-
centered approach, a term more common to education-based discussions at the time:
Being student-centered implies a focus on student needs. It is an orientation that gives

rise to the idea of education as a product, with the student as the customer and the role of the
faculty as one of serving and satisfying the customer....Being learner-centered focuses
attention squarely on learning: what the student is learning, whether the student is retaining
and applying the learning, and how current learning positions the student for future learning
(p. xvi).
In line with Barr and Tagg’s (1995) dichotomy of educational paradigms, Weimer
contrasted the act of being LC (aligned with the learning paradigm) to that of being
teacher/instructor-centered (aligned with the instruction paradigm), and did so by defining
and exploring five dimensions that need to change or be implemented to achieve LCT: (a) the
function of content; (b) the role of the instructor; (c) the responsibility for learning; (d) the
purposes and processes of evaluation; and (e) the balance of power. The benefits of adopting
the five dimensions of Weimer’s conceptual framework are plentiful (e.g., foster self-
regulated learning skills, creativity, critical thinking, and deep learning) and well-supported
within the education and psychology literatures (e.g., Cornelius-White, 2007; Tagg, 2003). As
such, LCT has become a “buzz word” in education (Hirsch, 2010; Svinicki & McKeachie,
2011), and its influence can be observed by the recent outpouring of academic publications
devoted to the study and application of LCT (Cullen et al., 2013; Doyle, 2011). Upon
examination of this body of work, the widespread impact of Weimer’s framework becomes
apparent. A quick online search revealed that Weimer’s work has been cited in over 1000
publications exploring LCT practices and implications for educators in various disciplines,
including business (e.g., Lending & May, 2013; Smart, Witt, & Scott, 2012), education (e.g.,
Brackenbury, 2012; Yilmaz, 2008), health studies (e.g., Cheang, 2009; Harpe & Phipps,
2008), mathematics (e.g., Alsardary & Blumberg, 2009; Ortiz-Robinson & Ellington, 2009),
and nursing (e.g., Candela, Dalley, & Benzel-Lindley, 2006; Greer et al., 2010).
In an effort to expand the groundbreaking work of Weimer (2002) and to increase the
applicability of her LCT framework, Blumberg (2009) operationally defined what constitutes
each of Weimer’s five dimensions; and by doing so, further categorized each of them into
four to seven components based on the LC literature (e.g., Alexander & Murphy, 2000; Tagg,
2003). In total, Blumberg’s comprehensive framework presents 29 components that define
LCT (see Table 1). Rubrics were also created for each dimension to describe different
instructor behaviours for the respective components according to four levels: (a) employs
instructor-centered approaches; (b) lower-level of transitioning; (c) higher-level of
transitioning; and (d) employs LC approaches (see Blumberg, 2009). The rubrics and
components have since received empirical and expert validation regarding their content and
construct (Blumberg, 2011). While the rubrics provide a tool for assessment that can show a
“snapshot” of a program’s LC implementation at any given moment, they also offer a
systematic approach for educators to facilitate change towards developing LC programs.
Table 1. The components of learner-centered teaching
Dimensions of LCT Components

The Function of a) Varied uses of content
Content b) Level to which students engage in content
c) Use of organizing schemes
d) Use of content to facilitate future learning
The Role of the a) Creation of an environment for learning through organization and use of
Facilitator material that accommodates different learning styles
b) Alignment of the course components for consistency
c) Teaching or learning methods appropriate for student learning goals
d) Activities involving student, instructor, content interactions
e) Articulation of SMART objectives
f) Motivation of students to learn
The Responsibility a) Responsibility for learning

for Learning b) Learning-to-learn skills or skills for future learning
c) Self-directed, lifelong learning skills
d) Students’ self-assessment of their learning
e) Students’ self-assessment of their strengths and weaknesses
f) Information literacy skills
The Purposes and a) Assessment within the learning process
Processes of b) Formative assessment
Assessment c) Peer and self-assessment
d) Demonstration of mastery and ability to learn from mistakes
e) Justification of the accuracy of answers
f) Timeframe for feedback
g) Authentic assessment
The Balance of a) Determination of course content
Power b) Expression of alternative perspectives
c) Determination of how students earn grades
d) Use of open-ended assignments
e) Flexibility of course policies, assessment methods, learning methods, and
deadlines
f) Opportunities to learn
Blumberg (2009) Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Within the context of coach education, at first glance, Weimer’s (2002) framework
presents notable similarities and links between the recent theoretical and practical efforts of
coach education researchers and practitioners.
Table 2. Five dimensions of LCT linked to coach education critiques
and recommendations
Dimensions of LCT Coach Education Critiques (C) and Example References

Recommendations (R)
The Function of C – Decontextualized Cushion et al. (2003); Jones & Turner (2006); Nelson et al. (2006)
Content learning/environments Morgan et al. (2012); Nelson et al. (2102); Wiersma & Sherman
R – Active learning opportunities (2005)
R – Recognition of coaches’ biographies Christensen (2014); Leduc et al. (2012); Werthner & Trudel (2009)
R – Working with meaning/transform Douglas & Carless (2008); Griffiths & Armour (2013); Morgan et
content al. (2012)
R – Situate learning Jones et al. (2012); Trudel et al. (2013); Vella et al. (2013)
R – Relevant, usable, and interactive Cushion et al. (2003); Lyle et al. (2010); Nelson et al. (2012)
content Hammond & Perry (2005); Lyle et al. (2010)
R – Well organized/formatted learning
material
The Role of the C – One-size-fits-all approach Cassidy et al. (2006); Cushion et al. (2003), Nelson et al. (2102)
Instructor C – Courses not being delivered as Hammond & Perry (2005); Nelson et al. (2013); Werthner et al.
designed (2012)
R – More credible/knowledgeable McCullick et al. (2005); Wiersma & Sherman (2005)
teachers Chesterfield et al. (2010); Roberts & Ryrie (2014); Vella et al.
R – Collaboration between coach and (2013)
facilitator Nelson et al. (2012, 2013); Paquette et al. (2014); Werthner et al.
R – Embracing the role of facilitation (2012)
R – Increase coaches’ social interactions Cassidy et al. (2006); Jones et al. (2012); Wiersma & Sherman
(2005)
The Responsibility C – Minimal focus on the learner and Cassidy et al. (2006); Hussain et al. (2012); Jones (2006)
for Learning learning Knowles et al. (2001, 2005); Nelson et al. (2006); Trudel et al.
R – Use of reflective activities (2013)
R – Recognizing the lifelong nature of Deek et al. (2012); Leduc et al. (2012); Trudel et al. (2010)
learning Cushion et al. (2010); Hussain et al. (2012); Lyle et al. (2009)
R – Developing learning skills Cassidy et al. (2006); Knowles et al. (2001); Leduc et al. (2012)
Reflective skills Leduc et al. (2012); Nash & Sproule (2009); Trudel et al. (2013)
Creating networks Abraham et al. (2010); Nash & Sproule (2012)
Decision-making skills Abraham et al. (2010); Nash & Sproule (2009)
Learning to plan Cushion et al. (2010); Demers et al. (2006); Jones et al. (2012)
Self-regulating
Dimensions of LCT Coach Education Critiques (C) and Example References
Recommendations (R)
The Purpose and C – Adapting behaviours to pass test Chesterfield et al. (2010)
Process of R – Feedback/individualized support McCullick et al. (2005); North (2010); Turner & Nelson (2009)
Assessment R – Authentic assessment Mallett & Dickens (2009); Nash & Sproule, 2009; Roberts & Ryrie
R – Encourage self-assessments (2014)
R – Encourage peer assessments Demers et al. (2006); Nash & Sproule (2012); Turner & Nelson
R – Encourage assessments for learning (2009)
Cushion et al. (2003); Nelson & Cushion (2006); Paquette et al.
(2014)
Mallett & Dickens (2009); Paquette et al. (2014); Roberts & Ryrie
(2014)
The Balance of C – Programs designed w/ “top-down” Côté (2006); Trudel & Gilbert (2006)
Power approach Morgan et al. (2012); Nelson et al. (2012)
R – Involve coaches in design and Abraham et al. (2010); Leduc et al. (2012); Piggott (2013)
delivery Chesterfield et al. (2010); Cushion et al. (2003); Nelson et al. (2013)
R – Complimentary learning Chesterfield et al. (2010); Morgan et al. (2012), Vella et al. (2013)
opportunities
R – Rethinking power distribution
R – Active engagement in program
As such, with the aim of exploring the relationship between the LCT framework and the
current landscape of the coach education literature in more depth, a comprehensive search
was conducted for any articles published in English language journals since 2000 in which
thoughts on how to improve the quality and/or enhance the impact of coach education were
provided.
Looking at this body of work through the lens of the LCT framework, it became apparent
that the majority of critiques and recommendations targeting coach education are not only
closely aligned with the LCT framework, but in many cases would be satisfied with the
adoption of one or more recommendations made by Weimer to support LCT. To help
illustrate these links, Table 2 presents a comprehensive list of coach education critiques and
recommendations categorized according to the five dimensions of the LCT framework. Each
dimension is presented and discussed below according to the contrasting roles they play in
instructor-centered (IC) and LC programs.
PART 2: FIVE DIMENSIONS OF LCT FRAMEWORK

The Function of Content
Discussions regarding educational content have long been influenced by the belief that
“more is better” (Weimer, 2002, p. 46). Instructors often race to cover as much content as
possible given their time constraints in an effort to not only help students acquire the
maximum amount of content knowledge, but also to meet curriculum requirements (Cullen et
al., 2012). The effectiveness of this approach has been brought into question (Weimer, 2002)
and it has been suggested it leads to an “illusion of comprehension” (Svinicki, 2004, p. 117).
Instructors are encouraged to think more holistically about content and how it can be used in
conjunction with students’ prior learning to support their achievement of designated outcomes
(i.e., skills and abilities) and continued learning following their participation in an educational
program (Harris & Cullen, 2010). This dimension is categorized into four components (see
Table 1).
In IC programs, content is covered by instructors in the absence of a defined organizing
scheme to help students build their respective knowledge bases, and students are allowed and
possibly encouraged to memorize content and to learn it in isolation of previous knowledge
and with no regard for future learning. In contrast, students in LC programs are encouraged
by instructors to engage in the content at a personally meaningful level through critical
reflection. Moreover, content is viewed as “both an end in itself and a means to other ends”
(Blumberg, 2009, p. 83); and it is framed and organized by instructors not only to help
students build a knowledge base, but also to develop discipline-specific inquiry and learning
methodologies, and to facilitate future learning. As it relates to coach education, traditional
programs have been scrutinized for a lack of ecological validity and decontextualized learning
environments (Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003; Trudel & Gilbert, 2006), which has paved
the way for numerous recommendations to help remedy this notable limitation (see Table 2).
The Role of the Instructor
The instructor’s role is central to Blumberg’s (2009) conceptualization of LCT, as noted

in her definition of LCT: “an approach that shifts the role of the instructor from one of giver
of information to one of facilitating student learning or creating an environment for learning
[emphasis added]” (p. 273). The shift in role is perhaps best contrasted using King’s (1993)
metaphor: “from sage on stage, to guide on the side” (p. 30). This dimension is categorized
into six components (see Table 1). In programs aligned with IC approaches, instructors use
teaching methods in which the students are passive, that do not recognize different learning
styles, and are not aligned with learning goals, if indeed these are specified. Moreover,
students’ motivation for achievement is achieved using extrinsic motivators, such as
“participation policies, required reading assignments, and grades” (Blumberg, 2009, p. 110).
In contrast, programs employing LC approaches have instructors who present and regularly
readdress SMART objectives, and create intrinsically motivating learning environments by
employing active learning methods that not only accommodate different learning styles, but
also are aligned with learning goals and assessment methods. In coach education,
standardized curriculums and delivery protocols have limited the role and potential impact of
effective facilitation (Nelson et al., 2014; Werthner et al., 2012). Thus, significant attention
has been devoted to the role of the instructor/facilitator with an aim to enhance the impact of
coach education (see Table 2).
The Responsibility for Learning
The third dimension examines the importance of assuming responsibility for learning and
the development of self-directed and lifelong learning skills. Compared to the function of
content dimension, which discusses the use of self-directed learning in terms of teaching and
learning methods as part of the learning process, in this dimension self-directed learning is
presented as an outcome of the learning process. Upon completing an educational program,
students should be equipped with skills that allow them to continually learn and adapt with
the “fast-changing, globally connected world” (Blumberg, 2009, p. 127). However, as
institutions and instructors create restrictive policies in an attempt to standardize the
educational experience (Cullen et al., 2012) they must be cautious not to create dependent,
passive, and irresponsible learners:
The more structured we make the environment, the more structure students need. The
more we decide for students, the more they expect us to decide. The more motivation we
provide, the less they find within themselves. The more responsibility for learning we try to
assume, the less they accept on their own. (Weimer, 2002, p. 98)
This dimension is categorized into six components (see Table 1). In short, programs
employing IC approaches are led by instructors who assume all responsibility for learning and
assessment, and focus solely on achieving course objectives in the absence of developing
further learning skills. Conversely, programs aligned with LC approaches are led by
instructors who provide considerable opportunity for students to assume responsibility for
their learning, and do so by facilitating the development of a variety of self-directed, lifelong
learning skills (e.g., time management) and information literacy skills (e.g., framing questions
and accessing sources). Within the context of coach education, researchers have recognized
and criticized traditional programs for de-prioritizing learning and in turn losing sight of the
learner (Armour, 2010; Trudel et al., 2013).
To this end, the literature is now replete with recommendations addressing the need to
focus on the learner and the development of learning skills (see Table 2).
The Purposes and Processes of Assessment
Compared to traditional programs that have tended to put a strong emphasis on

evaluation, a term that typically connotes judgment and refers to a process owned by the
instructor, assessment is more commonly associated with the learning paradigm and is said to
be the driving force for learning. As such, instructors must be cautious when selecting the
type of assessment to support their objectives, as students will tailor their learning process to
meet the demands of the intended assessment. For example, recall assessment (e.g., multiple
choice questions) will lead to students taking a more surface approach to learning in an effort
to memorize the content presented to them. Alternatively, authentic assessment, which
requires students to demonstrate their knowledge and competencies similar to what
practitioners and professionals do, will encourage students to take a deep approach to their
learning in order to increase understanding. Assessment can be integrated into the learning
process by providing students with opportunities to learn during assessment activities or by
creating learning activities that include assessment components. In short, this dimension
focuses on the why and how of assessment, and is categorized into seven components (see
Table 1). In programs employing IC approaches, learning is assumed to occur automatically,
to be “an all but inevitable outcome of the evaluation process” (Weimer, 2002, p. 119).
Therefore, with the exception of summative evaluations, instructors do not provide students
with opportunities to demonstrate their learning, nor do instructors believe it is appropriate for
students to play a role in their assessment or that of their peers. Conversely, in programs
employing LC approaches, instructors carefully and deliberately integrate assessment within
the learning process through the ongoing use of formative assessment, peer and self-
assessment, and by providing students with timely and constructive feedback. The purpose
and process of assessment continues to be part of a growing dialogue among coach education
researchers and practitioners (Mallett & Dickens, 2009; Paquette et al., 2014) with a breadth
of recommendations and support being offered for the possibility of using various assessment
strategies to enhance learning (see Table 2).
The Balance of Power
The educational environment is laden with power dynamics (Weimer, 2002), often
disregarded by instructors who exert their control in the classroom by making all or most
learning-related decisions, ironically, with little or no input from the intended learners. In
doing so, instructors neglect the importance of appealing to students’ “sense of choice and
control” – key determinants of their motivation to learn (Harris & Cullen, 2010, p. 46).
Although providing students with more power has been shown to increase their engagement,
motivation, and overall learning (Weimer, 2002), instructors are still hesitant to redistribute
power in fear of a chaotic outcome. This dimension is categorized into six components (see
Table 1). In summary, programs employing IC approaches are limited to the perspectives
expressed by the instructors and to the course policies, content, learning methods, assessment
methods, grading system, and deadlines they mandate (Blumberg, 2009). Furthermore,
students participating in these programs, although not encouraged to be active learners and to
share their perspectives, are required to attend. On the other hand, the balance of power is
distributed more equitably in programs aligned with LC approaches. Instructors and students
engage in ongoing negotiations in an effort to enhance the impact and effectiveness of a
jointly created and governed learning environment. Moreover, the determination of how
students earn grades is also part of the above-mentioned negotiations. Although the study of
power relations inherent to sports coaching has been given considerable attention (e.g.,
Potrac, Jones, & Cushion, 2007; Turman, 2006), the balance of power in coach education
(i.e., the power of the coach educator and/or the balance of power between the instructor and
coach participants) remains under-investigated (e.g., Cushion et al., 2003; Taylor & Garratt,
2010). That said, there is an awareness among researchers of the shortcomings of using “top-
down” approaches when designing coach education and of the importance of increasing
coaches’ involvement in their educational experiences (see Table 2).
PART 3: CONSIDERATIONS FOR LEADING LC COACH EDUCATION

A major misconception is that the transition to LCT entails an “all or nothing” approach.
Coach educators should not be discouraged by the disconcerting notion of adopting all 29
components of the LCT framework if they wish to make the claim of being LC. Blumberg
(2009) emphasized that “even the most LC courses have some components that are not LC”
(p. 223); it is simply not realistic, nor is it ideal, to achieve a LC standard for every
component of all five dimensions. Instead, the LCT framework is intended to offer a
systematic approach for educators wishing to make incremental change towards developing
LC courses and programs. According to Blumberg, there are six factors to consider when
determining the degree of learner-centeredness that might be employed within a program.
These include: (a) the type of students; (b) the level of the course; (c) the number of students
enrolled in the course; (d) the content of the course; (e) the instructor’s own personal
philosophy of teaching; and (f) the culture or philosophy of the campus, department or
educational program. The following section briefly discusses these factors, originally
intended for higher education, in light of the contextual implications for leading LC coach
education.
The first four factors relate to relevant course characteristics. Coach educators looking to
make changes to their programs or courses in favour of adopting LC approaches should
consider the type of students and level of the course when assessing which dimensions and
components are most suitable. According to Blumberg (2009), both factors relate to the
maturity and motivation of the students participating in lower- or upper-level courses. For
example, in courses that are intended to serve as introductory coach education, novice
coaches may require and benefit most from a learning environment in which there is
increased structure and the instructor possesses a large degree of power and control.
Conversely, advanced coach education courses designed to support the ongoing learning and
development of experienced or expert coaches may be better suited to the adoption of LCT
components that work to empower such coaches who, according to the literature (e.g., Nash
& Collins, 2006; Werthner & Trudel, 2009), are likely more aware of their respective learning
needs. These considerations are further supported by Trudel and Gilbert’s (2013)
representation and discussion of the relative contribution of different learning situations in
developing coaching expertise, in which coaches are suggested to transition from being
dependent to independent to interdependent learners as they pursue expertise. According to
these authors, this transition is marked by coaches who are able to, “decide on their own what
is important to learn and from whom…[and] rather than waiting for learning situations to
occur spontaneously, these coaches will actively seek and create such situations” (p. 18-19).
Another consideration presented by Blumberg (2009) is the number of students enrolled
in the course. In coach education, this reflects the scale and scope of a program (i.e., number
of coach participants), which will invariably influence the planning and implementation of
LC approaches. For example, due to the volume of large-scale coach education, there will be
additional methodological challenges in adopting certain LC components, such as many of
those associated with the Purposes and Processes of Assessment and the Balance of Power
dimensions. Instead of simply omitting or neglecting these components, in order to achieve a
certain degree of learner-centeredness large-scale programs may require additional resources
(e.g., facilitator assistants and technological aids) and/or innovation on behalf of the coach
educator. Although the quantity of students has been considered a primary deterrent of
employing LC approaches (Blumberg & Everett, 2005), student quality (i.e., maturity and
motivation) is believed to have more influence on a program’s prospective LC status
(Blumberg, 2009).
The course content is also important to consider in light of its intricate connection to all
five dimensions of the framework. The perceived relevancy and unique characteristics of the
course content, influenced to a significant extent by the discipline, can impact the degree and
effectiveness of the LC approaches employed. For example, certain courses and disciplines
better lend themselves to the use of open-ended assignments and authentic assessment, and
provide greater opportunities for instructors to empower students in helping to determine the
course content and to express alternative perspectives (Blumberg, 2009). In situations where
students perceive the content to lack relevance or personal meaning, instructors are
encouraged to reflect on the components relating to the Function of Content and the Role of
the Instructor dimensions.
Shifting focus from the course characteristics, the final two factors look at the personal
teaching philosophy of the instructor and the culture or philosophy of the campus,
department, or the educational program. We must recognize that we are for the most part the
product of the instruction paradigm (Weimer, 2002). Our educational experiences and
understanding of education have largely been shaped by this paradigm – “[it] is our first
language. We don’t remember how we learned it; we may not understand the grammatical
structures that underpin it, but we know it and use it with great facility” (Harris & Cullen,
2010, p. 34), and as long as our educational beliefs remain unquestioned, our practices will
continue to be bounded by it. Harris and Cullen (2010) asserted that breaking free from a
paradigm, like breaking a habit, requires “intentionality, concerted thought, and self-
awareness” (p. 35). In order to unmask the influence of the instruction paradigm, coach
educators are encouraged to reflect on how both their current educational philosophy and that
of their sport federation/coach governing body align with the learning paradigm and LCT
framework. A lack of congruence in the coach educator’s philosophy may result in a need for
personal transformation to ably lead and model the new approach, whereas a lack of
congruence in the sport federation’s philosophy may require a need for a cultural
transformation involving all stakeholders (i.e., sport federation representatives, facilitators,
evaluators, and coaches). Although there is a scarcity of literature that examines attempts by
coach education programs to make similar paradigm shifts (e.g., Cassidy & Kidman, 2010;
Hussain et al., 2012), findings from this body of research have revealed challenges faced by
coach educators, such as maintaining a consistent delivery of the program and facilitating
coaches with different biographies (Werthner et al., 2012), as well as resistance on behalf of
the coach governing body (Hussain et al., 2012) and coach participants regarding their
understanding of the underpinning learning principles (Galvan, Fyall, & Culpan, 2012;
Paquette et al., 2014).
Overcoming Obstacles and Resistance
Shifting paradigms, as discussed above, involves a complex process of questioning the

assumptions upon which we operate and continually reflecting on and making adjustments in
an effort to align our beliefs and practices with those of the new paradigm. Harris and Cullen
(2010) aptly highlighted the inevitable challenges of changing paradigms by using the bicycle
analogy:
Shifting gears on bicycles allows riders to maintain their cadence as the terrain becomes
more difficult. This is most definitely not how shifting paradigms works. Our cadences will be
interrupted. Shifting paradigms is unbalancing and unsettling because it is about shifting
thinking and attitudes (p. xvi).
To further support educators in their attempts to increase the LC status of their courses,
researchers (i.e., Blumberg, 2009; Harris & Cullen, 2010; Weimer, 2002) have provided a
collection of strategies for overcoming the obstacles and resistance that are inevitable when
shifting to LC programming. In relation to coach education, coach educators are encouraged
to review the LC literature in order to develop a thorough understanding of its principles and
practice, as well as for the purpose of educating themselves on the benefits of adopting LC
approaches. Although there is no shortage of LC literature, we recommend the following four
resources that played an integral role in the conceptualization and writing of this Insights
article: Barr and Tagg (1995); Weimer (2013); Blumberg (2009); and Harris and Cullen
(2010). Once familiarized with the literature, resistance from coaches and administrators can
be minimized by making small, incremental changes (Blumberg, 2009; Weimer, 2002).
Coach educators are encouraged to go through the components of each dimension and
carefully select those that they believe will be easiest to transition to LC approaches based on
the list of considerations presented above. Working through this process with a partner can
also help overcome obstacles (Blumberg, 2009). As mentioned above, the learning paradigm
is one of collaboration – the same holds true with leading the change. It could be beneficial
for coach educators to work with peers who share an interest in adopting LC approaches. Not
only can working with a partner provide tremendous support, it can also enhance learning
opportunities through additional insights and shared experiences (Blumberg, 2009; Harris &
Cullen, 2010).
Resistance from stakeholders (i.e., administration and coaches) can also be overcome by
having coach educators share their goals and vision for change (Harris & Cullen, 2010;
Weimer, 2002). Frequent and explicit communication with stakeholders can encourage a
sense of shared vision, which promotes positive reinforcement and ongoing open dialogue
regarding their experiences and recommendations moving forward (Weimer, 2002). Finally,
to date, the coach development literature is void of research addressing the development and
assessment of LC coach education. Coach educators are recommended to share their
experiences and success stories with others through conferences and publications. By doing
so, they will be adding to our understanding of the processes, outcomes, and challenges of
implementing LC approaches in coach education.
CONCLUSION
If the goal of coach education is to create self-directed, lifelong learners “who can think
critically and solve problems [and] who can sort out the world of daunting complexity”
(Cullen et al., 2012, p. 12), coaches must be treated as learners, and the explicit facilitation of
skills that enable such abilities must be prioritized. According to Weimer (2002), “after many
years, the higher education community has finally discovered learning, and a need for
resources that further cultivate and capitalize on that interest” (p. xi). It appears that a similar
discovery has been made within the field of coach education during the past decade, and
although there is a growing body of research focusing on the learning coach (e.g., Armour,
2010; Trudel et al., 2013) with an emphasis on “learner-centeredness” (Nelson et al., 2014;
Paquette et al., 2014), resources that present an in-depth look at the LC theory and its
implications to coach education are missing. In an attempt to work towards filling this gap,
our intention for writing this article was to present a theoretical examination of LCT and
some insight into its potential implications for coach education. Moreover, by presenting and
discussing Weimer (2002) and Blumberg’s (2009) LCT frameworks, we hope to have
provided sport federations and coach educators with simple and practical strategies to support
their LC initiatives. As stated by Barr and Tagg (1995), “the learning paradigm doesn't
answer all the important questions, of course. What it does do is lead us to a set of new
questions and a domain of possible responses” (p. 23). We therefore hope this chapter will
cultivate new questions from both researchers and practitioners; questions that will explore
the breadth of possibilities and benefits of adopting LC approaches to help revitalize coach
education.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPLIED PRACTICE

 Be informed: As a program director or lead coach educator, carefully review the LC
literature to ensure a proficient understanding of its primary tenets, philosophical
underpinnings, and various practical approaches and strategies for delivery and
assessment.
 Create a culture: As a collective sport federation, devote considerable attention to

creating a culture that values and supports the understanding and adoption of LC
approaches by all the agents involved with the program, such as the program
designers, coordinators, facilitators and evaluators, as well as the coach candidates.
 Understand your program and vision: Carefully reflect on Blumberg’s (2009) six
factors to consider when determining the degree of learner-centeredness that might
be employed within the program. Consider how these factors relate to your program
and how they might influence your vision of a LC program.
 Start small: Using Blumberg’s (2009) comprehensive LCT framework and given the
characteristics of your program, begin by adopting small strategic changes that are
likely to be well-received by the various agents involved with the program. Continue
with incremental changes to avoid creating additional obstacles and resistance.
REFERENCES
Alexander, P., & Murphy, P. (2000). The research base for APA’s learner-centered
psychological principles. In N. Lambert & B. McCoombs (Eds.), How students learn (pp.
25-60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Alsardary, S., & Blumberg, P. (2009). Interactive, learner-centered methods of teaching
mathematics. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies,
19(4), 401-416.
for sports coach professionals. In J. Lyle, & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching:
Professionalisation and practice (pp. 153-164). London: Churchill Livingstone.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995, November/December). From teaching to learning: A new
paradigm for undergraduate education. Change Magazine, 27(6), 12-25.
Blumberg, P. (2009). Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Blumberg, P., & Everett, J. (2005). Achieving a campus consensus on learning-centered
teaching: Process and outcomes. To Improve the Academy, 23, 191-210.
Brackenbury, T. (2012). A qualitative examination of connections between learner-centered
teaching and past significant learning experiences. Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 12(4), 12-28.
Cambridge, B. L. (1996). The paradigm shifts: Examining quality of teaching through
assessment of student learning. Innovative Higher Education, 20(4), 287-297.
Candela, L., Dalley, K., & Benzel-Lindley, J. (2006). A case for learning-centered curricula.
The Journal of Nursing Education, 45(2), 59-66.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R., & Potrac, P. (2009). Understanding sports coaching: The social,
cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice. London: Routledge.
Cassidy, T., & Kidman, L. (2010). Initiating a national coaching curriculum: A paradigmatic
shift?. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(3), 307-322.
Cheang, K. I. (2009). Effect of learner-centered teaching on motivation and learning
strategies in a third-year pharmacotherapy course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 73(3), 42.
Coaching Association of Canada (2013). Learning facilitator standard operating procedures.

National Coaching Certification Program. Coaching Association of Canada.
Collins, D., Abraham, A., & Collins, R. (2012). On vampires and wolves – exposing and
exploring reasons for the differential impact of coach education. International Journal of
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113-143.
Cullen, R., Harris, M., & Hill, R. (2012). The learner-centered curriculum: Design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cushion, C. J., Armour, K. M., & Jones, R. L. (2003). Coach education and continuing
professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55(3), 215-230.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doyle, T. (2011). Learner-centered teaching: Putting research on learning into practice.
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Fear, F. A., Doberneck, D. M., Robinson, C. F., Fear, K. L., Barr, R. B., Van Den Berg, H.,
Smith, J., Petrulis, R. (2003). Meaning making and “The Learning Paradigm”: A
provocative idea in practice. Innovative Higher Education, 27(3), 151-168.
Galvan, H., Fyall, G., & Culpan, I. (2012). High-performance cricket coaches’ perceptions of
an educationally informed coach education programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health,
Sport and Physical Education, 3(2), 123-140.
Greer, A. G., Pokorny, M., Clay, M. C., Brown, S., & Steele, L. L. (2010). Learner-centered
characteristics of nurse educators. International Journal of Nursing Education
Scholarship, 7(1), 1-15.
Griffiths, M. A., & Armour, K. A. (2013). Volunteer sport coaches and their learning
dispositions in coach education. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,
8(4), 677-688.
Harpe, S. E., & Phipps, L. B. (2008). Evaluating student perceptions of a learner-centered
drug literature evaluation course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(6),
135.
Harris, M., & Cullen, R. (2010). Leading the learner-centered campus. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hirsch, E. D. (2010). The schools we need and why we don’t have them. New York, NY:
Anchor Books.
Hussain, A., Trudel, P., Patrick, T., & Rossi, A. (2012). Reflections on a novel coach
education program: A narrative analysis. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 7(2), 227-240.
Jones, R. L. (2006). The sports coach as educator: Re-conceptualising sports coaching.
Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
King, A. (1993). “From sage on stage to guide on the side.” College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35.
Leduc, M., Culver, D. M., & Werthner, P. (2012). Following a coach education programme:
Coaches’ perceptions and reported actions. Sports Coaching Review, 1(2), 135-150.
Lending, D., & May, J. (2013). Using activity diagrams to model systems analysis
techniques: Teaching what we preach. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24(2),
91-97.
Lyle, J. (2007). UKCC impact study: Definitional, conceptual and methodological review.
Report prepared for Sports Coach UK. Retrieved from http://www.sportscoachuk.org/
sites/default/files/UKCC-impact-study.pdf
Lyle, J., Jolly, S., & North, J. (2010). The learning formats of coach education materials.
International Journal of Coaching Science, 4(1), 35-48.
Mallett, C. J., & Dickens, S. (2009). Authenticity in formal coach education: Online
postgraduate studies in sports coaching at the University of Queensland. International
Mallett, C. J., Trudel, P., Lyle, J., & Rynne, S. B. (2009). Formal vs. informal coach
education. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(3), 325-334.
Morgan, K., Jones, R. L., Gilbourne, D., & Llewellyn, D. (2012). Changing the face of coach
education: Using ethno-drama to depict lived realities. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 18(5), 520-533.
Nash, C., & Collins, D. (2006). Tacit knowledge in expert coaching: Science or art?. Quest,
58(4), 465-477.
Nelson, L. J., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). Reflection in coach education: The case of the
National Governing Body Coaching Certificate. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 174-183.
Nelson, L., Cushion, C. J., Potrac, P., & Groom, R. (2014). Carl Rogers, learning and
educational practice: Critical considerations and applications in sports coaching. Sport,
Education and Society, 19(5), 513-531.
Ortiz-Robinson, N. L., & Ellington, A. J. (2009). Learner-centered strategies and advanced
mathematics: A study of students’ perspectives. Problems, Resources, and Issues in
Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 19(5), 463-472.
Paquette, K. J., Hussain, A., Trudel, P., & Camiré, M. (2014). A sport federation’s attempt to
restructure a coach education program using constructivist principles. International Sport
Coaching Journal, 1(2), 75-85.
Piggott, D. (2013). The Open Society and coach education: A philosophical agenda for policy
reform and future sociological research. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1-16,
DOI: 10.1080 /17408989.2013.837435.
Smart, K. L., Witt, C., & Scott, J. P. (2012). Toward learner-centered teaching: An inductive
approach. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 392-403.
Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. Bolton,
MA: Anker.
Svinicki, M. D., & McKeachie, W. J. (2011). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies,
research, and theory for college and university teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Bolton, MA: Anker.
learner’s perspective: Considerations for coach administrators. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert,
& J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching. London: Routledge.
Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W.D. (2006). Coaching and coach education. In D. Kirk, M.
O’Sullivan, & D. McDonald (Eds.), Handbook of physical education (pp. 516-539).
London: Sage.
Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. (2013). The role of deliberate practice in becoming an expert coach:
Part 3 – Creating optimal settings. Olympic coach Magazine, 24(2), 15-28.
Trudel, P., Gilbert, W., & Werthner, P. (2010). Coach education effectiveness. In J. Lyle, &
C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching: Professionalization and practice (pp. 124-138).
London: Churchill Livingstone.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Werthner, P., Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (2012). An examination of a large-scale coach
education program from a constructivist perspective. In R. Schinke (ed.), Sport
Psychology Insights (pp. 337-355). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Canadian coaches. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(3), 433-449.
Yilmaz, K. (2008). Social studies teachers’ views of learner-centered instruction. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 31(1), 35-53.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kyle Paquette is a Doctoral Candidate in Human Kinetics at the University of Ottawa,
Canada. Kyle is the Mental Performance and Integrated Support Team Lead for Curling
Canada’s National Team Program. He also teaches Sport and Performance Psychology at
Carleton University as a Contract Instructor.
Dr Pierre Trudel is a Professor in the School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa,

Canada. Pierre has published over 100 articles, and is a consultant for many sport
organizations, developing programmes and supervising coaches. He is a Co-chair of the
International Council for Coaching Excellence’s research committee.
Chapter 5
CONCEPT MAPPING: ITS USE FOR HIGH

PERFORMANCE SPORT COACH DEVELOPMENT
François Rodrigue1,*, Chao He2 and Pierre Trudel1

1
2
Jiangsu Second Normal University, China
ABSTRACT
In a world where changes are part of our daily life, the certification we receive after
completing a degree attests only to our competencies at a specific moment. To continue
to develop and perform at our best, we must recognise that learning is much broader than
education; it is a lifelong process in which each experience has the potential to modify
what we already know. In this continuous process of becoming, organisations must work
together with their constituents to find and create the best learning opportunities. In an
effort to respect the idiosyncratic learning pathway of their high-performance coaches,
sport organisations tend to develop training programs based on the coaches’ specific
needs and knowledge requirements. In such interventions, the first step should be to map
the coach’s tacit knowledge, a challenge for many sport organisations. For Moon et al.
(2011, p. 10): “Concept Maps are a powerful tool for capturing and representing expert
knowledge, the first requirement for creating an effective system.” In this chapter we
will, using the literature, explain what concept mapping is and why Novak’s (2012)
approach seems to be superior to other approaches. Then we will present a step-by-step
method to demonstrate how sport organisations could include concept mapping in their
initiatives to support their coaches’ learning process as they move towards expertise.
Keywords: Coach education; concept mapping; personalized learning
*
Corresponding Author address: Email: frodrigue@uottawa.ca
72 François Rodrigue, Chao He and Pierre Trudel
INTRODUCTION
In a world now often referred to as the knowledge society, where knowledge changes
very rapidly (Jarvis, 2007), the certification we receive after completing a degree attests only
to our competencies at a specific moment. To continue to develop and perform at our best, we
must recognize that learning is much broader than education. Using a constructivist
perspective, we can say that learning is a lifelong process in which each experience has the
potential to modify what we already know (Jarvis, 2006). Also, globalization and the
advances in technology have increased the need to interact with others and, at the same time,
have provided more opportunities to do so, making our world increasingly complex (Hart,
2011; Novak, 2010). Jarvis (2004) supports this: “Society is changing so rapidly that many of
the traditional educative organizations are not able to keep abreast with the new demands and
so individuals are forced to learn outside of the education system” (p. 17). In this context, we
might wonder how the field of sport coaching is doing in terms of coach learning and
development. Using recent reviews of literature on coach learning/coach education (Cushion
& Nelson, 2013; Cushion et al., 2010; Gilbert & Rangeon, 2011; Jones, Harris & Miles, 2009;
Langan, Blake, & Lonsdale, 2013; Rangeon, Gilbert & Bruner, 2012; Rynne, Mallett, &
Tinning, 2009; Trudel & Gilbert, 2006; Trudel Gilbert, & Werthner, 2010) and some key
articles referenced throughout the paper, we outline six recurrent prescriptions for or evidence
of coach learning/coach education from an expression by Cushion and Nelson (2013).
First, coach education programs went from a design based on the assumption that coaches
progress along a continuum from novice (beginner) to expert (master) to a design based on
the recognition of the specificity of the different coaching contexts (Côté, Bruner, Erickson,
Strachan, & Fraser-Thomas, 2010) or domains (Cushion & Lyle, 2010). While the latter
approach has the advantage of regrouping coaches who have similar needs, “the chances to
have participants with similar biographies are lower than in most of the education programs
of other professions. For coaches, there are very few if any prerequisites required before
registering in a coach education program” (Trudel et al., 2010, p. 149).
Second, coaches learn in many different learning situations, and one of them, interacting
with others (mentor, workplace, network, etc.), seems to play a key role (Nash & Sproule,
2009; Rynne, Mallett & Tinning, 2010). However, this learning opportunity is too often
limited by the tendency of many coaches “to exchange knowledge only with a few coaches
(within their team or association) because the desire to win brings them to see coaches of
other teams as opponents or even enemies, instead of partners” (Wright, Trudel & Culver,
2007, p. 142).
Third, the learning pathways of coaches are idiosyncratic (Gilbert, Côté, & Mallett, 2006;
Lemyre, Trudel, & Durand-Bush, 2007; Mallett, 2010) even between coaches within a
specific coaching context like Olympic coaches (Werthner & Trudel, 2009). This makes it
difficult to develop standardized programs (Trudel et al., 2010).
Fourth, to be able to learn from their day-to-day coaching (experience), coaches are
strongly encouraged to reflect on their practice. Unfortunately, it seems only a few coaches
will deliberately and systematically engage in such activities (Werthner & Trudel, 2009).
Although coaches reported thinking about coaching all the time, this does not necessarily
mean that they reflect on their practice as they could be ruminating instead of reflecting.
Knowles, Gilbourne, Cropley & Dugdill (2014) provided examples of approaches and
Concept Mapping 73
methods of capturing one’s reflections including, among others, writing journals, mind maps,
and recorded narratives.
Fifth, while learning is an individual process occurring in a social context (Jarvis, 2007;
Wenger, 1998), one way to facilitate learning through interactions is by creating/nurturing
coaching communities of practice (Culver & Trudel, 2008; Gilbert, Gallimore, & Trudel,
2009). However, coaching communities of practice are not without limits, and the successes
of such initiatives are strongly linked to the work of a facilitator (Cushion and Denstone,
2011; Trudel & Gilbert, 2004).
Sixth, coaching at the elite level is becoming more complex and to prepare coaches to
perform in this very competitive context, sport organizations have to provide a learning
environment that includes learning activities respecting each coach’s personal needs (Nash &
Sproule, 2012; Nelson, Cushion, & Potrac, 2013) and biography/cognitive structure (Trudel,
Culver, & Werthner, 2013).
It is interesting to note that the content of these academic papers seems to have
influenced some sport organizations when designing their coach training/education programs.
For example, in 2013 the International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE) and the
Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) published the
International Sport Coaching Framework – an internationally recognized reference point for
the development of coaches. In this document, it is mentioned among other things that:
… coaches learn best when:

- their prior experiences and abilities are recognized and they are encouraged to reflect
and build on them;
- they are motivated to learn and find the relevant learning materials;
- they are encouraged to take responsibility for their learning (p. 39)
Such a constructivist approach to learning implies that “the learner constructs their own
knowledge and the knowledge is conceived to be organized more as a network… What is
already known is employed in guiding the new learning” (Moon, 1999, p. 106). Armour
(2010) while discussing coach learning mentioned: “Each professional learning activity must
be designed and organized in ways that build on coaches’ existing understandings but, more
importantly, extends their capacity to engage in ongoing/future learning” (p. 161).
Considering the important role that the coach’s biography/cognitive structure plays in the
decision to take or not take advantage of a learning opportunity (Trudel et al., 2013), we
advocate that we should start by documenting what a coach already knows before outlining a
personalized learning plan for high performance (HP) coaches. Information documented
should include elements from his/her professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal
knowledge (Gilbert & Côté, 2013) and also how he/she feels about the kind of learning
approach being used (Trudel et al., 2013). Guidance outlining how to perform this crucial task
seems to be absent in the coach learning/education literature and our practical experience in
the coaching field suggests that when there is such an attempt, the exercise is of short
duration and consists mainly at asking a few questions about the coach’s professional
knowledge specific to a sport.
The goal of this chapter is to discuss the use of concept mapping (Novak, 2010) as an
integral part of a sport organization’s pedagogic intervention (Ohlsson, 2014) aimed at
providing HP coaches with a negotiated, personalized learning plan which will also contribute
to the organizational learning (Campbell & Armstrong, 2013). In Figure 1, we present the
structure of our chapter using a concept map (Cmap). At the top there is our general question
“How concept mapping can be used in the development of HP coaches?” As shown in this
figure, the chapter is divided in two parts. In part one, we start the discussion suggesting that
the cognitive structure (knowledge and feeling) of a person can be displayed using different
visual representations. We also provide some reasons why we feel that concept mapping is,
for our purpose, the most appropriate form of visual representation; it focuses on the
Novakian approach to Cmaps (see Figure 2) and can facilitate what is called knowledge
management (see Figure 3). In part two, we explain how coach development can be discussed
using a continuum from the very structured large-scale coach education programs to a more
personalized learning plan. Using the literature on the learning organization, we argue that
personalized learning plans should be part of an organization’s pedagogic intervention (see
Figure 4).
Finally, we detail the different steps of a personalized learning plan for HP coaches (see
Figure 5). As you read the chapter, you will notice that we have used many quotes from
different authors connecting them with sentences or short paragraphs. This writing strategy
was used with the intention to reproduce to some extent, the structure of a Cmap – connecting
concepts with linking words.
Figure 1. How concept mapping can be used in the development of HP coaches?
PART ONE. VISUAL REPRESENTATION TOOLS

In light of the adage, “a picture is worth a thousand words”, it should be no surprise that
different visual methods are used effectively to capture what people know or how they
acquire and share knowledge considering the complexity of the learning process (Jarvis,
2006). Several authors (e.g., Davies, 2011; Eppler, 2006) have compared different types of
visualisation formats (e.g., concept mapping, mind mapping, argument mapping, conceptual
Concept Mapping 75
diagrams, and visual metaphors). It is worth mentioning the differences between two mapping
tools that are often and incorrectly considered similar. Kinchin, De-Leij and Hay (2005)
argued that mind mapping: “helps rapid brainstorming of ideas and formation of simple
associations with related concepts, concept mapping is a more reflective process and
emphasizes the how and why of such links. The two tools, may, therefore, be seen as
complementary” (p. 11). There are a number of advantages attached to concept mapping
following Novak’s approach: (a) the capacity to make prior knowledge visible and the ability
to link expert knowledge to practice; (b) the systematic and proven approach of providing
overview; (c) the emphasis on the relationships and connections among concepts; and (d) the
access to a free software called IHMC CmapTools (http://cmap.ihmc.us). The main
disadvantage seems to be that concept mapping is not easy to master by novices, and it
requires some training because “it is easy to make Concept Maps, yet not easy to make good
ones” (Moon, Hoffman, Novak & Canas, 2011, p. xxix).
CONCEPT MAPPING
Concept maps were first used around 1972 by Novak’s research group when looking for a
way to represent an individual’s cognitive structure in their effort to follow and understand
changes in children’s knowledge in science courses (Novak & Canas, 2007).
Figure 2. What are the main characteristics of Novak’s approach?
Currently, concept mapping is not only used at all levels of the education system,
including higher education (Kinchin, 2014), but also in the business world. For example,
renowned American companies, such as Proctor and Gamble and Microsoft, have used
Cmaps to solve complex problems, while German banking and insurance companies have
used them to share knowledge within their organisation (Moon et al., 2011). To the best of
our knowledge, there are only two empirical studies in which concept mapping has been used
to investigate sport coaches’ knowledge. Dowdell (2010) used concept mapping and repertory
grid analysis to identify what expert gymnastic coaches consider are the characteristics of
effective coaching, while Vohle (2009) included concept mapping as one of the activities in
an advanced training course for trainers in table tennis. In both cases, the authors found
concept mapping to be useful to investigate coaches’ knowledge.
Novakian Approach
For Novak (2010), concept mapping has the advantage of being based on a theory of
education. Indeed, his approach respects the constructivist perspective and a key role is given
to the notion of meaningful learning for the empowerment of individuals and organizations.
Meaningful learning is defined as “the constructive integration of thinking, feeling, and acting
leading to empowerment for commitment and responsibility” (p. 18) and the three
requirements are:
1. Relevant prior knowledge: That is, the learner must know some information that
relates to the new information to be learned in some non-trivial way;
2. Meaningful material: That is, the knowledge to be learned must be relevant to other
knowledge and must contain significant concepts and propositions;
3. The learner must choose to learn meaningfully: That is, the learner must consciously
and deliberately choose to relate new knowledge to relevant knowledge the learner
already knows in some non-trivial way. (p. 23)
As a result of its capacity to construct and reconstruct knowledge, concept mapping can
play a key role in meaningful learning (Kinchin & Hay, 2000).
The construction of Cmaps relies on four distinct components: (a) a focus question; (b)
concepts; (c) linking words; and (d) propositions. First, a meaningful Cmap begins with a
meticulously crafted focus question that is context dependent and topic specific. Ideal for
answering how and why questions, the map is best for explanatory purposes. As the people
involved are building the map and are reflecting on the topic, their own understanding will
evolve and they might need to modify the question. Second, concepts serve as labels for
words or symbols that are recognisable for most individuals. Therefore, recognising concepts
relevant to your field is a necessary step to develop as a professional, and it is inherent to the
process of concept mapping. It is therefore suggested that one create a kind of Parking Lot to
list these core concepts (Novak & Canas, 2007). Because the meaning attributed to a concept
by an individual might differ from the meaning attributed by another individual, discussing
one personal Cmap within a group will contribute to the clarification of any potential
misunderstandings. Third, the concepts are connected using linking words. As mentioned
before, this component is often used to differentiate Novakian Cmaps with other forms of
visual representations. One of the benefits of having to carefully select the linking words is
that the participants are required to engage in deep reflection. Fourth, a proposition is created
when two or more concepts are joined with linking words to make a meaningful statement. It
Concept Mapping 77
is important to understand that, in a Cmap, the propositions are not sentences. They describe
the relationships between the concepts used to answer the focus question. If participants have
difficulty creating propositions (i.e., joining concepts with linking words), it is an indication
that they struggle to understand the relationship between the concepts, or the meanings of the
concepts. Only when they fully understand each proposition will the participants be able to
identify good crosslinks that show interrelationships.
Knowledge Management
How we as individuals and organisations manage our knowledge is crucial if we want to

be effective learners and knowledge creators (Novak, 2010).
For Barbera-Tomas, Schachter and Reyes-Lopez (2011), knowledge management
“includes a multidiscipline approach to achieving organizational objectives by making the
best use of knowledge, focusing both on processes, such as acquiring, creating, and sharing
knowledge, and the cultural and technical foundations that support them” (p. 254).
However, one of the main challenges for organizations remains “how to capture, preserve
and exchange tacit knowledge and how to transform tacit into explicit knowledge” (Novak,
2010, p. 112).
Contrary to explicit knowledge that we can easily show or explain to others, tacit
knowledge is knowledge we build over our lifetime, and therefore it is not easy to explain.
Tacit knowledge includes the thoughts, feelings, and actions of an individual, and these
combine to form the meaning of experience (Novak, 2010).
Therefore, to capture tacit knowledge we need to use an approach and an instrument that
will be highly sensitive. Perret, Berges, and Santoro (2004) suggest the use of narratives.
For them, conducting narrative interviews (stories) has many benefits: “While stories can
be considered a nice way to report past experiences, it can also be an essential part of the
organization knowledge” (p. 35).
Novak (2010) aligns with this same direction, suggesting that the personal interview is
“the most powerful tool for capturing the knowledge held by an individual or group of
individuals.
Personal interviews involve a one-on-one conversation between the interviewer and the
interviewee” (p. 113). Using the content of the narrative interviews, a Cmap can be developed
to provide a visual representation of key concepts and their relationships.
Being more explicit, the knowledge can then be acquired and shared with others.
This process can also contribute to the creation of new knowledge because for most
people, when working on their “concept map for some domain of knowledge they possess
discovers that they knew propositions they had never thought about before, and also that some
of their concepts have much more ambiguous meanings than they recognized before” (Novak,
2010, p. 47).
Figure 3. Why is concept mapping so useful for knowledge management?
PART TWO. COACH DEVELOPMENT

Recently, it has been demonstrated that learning how to coach is a lifelong journey
(Callary, Werthner & Trudel, 2011; 2013) and we should avoid limiting the discourse on
coach development to a few coach education training programs generally delivered in a short
period of time (Trudel et al., 2010). The point here is not to discredit these programs, often
called large-scale coach education programs, but to recognise that although this classroom
approach can serve to certify a large number of coaches, the information delivered must be
seen as the minimum that a coach should know (Cushion & Nelson, 2013).
As highlighted by many authors (e.g., Lyle, 2002; Mallett, Rynne & Dickens, 2013;
Nash, Sproule & Horton, 2011), HP coaching is very complex and “there is a pressing need to
support the development of high performance coaches” (Mallett et al. p. 466). Because the
number of HP coaches that a sport organisation needs to develop is smaller than for the other
coaching contexts (e.g., recreational, developmental) considering the use of a different
approach appears to have merit – a paradigm shift in coach education (Nash & Sproule,
2012). We argue here that a more personalised learning plan should be adopted when
circumstances permit it (Paquette, Hussain, Trudel & Camiré, 2014) and this is the case for
the HP coaches that have completed all the required formal certifications but still want to
learn and develop their expertise (Trudel & Gilbert, 2013).
Concept Mapping 79
PERSONALIZED LEARNING PLANS

It is now well-documented that HP coaches learn to coach through many different
learning situations (Nash & Sproule, 2009; Werthner & Trudel, 2009), and because of
globalisation and advances in technology they must, like anyone who wants to continue to
perform, embrace lifelong learning. Jarvis (2006) defines lifelong learning as:
The combination of processes throughout a lifetime whereby the whole person – body
(genetic, physical and biological) and mind (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, emotions,
meaning, beliefs and senses) – experiences social situations, the perceived content of which is
then transformed cognitively, emotively or practically (or through any combination) and
integrated into the individual person’s biography resulting in a continually changing (or more
experienced) person. (p. 134)
Figure 4. Why should a personalised learning plan be part of an organisation’s pedagogic intervention?
As we read this definition, it is clear that learning is an individual process (whole person,
individual person’s biography, a continually changing person), but if we do not pay attention
we might wrongly think that we have complete control of our development and come to the
conclusion that “the more we learn, the more we become individuals and different from
others” (Jarvis, 2006, p. 79). What we have to consider is that most learning happens in a
social context. Jarvis (2006) warns us that we are not the sole author of our biography: “We
are not islands but we live in socio-cultural surrounds and interact with a wide variety of
people, all of whom impinge upon our freedom to act and to learn” (p. 119). In fact, what
people bring to a learning situation is not only what they know, but also their unique
ignorance and “that is why if we want to do good work, particularly if we want to innovate,
we need to have other [people’s perspectives]” (Hoque, 2014, p. 60).
We must admit that, up to now, learning environments that support creativity and
innovation were produced more by accident than by design (Warner, 2012). However, “with
proper structure and practice, we can systematize those chances, so that innovation becomes a
product of gathering the best talent, working together in the best way, in an organizational
structure most conducive to individual and collective flourishing” (Hoque, 2014, p. 20). In
short, HP coaches who want to be successful will have not only to acquire knowledge, but
also to create and innovate in their coaching practice. While the personalised learning plan
should, as already mentioned, respect the coach’s needs (cognitive structure and coaching
context), it cannot be disconnected from the organisation’s learning plan.
Organisation’s Pedagogic Intervention
For Senge (2006): “Organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual
learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it no organizational learning
occurs” (p. 129). Novak (2010) pushed the reflection one step further, arguing there is an
urgent need for organisations to make modifications in how they develop their members:
“With the rapid changes occurring in almost all work environments and the growing
complexity of most jobs, training programs can lead to costly mistakes; what is required are
education programs that provide for and foster meaningful learning” (p. 65). As mentioned
earlier, the quality of a learner’s participation in a learning activity will depend of his/her
cognitive structure and specific needs. However, this does not mean the organisation has no
responsibility: “While learning is an activity that cannot be shared, but is rather the
responsibility of the learner, it is the teacher’s [organization’s] responsibility to seek the best
possible negotiation of meanings and an emotional climate that is conducive to learn
meaningfully” (Novak, 2010, p. 132). In the working place, the learning activities that will
facilitate meaningful learning can be called pedagogic activities: “structured educational
attempts to facilitate learning process at work showing the importance of linking pedagogy
and workplace learning together” (Ohlsson, 2014, p. 162). For Ohlsson (2014), the
organisation’s pedagogic intervention should not consist of a group of randomly selected and
organised activities:
Pedagogic interventions are presumed to facilitate peoples’ learning and to help them to
organize their activities more coherently. A pedagogic intervention in an organization is
therefore an attempt to improve and develop the organizational knowledge and collective
actions; e.g., helping the organization to learn and facilitate managing processes based on
shared understanding. (pp. 164-165)
Concept Mapping 81
Among the different pedagogical activities offered to the members of the organisation,
the opportunity to share knowledge and to negotiate its meaning is essential, and therefore
organisations should be:
Engineering situations in which people can share attitudes enables the possibility of
recognizing the range of view that can exist. Discussion of perceptions of an event that has
been experienced by several people can be a helpful manner of eliciting such sharing. (Moon,
2004, p. 225)
As indicated before, comparing Cmaps or discussing one’s Cmap is an excellent way to
share, archive, and create new knowledge that will contribute to organisational learning. For
Lopez and colleagues (2005), “…organisational learning is considered to be one of the
fundamental sources of competitive advantage within the context of strategic management”
(p. 227).
Based on the recent work by Rynne and colleagues (2010) in the Australian coaching
workplace, referred to as the State Institute of Sport (SIS), considering the absence of a well-
developed organisational pedagogic intervention plan, very few sport organisations can be
seen as ‘learning organisations’:
The policies and practices of the SIS administration have an influence over what is
provided to coaches and also how attractive it is to engage with those provisions. The
previously discussed example describing the reduced prioritization of learning activities by
SIS coaches due to the organization’s focus on relatively short-term performance outcomes
serves to characterize this influence. As a result, organizations such as the SIS should be
urged to recognize the workplace as a legitimate site of coach learning and review the policies
and working conditions accordingly. This would allow the SIS to move toward a situation
where learning is promoted as an everyday function of thinking and acting in the workplace.
Underpinning this movement would be the establishment of more regular, deliberate, and
systematic approaches to the provision and monitoring of SIS affordances. In particular, there
is a need to consider the invitational qualities of the variety of learning experiences present in
the workplace and take steps to continually improve these affordances (pp. 327-328).
A Personalized Learning Plan for HP Coaches
The example of the personalised learning plan that is presented here has not been tested
yet. The Cmap that shows the different steps was developed from what we have discussed so
far. It is worth mentioning that a program implementation facilitator should be appointed at
the beginning of the process. This facilitator should be knowledgeable about the constructivist
approach to learning and, based on Moon and colleagues (2011), should also be a good
Concept Mapper (Cmapper): “Moreover, facilitating others in making good Concept Maps is
even more difficult. Concept Mapping is not just a procedure, it is a skill set” (p. 24). For
these authors, a proficient Cmapper must help the knower to understand what the outcome of
the session will be and why the process is carried out as it is. The Cmapper should also “be
able to augment the knower’s language capacity to express concepts and links in the clearest,
most concise forms” (p. 30). Thus, sport organisations will have to look for
facilitators/Cmappers or develop their own in order to adequately support the professional

development of their HP coaches.
Figure 5. What could be the steps to implement a personalised learning plan for HP Coaches?
The program (personalised learning plan) starts with the sport organisation selecting
which HP coaches could be allowed to participate. Considering the three requirements for
Concept Mapping 83
meaningful learning (relevant prior knowledge, meaningful material, and a learner who must
choose to learn meaningfully), participation should not be compulsory. The interested
coaches should be willing to engage in two phases that will last at least two years. Phase one
starts with a meeting with the coach and the key persons from the sport organisation who will
be involved in the different pedagogic activities. To have all the key actors sitting at the same
table is important because, “for a constructivist approach to coach development to be
successful, all the various agents involved – the organisation, the designers, the facilitators,
the assessors, the mentors, and the coaches – need to understand and subscribe to its
principles” (Trudel et al., 2013, p. 385). After providing an overview of the program and the
learning approach (constructivist) on which it is based, the meeting will continue with only
the coach. In that face-to-face narrative interview, the Cmapper will ask the coach to recount
his/her coaching experience (i.e., what he/she does and how he/she has learned to do it).
When the Cmapper has drawn the Cmap, another meeting is organised. That second
meeting is divided into three sections. First, the facilitator will discuss the concept of self-
management. We know that HP coaches have a very busy schedule (Bloom, 2002; Lumpkin
& Anshel, 2012) and, as will be explained later, the coaches participating in this program will
have to secure time to make the pedagogic activities meaningful. For Hoque (2014),
“…management of tasks is actually management of time, which is actually management of
consciousness. That is, when you’re trying to get people on the same schedule (or not), you’re
actually talking about managing their consciousness, their experience of life” (p. 65). If
coaches, as well as organisations, do not put this personalised learning plan at the top of their
priorities –perceiving it as important but not urgent (Covey, 1989) – nothing will come of it
and the precious time of all parties will have gone to waste. Then the coach will be introduced
to the importance of writing his/her reflections in a learning journal: “[It] creates space for
students [coaches] to engage deeply with other students [actors] in a collaborative working
environment… The repeated acts of knowledge construction and reflection further allow
students [coaches] to study their own understanding of the course [program] over time”
(Kandiko, Hay & Weller, 2012, p. 82). In the second section of the meeting, the facilitator
will present the Cmap and ask the coach to discuss it and make any modifications. Then the
facilitator will progressively move into the third section of the meeting. Using a semi-
structured interview guide, the facilitator will ask the coach to add new coaching concepts to
the Cmap (getting specific information). These coaching concepts would have been suggested
in advance by the HP director and/or other key people of the sport organisation. Based on the
content of the second meeting the facilitator will draw a second Cmap. For Novak and Canas
(2007, p. 35), a Cmap is never finished: “After a preliminary map is constructed, it is always
necessary to revise this map. Other concepts can be added. Good maps usually result from
three to many revisions. This is one reason why using computer software is helpful.”
The third meeting will regroup the coach and key people from the sport organisation.
Considering the work done previously, the coach should now feel confident to present his/her
Cmap. Through that visual representation of his/her cognitive structure, the coach will reveal
how much he/she is familiar with the key coaching concepts at the HP coaching level.
Reflecting on how one’s coaching knowledge is an important step to develop critical thinking
skills to become a more effective learner (Denison, Mills & Jones, 1993). It is important to
remember that, in the context of this coach’ development strategy, a Cmap should not be used
as an evaluation tool, but more as tool that shows tendencies because the coach’s conceptions
are not fixed or unchanging (Davies, 2011). The coach’s Cmap will also be a concrete gauge
to see if everyone uses the same language when defining the specified coaching concepts and
how to apply them in practice. As the meeting progresses, the group will identify ways of
working together to support the coach not only to help him/her to apply new coaching
knowledge/strategies that have proven themselves (best practice), but also in his/her effort to
create and innovate in his/her coaching practice. Therefore, the personalised learning plan
should not be a list of things that the coach should learn or do on his/her own before being
evaluated by a panel of experts. Instead, it is more a kind of learning environment
(organisational learning environment) that will nurture the coach’s development based on
his/her: (a) specific cognitive structure;(b) needs; and (c) what the other persons of the
organisation can offer (i.e., knowledge, networks, etc.). The role of the facilitator will be to
create an environment where participants will feel free to express themselves: “The most
fundamental pedagogic challenge seems to be the creation of an atmosphere that helps
organization members to conquest practice collectively and critically through identifying,
communicating, and handling of contradictions” (Ohlsson, 2014, p.172). For example,
following a discussion on a specific coaching topic, it might be decided that the group does
not have the expertise and therefore an invitation extended to an expert or registration in a
course could be decided as the best pedagogic activities. To avoid losing the momentum in
the learning process, the coach, using the entries in his/her learning journal, must come back
frequently to the group to share his/her practical experience which will contribute to the
organisational learning. After one or two years in the program, the coach will change roles
and become part of the key people of the organisation with the mandate to help a new coach
entering the program. With this structure (Phase 1 and Phase 2), what the coach and the
organisation have learned and developed is reinvested and remains part of the “knowledge
system of the organization” (Barbera-Tomas et al., 2011, p. 260) – even if and when the
coach leaves.
In Figure 5, there is a linking word – no short cut – between ‘Meeting #1’ and ‘Discuss
with Key other Actors’. We wanted to draw the attention to a possible temptation to save time
and money by consolidating several coaches at the first meeting to discuss with them the
components of a program that will meet the needs all of the HP coaches of the organisation.
As indicated by O’Reilly and Knight (2007): “The desire to get the work done, as expected,
often overrides the investment of time in establishing effective tools to facilitate knowledge
sourcing that result in improving organisational learning” (p. 277). If such a short cut is
employed, what is offered to coaches shall hardly be considered a personalised learning plan,
as many of the essential elements that characterise meaningful learning shall be absent.
CONCLUSION
We began this chapter by discussing six recurrent prescriptions for or evidence of coach
learning/coach education, namely: (a) coach development based on a continuum (novice to
expert); (b) the importance of interacting with others; (c) the idiosyncratic nature of coaches’
learning paths; (d) the importance of reflecting on one’s own practice; (e) learning within a
community of practice; and (f) learning activities that respect the needs of the coaches,
especially at the HP coaching level. Through the chapter, each of these points has been
included within a coach development program that will favour a personalised learning plan
Concept Mapping 85
contributing not only to the development of the coach but also to the learning organisation.
This was done using a constructivist approach to learning where a few key elements must
always be present: “the person, as the learner; the social situation within the learning occurs;
the experience that the learner has of that situation; the process of transforming it and storing
it within the learner’s mind/biography” (Jarvis, 2006, p. 198) and within the organisation’s
memory.
It is now left to wonder if sport organisations will show any interest in applying this
suggested program (or adapting it to their needs) for the development of their HP coaches.
Most likely, they will make the following comment: “We would like to but we do not have
time (…).” A legitimate matter that has been addressed by Hoque’s (2014) comments:
In today’s rapidly changing world, leaders are constantly challenged with questions such
as these: How can we keep improving? What can we do that is new and better? How can we
innovate? Innovation does not happen on a spreadsheet, slide show, or product line.
Innovation occurs in the interaction between people. Innovation is a human process… The
human process of innovation is not just something that happens between people; it also
happens inside people. Part of innovation is self-discovery. Over my years of coaching, I have
learned that we cannot have an effective conversation with others if we do not have an
effective conversation inside ourselves. By learning how we can better frame conversations
within ourselves, we can have more grounded conversations with our teams and our world (p.
xv).
Concept mapping is certainly a useful tool for self-discovery and to start a conversation
with others.
We would like to end this chapter with a reflection on the process of writing it. It was the
first time that we used concept mapping to write an academic paper. The process has been a
rewarding learning experience but it was not without its challenges. The content of the
chapter including the Cmaps can be seen as a snapshot of where we are in our understanding
of “How concept mapping can be used in the development of HP coaches?” Due to the
scientific nature of this document, we have had to support our statements and our developed
understanding with references. Each time we read an article or a book, we had to consider
modifying the Cmaps and this happened many times. As we end the chapter, we see how
using the recent work of Wenger-Trayner, Fenton-O’Creevy, Hutchinson, Kubiak, and
Wenger-Trayner (2015) on ‘Landscapes of Practice’ could have made us develop different
Cmaps. However, let us stop here and use this chapter to nurture a discussion on how to help
HP coaches in their development and the potential contribution of concept mapping in this
paradigm shift in HP coach education.

 The applied perspective on high-performance coach development suggests a shift
from an approach based on competency, to an approach that is personalised; thus,
managers should intentionally create a learning culture within their organisation.
 Since learning is based upon prior knowledge, visual representation tools, such as
concept mapping, should be used by organisations to capture tacit knowledge,
acquire, and share explicit knowledge.
 Sport organisations will have to take time from their day-to-day operations in order
to have more time to construct effective organisational learning tools that would
improve the organisation’s ability to manage prior knowledge and learn/develop new
knowledge.
 Sport organisations should include or develop people among their staff that are
knowledgeable about meaningful and organisational learning so that they can play
the role of learning facilitator within their organisation.
 All the actors (coaches, high-performance directors, etc.) should have a say in the
development of the organisational knowledge and should schedule instances where
they can evaluate the quality of the learning opportunities.
REFERENCES
for sports coach professionals. In J. Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching:
Professionalisation and practice (pp. 153-164). London: Elsevier.
Barberá-Tomás, D., Schachter, M. E. E., & de los Reyes-López, E. (2011). Improving
organizational learning with concept maps: A business case study. In B. Moon, R. R.
Hoffman, J. D. Novak, & A. J. Canas (Eds.). Applied concept mapping: Capturing,
analyzing, and organizing knowledge (pp. 253-276). Florida: CRC Press.
Bloom, G. (2002). Coaching demands and responsibilities of expert coaches. In J. M. Silva &
D. E. Stevens (Eds.). Psychological Foundations of Sport (pp. 438-465). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Callary, B., Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2013). Exploring coaching actions based on
developed values: A case study of a female hockey coach. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 32(2), 209-229.
Callary, B., Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2011). A brief online survey to help a sport
organization continue to develop its coach education program. International Journal of
Coaching Science, 5(2), 31-48.
Campbell, T. T., & Armstrong, S. J. (2013). A longitudinal study of individual and
organizational learning. The Learning Organisation, 20(3), 240-258.
Côté, J., Bruner, M., Erickson, K., Strachan, L., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2010). Athlete
development and coaching. In In J. Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching:
Professionalisation and practice (pp. 63-84). London: Elsevier.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly successful people. New York: Fireside.
Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (2008). Clarifying the concept of communities of practice in sport,
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 3(1), 1-10.
Cushion, C., & Denstone, G. (2011). Etienne Wenger: Coaching and communities of practice.
In R. L. Jones, P. Potrac, C. Cushion, & T. Ronglan (Eds.), The sociology of sports
coaching (pp. 94-107). London: Routledge.
Concept Mapping 87
Cushion, C., & Lyle, J. (2010). Conceptual development in sports coaching. In J. Lyle & C.
Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching: Professionalisation and practice (pp. 1-14). London:
Elsevier.
Cushion, C., & Nelson, L. (2013). Coach education and learning: Developing the field. In P.
Potrac, W. Gilbert & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 359-
374). London: Routledge.
Cushion, C., Nelson, L. J., Armour, K. M., Lyle, J., Jones, R. L., Sandford, R., &
O’Callaghan, C. (2010). Coach learning and development: A review of literature. Leeds:
Sport Coach UK.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the
differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279-301.
Denison, J., Mills, J. P., & Jones, L. (2013). Effective coaching as a modernist formation: A
Foucauldian critique. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook
of sports coaching (pp. 388-399). London: Routledge.
Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams,
and visual metaphors as complementary tools to knowledge construction and sharing.
Information Visualization, 5(3), 202-210.
Gilbert, W., & Côté, J. (2013). Defining coaching effectiveness: A focus on coaches’
knowledge. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports
coaching (pp. 147-159). London: Routledge.
Gilbert, W., Côté, J., & Mallett, C. (2006). Developmental paths and activities of successful
sport coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 1(1), 69-76.
Gilbert, W., Gallimore R., & Trudel, P. (2009). A learning community approach to coach
development in youth sport. Journal of Coaching Education, 2(2), 1-21.
Gilbert, W., & Rangeon, S. (2011). Current directions in coaching research. Revista
Iberoamericana de Psicologia del Ejercicio y el Deporte, 6(2), 217-235.
Hart, J. (2011). Social learning handbook. Centre for Learning & Performance Technologies.
Hoque, F. (2014). Everything connects: How to transform and lead in the age of creativity,
innovation, and sustainability. New York: McGraw Hill.
Intertional Council for Coaching Excellence and the Association of Summer Olympic
International Federations. (2013). International sport coaching framework, version 1.2.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice. London:
Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of learning. London: Routledge.
Jarvis, P. (2007). Globalization, lifelong learning and the learning society: Sociological
perspectives. London: Routledge.
Johnstone, A. H., & Otis, K. H. (2006). Concept mapping in problem based learning: A
cautionary tale. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 84-95.
Jones, R. L., Harris, R., & Miles, A. (2009). Mentoring in sports coaching: A review of the
literature. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(3), 267-284.
Kandiko, C., Hay, D., & Weller, S. (2012). Concept mapping in the humanities to facilitate
reflection: Externalizing the relationship between public and personal learning. Arts &
Humanities in Higher Education, 12(1), 70-87.
Kinchin, I. M. (2014). Concept mapping as a learning tool in higher education: A critical
analysis of recent reviews. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 62, 39-49.
Kinchin, I. M., De‐Leij, F. A., & Hay, D. B. (2005). The evolution of a collaborative concept
mapping activity for undergraduate microbiology students. Journal of Further and
Higher Education, 29(1), 1-14.
Kichin, I. M., & Hay, D. B. (2000). How a qualitative approach to cncept map analysis can be
used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational
Research, 42(1), 43-57.
Knowles, Z., Gilbourne, D., Cropley, B., & Dugdill, L. (2014). Reflecting on reflection and
journeys. In Z. Knowles, D. Gilbourne, B. Cropley, & L. Dugdill (Eds.) Reflective
practice in the sport and exercise sciences: Contemporary issues (pp. 3-14). Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Langan, E., Blake, C., & Lonsdale, C. (2013). Systematic review of the effectiveness of
interpersonal coach education interventions on athlete outcomes. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 14(1), 37-49.
Lemyre, F., Trudel, P., & Durand-Bush, N. (2007). How youth sport coaches learn to coach.
The Sport Psychologist, 21(2), 191-209.
Lumpkin, K., & Anshel, M. H. (2012). Work addiction among intercollegiate sports
coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 35(4), 406-432.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviour. London:
Routledge.
Mallett, C. J. (2010). Becoming a high-performance coach: Pathways and communities. In J.
Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching: Professionalisation and practice (pp. 119-
134). London: Elsevier.
Mallett, C. J., Rynne, S. B., & Dickens, S. (2013). Developing high performance coaching
craft through work and study. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of sports coaching (pp. 463-475). London: Routledge.
Moon, B., Hoffman, R. R., Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. (Eds.). (2011). Applied concept
mapping: Capturing, analyzing, and organizing knowledge. CRC Press.
Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and
practice, London: Kogan Page.
Nash, C., & Collins, D. (2006). Tacit knowledge in expert coaching: Science or art? Quest,
58(4), 465-477.
Nash, C., Martindale, R., Collins, D., & Martindale, A. (2012). Parameterising expertise in
coaching: Past, present and future. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(10), 985-994.
Nash, C., & Sproule, J. (2009). Development of expert coaches. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 4(1), 21-138.
Nash, C., & Sproule, J. (2012). Coaches perceptions of their coach education experiences.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 43(1), 33-52.
Nash, C., Sproule, J., & Horton, P. (2011). Excellence in coaching: The art and skill of elite
practitioners. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(2), 229-238.
Nelson, L., Cushion, C., & Potrac, P. (2013). Enhancing the provision of coach education:
The recommendations of UK coaching practitioners. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 18(2), 204-218.
Novak, J. D., & Canas, A. J. (2007). Theoretical origins of concepts maps, how to construct,
them, and uses in education. Reflecting Education, 3(1), 29-42.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative
tools in schools and corporations. New York: Routledge.
Concept Mapping 89
Ohlsson, J. (2014). Pedagogic challenges in the learning organization. The Learning

Organization 21(3), 162-174.
O'Reilly, N. J., & Knight, P. (2007). Knowledge management best practices in national sport
organisations. International Journal of sport management and marketing, 2(3), 264-280.
Paquette, K., Hussain, A., Trudel, P., & Camiré, M. (2014). A sport federation’s attempt to
restructure a coach education program using constructivist principles. International Sport
Coaching Journal, 1, 75-85.
Perret, R., Berges, M. R. S., & Santoro, F. M. (2005). Applying group storytelling in
knowledge management. In G.-J. de Vreede, L. A. Guerrero & G. M. Taventos (Eds.),
Groupware: Design, implementation, and use (pp. 34-51). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
Rangeon, S., Gilbert, W., & Bruner, M. (2012). Mapping the world of coaching science: A
citation network analysis. Journal of Coaching Education, 5(1), 83-108.
Rynne, S., Mallett, C., & Tinning, R. (2009). A review of published coach education research
2007-2008. International Journal of Physical Education, 46(1), 9-16.
Rynne, S., Mallett, C., & Tinning, R. (2010). Workplace learning of high performance sports
coaches. Sport, Education and Society, 5(3), 315-330.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Broadway Business.
learner’s perspective: Consideration for coach development administrators. In P. Potrac,
W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 375-387).
London: Routledge.
Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. (2004). Communities of practice as an approach to foster ice hockey
coach development. In D. J. Pearsall, & A. B. Ashare (Eds.), Safety in ice hockey: Fourth
volume ASTM STP 1446 (pp. 167-179). West Conshohoken, PA: ASTM International.
Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. (2006). Coaching and coach education. In D. Kirk, M. O’Sullivan,
& D. McDonald (Eds.), Handbook of physical education (pp. 516-539). London: Sage.
Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W. (2013). The role of deliberate practice in becoming an expert coach:
Part 3 – Creating optimal settings. Olympic Coach Magazine, 24(2), 15-28.
Trudel, P., Gilbert, W., & Werthner, P. (2010). Coach education effectiveness. In J. Lyle & C.
Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching: Professionalisation and practice (pp. 135-152).
London: Elsevier.
Vohle, F. (2009). Cognitive tools 2.0 in trainer education. International Journal of Sports
Wagner, T. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the
world. New York: Scribner.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger-Trayner, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Hutchinson, S., Kubiak, C., & Wenger-Trayner,
B. (Eds.). (2015). Learning in landscapes of practice: Boundaries, identity, and
knowledgeability in practice-based learning. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Canadian coaches. International Journal of Sports Sciences & Coaching, 4(3), 433-449.
Wright, T., Trudel, P., & Culver, D. (2007). Learning how to coach: The different learning
situations reported by youth ice hockey coaches. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 2007, 12(2), 127-144.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

François Rodrigue is currently completing a PhD at the University of Ottawa in Human
Kinetics examining the development of high performance coaches from a human learning
perspective. Passionate about coaching due to his American football career, he acts as a
varsity football coach and founded a high-performance training center in 2012.
Chao He is a lecturer within the Department of Sports at Jiangsu Second normal

University in China, and currently a visiting scholar at the University of Ottawa. In addition
to teaching, she conducts research on coach education. Her interest arises from her athletic
and coaching career of over 10 years in Rhythmic Gymnastics.
Dr Pierre Trudel is a Professor in the School of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa,

Canada. Pierre has published over 100 articles, and is a consultant for many sport
organizations, developing programs and supervising coaches. He is a Co-chair of the
International Council for Coaching Excellence’s research committee.
Chapter 6
DYNAMIC, EVOLVING AND SOCIAL:

THE LEARNING INTERACTIONS
OF PARASPORT COACHES
Shaunna Taylor1,*, Penny Werthner2 and Diane Culver3

1
University of British Columbia, Canada
2
University of Calgary, Canada
3
ABSTRACT
Coaching researchers have begun to explore the concept of social learning systems to
help understand how coaches may engage in different types of interactions and
relationships in order to learn how to coach. To date, the majority of this research has
been in the able-bodied sport context. The present chapter presents a collective case study
of four parasport coaches to explore how different types of interactions play a role in
parasport coaches' learning. Coaches took part in three in-depth interviews. Through the
course of the interviews, "key collaborators", individuals the coaches identified as being
important members of their coaching practice, were identified. In turn, these collaborators
were also interviewed and a 6-step thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was applied
to reveal learning themes. The findings indicated that coaches sought out a number of
collaborators who helped them learn and grow as coaches in areas such as disability-
specific knowledge and unique parasport adaptations. It is clear that working with trusted
and knowledgeable collaborators was integral to the learning of these full-time parasport
coaches. The social learning systems participated in by the coaches included elements of
communities of practice and dynamic social networks, both of which involved on-going
interactions in the service of expertise development in parasport coaching. Suggestions to
guide coach developers and sport organizations on how to further nurture and grow these
social learning systems in parasport are provided.
Keywords: Coach learning, coach networks, disability sport, lifelong learning, social learning
*
Corresponding Author address: Email: consulting@shaunnataylor.com
92 Shaunna Taylor, Penny Werthner and Diane Culver
INTRODUCTION
Coaches play an important role in the sport system and as appreciation for this role has
increased, so has the need for a better understanding of how to develop competent coaches
(Cushion, 2010; Gilbert & Trudel, 1999, 2004; Lyle & Cushion, 2010). Coaches are social
beings and coaching knowledge is "socially constituted, socially mediated, and open ended"
(Cushion, Armour, & Jones, 2003, p. 221). Various authors have suggested that in addition to
this social dimension, coaching is context-specific, and learning opportunities for coaches
may be unique to each coach (Callary, Werthner & Trudel, 2012, 2013; Côté, Salmela,
Trudel, Baria & Russell, 1995; Cushion et al., 2003). It is important therefore, to consider that
what coaches need to know in the parasport context might be different. The vast majority of
recent research in coach learning looks at core coaching programmes in the able-bodied sport
world and rare are the studies that look at the types of coach learning situations and their
effectiveness for coaching athletes with disabilities. For the purpose of this chapter, the term
parasport is used to describe sport for athletes with a disability and Paralympic sport is used
to describe the official term that describes high performance sport, which is governed by the
International Paralympic Committee (IPC).
Some key challenges in parasport coaching are an insufficient number of coaches, and a
lack of expertise and experience; the questions surrounding how to best support and grow the
parasport coaching community are many. It has been suggested that due to the paucity of
formal and nonformal coaching resources for parasport coaches, these coaches in particular
often seek out informal learning situations such as mentors, outside experts, and a
multidisciplinary team approach to learning (Burkett, 2013; Cregan, Bloom & Reid, 2007;
DePauw & Gavron, 2005; McMaster, Culver, & Werthner, 2012; Tawse, Bloom, Sabiston &
Reid, 2012).
All of these aforementioned areas touch on the complexity of the social nature of
coaching development and the context-specific nature of learning. Researchers in coaching
have begun to explore the concept of social learning systems to better understand how
coaches may use different types of interactions and relationships in order to learn (Culver &
Trudel, 2006; Occhino, Mallett & Rynne, 2012). The purpose of this chapter is to take a
closer look at the learning contexts and interactions of four exemplary parasport coaches and
to explore how different types of interactions influence their learning.
Social Learning Systems
Wenger, Trayner and de Laat (2011) suggest that for many organizations and groups
learning may take place in social learning systems; the concepts of communities and networks
have emerged as, "two aspects of social structures in which learning takes place" (p. 9). The
network aspect refers to personal interactions, connections, or relationships among people
who have specific reasons to connect. The community aspect refers to the, "development of a
shared identity around a topic or a set of challenges. Furthermore, there are groups where one
aspect so clearly dominates that they can be considered 'pure' communities or 'pure' networks"
(Wenger et al., 2011, p. 9). Earlier, Lave and Wenger maintained that learning involves
participation in systems of co-participation; they called these systems communities of practice
Dynamic, Evolving and Social 93
(CoPs; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). A CoP has the potential to exist when certain
conditions are met in a workplace, school, or special interest group. More specifically, the
underlying assumptions for a CoP are, “(a) humans are social, (b) knowledge is competence
in a valued enterprise, (c) knowing is active participation in that enterprise, and (d) meaning
is the ultimate product of learning” (Wenger, 1998, p. 4). Communities of practice are defined
as, “Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and
who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interaction on an ongoing basis”
(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4).
Further to these assumptions are three dimensions by which a CoP is defined (Wenger,
1998). The first is “mutual engagement,” meaning a mutual sharing of knowledge and
expertise. Members become cognisant of their own areas of expertise and how they can use it
to help other members of the CoP; at the same time, they are aware of others in the CoP who
can provide expertise back to them. The second dimension is the “joint enterprise,” where the
mutual engagement and sharing of expertise is understood and is constantly negotiated and
transformed by members. The final element is the concept of the “shared repertoire.” The
shared repertoire is a collection of everything from tools, stories, actions, a shared
vocabulary, routines, to specific techniques that the group may discuss and share.
Other types of social learning systems help generate knowledge in the workplace,
education setting, and other environments (Allee, 2003), and share characteristics that are
consistent with the aforementioned "network" aspect of social learning systems. Informal
knowledge networks (IKNs) are made up of individuals who give or receive information from
one another. IKNs tend to be a group of loose, informal relationships and they may not have
clear boundaries (Allee, 2003). In a network of practice (NoP), relationships involve
individuals seeking information related to shared practice and most information is one-way in
direction with little collaboration or reciprocity (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Nichani & Hung,
2002). The NoP members may never meet in person (Brown & Duguid, 2001). In electronic
NoPs, also known as virtual or electronic communities, members may provide information
via email, blogs, and upload sites from the internet.
Social Learning Systems in the Coaching Literature
Some researchers have acknowledged that while learning to coach is a social process,
"we lack the insight and guidelines which could enable us to optimise and exploit the
process" (Stoszkowski & Collins, 2012, p. 4), and recommend more exploration of these
social learning systems for coach learning. The communities of practice concept has been
examined in the coaching context (Barnson, 2010; Culver & Trudel, 2006; 2008a, 2008b;
Lemyre, Trudel, & Durand-Bush 2007; Mallett 2010; Stoszowski & Collins 2012). Although
the CoP may be useful in some circumstances for coach learning, there are significant
challenges that might limit its effectiveness and sustainability (Culver & Trudel, 2006, 2008a,
2008b; Wright, Trudel & Culver, 2007). A prevailing issue that often inhibits the
development, benefits, and sustainability of a sport coach’s community of practice (CCoP) is
the nature of competition. Intense competition is integral to sport and as athletes and coaches
are competing against each other it is often common for coaches to withhold information
(Barnson, 2010; Culver & Trudel, 2006; 2008a, 2008b; Culver, Trudel & Werthner, 2009;
Mallett, 2010; Stoszowski & Collins, 2012; Wright et al., 2007).
Research on informal knowledge networks (IKNs) and networks of practice (NoPs), in

the context of coaching, has demonstrated that this type of loose engagement often exists
between coaches and others around them (such as other coaches or sport science experts), and
has the potential to provide an economical network support in the case of the NoP virtual
communities (Culver & Trudel 2006; Gilbert, Gallimore, & Trudel, 2009; Trudel & Gilbert,
2004). IKNs are often seen as a means for coaches to solve a particular problem or to seek
immediate information on a specific issue (Culver & Trudel, 2006, 2008a, 2008b; Occhino et
al., 2012).
Within the high performance sport context, Occhino, Mallett, and Rynne (2012)
introduced the concept of another type of social learning network which they called dynamic
social networks. These networks are characterised "by the development of a trusted and
respected relationship between a coach and a confidante where the coach actively seeks
counsel from a person" (Occhino et al., 2012, p. 4). The authors argued that these dynamic
social networks appear to result in direct changes to the coaching practice of the coach due to
the highly applied nature of the discussions and the solutions generated. These trusted
network individuals tend to be in positions that are not in direct competition with the coach.
Historically formal and nonformal learning opportunities in disability sport have been
lacking (DePauw & Gavron, 2005; McMaster, Culver & Werthner, 2012). Two recent studies
have looked at parasport coaches and their learning. Cregan et al. (2007) found that para
swimming coaches often turned to informal learning opportunities and McMaster et al. (2012)
found that coaches in a variety of parasport contexts learned from formal and non-formal
opportunities as well as from their athletes. It has recently been suggested that one of the
ways to address the unique challenges in parasport coaching is through collaboration with an
interdisciplinary team (Burkett, 2013).
While attempts have been made by coach development administrators to develop formal
and nonformal parasport coach resources, only half of the 27 Paralympic partner sports in the
Canadian National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) have completed the development
of sport-specific training for coaches for athletes with a disability. It is important that we
continue to examine the various learning situations utilised by coaches who are working in
parasport.
METHODS
The current study was conducted using a constructivist paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994)
where meanings that are uncovered through the course of the research are personal and
individual. Merriam (2002) has suggested that the constructivist paradigm is underscored by
each person's unique life-world, where reality is subjective and dependent upon the
collaboration of the participant, and the researcher is doing the interpreting. Other researchers
have pointed to the constructivist paradigm as being a more contemporary way of viewing the
human learning process (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Moreover, Armour
(2010) has suggested that constructivist theories are a fitting approach for studying coaching
due to the unique and individual nature of human learning.
Table 1. Biographical information and coach learning experience and training.
Coach Athlete Academic Coaching Years Years Paid or Additional learning experiences
Name Experience Education Education Coaching Coaching volunteer or technical training
Able- Para Sport Full or Part
Bodied Time
Coach Provincial University Level 3 10 yrs 11 yrs Paid - Grade I Braille instructor
Mark level BA Kinesiology NCCP Para & Able- - Orientation ability certified
(3 sports) Bodied; - Welder / metalworking
Full Time - Adaptive physical education
- Technical classifier training
Coach National College Levels 1-3 22yrs 10 yrs Paid; - Recreation programming
Rachel level (Rec. Admin); NCCP Full Time certificate
2 yrs, BA (1 sport) - Leadership camp director
Kinesiology - Facilities management
Coach National University Level 3 24yrs 10 yrs Paid; - Sport club administration
Jacques level Physical NCCP Full Time - Provincial Federation leader
Education (1 sport) - Long-term athlete development
(LTAD) working group member
and training
Coach Provincial University MA Level 4 4yrs 10 yrs Paid; - Assistant university coach
Andrew and Varsity Sport NCCP Full Time - Sport event coordinator
Level Administration (1 sport) - Facilities management
This study used a collective case study methodology to seek greater understanding of
social learning by exploring the interactions of four parasport coaches. In a collective case
study, more than one case is selected but the researcher uses the multiple cases to illustrate
the issue being studied (Merriam, 2002; Stake, 2005, 2006). For the purpose of this study, the
"case" is the life world and social learning system of four parasport coaches, including
members of their coaching practice.
Purposive sampling (Creswell, 2007, Patton, 2002) was used in selecting participants.
The four coaches had been coaching in parasport for a minimum of ten years and all four had
been identified by their national federations as being exemplary coaches, possessing superior
technical knowledge and strong positive connections with their athletes. None of the coaches
selected for this study had a disability. See Table 1 for more detail on coach biographies. The
coaches worked in different sports: para-swimming, para-athletics, goalball and para-cycling.
Approval was received from the University Research Ethics Board and a pilot interview was
conducted with a parasport coach to test the relevancy and utility of the interview questions
and probes.
It has been suggested that a series of three interviews or more should be conducted when
working with a small number of participants to provide for increased breadth and depth in the
exploration of a particular phenomenon (Culver, Gilbert & Trudel, 2005; Rubin & Rubin,
2012). More specifically, Polkinghorne (2005) has suggested that single interviews are "most
often not sufficient to produce the full and rich descriptions necessary for worthwhile
findings"(p. 142). The first interview in the current study helped establish a foundation of
rapport, gather biographical information, and initiate the exploration of various learning
experiences. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and subsequently analyzed using
Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis. Based on the analysis of the first interview, a
second interview was conducted four months after the first interview to probe each coach’s
learning situations more deeply. Time between interviews provides the opportunity for
participants to reflect more deeply on their learning experiences (Polkinghorne, 2005). In the
first and second interviews, each coach identified three or four individuals who were key
collaborators in his or her coaching practice. Respectively, each of these identified key
collaborators was subsequently interviewed once, using a semi-structured interview guide, to
elaborate on their relationship with the coach and the role they played in the coaching
practice.
A third and final interview was then conducted with the coaches with the purpose of
probing for further reflections on the learning created with each of the self-declared
collaborators and to allow for the addition of any newly recalled information (Polkinghorne,
2005). See Table 2 for details on the scope and purpose of each interview phase in this study.
Each of the three coach interviews lasted from 120 to 180 minutes, and the transcripts ranged
from 30 to 40 pages double-spaced. The four collaborator interviews were approximately 60
minutes each and the transcripts were each approximately 15 pages each, double-spaced.
Transcripts from each interview were analysed as the study progressed and the emergent
themes or patterns were documented throughout the time span of the study. Braun and
Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis, a six-stage analysis protocol, was used to synthesise the
various emerging themes. Stage one involved a process of familiarization with the data
through the transcription process, noting themes, ideas, and reflections. Stage two included
coding the transcribed interviews using NVivo QSR 2010 (Version 9.0) data management
system to help organise, code, and interpret the data. In Stage three the data were analysed for
themes such as coaching experience, learning situations and particulars in the parasport
context. Stage four saw the mapping of the themes to show the relationships between themes.
Stage five was a final review of the themes for coherence and detecting any gaps, and the
ultimate sixth stage produced the presentation of the cases in the form of a research report or
article.
Table 2. Methods – Interviews
Research Phase Participants Purpose Sample Questions
Interview #1 4 coaches To explore parasport "Tell me about coaching athletes with

Coaches coaches' life history, learning physical disabilities."
situations and coaching
contexts. "What has helped you develop as a
coach in parasport?"
Interview #2 4 coaches To probe further into topics "In your first interview you mention
Coaches revealed in Interview #1; learning from/working with, Person
identifying key individuals X. Tell me more about your
with whom the coaches interactions with that person and your
collaborated in their learning."
coaching practice.
Interviews with 3 or 4 To understand what role "Tell me more about your personal
Collaborators collaborators each collaborator played in and professional role in parasport."
per coach the coach’s learning.
"Tell me about your interactions with
this Parasport Coach."
Interview #3 4 coaches To probe further learning "Tell me more about your interactions
Coaches situations and interactions with Person X."
that were important to coach
learning. "Can you think of any other
meaningful learning situations or
experiences that we have not
discussed?"
All transcripts were member-checked by the coaches and their collaborators, and only
minor spelling changes were requested. Given our social constructivist methodology, member
checking was used not so much as a technique for trustworthiness, but, in line with the
suggestion of Smith, Sparkes and Caddick (2014), as an additional “opportunity for dialogue
with participants, reflexive elaboration, critique, feedback, affirmation, disagreement and
even collaboration” (p. 196). All the coaches and other individuals referred to in the
interviews have been assigned pseudonyms.
RESULTS
The results section is divided into four sections that illustrate the interactions that
contributed to the four parasport coaches' learning. These interactions occurred with a variety
of individuals: (a) key collaborators with whom the coach had ongoing relationships as part of
their coaching practice; (b) the athletes with whom the coaches worked on a day to day basis;
and (c) informal and sporadic interactions with others with specific expertise.
All four coaches in this study identified key collaborators with whom they intentionally
interacted in their coaching practice (see Figure 1). In some cases, the coaches built these
relationships over a lengthy period of time and spoke of a high degree of reciprocity in
learning from and with the collaborators. In other cases, such as the other experts with whom
coaches interacted sporadically, the learning was more unidirectional. All coaches and their
key collaborators used common vernacular that was specific to parasport, terms such as
"wheelies" (athletes who use wheelchairs), "classes" (to define the Paralympic classification
or abilities category that their athlete participated in), or acronyms such as "MDSOs"
(multisport disability sport organizations). This section will explore the nature of the social
learning systems for each of the four coaches.
Figure 1. Para Coaching Interactions.
Mark: His social learning system. Mark was raised by parents who created an inclusive
and diverse household and he was exposed to persons with a disability as a child. He stated
that the academic courses and training in kinesiology early in his career gave him the
confidence to pursue coaching in parasport and to "do no harm.” Transitioning from athlete to
coach came easily for Mark, due to his keen observation skills and superior ability to build
relationship with his athletes. As his experience grew, so did his desire to challenge existing
theory on disability and perceived limitations in the sporting context. He attributed his
pragmatic coaching approach to both his father and mother. He said he learned his "hands on"
skills from his father, and his caring and empathy for his athletes from his mother. After
completing an initial university degree, he ventured into adapted education and sport, and
took formal training for sensory disabilities (i.e., for the deaf and visually impaired), and
other adaptive physical activity courses. As his repertoire grew, so did his desire to work with
others to grow his practice and his surrounding "coaching network.”
Mark referred to learning from the interactions with four collaborators who were part of
his coaching practice during the course of this two-year study: his assistant coach, a disability
sport leader, an adapted physical education professor, and an exercise physiologist. He also
spoke of learning through interactions with his athletes and various other experts.
Mark described his assistant coach, Peter, as contributing to his knowledge of working
with developing athletes with spinal cord injuries. Peter was a former Paralympian with a
spinal cord injury and his first-hand experience of the disability helped Mark to better
understand the needs of athletes with similar disabilities. "Peter is working with me. I
coached him in the past and he’s back in the system now doing endurance wheelchair sports.
He brings a lot of experience from his days in racing.”
Peter corroborated Mark's description of their working relationship as, "being mutually
beneficial. I understand and share some intimate details from interactions with the athletes
and from our training sessions. It helps Mark to recognise something he hadn’t considered
until I point it out to him.”
Julie, a leader and administrator in disability sport, also played an important role in
Mark's learning. She spoke of how she helped him understand to liaise effectively with the
disability sport community groups. She was a source of advice and assistance with the
business side of the programme and helped Mark learn how to reach particular disability
groups in the community. Mark credited her with helping him in contract negotiations and
communication approaches. She echoed this and added that she and Mark worked together on
issues that assisted them both in areas such as, "promotion, upcoming meetings and events,
individual athlete cases, issues of recruitment, and work on a facility that was going affect us
both.”
Mark described Darren, a third key collaborator and university professor in adapted
physical activity, as a colleague and confidant. Darren provided placement students to assist
Mark in his programme and helped him understand the funding challenges in the parasport
system. Darren also called on Mark to share his coaching knowledge with his university
students and Mark noted that these presentations provided him with an opportunity to reflect
on what he might need to be working on in his coaching practice. Mark also noted that these
presentations, where he engaged with students, enabled him to recruit new coaches to the
parasport community.
A fourth key collaborator for Mark was Troy, an exercise physiologist who was also
conducting research in parasport. Troy validated Mark's training plans and gave him advice
on loading, tapering, and adjusting his training as required while Mark supplied important
coaching knowledge and research collaboration that was of benefit for Troy's research:
Our lab is doing research on warm ups and muscular fatigue. Because it’s very difficult to
get electrical stimulation to work and get an output in para athletes (i.e., in an athlete with an
amputation), we use the research from our lab and transfer it to our para athletes. Working
with Mark and his athletes, it’s changing tradition.
Mark also spoke of the daily interactions with his athletes and how discussions about
their training and their specific needs relative to their disability were an important part of his
learning. "Once the athletes become in tune with their body, they start to perform at a higher
level. They help me push those boundaries and initiate new ideas even more. It grows from
there." While learning from his athletes took place daily, Mark also used some external
experts on a sporadic or one-time basis. For example, he used graduate students to keep him
up to date with current sport science and medicine findings on a "need-to-know" basis: "I'll
have students research training aspects for athletes with cerebral palsy and get me 15 current
articles since I can't keep up with all the new developments.”
Rachel: Her social learning system. Rachel had been an enthusiastic participant in sport
from an early age and rose to the national level. From team and individual sport to leadership
sport camps, she enjoyed taking charge and learning about a wide variety of sport contexts
and roles. Academic study did not come easily to her, but she worked hard to find courses
that suited her strengths and completed a degree in recreational leadership, as well as
completing her formal coach education within the NCCP. She relied on the guidance of an
influential mentor coach who had encouraged her to seek formal coach education training.
Rachel recognised that her direct communication style was not effective with all personalities
and she worked to create a group around her that would help complement her skills. She was
open to seeking professional development in areas where she had technical gaps and was
continuously looking for ways to increase her coaching repertoire.
Rachel identified learning from interactions with three key collaborators in her social
learning system: her team physiotherapist, her assistant coach, and the high performance
director of her national sport organization. She also spoke about learning from the athletes in
her programme and several other experts she used for specific reasons on a sporadic basis.
The physiotherapist, Michelle, was a source of support and information on sport injury issues
and acted as a sounding board for Rachel, particularly when the team was travelling. She
helped Rachel introduce recovery strategies and game day physical preparation protocols that
were quite new for the athletes, while providing a different perspective when an intervention
or particular new initiative was not working. Rachel noted that, "I could confide in her and
she helped me a lot. I would bounce things off her and relied on her to look at all of this from
another perspective.”
The assistant coach, Renee, had a degree in kinesiology and had played competitive
basketball. Rachel said that the two of them worked together to design the training
programmes and tactical drills, as there was very little training literature available in their
parasport. Renee was doing doctoral level research with visually impaired athletes and she
worked with Rachel to help interpret some of the athletes' verbal and non-verbal
communication, discussing different socialisation patterns for the players who had been raised
in schools for the visually impaired versus an integrated school system:
Some visually impaired athletes needed to work on social behaviours. At first, when we
approached the athletes they wouldn't turn to you or talk to you, so a sighted person couldn't
tell if they were listening or engaged. We had to work together to build these communication
and social skills, to help live, compete and work in a sighted world (Renee).
All three women spent many hours together in training camps and at competitions and
collectively brainstormed ideas on how to improve the team group dynamics and
communication issues that negatively impacted performance. As the physiotherapist noted:
We learned that when we played the loud, emotional Brazilian team, we needed to be
loud, too, and come in as a strong unit to combat that environment. In Paralympic sport we
were a small team and staff and we had to use one another’s strengths. We were all able to
trust and support one another through some challenging times getting to know this sport
culture.
The high performance director, Chris, helped expand Rachel's sport science knowledge
by ensuring she had the opportunity to enroll in specific training opportunities and by helping
her analyse her training programmes. He also advised her on how to adapt training to the
challenges of a team with different stages of athlete development:
I helped Rachel catch up on 40 years of sport science support. We were targeted for
performance but with an infrastructure that was just not ready and with no integrated support
network. With visual impairment having a relatively low incidence rate, we couldn't afford to
turn athletes away so I helped Rachel develop athletes from a huge range of stages across the
athlete development spectrum.
Rachel also noted that her interactions with her athletes helped her better understand the
impact of visual impairment:
I was working with some of athletes, trying to get them to do a drill and I was trying to
describe how to run it. I'd say, “Run to your side and slide on the floor.” One player who was
a "total" (completely blind) would do side steps. Running sideways meant one thing, but I
wanted him to do crossovers. I wasn’t used to working with totals so he helped me, through
working through that description, to pay more attention to how I described what I was looking
for.
Rachel also spoke of using other experts on a sporadic basis for particular coaching issues
or challenges, such as a doctor to provide a jet-lag protocol for international travel: "I brought
in a specialist who could do the best job of conveying important sleep information to my
team. He also created travel plans for the team to help with our upcoming trip.”
Jacques: His social learning system. Jacques had transitioned from being an athlete at the
national level to a full time coach in his early 20s. He recognised early that the other athletes
looked up to him and he worked hard to develop his technical skills using his athlete and
coaching eye. He went back as a mature student to complete a physical education degree
because he wanted to learn the foundational principles that "on the job" coaching does not
provide. He felt his life experience and applied coaching experience helped to enrich his post-
secondary experiences as he could infuse the theory with practical experience. He enjoyed
working with others and had many administrators and coaches who helped mentor him in the
early years. He felt it was important to learn to work with others when coaching a diverse
population for whom not much is known (particularly athletes with a higher level of
disability), and he enjoyed being part of a larger community when connecting with other
member of his parasport organization.
Jacques identified learning from three key collaborators that he met with on a regular
basis: the national head coach for his parasport, a physiotherapist and international classifier,
and an exercise physiologist. He also spoke about important interactions with his athletes, as
well as interactions with other specialists such as specialists or consultants in such areas as
kinesiology, sport psychology, and occupational therapy.
Jacques spoke of working alongside Curtis, who was the national para team head coach
for his parasport, to explore ways to maximise performance and overall athlete health. In turn,
Curtis credits Jacques’ expertise, gained in working daily with lower athlete classifications, as
helping the entire national coaching team: "It was the first time having athletes from some of
the lower classifications, dealing with a full-time caregiver, bowel and bladder routines. A
completely new world.”
The physiotherapist, Alice, had over 20 years of experience in parasport and was an
international classifier in multiple Paralympic sports with particular expertise in cerebral
palsy. Jacques made use of Alice's expertise for understanding more about the trainability and
health of two of his athletes with the most significant physical and neurological challenges:
"One of my athlete's condition will get worse as the disease attacks her nervous system. Alice
gives me ideas on ways to build her abilities and keep her in a place where she sees results –
but it changes every month" (Jacques).
Jacques also relied on support, discussion, and mutual problem-solving with the exercise
physiologist, Troy, as they together built programmes that would be of benefit to athletes:
"We bounce ideas off each other because we do see each other every four to six weeks. We'll
sit and talk about each athlete to discuss training volume and intensity and how they respond,
make suggestions, and implement them and see what happens."
Curtis, Jacques, Alice, and Troy participated regularly in conference calls, discussing
individual athlete cases and team performance issues. The desire to collaborate and share
information and expertise for the benefit of the athletes stood out in these interviews. For
example, the physiologist said: "I’ve enjoyed working with Paralympic coaches. The egos
don’t seem to be as big as in able-bodied coaches, in my experience, and they are more
willing to learn and to use the experts.”
Jacques also noted the importance of learning through regular interaction with his athletes
to help him make adjustments to suit their needs, particularly in monitoring symptoms that
might be dangerous and different to those in able-bodied swimming:
I had to listen to, and get to know, my athletes and their limits - they share a lot with me.
Last week one of the athletes had a headache. In able-bodied sport, the person can finish the
workout slowly and eventually we can close the day. But I knew I needed to take her out of
the pool. Her headaches are more severe and always get worse. I really have to listen to those
specific symptoms.
Andrew: His social learning system. Andrew grew up in a rural community and was
always involved in sport. In university he chose to study the history of the sport system and
how the system affects athletes today, including parasport. He felt fortunate to have had
access to some positive coaching mentors and peers and began his coaching career in able-
bodied university sport. A chance exposure to athletes with disabilities peaked his interest and
he soon found himself dedicating more and more time to formal and nonformal education in
coaching science. Andrew felt he might not need to "know everything" in coaching and
parasport but that he did need to know where to get the information when he needed it. He
felt it was important to build a sense of coaching community around his programmes.
Andrew referenced learning through interactions with three key collaborators in his
coaching practice: a former head coach in his programme, a parasport head coach from
another sport, and a high performance development director at the Canadian Paralympic
Committee (CPC). He also spoke of the importance of learning through interactions with his
athletes and other consultations with experts on a sporadic basis.
Andrew described Kent, a former national coach, as being a valuable source of advice
when he faced important coaching decisions and it was Kent who strongly encouraged
Andrew to pursue his formal coach education: "I worked with him and made sure he persisted
with his Level 4 coach training. It is key that he has those foundational tasks and training. I
would also give him books to read and we would then discuss them" (Kent).
Curtis, a head coach of another national parasport team was an experienced peer for
Andrew. They spent time together exploring issues such as athlete funding, classification, and
issues such as motivation, work ethic, and accountability; "I try and keep up with the sport
system changes and he is a key contact for those types of discussions.” The two coaches had
many shared challenges (e.g., funding, classification) in their programmes and they felt
sharing and learning from each other's successes and mistakes was mutually beneficial.
Another key collaborator for Andrew was John, a sport leader with the CPC. Andrew
credits John for being available when he had questions surrounding national policy changes
or suggestions for issues on athlete or coach recruitment. John also felt he benefitted from his
relationship with Andrew, saying:
Andrew is doing great work with athletes and coaches, but also working with the national
organization. CPC sponsored an athlete development summit last year where they brought in
all their stakeholders to figure out the responsibilities and system alignment for his sport. It's a
big priority for him right now - how we get the provincial disability organizations, the
provincial sport organizations, and the clubs, working together to get rid of duplication - to
best service those athletes and coaches moving forward. We’re working together on that.
For Andrew, learning from interactions with his athletes was important as "only they can
truly know what it feels like to do some of the movements and push some of the boundaries I
am asking them to push.” As well, he spoke of learning from one-time interactions with other
specialists such as disability sport administrators, equipment specialists, and classification
experts.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was to explore how different types of interactions influence
parasport coaches' learning. The four coaches in this study described on-going interactions
with key collaborators, with their own athletes, and with other experts on a more sporadic
basis. The coaches all noted how they learned alongside these individuals, how they built a
relationship of trust, and how they reached out to them for information, discussion and
support. The findings indicated that there was variability in the kinds of interactions that
emerged for the four coaches in this study, linked to both the "network" and "community"
aspects of social learning systems.
All four coaches' interactions within their own learning systems demonstrated a number
of characteristics of a healthy CoP. Mutual engagement was evident in this research,
particularly between the coaches and members of their assistant coaching staff, as well as
with coaches across other parasport programmes. When questioned about sharing with other
coaches in their own sport, the coaches expressed an interest in sharing more often across
their community. Wenger and colleagues (2011) suggested community aspects of social
learning systems provide unique opportunities for all members to advance learning, with an
openness to sharing and the willingness to collaborate being key prerequisites.
There was also evidence of joint enterprise in this study, as the coaches and the members
of their social learning systems shared unique common goals (such as improving para
athletes' performance outcomes, or better programme morale), and the negotiation of this
enterprise transformed over the two-year study period. These negotiated goals, another
important CoP distinction, arose from the system membership itself, not sport governing
bodies or management. There was a "regime of mutual accountability" (Wenger, 1998, p. 81)
between the exercise physiologists and coaches in two of the four systems, as they found
ways to make one another's lives easier and more effective through collaboration, sharing
data and innovations, which led to better athlete outcomes. The same could be said for the
assistant coaches engaged in three of the four systems, with mutual, evolving, and ongoing
interest in successful athlete development, as well as development of their coaching practices.
All four coaches reported having a shared repertoire (a core concept in CoP literature)
with individuals with whom they shared coaching information (shared stories, common
vocabulary, training or monitoring). For example, all of the coaches used language that was
specific to parasport, such as colloquial terms to describe wheelchairs, the classification
system, and the various disability organizations. In particular, Jacques’ and Rachel's
collaborators knew each other, communicated often, and were bound by unified programme
goals.
All four coaches in this study had formal education in human kinetics, physical
education, or sport administration (university or college) and their key collaborators appeared
to primarily complement their coaching practice by contributing specialised knowledge or
filling experiential gaps, particularly in areas that were disability-specific. For example, the
complex energy systems and many different disability classifications in parasport meant
several of the identified collaborators worked alongside the coaches to help design
experimental yet appropriate training programmes. The use of key collaborators and experts
by the coaches in this study reinforces suggestions that knowledge gaps in parasport coaching
could be addressed through collaboration with an interdisciplinary team approach (Burkett,
2013). For example, the coaches in the current study collaborated in such areas as developing
a yearly training plan. Knowledge was co-created by mutual participation in this process and
validated by discussions with each of the collaborators. Thus is the nature of learning:
through interaction with others we become aware of new information or discrepancies in
current information, and social learning involves all parties working to respond to it all
(Wenger et al., 2011).
In the current study, two coaches (Mark and Andrew) exhibited some network
characteristics in their learning systems. The interactions and relationships centred on the
coaches' particular needs and the key collaborators had specific reasons for connecting with
the coaches, but not necessarily with each other. These findings again lend support to Wenger
and colleagues' (2011) suggestions that network members may not necessarily have the same
collective enterprise and yet this rich web of expertise and information allows for both
targeted intention and spontaneity.
The emergence of both community and network aspects of parasport coach social
learning systems in the present chapter can be linked to recent suggestions that these two
aspects are both complementary and dynamic, and may grow and evolve together depending
on the learning needs of the members (Wenger et al., 2011). Indeed, Wenger et al. (2011)
argue that social learning is enhanced by both community and network processes through this
combination of flexibility and focus, and that this complementary nature will enhance
learning opportunities.
Within the network aspect of social learning spaces, there is a specific type of network
whose proposed characteristics, while somewhat underdeveloped, appeared to be present for
the coaches in this study: the dynamic social network (Occhino et al., 2012). Such networks
tend to take a certain period of time to become established and usually include a fairly high
level of trust. In the present chapter, the key collaborators identified by the four coaches met
these two important criteria. The coaches discussed the ways they utilised the expertise of
their key collaborators to help them solve coaching problems and training issues. In line with
the definition of dynamic social networks put forth by Occhino and colleagues, the key
collaborators in this study were part of the coaches’ on-going networks and the coaches’
interactions with them involved much more than simple exchanges of information as one
might see in an informal knowledge network. Indeed, the data composing the present chapter
suggest that within many of these more "network oriented" relationships there was a sense of
mutual accountability and the co-creation of parasport coaching knowledge.
Each of the four coaches in this study identified a third group of individuals who they felt
also helped them learn and improve their coaching practices, but through more sporadic or
targeted one-time interactions. These types of interactions demonstrate characteristics of
IKNs as the interactions tended to occur when coaches needed a quick solution to a particular
coaching issue (Allee, 2003; Culver & Trudel, 2006).
It is important to note that in addition to the key collaborators identified by the coaches
and other experts on a more sporadic basis, the four coaches identified their own athletes as
helping them learn. None of the four coaches in this chapter had a disability and all spoke of
the importance of learning about the specifics of each disability from interacting with their
athletes, as well as from medical staff. However, the interactions with their athletes enabled
the coaches to deeply understand the specific and subjective nature of each disability and
therefore design effective training programmes. This finding adds to the literature on the
relevance of coach-athlete relationships in parasport (Cregan et. al., 2007; McMaster et al.,
2012; O'Neill & Richardson, 2008; Tawse et al., 2012). Further study is needed to develop
our knowledge related to social learning systems in parasport, including the aspect of the
coach-athlete relationship.
CONCLUSION
As research in the area of coaching in the parasport context is sparse, this chapter adds to
the conversation about coach learning in parasport. The in-depth interviews with four
parasport coaches, as well as with their key collaborators illustrate that social interactions
have helped them learn and grow as coaches. It is clear, at least for the coaches in the present
chapter, that working with trusted and knowledgeable collaborators was integral to their
learning. It is also evident that on-going interactions with their athletes were crucial, and that
on occasion they also consulted with other experts on specific topics. The coaches expressed
an interest in developing a more coordinated effort to bring together coaches (and their
collaborators) to discuss learning needs and provide opportunities for the exchange of ideas
and the chance to solve common challenges.
As a result of these findings, several recommendations are provided. First, more research
is needed to understand how to further nurture and grow these social learning systems. In a
recent examination of the social dimension of learning in coaching, Stoszkowski and Collins
(2012) have suggested that we should open our minds to more nonformal ways of coach
learning as an addition to formal coach education, and acknowledge the value of processes
such as: collaboration, informal network development, and learning from and with others.
This area warrants continued study, particularly in parasport coaching, where coaches seem
particularly open to sharing and collaborating.
Second, the identification and exploration of social learning has important implications
for sport organizations and coach developers (Trudel, Culver, & Werthner, 2013; Werthner,
Culver & Trudel, 2012). Sport and coach education organisations are encouraged to
collaborate to create platforms for coaches to interact freely and to develop relationships with
sport science researchers, expert practitioners, and other parasport coaches. Whether these
collaborations are through virtual opportunities (e-Learning or sharing websites), or regional
and national opportunities such as conferences or clinics, the potential to leverage a variety of
social learning systems appears to have great potential. As well, organisations must bear in
mind that the biographies of the coaches and their collaborators are important because
coaches seek out collaborators who have a different set of skills and knowledge to their own.
It is therefore suggested that sport organisations need to be flexible when offering resource
people to coaches and avoid simply imposing one or two people who may or may not meet
the needs of each individual coach.
Finally, while the coaches in this study were located near universities and were affiliated
with national sport organisations, many coaches in parasport may not have access to these
resources; finding collaborators, particularly individuals with experience in parasport, may
prove to be difficult. Social learning systems are always evolving and gaining or losing
membership based on coach needs. By better understanding the role these valuable key
collaborators, athletes, and other experts play in learning in parasport, coach developers will
be able to nurture and support the maintenance of stronger coach learning networks.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
 Encourage sport organisations and those responsible for coach development to
promote social learning by helping coaches build their social learning systems.
 Encourage research that would explore the learning of coaches with a disability, in
order to better understand the learning environment and dynamics from their unique
point of view.
 Create forums for parasport coaches to interact freely through virtual opportunities
(e-Learning or sharing websites), or regional and national opportunities such as
conferences or clinics.
 Provide coaches with flexible personalised learning plans to maximise coaches'
learning preferences, as studies have noted that a facilitator and a variety of reflective
approaches (e.g., reflective conversations, communities of practice) can greatly

enhance the process of learning.
 Provide opportunities for coaches to communicate their stories (via research or other
avenues) that would facilitate deeper reflection and learning.
REFERENCES
Allee, V. (2003). The future of knowledge: increasing prosperity through value networks.
Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Armour, K. M. (2010) The learning coach…the learning approach: Professional development
for sports coach professionals. In J. Lyle and C. J. Cushion (Eds.) Sports coaching. (pp.
153 - 164). London: Elsevier.
Barnson, S. C. (2010). Communities of coaches: The missing link. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance, 81, 25-37. doi: 10.1080/07303084.2010.10598505
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3, 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge organization: A social practice perspective,
Organization Science, 12, 198-213.
Burkett, B. (2013). Coaching athletes with a disability. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, J. Denison.
(Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 196-209). London, England:
Routledge.
Callary, B., Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2012). How meaningful episodic experiences
influence the process of becoming an experienced coach. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 4, 420-438. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.712985
Callary, B., Werthner, P., & Trudel, P. (2013). Exploring coaching actions based on
developed values: A case study of a female hockey coach. International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 32, 1-21. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2012.733974
Cote, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1995). The coaching model: A
grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches' knowledge. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 17, 1-17.
Cregan, K., Bloom, G.A., & Reid, G. (2007). Career evolution and knowledge of elite
coaches of swimmers with a physical disability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 78, 339–350. doi:10.1080/02701367.2007.10599431
Creswell. J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Culver, D. M., Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2003). A decade of qualitative research in three
sport psychology journals: 1990-1999. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 1-15.
Culver, D. & Trudel, P. (2006). Cultivating coaches’ communities of practice: developing the
potential for learning through interactions. In R.L. Jones (Ed.), The sport coach as
educator: Re-conceptualising sports coaching. (pp. 97-112). London, England:
Routledge.
Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (2008a). Clarifying the concept of communities of practice in sport.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 3, 1-10.
doi:10.1260/174795408784089441
Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (2008b). Clarifying the concept of communities of practice in sport:
A response to commentaries. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 3,
29-32.doi:10.1260/174795408784089388
Culver, D., Trudel, P., & Werthner, P. (2009). A sport leader’s attempt to foster a coaches’
community of practice. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4, 365-383.
doi:10.1260/174795409789623900
Cushion, C. (2010). Coach behavior. In J. Lyle, and C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching.
(pp. 43 - 61). London, England: Elsevier.
professional development: experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55, 215–230.
doi:10.1080/00336297.2003.10491800
DePauw, K.P. & Gavron, S.J. (2005). Disability and sport (2nd ed). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel., P. (1999). An evaluation strategy for coach education programs.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 234-250.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science research published from 1970
– 2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 388-399. doi:
10.1080/02701367.2004.10609172
Gilbert, W., Gallimore, R., & Trudel, P (2009). A learning community approach to coach
development in youth sport Journal of Coaching Education, 2, 1-21.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117).
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Lemyre, F., Trudel, P., & Durand-Bush, N. (2007). How youth-sport coaches learn to coach.
The Sport Psychologist, 21, 191–209.
Lyle, J., & Cushion, C. (2010). Narrowing the field: Some key questions about sports
coaching. In J. Lyle, and C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching. (pp. 243 - 252). London,
England: Elsevier.
Mallett, C.J. (2010). Becoming a high-performance coach: Pathways and communities. In J.
Lyle, & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching: Professionalization and practice. (pp. 119–
134). London, England: Elsevier.
McMaster, S., Culver, D, & Werthner, P. (2012). Coaches of athletes with a disability: A look
at their learning experiences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4, 226-
243. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.686060
Merriam, S.B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: examples for discussion and analysis.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M., (2006). Learning in adulthood, A
comprehensive guide (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nichani, M., & Hung, D. (2002). Can a community of practice exist online? Educational
Technology, 42, 49-54.
Occhino, J., Mallett, C., & Rynne, S. (2012). Dynamic social networks in high performance
football coaching. Physical Education and Pedagogy, 17, 1-13. doi:10.1080/
17408989.2011.631003
O’Neill, J. & Richardson, L., eds. (2008). Integration of Paralympic athletes into “able-
bodied” high school club and collegiate programs. Olympic Coach, 20, 12-16.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 137-145.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. (3rd ed).
Smith, B., Sparkes, A.C., & Caddick, N. (2014). Judging qualitative research. In L. Nelson,
R. Groom, & P. Potrac (Eds), Research Methods in Sports Coaching (pp. 192-201).
London: Routledge.
Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Stoszkowski, J., & Collins, D. (2012). Communities of practice, social learning and networks:
Exploiting the social side of coach development. Sport, Education and Society, 1-16.
doi:10.1080/13573322.2012.692671
Tawse, H., Bloom, G.A., Sabiston, C.M., & Reid, G. (2012). The role of coaches in
wheelchair rugby and the development of athletes with spinal cord injury. Qualitative
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4, 206-225. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2012.685104
Trudel, P., Culver, D., & Werthner, (2013). Looking at coach development from the coach
learner's perspective: Considerations for coach development administrators. In: P. Potrac,
W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds), Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 375-387).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Trudel, P., & Gilbert, W., (2004). Communities of practice as an approach to foster ice
hockey coach development. In D. J. Pearsall & A.B. Ashare, (Eds.), Safety in hockey:
Fourth volume. (pp. 167-179). Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge,
England; Cambridge University Press.
Wenger , E., McDermott., R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in
communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open
Universiteit: The Netherlands.
Werthner, P., Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (2012). An examination of a large-scale coach
education program from a constructivist perspective. In R. Schinke (Ed.), Sport
psychology insights (pp. 337–355). New York, NY: Nova Science.
Wright, T., Trudel, P., & Culver, D. (2007) Learning how to coach: the different learning
situations reported by youth ice hockey coaches, Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 12, 127-144. doi:10.1080/17408980701282019
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Shaunna Taylor is an Adjunct Professor at the University of British Columbia. Her
main areas of interest are sport psychology, coaching, parasport, and women's issues in sport.
Shaunna has contributed to a book on women and coaching, and was a coaching consultant
and facilitator of coach education programs for the Coaching Association of Canada. She sits
on the International Paralympic Committee's Women in Sport Committee, and is the co-Chair
of the Managing Council of the Canadian Sport Psychology Association.
Dr Penny Werthner is the Dean of the Faculty of Kinesiology at the University of

Calgary in Canada. She has written numerous articles on coaching and coach education, and
was a part of a coaching research group at the University of Ottawa. Other areas of research
interest are women in coaching and the use of bio-neuro feedback for Olympic coaches and
athletes. She has been a mental performance consultant at numerous Olympic Games and is
the past-Chair of the Managing Council of the Canadian Sport Psychology Association.
Dr Diane Culver is an Associate Professor in the School of Human Kinetics at the

University of Ottawa in Canada. Her research on coaching and coach education has been
published in such journals as The Sport Psychologist and the International Journal of Sport
Sciences and Coaching. She has written a number of book chapters and also has an interest in
qualitative research. She is a member of the Coaching Research Committee at the Coaching
Association of Canada.
Chapter 7
TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES USED IN

THE OBSERVATION OF COACH BEHAVIOR
Matthew Vierimaa, Jennifer Turnnidge,

M. Blair Evans and Jean Côté
Queen’s University, Canada
ABSTRACT
Video recording and the observational analysis of coach behavior has fundamentally
shaped the field of coaching research in the last 40 years. As an example of this
influence, observation instruments such as the Coaching Behaviors Assessment System
(CBAS; Smith, Smoll & Hunt, 1977), the Coach Analysis and Intervention System
(CAIS; Cushion, Harvey, Muir & Nelson, 2012), and the Assessment of Coaching Tone
(ACT; Erickson & Côté, in press), have advanced our understanding of coaches’
behaviors and intervention style during training sessions and competition. Nevertheless,
coaching observation instruments vary in terms of the types of coach behaviors that are
observed, how they are observed, and in what way the context surrounding those
behaviors is accounted for. For instance, diverse strategies to analyze video range from
qualitative methods (e.g., stimulated recall interviews; Lyle, 2003), to systematic
quantitative coding approaches that record the frequency and duration of specific
behaviors. Indeed, recent coding tools have adapted complex procedures to explore
unique dimensions of coach-athlete interactions, including state space grid analysis
(Erickson, Côté, Hollenstein & Deakin, 2011; Turnnidge, Côté, Hollenstein, & Deakin,
2014) and behavioral signatures (Smith, Shoda, Cumming & Smoll, 2009). The purpose
of this chapter is to review the different types of observation instruments and analytical
methods employed in studies that used video recording to capture coach behaviors during
training sessions and competitions. Novel analyses will be presented, and coaching
observation approaches will be critically considered in terms of their potential practical
use.
Keywords: Sport coaching, observation, video-recording, coach-athlete relationships

Correspondence: E-mail address: 5mv5@queensu.ca
112 Matthew Vierimaa, Jennifer Turnnidge, M. Blair Evans et al.
INTRODUCTION
In every moment of a youth sport practice or competition, parents, coaches, and athletes
behave in ways that shape the experiences of those surrounding them. To provide an example
of this statement, consider an everyday event within youth sport: A 10-year old female
football (soccer) team practice, as players pass and dribble the ball from one side of the field
to the next during a training drill. Coach J is jogging alongside them and shouting
encouragement to her players when she notices a mistake and blows her whistle for play to
stop. The players stand and listen, as Coach J explains the drill further and physically moves
players to the appropriate position on the field – finally blowing her whistle and prompting
the players to start the drill once again.
Despite being a commonplace series of events, the interactions described above also
represent a rich network of information. Perhaps most plainly, the content of the coach’s
verbal comments and movements around the players could be analyzed in regard to its
pedagogical approach. In other words, it would be possible to explore her use of
encouragement, physical movement of the players, and instruction. Beyond merely the
content of her actions, however, the players may have responded according to the way that
Coach J’s message was conveyed. For example, was her message positive and supportive in
tone? The situation or place in time of the behavior may also form the context surrounding
her message, and how it was received. Finally, athlete responses may generate
complementary responses from Coach J that continue to form an emergent pattern of coach-
athlete interactions. Considering the variety of perspectives that can be adopted to examine
this type of interaction, the development of tools to observe coach-athlete interactions is vital
for answering questions about the ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘when’, ‘with whom’ – and even the ‘why’ –
of coach behaviors.
Coaching behavior thus represents a potentially boundless source of information, for
which there is an array of approaches available for analyzing the data – ranging from simple
frequency counts of coach behaviors during a practice or game, to examining the temporal
dynamics of a series of coach-athlete interactions as they take place over time.
This chapter describes various coach observations tools and approaches to analyze
observational data. We aim to illuminate the chronological progression of coaching
observation research and its path leading into the future for both research and practice.
REVIEW OF OBSERVATIONAL COACHING RESEARCH

For nearly four decades, observational studies have been a cornerstone of the coaching
literature. Stemming from Tharp and Gallimore’s (1976) seminal observation of legendary
basketball coach, John Wooden, numerous studies used observational methods to enhance our
understanding of coaches’ behaviors and the influence of these behaviors on athlete
development (e.g., Cushion & Jones, 2001; Ford, Yates & Williams, 2010). Specifically,
Tharp & Gallimore’s (1976) landmark study involved the creation of a pedogogy-based
coding system for capturing observable coach behaviors in the sport setting and revealed that
nearly 75% of Coach Wooden’s behaviors involved technical information, including
instructions, hustles, modelling, and a combination category referred to as “Woodens” (i.e., a
Tools and Techniques Used in the Observation of Coach Behavior 113
combination of reproof or scolds/reinstruct). Further, results highlighted Wooden’s minimal

use of praises and reproofs (i.e., scolds; Gallimore & Tharp, 2004).
Building upon this work, several researchers similarly utilized observational and case-
study approaches to examine the behaviors of other expert coaches including Frank Kush
(Langsdorf, 1979), Jerry Tarkanian (Bloom, Crumpton & Anderson, 1999), and Pat Summit
(Becker & Wrisberg, 2008), as well as successful youth sport coaches (e.g., Segrave &
Ciancio, 1990; Turnnidge, Côté, Hollenstein & Deakin, 2014).
General Profile
One of the central aims of observational coaching research has been to provide a detailed
description of the behaviors exhibited by effective coaches in both training and competition
and across a diverse range of sports (e.g., Claxton, 1988; Cushion & Jones, 2001; DeMarco,
Mancini & Wuest, 1996; Lacy & Darst, 1989; Lacy & Goldston, 1990; Potrac, Jones, &
Cushion, 2007; Trudel, Côté & Bernard, 1996). As might be expected, results illustrate that
coaches display a wide range of behaviors in their interactions with their athletes. More
specifically, findings revealed the critical roles that (a) instruction, (b) support and
encouragement, and (c) management behaviors play in effective coaches’ behavioral
repertoires (Erickson & Gilbert, 2013).
Previous research consistently highlights coaches’ dominant emphasis on instruction-
based behaviors (e.g., Curtis, Smith & Smoll, 1979; Ford, Yates, & Williams, 2010; Gilbert
& Trudel, 1999; Segrave & Ciancio, 1990). Aside from instruction, a combination of support
and encouragement behaviors (e.g., corrective feedback, praise) accounts for a significant
proportion of coaches’ observed behaviors (e.g., Smith, Zane, Smoll & Coppel, 1983).
Researchers caution, however, that effective coaches must be able to carefully negotiate a
balance between the use and overuse of support/encouragement behaviors (e.g., Claxton,
1988; Potrac et al., 2002).
Another important behavioral component relates to coaches’ use of management
behaviors to organize the sport environment (e.g., setting up drills, telling athletes where to
go), although these behaviors are typically used to a lesser degree than instruction or
support/encouragement (e.g., Lacy & Goldston, 1990).
Finally, coaches spend a significant amount of time watching their athletes (often referred
to as observation; e.g., Erickson, Côté, Hollenstein & Deakin, 2011; Smith & Cushion, 2006).
While this behavior has often been either not accounted for in coding systems or has been
conceptualized as an off-task behavior, there is growing recognition that these periods of
surveillance may provide coaches with an opportunity to analyze and reflect on appropriate
interventions (Cushion & Jones, 2001).
Influence of Athlete Outcomes
Another key focus of the observational coaching literature involves examining the links
between coaches’ behaviors and athletes’ developmental outcomes. In one of the most
prominent lines of research in this area, Smith, Smoll, and colleagues (e.g., Curtis et al., 1979;
Smith & Smoll, 1990; Smoll, Smith, Curtis & Hunt, 1978; Smith et al., 1983) used
observational techniques, in combination with interviews and questionnaires, to assess how

youth sport coaches’ behavioral profiles influenced the quality of their athletes’ sport
experiences. In general, results demonstrated that coaches who exhibited higher levels of
supportive and instructive behaviors were perceived more positively by their athletes in
comparison to coaches who used higher levels of punitive behaviors (Curtis et al., 1979;
Smith & Smoll, 1990; Smith et al., 1983). Further, athletes whose coaches employed a more
instructive and supportive behavioral profile reported more positive outcomes, such as higher
levels of fun and satisfaction with their coach and teammates.
Smith, Smoll, and colleagues integrated their findings into the development of the Coach
Effectiveness Training program (CET; Smith et al., 1979), which has subsequently evolved
into the creation of the Mastery Approach to Coaching program (MAC; Smoll, Smith, &
Cumming, 2007). By teaching general coaching principles, including the importance of
valuing learning and effort, along with behavioral strategies (e.g., providing encouragement
and instruction and avoiding the use of sarcasm), these programs aim to help coaches foster
positive sport environments. By implementing these training programs with a variety of youth
sport coaches, researchers demonstrated the efficacy of these programs in both altering coach
behavior and promoting positive athlete outcomes (Barnett et al., 1992; Coatsworth &
Conroy, 2006; Smith & Smoll, 1997; Smoll, Smith, & Barnett, 1995; Smoll, Smith et al.,
1993; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979). More specifically, athletes of coaches who participated
in the CET or MAC reported having more fun, had lower levels of attrition, and evaluated
their coaches, teammates, and their sport experiences more positively than athletes of
untrained coaches. Collectively, these studies highlight how observational research has
contributed to the development of effective coach education initiatives. Further, this body of
literature lends support to the contention that coaching behaviors play an important role in
facilitating positive development in sport.
Influence of Coach, Athlete, and Situational Variables
Whereas the previously outlined research provides valuable insight into the general
patterns of coaches’ behaviors, numerous studies have also explored how coaches’ behavioral
patterns may be shaped by key variables, such as coach and athlete characteristics, practice
setting, or game situation. For example, conflicting findings have been reported regarding
gender differences in coaches’ behavioral profile, ranging from minimal to wide variances in
coaching behaviors (e.g., Lacy & Goldston, 1990). Jones, Housner, & Kornspan (1997) also
investigated how years of coaching experience may influence coaches’ behavior. Results
indicated that more experienced coaches used higher levels of technical instruction, whereas
the less experienced coaches used higher levels of surveillance behaviors. It is important to
note, however, that the results were confounded with competitive level because the more
experienced coaches were all drawn from the high school level, whereas the less experienced
coaches coached both junior high school and middle school athletes. As such, it is possible
that these differences were due to the competitive level of the athletes, rather than the degree
of coaching experience (Erickson & Gilbert, 2013).
Interestingly, there are also mixed findings in relation to the influence of athlete variables
on coaching behaviors. For example, Turnnidge and colleagues (2014) demonstrated that an
effective and award winning competitive swimming coach adapted her coaching style
according to the competitive level of her athletes. Specifically, with the competitive athletes
she employed a more interactive style and she provided the competitive athletes with higher
levels of individualized technical instruction with modelling and positive reinforcement in
comparison to the recreational athletes. Conversely, Ford et al. (2010) reported minimal
differences between soccer coaches of varying competitive levels and age groups. Given the
inconsistent nature of these findings, further research examining the influence of coach and
athlete characteristics on the coaching process would be beneficial.
Another exciting area of research has investigated how situational factors can shape
coaches’ behaviors. For instance, researchers demonstrated that coaches had athletes spend
more time in training form activities (e.g., physical training, technique and skills practice)
than in playing form activities (e.g., scrimmages) and that coaches exhibited high levels of
instruction, feedback, and management behaviors during both types of activities (Ford et al.,
2010; Partington & Cushion, 2013). Smith, Shoda, Cumming, and Smoll (2009) also explored
coaches’ behaviors in differing game situations (i.e., winning, tied, losing) – revealing that
coaches’ held distinctive situation-behavior patterns and that these patterns were significantly
related to the quality of coach-athlete relationships. On the one hand, behavioral signatures
characterized by a high rate of supportiveness in winning situations and a low rate of
punishment during losing situations were exhibited by coaches who were well-liked.
Alternatively, coaches who were least-liked by their athletes held a behavioral pattern
characterized by a high rate of punishment in losing situations and a low level of
supportiveness while winning. While the results of these studies are promising, the influence
of such situational factors on the coaching process remains a relatively unexplored area of
study and thus, future research would be worthwhile.
Novel Dimensions of Coaches’ Behaviors
Although the previously outlined research has provided a wealth of information about
coach behaviors and their relation to athlete development, there is growing recognition that
future observational research must develop approaches that accurately capture the dynamic,
reciprocal, and contextualized nature of coach-athlete interactions (Brewer & Jones, 2002;
Erickson & Côté, 2013). In an effort to address this gap in the literature, researchers are
making a concerted effort to explore not only what coaches do, but also why and how they
do it.
Researchers have helped to deepen our understanding of coaches’ behaviors by
combining systematic observation with qualitative methodologies (e.g., Jones et al., 1997;
Partington & Cushion, 2013). For instance, Smith and Cushion (2006) used a modified
version of the Arizona State University Observation Instrument and semi-structured
interpretive interviews to investigate the what and why of six professional soccer coaches’
behaviors. Results highlighted a common, deliberate pattern of behavior among the coaches,
which involved silent surveillance interspersed with the use of instruction coupled with praise
and encouragement. Further, the interviews revealed how coaches used these behaviors as a
means for developing game understanding and providing support and encouragement to their
athletes. This study illustrates the potential value of combining observation with other
methodological techniques to shed light on the processes underpinning coaches’ behavioral
patterns.
Recently, considerable strides have also been made regarding how coaches’ behaviors are
delivered. For example, researchers have begun to examine how coaches’ behaviors are
patterned and structured over time (Erickson et al., 2011; Turnnidge et al., 2014). These two
small-sample studies used observational techniques to investigate coaches’ behavioral pattern
variability, the sequencing of coaching behaviors, as well as the influence of athletes’
behaviors on the coaching process. Erickson and colleagues (2011) compared the coach-
athlete interactions of two synchronized swimming teams producing different performance
outcomes and athlete experiences. Results indicated that there were significant differences
between the two teams on measures related to interaction variability, behavioral content
patterns, and sequences of coaching behaviors. Specifically, the more successful team was
characterized by patterned coach-athlete interactions, which consisted of higher levels of
individualized technical feedback and positive reinforcement. In addition, the sequencing of
coach behaviors within this successful sport environment was more patterned and placed
heavy emphasis on the pairing of corrective technical feedback and positive reinforcement.
Turnnidge and colleagues (2014) similarly revealed the importance of patterned and
predictable coach-athlete interactions within a successful swim program for athletes with
disabilities and their able-bodied siblings. Within the consistent pattern, the coach
emphasized the use of individualized technical instruction, organization, and positive
feedback. Taken together, these findings highlight that the variability, sequencing, and target
of coaches’ behaviors may be key differentiators between more and less effective styles of
coaching.
Finally, efforts have been made to capture more nuanced aspects of coach-athlete
interactions. For instance, Erickson and Côté (2015) explored the influence of coaches’
motivational tone (i.e., autonomy-supportive vs. controlling; mastery- vs. ego-oriented) on
athletes’ developmental outcomes. Results revealed that athletes that increased their
developmental outcomes over the course of a season received significantly more non-sport
related communication than athletes that have decreasing developmental outcomes over the
course of a season. Further, Allan (2014) investigated how the emotional qualities associated
with coaches’ behaviors shaped the development of young athletes. Two-distinct emotion-
behavioral profiles emerged among the participants: Coaches who generally exhibited high
levels of positive arousal or alertness, frequently hustling the athletes (i.e., the intense, hustle
coaches) and coaches who were even-tempered in nature, frequently eliciting input from their
athletes (i.e., the calm, inquisitive coaches). Findings demonstrated that the athletes of calm,
inquisitive coaches reported higher levels of prosocial behaviors towards opponents and
lower levels of antisocial behaviors towards opponents than the athletes of intense, hustle
coaches. These studies help to extend our understanding beyond simply what coaches do, but
rather how coaches interact with their athletes, and the resulting influence of these qualities
on athlete development. While these results are promising, this area of study is still in its
infancy and thus there are numerous fruitful avenues for future research.
Overall, it is evident that observational research has greatly contributed to our
understanding of coaching behaviors and their influence on athlete development. Further, this
research has led to the development of a variety of systematic observation tools that have
enabled researchers to investigate the various behaviors coaches exhibit and the relationships
between these behaviors and athlete outcomes. These instruments will be reviewed in the
section below.
EXISTING TOOLS FOR OBSERVING COACHES

The tools used by researchers to observe and code coach behaviors are a vital component
of the progression of our understanding of coach behavior and have evolved over time.
As depicted within Figure 1, contemporary observation tools are a direct reflection of
how three formative coach observation tools were adapted and contributed-to many decades
of application and research. Notably, the Coach Behavior Recording Form (CBRF; Tharp &
Gallimore, 1976; Langsdorf, 1979) was developed and used to classify coach behavior across
14 categories, including: Instruction, hustle, praise, nonverbal reward, scold, nonverbal
punishment, scold/reinstruction, modeling-positive, modeling-negative, other, and uncodable.
Coaching behaviors within the CBRF were coded in real time by observers during training
sessions, who classified and recorded each coaching behavior in relation to their pedagogical
technique. Emerging in a similar era, other influential tools included the Coaching Behavior
Assessment System (CBAS; Smith, Smoll, & Hunt, 1977) as well as the Arizona State
University Coach Observation Instrument (ASUOI; Lacy & Darst, 1984). Although both tools
adopted a similar approach to their predecessor, they each included distinct behavior
codes.Whereas the ASUOI primarily introduced alternative categories (e.g., use of first name;
manual manipulation), the CBAS used a distinct list of twelve categories and classified each
according to their place in time – being either reactive to an athlete’s performance (e.g.,
responding to a mistake), or spontaneous (e.g., general encouragement). The changes made
within the CBAS and ASUOI tools foreshadow the importance that more recent tools place
on deriving greater detail from coach behaviors, beyond merely the instructional focus.
Nevertheless, the impact of these three formative observation tools is revealed in how
they have been used within coach observation research in the decades since they were first
published (e.g., Brewer & Jones, 2002; Claxton, 1988; Erickson, Côté, Deakin & Hollenstein,
2011; Hastie, 1999; Smith & Cushion, 2006; Quarterman, 1980).
Evolving from the formative tools, later progress involved creating instruments to capture
the sequence of coach behaviors, as opposed to just the frequency (e.g., using a computer to
observe and code behavior at a later date). Tools were also adapted to observe the distinct
behaviors that take place in specific sports (e.g., ice hockey coach behaviors during games,
such as agreeing with a referee; Trudel et al., 1996) or specific points in time, such as during
time-outs (Hastie, 1999). The coding tools also advanced in ways that allowed researchers to
capture greater detail to describe each coaching behavior that was coded. Namely, coach
observation tools have evolved to capture: (a) The context surrounding coach behaviors, (b)
the style or tone the coach used when completing a behavior, and (c) athlete responses in
relation to their coach. Each of these aspects will be described in the following section.
Although a concise summary of all applied research and applied coach observation tools may
extend beyond the scope of the current chapter, we have collected a demonstrative selection
of tools that represent key aspects in the evolution of coach observation.
Figure 1. A chronological summary of seminal coding systems for analyzing coach behavior.
Context
First, to help contextualize coach behaviors, coding tools include follow-up modifier
codes associated with each attempt of coding a given behavior. For example, after rating an
ice hockey coach behavior of cheering-on his skaters as ‘general encouragement’, the coder
might also indicate whether the act occurred during play as opposed to during a stoppage
(e.g., Brewer & Jones, 2002; Gilbert, Trudel, Gaumond & Larocque, 1999) or in relation to
the recipients of the behavior (e.g., players in transition, Trudel et al., 1996).
The complexity that is inherent when incorporating context within coach observation
necessitates use of recorded footage and computer-based coding to allow footage to be
slowed. This is particularly the case when several dimensions of coach behavior are coded.
An early example of such a complex coding tool is the Computerized Coaching Analysis
System (CCAS; Franks, Johnson & Sinclair, 1988; Partington, & Cushion, 2012), which was
customized using input from the coach, and was used to rate elements such as the recipients
of the message. More recently, a complex tool labelled the Coach Analysis and Intervention
System (Cushion, Harvey, Muir & Nelson, 2012) involves a process where coders first rate
each coach behavior within one of 23 broader categories, and then rates the context according
to when the behavior took place (e.g., last quarter of a game), who it was directed to (e.g.,
individual athlete), and the timing within the event – along with the content of the message
(e.g., tactical). In summary, tools that incorporate assessments of contextual variables often
include supplemental codes that modify the coding of the primary coach behavior.
Coaching Style or Tone
Similar to tools that assess the context, the style or tone of coach behaviors is also
incorporated within coach observation tools by affiliating each coach behavior with a related
modifying code. Indeed, the CCAS (Franks et al.1988) computerized coding tool not only
included codes for recording context, but coders also appraised the tone of each behavior (i.e.,
interrogative, evaluative, descriptive, prescriptive, affective) and rated whether each behavior
appeared appropriate or inappropriate.
This early effort can be contrasted with the more recent approach of Erickson and Côté
(in press), who integrated the tone of coaches’ messages by assessing behaviors in light of
prominent psychological theories – including achievement goal theory (AGT) and self-
determination theory (SDT). Erickson and Côté used nine primary coach behavior categories
which were adapted from the CBAS (i.e., organization; positive evaluation; negative
evaluation; mental skills; social/moral behavior; non-sport communication; observation; not
engaged; uncodable) that were initially rated, and then each behavior was further rated
according to whether it was delivered in an autonomy supportive way (e.g., autonomy
supportive, neutral, or controlling) and the extent that it was mastery-oriented (e.g., mastery-
oriented, neutral, or ego-oriented).
Similarly, Duda and colleagues (2015) integrated SDT and AGT in the development and
validation of the Multidimensional Motivational Climate Observation System (MMCOS).
The MMCOS is a tool designed to objectively assess the coach-created motivational climate
in a sport environment. Using the MMCOS, observers rate a particular time period of coach
behavior according to two higher-order factors (i.e., disempowering and empowering) by
rating the potency of coach behavior within seven coaching environment dimensions (i.e.,
task involving, ego involving, autonomy support, controlling, relatedness support, relatedness
thwarting, and structure), which are derived from ratings of 32 behavioral strategies stemming
from the SDT and AGT literature (e.g., aknowledges feelings and perspective; punishes
mistakes).
Coach-Athlete Interactions
Further evolution of coach observation includes coding tools that capture the progression
of coach and athlete interactions over time. Erickson and colleagues (2011) adapted the
CBAS to capture coach behavior alongside athlete responses within youth synchronized
swimming teams during training. In addition to modifying the coach behavior categories to
align with the synchronized swimming setting, Erickson et al. (2011) created six categories
for athlete responses, including: (a) technical talking; (b) clarification; (c) acknowledgement;
(d) general talking; (e) engaged; and (f) disengaged. By recording coach behavior alongside
athlete responses using a computer-based coding system, the reciprocal pattern of coach-
athlete-coach-athlete interactions over time can be captured and examined using sophisticated
analysis tools.
Turnnidge and colleagues (2014) provided further evidence of the same coding approach,
adapted for coach-athlete interactions in a swimming program for athletes with physical
disabilities. In addition to including behaviors that were unique to disability sport coaching
(e.g., coaches providing physical assistance), Turnnidge et al. (2014) integrated coding for
unique instructional behaviors along with those that the coach applied to create a positive and
supportive environment (e.g., humor).
CODING AND ANALYZING COACH BEHAVIOR

After determining the appropriate tool to categorize coaching behavior, the next step is to
decide how one will code and analyze the target behaviors. Just as the many coding systems
outlined above assess a wide range of aspects related to coach behavior, the following section
will review the primary ways in which researchers can code and analyze coach behavior.
Event-Based Coding
The most common approach to coding coach behaviors is using event-based coding,
which involves measuring the frequency in which a target behavior is observed in a particular
observation, such as a practice or game. Thus, event-based coding allows researchers to
measure the frequency in which discrete behaviors are observed, and can be as simple as
making note of each instance of a target behavior on a pen and paper checklist.
Event-based coding may be particularly useful when the target behavior is one that does
not occur often, or for observing long periods of time (Frick, Barry, & Kamphaus, 2010).
In these situations, measuring the duration of that behavior may be downplaying its
salience if it is short lived, yet highly influential. For instance, if (in the example from the
beginning of this chapter) Coach J demonstrated frequent, but quick instances of positive
reinforcement to her athletes, the relative importance of this behavior may be minimized if we
only considered the total or average duration of this particular behavior.
Although event-based coding that assesses the frequency of coach behaviors is at times
useful, the duration of a given behavior may occasionally be of greater interest. In these
situations, the start and end of target behaviors are noted, which allow for the determination
of the cumulative total and/or average duration of discrete behaviors across an observation.
This type of coding can still be performed using minimal technological aids (e.g., pen and
paper) if desired, when a coder notes the start and stop time of each target behavior during an
observation. At the end of the observation it is possible to calculate the cumulative or average
duration in which a target behavior was exhibited across a given observation. Occasionally in
exploratory studies we may also be interested in both the frequency and duration of coach
behaviors, when it is unclear which indices are most salient. Fortunately, it is possible to
combine both event and duration coding, a process which is easily facilitated using
specialized computer software such as Observer Video-Pro (Noldus, Trienes, Hendricken,
Jansen & Jansen, 2000).
Interval Coding
Whereas event-based coding captures all instances of a behavior during an observation,

interval coding assesses coach behavior based on a pre-determined time interval. This time
sampling approach accounts-for whether a behavior is present during a pre-determined time
interval. Interval coding is often used when behaviors have no evident beginning and end, or
occur too often to be coded accurately using event-based coding (Frick et al., 2010).
There are three main types of interval coding: whole-interval, partial-interval, and
momentary recording (Shapiro, 1987). A behavior must be expressed throughout the entire
interval to be coded using whole-interval coding. In partial-interval coding, a behavior is
coded as long as it occurs at any point throughout that coding interval. Finally, a behavior is
only coded using momentary coding if it is expressed at the point in which an interval ends.
Global rating scales are an additional variation of interval coding, and instead of coding
behavior in a standard yes-no format across pre-determined time intervals, allow for the rating
of specific concepts or constructs along a standardized Likert-type scale (Kazdin, 1980). This
novel approach has been utilized in other domains (e.g., medicine; Gray, 1996), but has
seldom been used in the sport domain. Global rating scales may have particular utility in
assessing broad, stable characteristics such as affect, which may be relatively stable on a
moment to moment basis, but could vary over longer periods of time.
Continuous Coding
Continuous coding describes an approach that could include both frequency and duration
coding, and is determined by the specific coding system in use. Certain specialized coding
systems include only a selected group of target behaviors, but do not capture other coach
behaviors that do not meet the specified criteria. For example, the CBAS (Smith et al., 1977)
measures 12 pedagogical coach behaviors. Therefore, if a coach is often disengaged
throughout a practice, this particular behavior would not meet any of the criteria found within
the CBAS and would therefore not be coded. In contrast, other coding systems attempt to
provide an exhaustive categorization of all potential coaching behaviors (e.g., CAICS;
Erickson et al., 2011). These systems allow researchers to code behavior on a continuous
basis, meaning that every second of a coach’s behavior throughout an observation is captured
and analyzed. The CAICS adapted the CBAS to allow for continuous coding and, among
other changes, included a disengagement category to capture this unique type of behavior.
The advantage of continuous coding lies in its ability to track the full spectrum of coach
behavior over time. In non-continous coding systems, coach behavior is not coded when it
does not meet specific criteria outlined in the selected coding tool. This type of approach may
be appropriate if researchers are only interested in a specific cluster of coaching behaviors,
such as the frequency in which a coach provides either punishment or encouragement. In
contrast, continuous coding could allow researchers to examine the coaching behaviors
preceding and following each instance of punishment or encouragement.
State Space Grids
As noted previously, one approach that may help to address some of the limitations of
previous observational coaching research is the state space grid (SSG) methodology
(Hollenstein, 2013). Whereas the previously-described approaches view the individual coach
as the unit of analysis, the SSG method shifts the unit of analysis to the dyadic level (e.g.,
coach and athlete behavior). Using observations from coach-athlete dyads in real-time, each
dyad’s behavioral trajectory is then plotted on a grid representing all possible behavioral
combinations. As an example, using a SSG approach to code a team practice with 14 athletes
and one coach would involve independently coding coach behavior as well as the behavior of
each athlete, and then examining the interactions of the 14 resulting coach-athlete dyads.
Similar to a scatter plot, the coach’s behavior at any point in time can be plotted on the x
axis and the athlete’s simultaneous behavior can be plotted on the y axis. Each point on the
grid thus represents a joint behavioral event, and a trajectory can be drawn through dyadic
points in the temporal sequence that they were observed. There are numerous ways in which
measures derived from the SSG method can be used to explore coach-athlete interactions.
Three examples of these measures are: (a) attractor states; (b) variability; and (c) transitions
and sequences.
First, attractor states refers to behavioral pairings within the grid to which coach-athlete
dyads tend to be drawn over the course of an interaction. With the SSG method, we can
examine whether each coach-athlete dyad’s behavior clusters in a few or many sets of joint
behaviors. We can also track how long the dyad stays in certain areas or how quickly patterns
stabilize in particular areas. In doing so, it is possible to identify the frequency, duration, and
latency time of behavioral patterns.
Second, SSG analysis can explore the variability of coach-athlete interactions, which
refers to the degree to which the dyad changes their behavior over the course of an
interaction. Previous coaching SSG studies examined variability by assessing the number of
behavioral pairings exhibited and the number of transitions between pairings (Erickson et al.,
2011; Turnnidge et al., 2014). These measures offer related, but distinct, information as a
dyad can engage in a number of different behavioral pairings (representing a relatively
unpredictable interaction) or can transition many times between a small set of behavioral
pairings (reflecting a moving, but patterned interaction).
The SSG method can also depict temporal patterns of coach-athlete interactions, such as
sequences of behaviors or transitions between behaviors. For instance, researchers could
investigate whether coach-athlete dyads with high levels of closeness transition more quickly
to positive behaviors following a conflict, as compared to more dysfunctional coach-athlete
dyads. The ability to chronicle such behavioral sequences holds considerable potential for
understanding the temporal patterns underpinning coach-athlete interactions.
Interestingly, the majority of the described measures can be compared either between
grids, between multiple participants (i.e., a coach with different athletes on the same team or
different coaches on different teams) or between the same dyad at multiple points in time (i.e.,
longitudinal analysis). Furthermore, while the above section described the utility of the SSG
method in analyzing coach-athlete interactions, this method can also be extended to analyze
coach behavior in combination with a wide range of other contextual variables.
Rather than defining the dyadic system as an individual coach-athlete dyad, it is possible
to instead pair coach behavior with any other time-matched variable of interest. For example,
plotting a coach’s behavior alongside the target(s) of those behaviors would allow for the
analysis of who coaches are interacting with, all within a single grid.
In the case of Coach J, this type of grid would illustrate how the coach positioned each
individual athlete on the field. Other salient variables to pair with coach behavior relate to the
practice or game context, or when coaches engage in certain behaviors. This behavior-context
grid would display coaches’ behavioral tendencies across segments of practice (e.g., warm-
up, drills, etc.) or competition (e.g., during play, time-outs, etc.). Overall, the SSG method
holds great promise to advance our understanding and analysis of coach behavior through its
ability to derive detailed measures from any pair of time-matched continuous variables.
Behavioral Signatures
Given that coaching is regarded as a context-dependent process, it is no surprise that

coaches tend to behave in distinctive ways in specific sport situations (Smith et al., 2009).
Rooted in personality psychology, behavioral signatures refer to if-then patterns, where
individuals tend to respond to specific situations in predictable ways (Mischel, 2004; Mischel
& Shoda, 1995; 1998). In other words, they explore how frequently a given situation elicits a
specific coaching response. In addition to a reliable coding system to accurately assess coach
behavior, the study of behavioral signatures requires a range of diverse situations that may
elicit a wide range of behavioral responses. These diverse situations could be as
straightforward as winning or losing during a competition (Smith et al., 2009), or the
incorrect completion of a drill in practice. For example, a behavioral signature of Coach J
may be that whenever she notices a mistake during a drill (the “if” situation), she usually
stops play and corrects the players (the “then” response). Overall, the analysis of behavioral
signatures highlights the important role that contextual “if” factors play in influencing coach
behavior.
Stimulated Recall
The systematic observation approaches described up until this point have effectively
allowed researchers to consider the what, how, and when of coach behaviors. However, the
fact remains that most observational approaches are still limited to inferring the meaning or
reasoning behind observed coach behaviors. While coding systems are designed to be as
accurate and reliable as possible, there is always a certain level of interpretation in coding the
observed behavior of another individual. Stimulated recall interviewing (Lyle, 2003) is a
technique that allows researchers to take advantage of the benefits of systematic observation
while tapping into coaches’ perceptions of why they engaged in a particular behavior.
Stimulated recall interviewing can be paired with any type of observational approach, where
video of observed coach behavior is utilized in a subsequent interview with that coach to
validate the coach’s responses, or to stimulate recall of selected events (Gilbert & Trudel,
2004; Wilcox & Trudel, 1998). These interviews are designed to assess coaches’ decision-
making or reasoning for engaging in certain behaviors, and also presents the opportunity to
discuss discrepancies between coaches’ perceptions, values and their actual behavior (e.g.,
McCallister, Blinde, & Weiss, 2000). Combined with systematic observation, this interview
protocol generates a powerful mixed-methods approach to understanding coach behavior.
Returning to the example of Coach J, using stimulated recall, it would be possible to identify
and code all of the instances in which she stopped practice, and provided corrective feedback
to her players. Then, in the subsequent interview, researchers could present her with the video
footage of these particular instances so that she could explain her rationale for her actions.
A similar mixed methods approach has been used to study coach behavior whereby
systematic observation is paired with interpretive interviews (Smith & Cushion, 2006;
Partington & Cushion, 2012). In this case, the interview is framed around the coding system
used in the systematic observation component, but video itself is not used in the interview
process directly. Rather, questions target the processes and motivations underpinning the
behaviors outlined in the coding system, which help to contextualize the observational data.
Together, these two mixed-methods approaches demonstrate the importance of
methodological pluralism in the understanding of coach behavior. The use of multiple
methods of assessing coach behavior collectively provide a much more detailed and nuanced
representation of the complex social phenomena than one method ever could on its own.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The coding systems and methodologies described in this chapter hold significant
implications for coaches and sport administrators. From a conceptual standpoint, the extant
literature in this area has highlighted that coaching is a complex process (Bowes & Jones,
2006), and that coach behavior can be viewed from several different perspectives. These
perspectives, summarized in Table 1, include what coaches do, how they do it, when they do
it, with whom, and why they do it.
The wealth of research on coach behavior has highlighted the important role that coaches
play in athletes’ performance and have identified a number of key behaviors of effective
coaches (e.g., supportive and instructive behaviors; Smith & Smoll, 1990). In addition,
coaches and sport administrators are encouraged to look beyond just what coaches are doing
to consider some of these other components of coach behavior, which collectively provide a
much more comprehensive depiction of the nature and impact of coach behavior. Research on
coach behavior has steadily increased over the past four decades, and over this period of time
the complexity of the methodological techniques used by researchers has advanced as well. In
comparison to the early use of pen and paper checklists and frequency counts, modern
observational techniques (e.g., the SSG method) are much more time and resource intensive,
usually requiring specialized equipment, software and expertise. However, modern
technological advances have led to the proliferation of performance analysis techniques,
making this technology more accessible than ever to coaches of all sport contexts (Drust,
2010). In elite sport, over half of coaches use performance analysis tools to guide their
coaching practices (Wright, Atkins, & Jones, 2012). Elite coaches commonly have the
resources to utilize powerful, state of the art performance analysis software such as Dartfish,
which provides detailed quantitative analysis of movement (Eltoukhy, Asfour, Thompson, &
Latta, 2012). However, these software suites are often very expensive and inaccessible for
many coaches. Luckily, a number of cost effective alternatives have recently emerged, many
of which can be paired with smart phones to allow for the real-time collection of data during
practice or competition (Brown, n.d.). Even though the use of performance analysis software
has become commonplace among coaches, a disconnect remains between the tools used by
coaches and practitioners, and those derived by researchers. Researchers should continue to
focus on knowledge transfer through the adaptation and application of their empirically-based
coaching tools for use in practice (Reade, Rodgers, & Spriggs, 2008). While these tools
should of course be valid and useful in research, researchers should also consider how they
could be applied in practice and used in conjunction with the performance analysis
technology already available to coaches. For example, coding systems could be utilized in
combination with smartphones or tablet computers to facilitate real-time coding feedback on
coach behavior (Cushion et al., 2012). The coaching concepts described throughout this
chapter hold great promise in having a positive influence on how we regard and analyze
coach behavior in the real world. The use of performance analysis techniques can play an
important role in the development of coaching expertise. Coaches have long utilized video as
a teaching tool for athletes by reviewing past performance. However, the benefits of video
analysis are not limited to athlete behavior and performance. Intrapersonal knowledge, which
includes introspection and the ability to review and refine one’s coaching practices, is
regarded as a key component of coaching effectiveness (Côté & Gilbert, 2009). Effective
coaches are able to reflect upon past successes and failures and modify their subsequent
behavior accordingly.
Even if coaches do not have the wherewithal to utilize performance analysis technology,
they too can still benefit from introspection through simple self-monitoring strategies
(Schempp, Webster, McCullick, Busch & Mason, 2007). In addition to reviewing video
footage, coaches can keep a detailed reflexive journal, or seek feedback from peers or athletes
themselves regarding their coaching performance. This process should be ongoing throughout
a coach’s development, as effective coaches are able to transform their many experiences into
knowledge and practice (Gilbert & Trudel, 2001; 2004).
CONCLUSION
Stemming from the initial study of the behavior of exceptional sport coaches,
observational research has played an integral role in advancing the coaching literature. This
body of research has developed detailed and reliable methods of assessing coach behavior in
practice and competition. The conceptualization of coaching as a complex, bi-directional
process between coach and athlete has led to the advent of novel approaches to analyzing
coach-athlete interactions, which along with the wealth of other observational methods hold
significant promise in further advancing the field going forward.
If we return to the example of Coach J presented at the beginning of the chapter, it is
evident that the material presented herein has altered how we perceive Coach J’s behavior.
While some detail was provided regarding her behavior, little is known about how that
behavior was delivered to the athletes. For example, was she frustrated and hostile in her
explanation and correction of the athletes’ errors, or was it done in a kind and sincere
manner? Similarly, while the example describes the coach’s behavior in one particular
instance, it is unknown how the practice events and the athletes’ behavior leading up to that
situation may have influenced her response. Perhaps the athletes were distracted and off-task
all practice and Coach J had been continually providing corrective feedback throughout the
practice. Further, it is unknown which particular athletes were at fault, and which were given
the corrective feedback regarding their field position. Finally, the example describes how
Coach J notices a mistake and stops play to provide corrective feedback. However, the
reasoning underpinning why Coach J decided to stop play, rather than let the players play
through their mistake is not evident. These are just a sampling of additional important details
to be considered based on our understanding of coach behavior; thus, there is clearly more to
understanding coach behavior than initially meets the eye. Many tools exist for the analysis of
coaching behavior in practice; coaches and administrators are encouraged to take advantage
of this wealth of technology, while keeping in mind the complex, multi-faceted nature of the
coaching process.
 Coach observation tools have demonstrated that a given list of coach beavhiors can
elicit positive athlete outcomes, under the correct circumstances.
 The observation of coaches not only holds great potential for identifying positive
coach behaviors, but has the potential to be used directly by coaches to learn and
reflect on their behaviors.
 There remains a need to adapt and apply the wealth of research-driven coach
observation tools into practice for use by coaches and practitioners.
Table 1. Dimensions of coach behavior that can be explored through observation
Dimension Type of question Description of observed facets Examples
Content What? The type of behavior Providing an athlete with positive reinforcement
In addition to observing content, tools then affiliate the content of the messages with differing aspects:
The manner in which a behavior is The tone, emotion, sentiment, and style evident in a coaches’
Style of delivery How?
delivered verbal and non-verbal demeanor
The time or situation in which a behavior Timing within practice or game, whether the coach behavior is
Context When?
is observed preceded by an athlete action (e.g., mistake-contingent)
Is the behavior being directed toward, or used in an interaction
with, one athlete or the entire team?
With whom? The intended target(s) During games, coaches could also direct behaviors at referees,
parents, athletes of other teams, and other coaches.
The related athlete response, in the same Was the athlete engaged with the coach, or ignoring coach
In interaction with?
time period as coach behavior suggestions?
The underlying reasoning for engaging in What description does the coach provide that describes the nature
Intention Why?
a particular behavior of their behavior?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work conducted for this chapter was supported by a standard research grant from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC Grant # 435-2014-
0038).
REFERENCES
Allan, V. R. (2014). Examining the role of coaches’ emotions in the Adolescent team sport
environment (Unpublished master’s thesis). Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario.
Barnett, N. P., Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach-athlete
relationships on youth sport attrition. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 111-127.
Becker, A. J., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2008). Effective coaching in action: Observations of
legendary collegiate basketball coach Pat Summitt. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 197-211.
Bloom, G. A., Crumpton, R., & Anderson, J. E. (1999). A systematic observation study of the
teaching behaviors of an expert basketball coach. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 157-170.
Bowes, I., & Jones, R. L. (2006). Working at the edge of chaos: Understanding coaching as a
complex, interpersonal system. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 235-245.
Brewer, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2002). A five-stage process for establishing contextually valid
systematic observation instruments: The case of rugby union. The Sport Psychologist, 16,
138-159.
Brown, C. (n.d.). Technology to use in your coaching. Sports Coach UK. Retrieved on March
23, 2015 from http://www.sportscoachuk.org/resource/technology-use-your-coaching.
Claxton, D. B. (1988). A systematic observation of more and less successful high school
tennis coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 302-310.
Coatsworth, J. D., & Conroy, D. E. (2006). Enhancing the self-esteem of youth swimmers
through coach training: Gender and age effects. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 7, 173-
192. Doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.08.005
Curtis, B., Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1979). Scrutinizing the Skipper: A study of
leadership behaviors in the dugout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 391-400. Doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.391
Cushion, C., Harvey, S., Muir, B., & Nelson, L. (2012). Developing the Coach Analysis and
Intervention System (CAIS): Establishing validity and reliability of a computerised
systematic observation instrument. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 201-216.
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2001). A systematic observation of professional top-level
youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 354-376.
DeMarco, G., Mancini, V., & Wuest, D. (1996). Reflections on change: A qualitative and
quantitative analysis of a baseball coach's behavior. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 135-
163.
Drust, B. (2010). Performance analysis research: Meeting the challenge. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 28, 921-922. Doi: 10.1080/02640411003740769
Eltoukhy, M., Asfour, S., Thompson, C., & Latta, L. (2012). Evaluation of the performance
of digital video analysis of human motion: Dartfish tracking system. International
Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 3, 1-6.
Erickson, K., & Côté, J. (2013). Observing the dynamics of coach-athlete interactions in real
time: The state space grid method. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denision (Eds.),
Routledge handbook of sports coaching (pp. 108-120). New York, NY: Routledge.
Erickson, K., & Côté, J. (in press). The intervention tone of coaches' behaviour: Development
of the Assessment of Coaching Tone (ACT) observational coding system. International
Journal of Sport Science and Coaching.
Erickson, K., Côté, J., Hollenstein, T., & Deakin, J. (2011). Examining coach-athlete
interactions using state space grids: An observational analysis in competitive youth sport.
Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 12, 645-654. Doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.06.006
Erickson, K., & Gilbert, W. (2013). Coach-athlete interactions. In J. Côté and R. Lidor (Eds.),
Conditions of children’s talent development in sport. (pp. 139-156). Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology.
Ford, P. R., Yates, I., & Williams, M. A. (2010). An analysis of practice activities and
instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: Exploring the link
between science and application. Journal of Sport Sciences, 28, 483-495. Doi:
10.1080/02640410903582750
Franks, I. M., Johnson, R. B., & Sinclair, G. D. (1988). The development of a computerized
coaching analysis system for recording behavior in sporting environments. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 23-32.
Frick, P. J., Barry, C. T., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2010). Behavioural observation. In Clinical
assessment of child and adolescent personality and behaviour. (pp. 189-209). Boston,
MA: Springer.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (2004). What a coach can teach a teacher, 1975-2004: Reflections
and reanalysis of John Wooden's teaching practices. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 119-137.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: reflection in
model youth sport coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 16-34.
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science research published from 1970-
2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 388-399. Doi:
10.1080/02701367.2004.10609172
Gilbert, W., Trudel, P., Gaumond, S., & Larocque, L. (1999). Development and application of
an instrument to analyse pedagogical content interventions of ice hockey coaches.
Sociology of Sport Online, 2(2). Retrieved online from: http://physed.otago.ac.nz/
sosol/home.html
Gray, J. D. (1996). Global rating scales in residency education. Academic Medicine, 71, S55-
63. Doi: 10.1097/00001888-199601000-00043
Hastie, P. A. (1999). An instrument for recording coaches' comments and instructions during
time-outs. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 467-478.
Jones, D. F., Housner, L. D., & Kornspan, A. S. (1997). Interactive decision making and
behavior of experienced and inexperienced basketball coaches during practice. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 454-468.
Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Research design in clinical psychology. NY: Harper & Row
Lacy, A. C., & Darst, P. W. (1984). The evolution of a systematic observation instrument.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3, 59-66.
Lacy, A. C., & Darst, P. W. (1989). The Arizona State University Observation Instrument
(ASUOI). In P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek & V. H. Mancini (Eds.), Analyzing physical
education and sport instruction: Second edition. (pp.369-378). Champaign, Ill.: Human
Kinetics.
Lacy, A. C., & Goldston, P. D. (1990). Behavior analysis of male and female coaches in high
school girls' basketball. Journal of Sport Behavior, 13, 29-39.
Langsdorf, E. V. (1979). A systematic observation of football coaching behavior in a major
university environment (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1979).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 4473A.
Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British
Educational Research Journal, 29, 861-878. Doi: 10.1080/0141192032000137349
McCallister, S. G., Blinde, E. M., & Weiss, W. M. (2000). Teaching values and implementing
philosophies: Dilemmas of the youth sport coach. The Physical Educator, 57, 35-45.
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 74–97. Doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.042902.130709
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality
structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality
dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258.
Noldus, L. P. J. J., Trienes, R. J. H., Hendricksen, A. H. M., Jansen, H., & Jansen, R. G.
(2000). The Observer Video-Pro: New software for the collection, management, and
presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 32, 197-206. Doi: 10.3758/BF03200802
Partington, M., & Cushion, C. J. (2012). Performance during performance: Using Goffman to
understand the behaviours of elite youth football coaches during games. Sports Coaching
Review, 1, 93-105. Doi: 10.1080/21640629.2013.790167
Partington, M., & Cushion, C. (2013). An investigation of the practice activities and coaching
behaviors of professional top‐level youth soccer coaches. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sports, 23, 374-382. Doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01383.x
Potrac, P., Jones, R., & Cushion, C. (2007). Understanding power and the coach’s role in
professional English soccer: A preliminary investigation of coach behaviour. Soccer and
Society, 8, 33-49. Doi: 10.1080/14660970600989509
Quarterman, J. (1980). An observational system for observing the verbal and nonverbal
behaviors emitted by physical educators and coaches. The Physical Educator, 37, 15-20.
Reade, I., Rodgers, W., & Spriggs, K. (2008). New ideas for high performance coaches: A
case study of knowledge transfer in sport science. International Journal of Sports Science
and Coaching, 3, 335-354.
Segrave, J. O., & Ciancio, C. A. (1990). An observational study of a successful Pop Warner
football coach. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 294-306.
Schempp, P. G., Webster, C., McCullick, B. A., Busch, C., & Mason, S. I. (2007). How the
best get better: an analysis of the self-monitoring strategies used by expert golf
instructors. Sport, Education and Society, 12, 175-192. DOI: 10.1080/
13573320701287502
Shapiro, E. S. (1987). Behavioral assessment in school psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, M., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). An investigation of the in-game behaviours of
professional, top-level youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 355-366.
Doi: 10.1080/02640410500131944
Smith, N., Tessier, D., Tzioumakis, Y., Quested, E., Appleton, P., Sarrazin, P., Papaioannou,
A., & Duda, J. L. (2015). Development and validation of the multidimensional
motivational climate observation system. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37, 4-
22. Doi: 10.1123/jsep.2014-0059
Smith, R. E., Shoda, Y., Cumming, S. P., & Smoll, F. L. (2009). Behavioral signatures at the
ballpark: Intraindividual consistency of adults’ situation–behavior patterns and their
interpersonal consequences. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 187-195. Doi:
10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.006
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1990). Self-esteem and children's reactions to youth sport
coaching behaviors: A field study of self-enhancement processes. Developmental
Psychology, 26, 987-993. Doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.987
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1997). Coach-mediated team building in youth sports. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 114-132. Doi: 10.1080/10413209708415387
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (2002). Way to Go, Coach! A Scientifically-proven Approach to
Youth Sports Coaching Effectiveness (2nd Ed.). Portola Valley, CA: Warde.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Barnett, N. P. (1995). Reduction of children's sport performance
anxiety through social support and stress-reduction training for coaches. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 125-142. Doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(95)90020-9
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive-
behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behavioral assessment of
athletic coaches. Research Quarterly, 48, 401-407.
Smith, R. E., Zane, N. W. S., Smoll, F. L., & Coppel, D. B. (1983). Behavioral assessment in
youth sports: Coaching behaviors and children`s attitudes. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 15, 208-214. Doi: 10.1249/00005768-198315030-00005
Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Barnett, N. P., & Everett, J. J. (1993). Enhancement of children's
self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(4), 602. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.602
Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Cumming, S. P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate
intervention for coaches on changes in young athletes’ achievement goal orientations.
Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 1, 23-46.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). Basketball’s John Wooden: What a coach can teach a
teacher. Psychology Today, 9, 74 -78.
Turnnidge, J., Côté, J., Hollenstein, T., & Deakin, J. (2014). A direct observation of the
dynamic content and structure of coach-athlete interactions in a model sport program.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26, 225-240. Doi: 10.1080/10413200.2013.821637
Trudel, P., Côté, J., & Bernard, D. (1996). Systematic observation of youth ice hockey
coaches during games. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 50-65.
Wilcox, S., & Trudel, P. (1998). Constructing the coaching principles and beliefs of a youth
ice hockey coach. Avante, 4, 39-66.
Wright, C., Atkins, S., & Jones, B. (2012). An analysis of elite coaches' engagement with
performance analysis services (match, notational analysis and technique analysis).
International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 12, 436-451.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Matthew Vierimaa is a PhD candidate in the Performance Lab for the Advancement of
Youth in Sport which is within the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s
University. Through the use of a wide range of quantitative and qualitative methods, his
research broadly focuses on understanding how social and contextual factors influence
youth’s performance, participation, and personal development in sport.
Jennifer Turnnidge is currently a fourth year PhD student in the School of Kinesiology
and Health Studies at Queen’s University. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods,
she is interested in exploring how coach-athlete and peer relationships can promote positive
development in sport.
Dr Michael Blair Evans is currently a Post-doctoral fellow within the Performance Lab
for the Advancement of Youth in Sport within the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies
at Queen’s University. Blair's research spans quantitative and qualitative methods and broadly
explores how social relationships within small groups and organizations shape sport
experiences, ranging from youth sport to elite competition.
Dr Jean Côté is a Professor and Director of the School of Kinesiology and Health
Studies at Queen’s University. His research focuses on the developmental and psychosocial
factors that affect sport engagement. Jean’s research program explores the complex
interaction of youth, parents and coaches within sport to identify variables and behaviors that
create favorable conditions for excellence and participation in sports.
Chapter 8
POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT IN SPORT:

ENACTING THE ROLES OF COACHES
AND PARENTS
Julie P. Johnston1,* and Chris G. Harwood2

1
Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom
2
Loughborough University, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
Coaches and parents are widely recognized as the main architects of the youth sport
experience. As such, the ways in which they structure activities, provide feedback, and
generally interact and engage with youth sport participants will impact upon the
psychosocial development of these young individuals. This chapter first provides a
theoretical rationale as to the differing but complementary roles that coaches and parents
are required to assume in order to provide an environment within which young people are
most likely to thrive. Specifically, an overview of the differing psychosocial assets that
coaches, parents, and practitioners may look to develop within their young athletes is
provided. This is followed by a presentation of the theoretical underpinnings of coach and
parent roles in developing these assets, played out through the application of the external
assets of empowerment, boundaries and expectations, and social support. The chapter
then outlines an applied analysis of how these roles may be enacted within the sporting
arena.
Keywords: Positive youth development, social support, autonomy support, coach, parent,
youth sport
*
Corresponding Author address: Email: Julie.johnston@ntu.ac.uk
134 Julie P. Johnston and Chris G. Harwood
INTRODUCTION
Sport has long been presented as the ideal arena for young people to participate in, aiding
in their physical, psychological, emotional, social, and even intellectual development (e.g.,
Fraser-Thomas, Côté & Deakin, 2005). Such development has been purported to arise from
the opportunities that sport provides for young athletes to acquire positive character traits
such as increased self-awareness, goal setting, time management, and emotion regulation
skills (Dworkin, Larson & Hansen, 2003). Other characteristics include positive peer
relationships, leadership skills, and a sense of initiative (Côté & Hay, 2002). However, there
is also evidence that negative outcomes are associated with sport, such as increased alcohol
consumption, burnout, and increased aggression via low levels of moral reasoning (Eccles &
Barber, 1999; Gould, Tuffey, Udry & Loehr, 1996; Shields & Bredemeier, 2001). Athletes
also report feelings of excessive pressure to win, a lack of attachment to their teams, and low
perceptions of abilities (Wankel & Mummery, 1990) leading to decreased self-confidence and
self-esteem (Martens, 1993; Wankel & Kreisel, 1985).
Anecdotal evidence perpetuates this bilateral view of sport participation, with the many
positive success stories of athletes’ involvement in sport often being told through the eyes of
the media in autobiographies, interviews, and even movie deals. However, all too often we
are reminded of the fragile nature of the success that our top sporting heroes experience and
the dark demons that many of them fight. Recently, swimming legend Ian Thorpe shared his
battle with what he described as “crippling depression”; and in his recent autobiography he
admitted to severe alcohol abuse between 2002 and 2004, a period of time in which he was
training to defend his Olympic titles (Thorpe & Wainwright, 2012). Although it may seem at
odds to relate a serious condition such as depression to involvement in elite level sport, it is
important to explore the full breadth of what sport might contribute to an athlete’s
psychosocial health and well-being, if we are to fully develop athletes as individuals.
Psychosocial Development in Sport
In 2014, a psychologist from the New South Wales Institute of Sport, Gerard Faure-Brac,
commented on the Thorpe case, noting that:
Although we train these athletes and give them everything [they] need to be able to do
their job in the pool, or on the track or on the field completely...we often miss out on
preparing them for those other aspects of life that they're going to need outside of the sporting
arena (as cited in Hoh, 2014).
Faure-Brac is referring to the development of athletes’ life skills, an area of research that
has received much attention in recent years. Whilst a number of different approaches have
been used to investigate life skill development, most recent research aims to bridge the gap
between theories and concepts that have been developed within sport psychology and those
developed within more traditional psychological disciplines. This approach has transferred
the concepts and theories of positive youth development from the developmental psychology
literature into the sport domain (e.g., Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Petitpas, Cornelius, Van
Raalte & Jones, 2005).
Positive Youth Development in Sport 135
This present chapter aims to first provide a brief overview of the different theories and
concepts of positive youth development to allow readers to develop a sense of the key
qualities and characteristics, known collectively as internal assets, which may be the main
psychosocial outcomes of sport participation. Following this, a theoretical overview of the
external assets of positive youth development, namely, empowerment, boundaries and
expectations, and support will then follow. These will be presented in relation to the providers
of these assets, namely the coaches and parents of youth sport participants, and in regards to
their roles within the youth sport environment. Finally, we will provide an in-depth analysis
of the application of this theory into practice by providing detailed examples of how coaches
and parents can deliver these external assets in ways that will directly enhance the
development of the internal assets. The chapter will conclude with a number of key
recommendations for applied practice.
Positive Youth Development
Positive youth development emerged in the developmental psychology literature in the

early 1990s. The concept is predicated on the idea that every young person has the potential
to develop in a healthy, positive manner and is in opposition to the predominant deficit
theories of previous years, in which youth were regarded more as “problems to be managed”
rather than “resources to be developed” (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003, p.94). This problem-
focused approach centered on the prevention of certain negative behaviors such as alcohol
and substance abuse and generally proved unsuccessful in producing long-term behavior
change in adolescents (Leffert et al., 1998). The emergence of positive youth development
therefore signaled a reversal approach, as the focus became one of promotion, rather than
prevention, and centered on promoting core elements of human development known to
enhance physical health and psychological well-being. As such, positive youth development
has been applied to develop community and youth support programs to assist in preventing
teenagers from participating in deviant behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse, crime,
and/or teenage pregnancy. However, positive youth development is not simply about
preventing these behaviors; rather, it is about working with young people to assist in the
development of positive qualities and characteristics, known collectively as internal assets.
Whilst positive youth development interventions have commonly focused on youth and
community settings, recent research has considered the advantages and possibilities that sport
can offer for positive youth development (e.g., Côté, Bruner, Erickson, Strachan, & Fraser-
Thomas, 2010; Holt, Sehn, Spence, Newton & Ball, 2012; Jones, Dunn, Holt, Sullivan &
Bloom, 2011).
Positive Youth Development in Sport
The high profile examples of Ian Thorpe, Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps, George Best,
and Lance Armstrong, all of whom experienced success at a young age, and all of whom have
revealed details of experiencing personal difficulties, would suggest that exposure to a
performance-focused sporting environment from a young age may not be conducive to
healthy psychosocial development. Although there is evidence to suggest that early
specialization in particular sports can be beneficial (Baker, Cobley & Fraser-Thomas, 2009;
Côté, 1999), many researchers suggest that such exposure may have a detrimental effect on
the positive benefits of sport participation which can be gained from a more developmental
approach (Bailey et al., 2009; Côté., 1999; Wylleman, Alfermann, & Lavallee, 2004).
Important questions include: What happens to the volume of athletes who go through sporting
systems unrecognized, having never achieved this level of success? Do these athletes leave
the sports system with disparaging notions of sport’s contribution to society? What legacy
does sport leave those individuals? How likely are they to encourage their children to become
involved in sport? What long-term consequences can be seen from such potentially negative
experiences? Individuals who commented on Thorpe’s situation have stated that his notoriety
resulted in his struggle becoming public, but that there are most likely many more athletes
who are less successful and struggle with similar issues.
Models and Frameworks of Positive Youth Development
Whilst researchers agree on the applicability and relevance of positive youth

development to sport, disparity remains regarding which specific internal assets should be the
focus of development. The research in the area has developed in such a way that there are a
number of different models, frameworks, and context-specific terms all being brought
together under the umbrella of positive youth development in sport and much discourse
remains as to what developmental outcomes are required. Indeed, many different models and
frameworks of positive youth development have been proposed over the last 20 years.
Schulman and Davies (2007) define positive youth development as “the acquisition of all
the knowledge, skills, competencies and experiences required to successfully transition from
adolescence to adulthood” (p.4), a definition which is suggestive of just how all-
encompassing the concept of positive youth development can be. However, to put it more
simply, a positive youth development approach champions the idea of psychological, social
and emotional development of young people through their experiences and interactions with
significant others in their environment.
One of the primary frameworks forwarded is the developmental assets framework
comprised of 40 developmental assets identified as either internal or external assets (Benson,
Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998; Leffert et al., 1998). Internal assets make up the categories of
commitment to learning, positive values, social competencies, and positive identity whereas
external assets are aligned to the categories of empowerment, boundaries and expectations,
social support, and constructive use of time. Internal assets are developed gradually over time
through internal processes of self-regulation. These self-regulatory responses are initiated by
the provision of the external assets by the community surrounding the young person. Lerner
and colleagues' later proposed the 5Cs of competence, confidence, connection, character, and
caring (Lerner, Fisher & Weinberg, 2000) and these two frameworks are the most commonly
referenced within the developmental literature. Nevertheless, within the developmental youth
sport literature, a number of differing models have been proposed by researchers striving to
transition these frameworks into more sport specific models. Harwood (2008) recently
employed an alternative 5Cs framework utilizing the concepts of commitment,
communication, concentration, control, and confidence and successfully integrated coaching
behaviors to develop these assets into the practice of professional youth soccer coaches.
These assets were proposed to equip players with those positive psychosocial assets that
would assist both soccer performance and personal development in an academy setting.
More recently, MacNamara, Button and Collins (2010a, 2010b) proposed their
Psychological Characteristics of Developing Excellence (PCDEs), a comprehensive list of
psychological skills and attributes including imagery, goal-setting, performance evaluation,
planning and organization, commitment, motivation, and determination which their research
had found successfully facilitated talent development and assisted in career progression. Côté
et al. (2010) presented a collapsed version of Lerner’s 5Cs, referred to as the 4Cs of coaching
expertise, as their version of the key developmental objectives of sport participation. The
constructs of competence, confidence, and connection were adopted in addition to combining
those of character and caring/compassion to form a fourth C of character/caring. Finally,
Johnston, Harwood, and Minniti (2013) presented a list of 17 assets grouped within five
higher order groups of self-perceptions, behavioral skills, social skills, approach
characteristics, and emotional competence within their sport-specific (swimming) approach;
one that is more reflective of Benson and colleagues’ (1998) work.
Whilst many different models have been proposed, each of which suggest a different but
similar combination of key attributes and skills, the underlying premise of each is the same.
Youth sport programmes, and those who organize and deliver them, should first consider the
holistic psychosocial development of the athlete and clearly state these outcomes as a part of
their aims and objectives to be achieved from participation in the program. Once these aims
and objectives have been agreed, it is then necessary to consider how best to achieve them.
Coaches and Parents As the Providers of External Assets
A key premise of positive youth development research is the focus on the provision of the
external assets of development through interactions with the significant others in the
environment. Within sport these are the coaches and parents of the participants. Indeed, the
significant roles of coaches and parents within youth sport and talent development have been
widely discussed since Bloom’s (1985) foundational study, with further sport-specific
evidence and models being developed over more recent years (e.g., Côté, 1999; Stambulova,
1994, 2000; Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004). The International Olympic Committee (IOC)
Medical Commission issued a consensus statement in 2005 regarding Training the Elite
Child-Athlete which also noted the important role of coaches and parents in ensuring the
appropriate provision of social support, and in exercising their judgement to ensure a
balanced approach to sport participation that limits athlete exposure to stress and increases the
opportunities for enjoyment. However, research suggests that, while many coaches now
acknowledge the value of psychosocial development, there remains a lack of understanding as
to how to integrate this developmental objective into their coaching style and programmes.
For example, Lacroix, Camiré, and Trudel (2008) interviewed 16 high school coaches and
found that, while coaches could generally present an ideal representation of what school
sports should be, they were often unable to provide concrete examples of activities and
methods that they employ to foster youth development. This supports the research of
McCallister, Blinde, and Weiss (2000) who found inconsistencies between youth sport
coaches’ stated philosophies and the actual implementation of these philosophies. Within
positive youth development, coaches and parents are thought to influence internal asset
development through the provision of the external assets of empowerment, boundaries and
expectations, and support.
Coaching Style: Empowerment, boundaries and expectations. The degree to which a
coach empowers an athlete is related to how much autonomy the coach provides that athlete.
The Motivational Model of the coach-athlete relationship (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003;
Vallerand, 2007) considers the factors that influence a coach’s ability to provide autonomy to
athletes. Based on self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000),
this model proposes that the coach’s personal orientation towards coaching in conjunction
with the context within which they operate and the coach’s perceptions of their athletes’
behavior will all influence the degree to which the coach behaves in an autonomy supportive
manner. Coaches who provide autonomy support are thought to do so by first creating clear
rules and boundaries within which they operate, and ensuring that the athletes understand the
rationale for the creation of these rules and the tasks they are being asked to do. Autonomy-
supportive coaches also acknowledge the feelings and perspectives of their athletes, provide
non-controlling competence feedback and generally avoid controlling behaviors such as
criticism, controlling statements and tangible rewards for interesting tasks.
Research investigating how coaches develop internal assets in their athletes has pointed
to the use of a range of techniques. For example, Gould, Collins, Lauer, and Chung (2007)
conducted telephone interviews with 10 highly experienced high school football coaches to
ascertain how they developed life skills in their players. Results revealed that the
development of positive relationships through good communication, in addition to respecting
athletes as young adults, were key factors for developing both performance and life skills.
Coaches were also aware of the effect of providing a good role model through their own
behaviors and being consistent in their coaching behaviors. Furthermore, Camiré, Forneris,
Trudel, and Bernard (2011) published a review paper of their most recent studies in order to
summarize some of the strategies that youth sport coaches used to facilitate positive youth
development through sport. Strategies included: 1) developing a well-considered coaching
philosophy and presenting it to parents and athletes to ensure everyone knew the approach
that the coach was going to take that year; 2) developing meaningful relationships with their
athletes via social events, regular individual meetings and athlete sport journals; 3) intentional
planning of developmental strategies into coaching activities; 4) providing opportunities to
practice life skills in sport; and 5) teaching athletes how to transfer skills into different
domains through the use of structured guidance and examples. Strachan, Côté and Deakin
(2011) also interviewed five elite sport coaches and concluded that three key elements were
necessary for positive youth development to occur within elite sport. The first was the
presence of an appropriate training environment. This was defined as a context in which
athletes were safely engaging in high levels of deliberate practice with low levels of
deliberate play and in which basic skills and proper progressions were taught under proper
supervision. The second element was the provision of opportunities to develop physical,
personal, and social skills whilst the third element was the presence of supportive interactions
provided by the coaches, parents, and peers. Strachan et al. concluded that it is the presence of
these supportive interactions that provide the increased opportunity for the development of a
number of differing internal assets.
Parenting Style: Empowerment, and boundaries and expectations. In a similar manner as
to coaches, the degree to which a parent is able to empower their child is related to the level
of autonomy they feel able to provide to the child. A parent’s ability to provide autonomy will
be related to their parenting style which influences the way in which they choose to interact
with their child/ren and administer care, attention, and discipline. There has been much
discourse over the key dimensions of parenting style but three core themes are generally
accepted to exist; namely, warmth, structure, and autonomy support (Skinner, Johnson, &
Snyder, 2005). Warmth has been defined as “the single most important and ubiquitous
dimension of care-giving…often labelled acceptance, warmth refers to the expression of
affection, love, appreciation, kindness, and regard” (Skinner et al., 2005, p.185). Warmth is
thought to be closely linked to the concept of involvement, which concerns the level to which
a parent displays interest, knowledge, and active participation in the child’s life, and is
thought to reflect the level of parental dedication to the child (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989).
Structure involves parents setting clear and consistent guidelines for children to operate
within and being clear about their expectations and any rules they wish to impose. By
providing clear boundaries in this way, children are free to make their own decisions within
these limits and so are encouraged to act in self-determined ways (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989).
Autonomy support involves parents giving their child/ren the opportunities to express
themselves freely, and encouraging their child/ren to develop, accept, value, and assert their
own genuine preferences and opinions. Therefore, parents who provide high levels of
autonomy supportive behavior and a high degree of involvement will provide high levels of
empowerment alongside providing clear boundaries and expectations. Parents who interact
with their child/ren in these ways are more likely to, “value and use techniques which
encourage independent problem solving, choice, and participation in decisions” (Grolnick &
Ryan, 1989, p.144).
In a recent position paper on parenting expertise in sport, Harwood and Knight (2015)
note the importance of the parenting style which has commonly been referred to within the
literature as either an autonomy supportive or authoritative style. Juntumaa, Keskivaara, and
Punamäki (2005) successfully tested a model linking an authoritative parenting style with
high levels of mastery orientation and low levels of deviant behaviors such as rule breaking
and non-task related behavior. These results were discussed in relation to the positive effects
of an authoritative parenting style incorporating elements of warmth, support, and
involvement on the development of adaptive achievement strategies which allowed the
players to develop strategies of self-reliance and adaptive attribution. In a qualitative study
designed to examine the complexities of this issue, Holt, Tamminen, Black, Mandigo, and
Fox (2009) found that just over half the sample (32 parents from 18 families) reported
examples of an autonomy-supportive style, characterized with high levels of involvement and
appropriate structure provided in the form of rules and boundaries within which the child was
allowed and encouraged to make their own decisions. Conversely, just under a third of
participants (13 parents from seven families) were classified as displaying a controlling
parenting style, represented by high levels of involvement with low levels of autonomy
support. These parents enforced such things as extra practice drills at home, prevented
children from going out to socialize and removed the bedroom door as a punishment for
disobeying rules. A key distinction between these two groups of parents was the presence of
control within behaviors exhibited by the controlling group as opposed to structure displayed
by the autonomy supportive group. The study also found that, in a similar manner to the
coaches, parents were able to relax boundaries and provide greater autonomy support once the
child demonstrated an element of maturity and personal responsibility for their actions. More
recently, Sapieja, Dunn, and Holt (2011) examined the relationship between perceptions of
parenting style and perfectionistic orientations in adolescent male soccer players. Results
revealed links between perceptions of an authoritative parenting style and more adaptive
perfectionistic profiles.
Parenting styles characterized by high levels of autonomy support, structure, and warmth
are thought to be the most conducive to healthy psychosocial development, with the element
of warmth providing the support asset. As previously mentioned, the importance of
supportive interactions has been widely maintained throughout the literature (e.g., Camiré,
Trudel, & Forneris, 2009; Gould, Carson, & Blanton, 2013; Strachan et al., 2011). This
supportive element can be more formally defined as social support, a multidimensional
construct that is considered one of the most important in health psychology (Holt & Hoar,
2006).
Social Support. Social support helps the maintenance of a positive outlook by offsetting
negative thoughts, feelings, and events. It is a three-dimensional construct consisting of: 1) a
structural dimension; 2) a functional dimension and; 3) a perceptual dimension.
1) The structural dimension. The structural dimension of social support refers to actual
social support networks that are available to an individual. In the context of this chapter, these
networks consist of coaches and parents and would fall under the title of significant other
networks, which generally consist of approximately five individuals with whom the support
recipient is intimate. However, it is important to note that the availability of a support
network does not guarantee a supportive exchange as the simple presence of an individual
does not mean that social support will be made available, as highlighted by Holt and Dunn
(2004).
2) The functional dimension. The functional dimension refers to actual support that is
received via support networks and social interactions. Cutrona and Russell (1990) proposed
five basic resources that are received while research within sport has found support for the
existence of four forms of support in this domain (Rees & Hardy, 2000). The first,
informational support, involves the provision of advice or guidance, often involving technical
and operational comments. The second, esteem support, occurs when a coach, parent or peer
tries to increase an athlete’s self-confidence and self-esteem through supportive statements
while the third form, emotional support, refers more to the provision of comfort and security
resulting in the individual feeling loved and cared for. The fourth form of support, tangible
support, is support that can be more easily seen such as financial support and the travel and
transport services to and from training and competition that are fundamental to the successful
participation of the athlete (Rees, 2007).
3) The perceptual dimension. Finally, the perceptual dimension of social support refers to
an appraisal of the amount and quality of support available. Perceived available support also
exists within the four forms of informational, esteem, emotional and, tangible but is further
segregated into general and interpersonal dimensions. Within the current chapter, the
interpersonal dimension is of most relevance as this involves perceptions that are specific to
individual relationships with particular people such as coaches and parents. Perceived support
is more consistently related to positive health outcomes than actual received support and, in
sport, has been associated with beneficial effects on self-confidence (Rees & Freeman, 2007),
and sport performance (Freeman & Rees, 2009).
The role of the coach in providing social support. Research has established that coaches
begin to play a more prominent developmental role once athletes reach Côté’s (1999)
specializing years (described by Wylleman & Lavallee (2004) as the developmental phase),
typically from around the age of 12 years. At this age, athletes are thought to become more
responsive to expert information that will enhance their competence and they typically begin
to recognize the coach as the expert in this area (Horn & Weiss, 1991). A more reciprocal
relationship develops between the coach and athlete with the coach providing the
informational support that was earlier provided by the parents (Côté, Strachan, & Fraser-
Thomas, 2008). Prior to this, during the sampling (initiation) years, the coach’s role is
thought to be more one of support and encouragement. Coach influence is believed to
continue into the mastery stage, ensuring that coaches are often the most influential person in
terms of the development of the elite athlete. Early research has concluded that the coach
occupies a central position in asset development within the sporting environment with their
values and philosophies towards sport directly impacting the young athlete’s sporting
experiences (Petlichkoff, 1993; Steelman, 1995). A coach’s role in asset development is to
use both direct and indirect strategies to provide opportunities through which the athlete can
develop the asset (e.g., a goal setting exercise), to positively interact with the athlete acting as
a positive role model, and to provide support, feedback, expectations, and boundaries (Gould
et al., 2013).
The role of the parent in providing social support. Parental roles also change as the
athlete grows and matures and develops more supportive relationships with others in their
environment, such as the coach and their peers (Camiré et al., 2009). Congruent with Bloom
(1985) and Côté (1999), and in support of Greendorfer and Lewko’s (1978) views on the
early sport socialization of children by their parents, Wylleman and Lavallee (2004) assert
that parents have the most influential roles during the initiation stage from six to 13 years.
During this phase, the young athlete is heavily reliant on parents for informational and
emotional support as the primary caregivers. In the development stage, the influence of
parents, particularly with respect to competence-related information (Horn & Weiss, 1991), is
believed to lessen compared with the value that children ascribe to this information in the
initiation stage. During the development stage, adolescents are cognitively able to compare
themselves to peers more accurately and are more responsive to expert information that will
enhance their competence. Therefore, coaches and peers are believed to have a more
prominent influence on the athlete during this stage. In the mastery stage, the coach and
potential partners (spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend) are believed to carry the greatest valence or
influence over the elite athlete with respect to their athletic career. As a function of this, the
role of the parent changes to facilitate this growing independence, yet they are still required to
provide tangible support in the form of financial support, along with emotional support to
protect their child from the ups and downs of athletic life (Bloom, 1985).
Strategies for integrating the theory into practice. For all readers, an understanding of
the theoretical implications is important, yet, for many of the coaches, parents, and
practitioners in sport reading this chapter the bigger question now may be, what does this
mean for me? How can I integrate this knowledge into my coaching and parenting practices?
What do I need to do to develop particular outcomes in my athletes? The remainder of this
chapter will focus on attempting to answer these questions.
Step One. The first step in this process is to determine what psychosocial outcomes you
wish to achieve. The first section of this chapter provided an overview of the different models
and frameworks that you might wish to consider. For the purpose of this chapter and to
provide a comprehensive insight into how some of the more specific assets might be
developed we will adopt the assets proposed by Johnston et al. (2013). An abbreviated
version of the framework can be seen in Table 1.
Step Two. Boundaries and expectations must be set first in order to provide the coach
with confidence in following the remaining steps. This entails coaches setting clear and
consistent guidelines for athletes to operate within, in addition to being clear about what is
expected of them in this environment, and any rules that you may wish to impose. These are
things that you will not compromise on, the definite “do’s” and “don’ts” of the sporting
environment you are building. Examples may include: 1) the formulation of a team/club code
of conduct that athletes have to agree to adhere to; 2) a team dress code for travel and for
attendance at competitions; 3) compulsory training sessions and/or competitions that athletes
must attend; and 4) a cut-off time for entry to the training session if the athlete is running late,
e.g., no admittance once the warm-up is finished. Coaches may also then set out some group
training and competition goals related to technical proficiency and standards. These may be
more flexible in terms of individual athlete’s ability to meet those goals but should be set to
encourage athletes to strive for those minimum technical standards. These boundaries and
expectations should be clearly communicated by the coach to both athletes and their parents
at the beginning of each season. It may also be appropriate to place reminders on the club
website or social media page, on posters around the training site, and reflect on them within
monthly blogs or newsletters. These activities will help engrain these boundaries into the
ethos of the club.
Whilst the setting of clear and consistent boundaries and expectations is considered
important for the creation of an autonomy-supportive coaching style, it is believed that
regular and consistent reminders of the importance of adhering to them will also result in
athletes developing higher levels of character and discipline, two of the specific assets
targeted for development. Parents who also take responsibility to help the athlete adhere to
these guidelines by, for example, getting the athlete to training on time, will also reinforce the
development of these assets by role modelling the appropriate behaviors to ensure compliance
with the coaches’ rules.
Step Three. Once the boundaries and expectations are in place, athletes should be given
some flexibility in other areas of their sporting experience by coaches employing an
autonomy supportive style. Three key ways in which coaches can enhance the feeling of
empowerment within an athlete include: 1) encouraging the athlete to reflect on their training
and competitive experiences and to evaluate where they can make improvements; 2)
encouraging athletes to feed this information back to the coach; and 3) providing athletes with
the opportunity to have input into their training and competition structure. Encouraging
athletes to engage with their coach in these ways will encourage the development of many of
the chosen psychosocial assets.
Reflection and evaluation. Coaches who encourage and give their athletes time to reflect
on their training and competitive experiences will help athletes to develop their skills in self-
appraisal, and emotional self-regulation. Younger athletes may require help and some
pointers as to what sorts of things they should reflect on and the most appropriate approach to
take but a five point guide such as thinking about: 1) what went well and how that felt; 2)
what could be improved; 3) have I improved since the last time I did it; 4) how do I feel about
the performance; and 5) goals to set moving forwards, should help focus the athlete’s
attention and ensure they reflect positively on their experiences. Once again, parents should
be made aware of this evaluative process and encouraged to support the athlete through the
process and to resist the temptation to deviate too far from this when providing their own
feedback to the athlete. This reflection and evaluative process provides opportunities for
athletes to boost their levels of perceived sport competence through the focus on positive
experiences while the focus on areas for improvement are likely to assist in motivating the
athlete by providing some clear, athlete-driven goals to work on in training and competition
and allows the athlete to then consider some goals that they should set to ensure progress in
their next competition or training session. It is therefore important for coaches and/or parents
not to rush in too quickly with their feedback, instead allowing the athlete time to self-reflect
and to feed that reflection back to the coach.
Table 1. Potential psychosocial assets for coaches to develop

(Johnston et al., 2013)
Grouping Asset
SELF PERCEPTIONS
Perceived Sport Competence
Self-Esteem
Clear and Positive Identity
BEHAVIORAL SKILLS
Organization
Discipline
Self-Appraisal
SOCIAL SKILLS
Communication
Conflict Resolution
Cooperation
Leadership
APPROACH CHARACTERISTICS
Character
Positive attitude
Motivation
Resilience
EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE
Empathy
Emotional self-regulation
Connection
Feedback. By providing athletes the time and opportunity to feedback their training and
competition reflections, coaches are allowing athletes to develop many of the psychosocial
outcomes. Self-esteem is liable to be boosted as athletes feel their thoughts and input is
valued and considered in the overall decision making process while athletes are also able to
develop their communication skills by attempting to translate their feelings towards their
performance into meaningful words in a concise, non-critical manner. Leadership skills may
be enhanced if they take on the responsibility of feeding a group or team consensus back to
the coach while a cooperative element is engaged through the simple to and fro of
conversation between coach and athlete. Coaches who demonstrate placing value on athlete
feedback will also enhance feelings of connection as the athlete will feel that they have
developed a meaningful relationship with their coach as an individual who understands and
listens to them. Coaches can provide athletes with the opportunity to provide feedback
through direct individual and group contact before and after training and competitions,
through the provision of a paper or online log book with provision for athletes to provide
feedback, or even via text messages and emails for the older athletes. One-on-one coach-
athlete meetings should also be scheduled for regular intervals throughout the year. Providing
athletes with a variety of ways to provide feedback should encourage those with lower levels
of social confidence and communication skills to ‘give it a go’, and ongoing encouragement
and positive reactions to such feedback should allow these individuals to develop these skills
further. Parents should also provide athletes with the opportunities to feedback on their
sporting experiences to them and help them to feel they can be open and honest by providing
time at home during which everyone discusses their day in such a way. Family dinners, if
work and sport commitments allow, are the ideal opportunity for this but other times should
be designated if this does not fit into family life. Coaches and parents should both model
effective listening skills as well as openness and honesty.
Input. Encouraging athletes to first reflect and then feedback these reflections can result
in the athlete feeling that they have had the opportunity to have input into their training.
Individual meetings or consultations with the athlete regarding the goals they want to achieve
and therefore the competitions they might look to enter or try to compete in will allow the
athlete input into their competition structure. This will further enhance an athlete’s levels of
motivation while helping them develop a positive attitude to training and competition.
Encouraging athletes to set and take ownership of their own goals will then encourage the
development of good organizational skills and high levels of discipline by helping them
understand the process of success and what they need to do in order to be successful. If
athletes begin this process from a young age with age appropriate opportunities to input then
their reflections and evaluations can become more skilled and specific as they mature through
adolescence. In this way, their input will become more refined and athletes will feel more
confident about the quality of such input in regards to particular training and competition
situations. Parents can assist this by talking to their athletes about their goals for the year and
understanding how that might impact on family life. Parents may need to consider when
holidays can be taken, what support the athlete will require to get to and from training and
competition, and how to resolve conflicts that may arise with such things as important family
occasions or school exams. As the athlete matures, they will be expected to take more
responsibility for these considerations themselves but younger athletes will most likely
require parents to raise awareness of such issues in the first instance. Encouraging athletes to
think about these things and to assist them in overcoming any hurdles will help the athletes
thrive in the development of all aforementioned assets. Athletes’ levels of resilience will also
improve by providing action plans and strategies to assist with overcoming obstacles and so,
once again, modelling the skills that athletes need to display in order to become resilient.
Step Four: Social Support. Supportive interactions from significant others have been
purported as a significant element in assisting with the goal of the development of internal
assets within a positive youth development approach. The main focus of research within the
sport domain has centered on the coach as the main external asset. However, parental
interactions are considered integral to development and success within sport (e.g., Bloom,
1985; Côté, 1999; Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004).
Informational support. This form of support is optimal when it mainly comes from the
coach as opposed to the parent; this involves such things as providing input and insight into
athlete goal setting for the year, providing athletes with a competition structure for the year,
and ensuring athletes know what sessions they are due to attend each week and when they
are. Providing this information to the athlete, as well as or instead of the parent, encourages a
greater degree of personal responsibility in the athlete and encourages the development of
their organizational skills as it allows them to consider what is required of them in the coming
weeks and months, and to organize school and social commitments around that. Athletes who
are involved in these decisions and who then independently decide on their priorities and how
to manage their conflicts are more likely to exercise high levels of discipline due to being
more self-driven and autonomous in their sporting careers. Technical feedback related to
athletic performance both in training and competition also constitutes informational support,
and the provision of this level of feedback allows athletes to learn effective self-appraisal
skills. Coaches are encouraged to focus on developing an environment in which the effort,
hard work, and skill development are emphasized and rewarded as research has consistently
demonstrated the positive effects of this task-oriented environment in which the process is
valued over the outcome (Harwood, Keegan, Smith & Raine, 2015). Feedback should
therefore be focused on areas of technical and tactical skill development, and coaches should
provide athletes with areas for improvement in addition to reminding them of areas of their
performances that they are executing well. These instances of positive feedback are important
to boost levels of perceived sport competence whilst motivation levels will be boosted via the
emphasis on process focused goals that can be achieved over time through hard work. Having
this positive focus will then encourage athletes to adopt a more positive attitude to their
training and competition.
Coaches are also recommended to consider the use of video feedback to provide an
objective measure of performance that the athlete can use to guide their own self-reflection in
addition to looking for evidence of the positives and areas of improvements that the coach is
referring to. Whilst parents are discouraged from providing the sport specific aspects of
informational support, younger athletes may benefit from parents helping in the decision
making around academic and social conflicts, and the necessary prioritization that needs to
occur. Parents may be encouraged to act as more of an objective observer with a vested
interest in the athlete making time for all commitments and so help the athlete see the pros
and cons of prioritizing one area over another and supporting them in their final decisions.
Added to this, parents may need to add information regarding family scheduling dilemmas
such as parental work commitments and sibling interests that may impact on the athlete’s
ability to commit in the way suggested by the coach. There may also be occasions when the
athlete simply cannot attend a particular training session or competition, and it will be
necessary to inform the coach of this, once again enhancing communication and cooperation
skills. These scheduling and prioritization issues test the athlete’s problem-solving and
conflict resolution skills. Parents are best to understand the stance that the coach is taking in
regards to the content and type of feedback provided to the athlete; they may endeavor to
support the coach in this stance in the way they interact with their child-athlete. Parents who
do not support the coach or do not understand the coach’s intentions should speak directly to
the coach regarding these concerns and not involve the child in any parent-coach conflicts.
Parents and coaches are most effective when they present as a united team behind the athlete
with the shared goal of helping the athlete to be the best that they can be.
Esteem support. Both coaches and parents need to provide high levels of esteem support
in order to maintain an athlete’s levels of perceived sport competence and self-esteem in
particular. As mentioned previously, taking the time to remind athletes of their strengths as
well as the areas that they need to work on will boost their perceived sport competence
through coaching dependent efficacy and positive reinforcement. Coaches should be aware of
their own body language and facial expressions to ensure that it is reflective of the feedback
that they are giving and be mindful of the language that they use when discussing effort and
intensity expected during training and competitions. Coaches are more effective using
positive language such as ‘fast’ or ‘strong’ as opposed to ‘hard’ or ‘heavy’ when describing a
high intensity workout and refer to ‘areas of improvement’ as opposed to ‘weaknesses’ when
discussing technical and tactical skill development. Once again, athletes should be
encouraged to reflect upon the session and/or the competitive experience, and be encouraged
and given time to talk through their reflections with their coach. Verbalizing the reflections
further develops communication and self-appraisal skills while simultaneously providing the
coach with the opportunity to hear the athlete’s perception of themselves and an example of
the type of internal dialogue the athlete maintains. Coaches are recommended to listen for any
overtly negative performance appraisals and attempt to reframe these in a more positive
manner, providing athletes with a more positive frame of reference. Draw out the things they
did well, the improvements that have been made and the things that will be worked on in
upcoming sessions and use video analysis to provide ‘real-world’ evidence of good
performance. This all constitutes esteem support and allows the athlete to feel motivated and
resilient. For athletes with whom it is difficult to draw many positive conclusions, focus on
providing empathy as to how frustrated they must be upon finding themselves in a period of
injury or underperformance. Draw upon their contribution to the overall team and maintain a
positive focus on future outcomes through developing a clear action plan for the coming
weeks and months. Modelling an empathic approach and highlighting the athlete’s
contribution to the wider sporting environment will help them understand the importance of
empathy, and how it can be displayed, in addition to developing a greater sense of connection
and contributing to greater levels of self-esteem. Encouraging these athletes to act as squad
leaders and mentors to younger or more inexperienced athletes will also enhance these assets
by providing them with a sense of direction and purpose away from a direct focus on the sport
(Hellison, 2003).
Parents are often best placed to provide esteem support focused on developing an
athlete’s overall global self-worth and thereby enhance levels of self-esteem as they are able
to draw from other areas of the athlete’s life such as academic, social, family, and other
personal areas of achievement that coaches may not be as informed about. Parents may seek
to ensure that their children have a variety of competence sources and work to maintain a
degree of perspective. Whilst sporting ambitions are important, athletes may need to be
reminded that they have many other positive aspects that they can focus on when their sport
becomes stressful or challenging. As previously mentioned, some athletes may struggle to
manage their time well and to understand how to prioritize social, academic, and other
commitments in conjunction with their sporting commitments, and parents are well placed to
help their child understand that such decisions are made based on an assessment of the
urgency of the task and the level of importance placed upon it. Encouraging engagement in
other activities away from the sport will assist the athlete in the formation of a clear and
positive identity, allowing them to understand what other opportunities exist for them, and
ensuring that the decision to focus on their chosen sport is what is important and meaningful
to them, and that sport is a clear part of who and what they want to be.
Emotional support. Athletes need to feel that they are valued and cared for by those close
to them to allow them to feel comfortable and secure in their environment. While the
provision of emotional support may appear to be more a part of a parent’s role, it is also
important for the coach to be a source of this support for athletes. Coaches are best served by
informing athletes how they can go about speaking to them in confidence about important
matters. It is important that coaches understand and know what is going on in an athlete’s
personal life outside of sport as this is liable to impact upon the athlete’s performance within
the sporting environment.
Providing athletes with information regarding where and when coaches will be available
to meet with them each week should they need to talk to them indicates that coaches are
encouraging their athletes to share important information and ensures that they know how to
do that should they ever need to. In addition, regular one-to-one and team meetings should
also be held with athletes as these will assist in developing close relationships with athletes.
Such meetings allow the coach to provide the athlete with information such as compulsory
training sessions, planned competitions, and individual goals while also providing the athlete
with the opportunity to express their own intentions for the coming weeks and months and to
inform the coach of any new or ongoing issues that may impact on their agreed goals. These
meetings serve to develop the coach-athlete relationship, and help both parties to better
connect through agreed and shared goals formed through cooperation and communication.
They help the athlete feel cared for and valued as it is time devoted by the coach specifically
to each athlete, and provide the coach with greater insight into the goals, intentions, and self-
perceptions of the athlete. During these meetings, coaches should be aware of modelling good
communication skills by both providing feedback to the athlete on current performances but
also by providing the athlete with the opportunity to talk and by taking time to listen to what
the athlete has to say (Harwood, 2008). Using open-ended questions beginning with phrases
such as, “how do you feel about…?”; “why might you benefit from…?”; “tell me more
about…”; and “could you help me understand…” will encourage athletes to speak openly and
freely. Coaches should then summarize what the athlete has said to ensure a correct
understanding of the point being made and to demonstrate that the athlete was listened to
before responding. Coaches would do well to understand that these meetings are for the
athlete’s benefit often more than for their own and should therefore ensure the athlete feels
they have had an opportunity to talk and to share their thoughts on both performance related
and personal issues. It is therefore important that coaches show empathy, concern,
compassion, and warmth in their interactions with athletes, and are once again aware of their
body language and facial expressions to encourage openness and appear approachable.
Coaches should be mindful that some athletes may just need the opportunity to talk and
for someone to listen and may not need solutions, while other athletes may benefit from a
coach working with them and helping them to find their own solutions. When coaches work
with an athlete and guide them to find their own solution, they are helping to develop such
assets as conflict resolution, cooperation, organization, and discipline. This approach will also
help to develop resilience in an athlete by giving them the opportunity to develop and use the
aforementioned assets, so providing them with the necessary qualities and characteristics to
overcome the same or similar obstacles in the future.
Coaches should also look to create an environment in which the athletes are encouraged
to support themselves and each other by encouraging and providing opportunities for athletes
to support each other. Introducing team captains and a peer mentoring system encourages
athletes to support each other while organizing social events away from the direct sporting
environment allows the athletes to bond with each other away from the sporting environment.
Including the wider family circle of parents and siblings for such events creates a club
environment where everyone feels valued and cared for and helps to create a more supportive
environment overall. While it is important for the coach to provide support in this way,
parents are often considered to be the more natural providers of emotional support.
Parents can provide emotional support by providing the athlete with a home environment
that feels safe and secure and distinct from the pressures of the sporting environment.
Athletes need to feel that their parents’ love and support is unconditional, and not contingent
upon their performances on the sports field. Many parents may believe that this is a given but
the ways in which parents interact with and discuss their children’s sporting experiences can
leave the athlete feeling that mum and dad are only supportive when they are successful.
Parents are strongly encouraged to remember that race or game evaluation and feedback is
best left to the coach, however, post-race or game discussions are often a normal part of
sporting family interactions; nevertheless, these should be more of an opportunity for the
athlete to self-reflect and evaluate as opposed to the parent jumping in with their reflections.
Parents should try to keep comments general and supportive and refrain from too much of a
personal debrief. If the athlete asks for a personal opinion, it may be best to first ask what the
coach said, and to consider how to provide a balanced opinion that does not contradict coach
feedback. The car journey home and the meal after the game or competition are both
important opportunities where parents can demonstrate support and understanding. Wait for a
cue from the athlete before discussing the performance, and encourage the athlete to provide
their own feedback to enhance their self-appraisal skills. Parents should focus on providing
supportive statements that emphasis a high level of effort and skill development over and
above social comparison and a focus on the outcome to enhance intrinsic motivation and
boost levels of perceived sport competence and self-esteem.
Tangible Support. This form of support is possibly the most obvious and is considered to
be provided predominantly by parents who pay for the coaching, facility hire and equipment,
and provide the transport to and from training and competition. This form of support is
important and should not be underestimated. While parents provide the majority of tangible
support, coaches also provide tangible support in the form of planning the competition
calendar for the club and organizing associated travel, accommodation, and costs. Other
examples of tangible support may include providing catch-up training sessions for athletes
during exam periods in school where they may have been unable to attend their regular
sessions or filling in competition entries. Whilst tangible support involves doing things for the
athlete, there are still opportunities to encourage asset development here. For example, if
parents begin to struggle with providing this form of support, athletes may be encouraged to
look for alternative options such as car-sharing with other athletes and organizing club fund
raising events to enhance leadership and organization skills. Coaches meanwhile can also
encourage the development of these assets by asking older athletes to collect athlete
availability and accommodation forms, for example, and by asking for athlete representatives
on club committees to assist with the organization of away competitions and social events.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the aim of this chapter was to first provide the theoretical underpinning of
coach and parent roles in providing a youth sport environment within which participants are
most likely to thrive. This was achieved by discussing the differing qualities and
characteristics that researchers have proposed to be the main psychosocial indicators of
success and thriving. Coach and parenting styles were discussed in regards to the levels of
autonomy and social support provided within specific styles and the ways in which these
behaviors may impact upon psychosocial development were considered. The second half of
the chapter aimed to provide the coach, parent, and practitioner with recommendations for
application, considering the theoretical implications within the world of youth sport to enable
them to understand how everyday behaviors can impact both positively and negatively on
psychosocial development.
This chapter clearly laid out the need for coaches to have a clear idea of what
psychosocial developmental outcomes they want to work to achieve in their young athletes.
Once this decision has been made, it is then about setting clear boundaries and expectations
and communicating these to their athletes, parents, and support staff. Coaches and parents are
most effective when they work together as a support network around their athletes, forming a
team that can work together to create success. Coaches and parents need to be aware of their
daily interactions with their young athletes, and understand that these interactions and
exchanges directly influence their psychosocial development. The way in which the coach
structures the sessions and provides feedback to athletes influences the way an athlete will
reflect upon and evaluate their performances, and parents promote similar responses. By
understanding more about the different types of support that can be provided to an athlete,
and how to provide this support whilst at the same time promoting autonomy, volition, and
choice is integral to achieving the overall objective of personal responsibility, resilience, and
overall asset development. Sporting parents traditionally receive bad press yet they are
fundamental to the success of youth sport, providing high levels of financial and logistical
support to pay for and facilitate high levels of athlete development. Coaches need to work to
forge positive relationships with the parents and to get them on-board with their philosophies
and goals to create a united front with a shared objective of increasing athlete personal
responsibility and decreasing athlete dependency on the coach or parent. At the same time,
parents need to listen to and support the coach by reinforcing their key messages and
directing athlete attention away from the result on the day and to the more central assessment
of skills, drills and processes. Parents should encourage the promotion of hard work and
mastery of skills, and remove the expectation of personal best times or scoring goals/points
each week. Coaches often become more influential in an athlete’s overall development as
they grow and mature (Côté, 1999; Côté et al., 2008; Wyllemann & Lavallee, 2004) while the
parental role decreases yet both coaches and parents play essential roles throughout an
athletes’ career in assisting the athlete in becoming the best that they can be. When coaches
and parents adopt the values associated with positive youth development and work together to
incorporate the holistic development of the athlete by encouraging the development of key
psychosocial attributes, they enhance the youth sport experience. Athletes who participate in
such an environment are considered more likely to thrive in both their sport and personal
development, are considered to experience higher levels of enjoyment and lower levels of
dropout, and are therefore more likely to experience success both within and outside of the
sport.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPLIED PRACTICE

 Determine what psychosocial outcomes you wish to achieve.
 Set clear boundaries and expectations and communicate these to your athletes and
their parents.
 Provide athletes with greater levels of autonomy by encouraging self-reflection and
evaluation, athlete feedback, and athlete input into training and competition structure
and content.
 Work in conjunction with parents to form an environment in which athletes feel
supported and cared for but which promotes personal responsibility and resilience
through the development of key psychosocial assets.
 Consider your personal coaching style and interactions with parents and athletes in
addition to how the training environment is structured and how tasks are set to
achieve these objectives.
REFERENCES
Bailey, R., Collins, D., Ford, P., MacNamara, A., Toms, M., & Pearce, G. (2009). Participant
development in sport: An academic review. London: Sportscoach UK.
Baker., J., Cobley, S., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2009). What do we know about early sport
specialisation? Not much! High Ability Studies, 20, 77-89. DOI:
10.1080/1359813090286050.
Benson, P.L., Leffert, N., Scales, P.C., & Blyth, D.A. (1998). Beyond the “village” rhetoric:
Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental
Science, 2, 138-159.
Bloom, B.S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.
Camiré, M., Forneris, T., Trudel, P., & Bernard, D. (2011). Strategies for helping coaches
facilitate positive youth development through sport. Journal of Sport Psychology in
Action, 2, 92-99.
Camiré, M., Trudel, P., & Forneris, T. (2009). Parents’ perspectives on the practice of high
school sport in a Canadian context. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 1, 239-
257. DOI: 10.1080/19398440903192324.
Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The Sport
Psychologist, 13, 395–417.
Côté, J., Bruner, M., Erickson, K., Strachan, L., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2010). Athlete
development and coaching. In Lyle, J., & Cushion, C. (Eds.), Sport coaching:
Professionalism and practice. Oxford: Elsevier.
Côté, J., & Hay, J. (2002). Children’s involvement in sport: A developmental perspective. In
J. M. Silva & D. E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 484-502).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Côté, J., Strachan, L., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2008). Participation, personal development and
performance through youth sport. In N.L. Holt (Ed.). Positive youth development through
sport (pp. 34-45). New York: Routledge.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a
theory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds). Social
support: An interactional view (pp. 319-366). New York: Wiley.
Dworkin, J. B., Larson, R., & Hansen, D. (2003). Adolescents’ accounts of growth
experiences in youth activities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 17-26.
Eccles, J., & Barber, B. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball or marching band:
What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14,
10-34.
Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster
positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 19-40. DOI:
10.1080=1740898042000334890.
Freeman, P., & Rees, T. (2009). How does perceived support lead to better performance? An
examination of potential mechanisms. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 429–441.
Gould, D., Carson, S., & Blanton, J. (2013). Coaching life skills. In Protrac, P., Gilbert, W.,
& Denison, J. (Eds.). Routledge handbook of sports coaching. (pp.259-270). London:
Routledge.
Gould, D., Collins, K., Lauer, L., & Chung, Y. (2007). Coaching life skills through football:
A study of award winning high school coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19,
16-37. DOI: 10.1080/10413200601113786.
Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Udry, E., & Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis
players: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322-340.
Greendorfer, S.L., & Lewko, J.H. (1978). Role of family members in sport socialization of
children. Research Quarterly, 49, 146-152.
Grolnick, W.S., & Ryan, R.M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation
and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
Harwood, C. (2008). Developmental consulting in a professional football academy: The 5Cs
coaching efficacy program. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 109-133.
Harwood, C.G., Keegan, R.J., Smith, J.M.J., & Raine, A.S. (2015). A systematic review of
the intrapersonal correlates of motivational climate perceptions in sport and physical
activity, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 18, 9-25. DOI: 10.1016/
j.psychsport.2014.11.005.
Harwood, C.G., & Knight, C.J. (2015). Parenting in youth sport: A position paper on
parenting expertise, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 24-35. DOI:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.03.001.
Hellison, D. (2003). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Hoh, A. (2014, January 31). Ian Thorpe one of many elite athletes struggling with life as a
mere mortal. The Age. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/sport/swimming/
ian-thorpe-one-of-many-elite-athletes-struggling-with-life-as-a-mere-mortal-20140131-
31rdj.html.
Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2004). Toward a grounded theory of the psychosocial
competencies and environmental conditions associated with soccer success. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 199-219. DOI: 10.1080/10413200490437949.
Holt, N.L., & Hoar, S.D. (2006). The multidimensional construct of social support. In S.
Hanton, & S.D. Mellalieu (Eds.) Literature reviews in sport psychology. (pp.199-225).
New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Holt, N.L., Tamminen, K.A., Black, D.E., Mandigo, J.L., & Fox, K.R. (2009). Youth sport
parenting styles and practices. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 37-59.
Holt, N. L., Sehn, Z. L., Spence, J. C., Newton, A. S., & Ball, G. D. C. (2012). Physical
education and sport programs at an inner city school: exploring possibilities for positive
youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17, 97-113. DOI:
10.1080/17408989.2010.548062.
Horn, T. S., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). A developmental analysis of children's self-ability
judgements in the physical domain. Pediatric Exercise Science, 3, 310-326.
International Olympic Committee. (2005). IOC consensus statement on training the elite
child athlete. Retrieved March 13, 2014 from http://www.olympic.org/Documents/
Reports/EN/en_report_1016.pdf
Johnston, J., Harwood. C. & Minniti, A.M. (2013). Positive youth development in swimming:
Clarification and consensus of key psychosocial assets. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology.25, 392-411. DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2012.747571
Jones, M. I., Dunn, J. G. H., Holt, N. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Bloom, G. A. (2011). Exploring
the '5Cs' of positive youth development in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34. 250-267.
Juntumaa, B., Keskivaara, P., & Punamäki, R.L. (2005). Parenting, achievement practices and
satisfaction in ice hockey. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 411-420.
Lacroix, C., Camiré, M., & Trudel, P. (2008). High school coaches’ characteristics and their
perspectives on the purpose of school sport participation. International Journal of
Coaching Science, 2, 23-42.
Leffert, N., Benson, P.L., Scales, P.C. Sharma, A.R., Drake, D.R. & Blyth, D.A. (1998)
Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents.
Applied Developmental Science, 2, 209-230.
Lerner, R.M., Fisher, C.B., & Weinberg, R.A. (2000). Toward a science for and of the people:
Promoting civil society through the application of developmental science. Child
Development, 71, 11-20.
Mageau, G.A., & Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 883-904.
Martens, R. (1993). Psychological perspectives. In B.R. Cahill & A.J. Pearl (Eds.), Intensive
participation in children’s sports (pp.9-18). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
McCallister, S.G., Blinde, E.M., & Weiss, W.M., (2000). Teaching values and implementing
philosophies: Dilemmas of the youth sport coach. The Physical Educator, 57, 35-45.
MacNamara, Á., Button, A., & Collins, D. (2010a). The role of psychological characteristics
in facilitating the pathway to elite performance. Part 1: Identifying mental skills and
behaviors. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 52-73.
MacNamara, Á., Button, A. & Collins, D. (2010b). The role of psychological characteristics
in facilitating the pathway to elite performance. Part 2: Examining environmental and
stage related differences in skills and behaviors. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 74-96.
Petlichkoff, L.M. (1993). Coaching children: Understanding the motivational process. Sport
Science Review, 2, 48-61.
Petitpas, A.J., Cornelius, A.E., Van Raalte, J.L., & Jones, T. (2005). A framework for
planning youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sport
Roth, J.L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program?
Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94-111.
Rees, T. (2007). Influence of social support on athletes. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.),
Social psychology in sport (pp. 223–231). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Rees, T., & Freeman, P. (2007). The effects of perceived and received support on self-
confidence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1057–1065.
Rees, T., & Hardy, L. (2000). An investigation of the social support experiences of high-level
sports performers. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 327-347.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-bring. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Sapieja, K. M., Dunn, J. G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2011). Perfectionism and perceptions of
parenting styles in male youth soccer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 20-
39.
Schulman, S., & Davies, T. (2007). Evidence of the impact of the ‘Youth Development Model’
on outcomes for young people – A literature review. London: The National Youth
Agency: Information and Research.
Shields, D. L., & Bredemeier, B. L. (2001). Moral development and behavior in sport. In R.
N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblaus, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research in sport
psychology. (2nd ed., pp.211-233). Dubuque, IW: Kendall-Hunt.
Skinner, E., Johnson, S., & Snyder, T. (2005). Six dimensions of parenting: A motivational
model. Parenting: Science and Practice, 5, 175-235.
Stambulova, N.B. (1994). Developmental sports career investigations in Russia: A post-
perestroika analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 8, 221-237.
Stambulova, N.B. (2000). Athlete’s crises: A developmental perspective. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 584-601.
Steelman, T. (1995). Research update: Enhancing the youth sports experience through
coaching. Parks and Recreation, 29, 14-17.
Strachan, L., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2011). A new view: Exploring positive youth
development in elite sport contexts. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health,
3, 9-32. DOI: 10.1080/19398441.2010.541483.
Thorpe, I. & Wainwright, R. (2012). This is me: The autobiography. London: Simon &
Schuster UK Ltd.
Vallerand, R. J. (2007). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity: A
review and a look at the future. In G. Tenenbaum, & E. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 49-83). New York: John Wiley.
Wankel, L.M., & Kreisel, P.S. (1985). Factors underlying enjoyment of youth sports: Sport
and age group comparisons. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 51-64.
Wankel, L.M., & Mummery, W.K. (1990). The psychological and social benefits of sport and
physical activity. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 167-182.
Wylleman, P., & Lavallee, D. (2004). A developmental perspective on transitions faced by

athletes. In M. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan
perspective (pp.507-527). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Wylleman, P., Alfermann, D., & Lavallee, D. (2004). Career transitions in perspective.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 7-20. DOI:10.1016/S1469-0292(02)00049-3.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Julie Johnston is a Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychology in the Department of
Sport Science at Nottingham Trent University. Previously she was a Research Associate in
the area of psychosocial development in youth sport at Loughborough University. As such,
her research interests focus in the area of youth sport with a particular focus on coach and
parent interactions. She regularly consults for the Amateur Swimming Association.
Dr Chris Harwood is a Reader in Applied Sport Psychology at Loughborough

University. He is a Registered Sport and Exercise Psychologist (HCPC), Chartered
Psychologist, and BASES High Performance Sport Accredited Sport and Exercise Scientist.
His research interests focus on the psychological aspects of youth sport with a particular focus
on the psychology of parenting and coaching. A former Vice President of FEPSAC, Chris is
currently the Chair of the Psychology Division for BASES. As a consultant in sport
psychology, he has worked extensively with the Lawn Tennis Association, the Football
Association, and several professional football clubs. He holds Fellowships of both AASP and
BASES for his contributions to applied sport psychology and sport science.
Chapter 9
COACHING FOR POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT:

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE
Thaddeus France1, Albert Petitpas1,*

and Judy L. Van Raalte1
1
Springfield College, Springfield, MA, US
ABSTRACT
Historically, research on coach education has focused on the relationship of coaching
styles to player motivation and a multitude of physical outcomes. Although it is a
popularly held belief that participation in sport builds character and assists youth in
acquiring important life skills, less is known about how coach education programs
prepare coaches to implement strategies that promote positive youth development (PYD).
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the role of coaches as youth development
specialists. In particular, an established framework for planning sport-based youth
development programs is outlined, autonomy supportive coaching is reviewed, and
strategies to educate coaches on how to promote PYD are examined through the lens of
an exemplar program.
Keywords: Program planning, coach education, program implementation, youth sport, athlete
INTRODUCTION
Over the last quarter century, researchers and practitioners working with youth have
witnessed a paradigm shift in which an emphasis on intervention and prevention programs
has been replaced by a focus on identifying and building on youth’s strengths and capacities.
This movement called, Positive Youth Development (PYD), is based on the notion that youth
who are problem free are not necessarily prepared for the future (Pittman, 1991). PYD
programs strive to assist youth in acquiring the skills, attitudes, and values that will prepare
*
Corresponding author address: Email: apetitpa@springfieldcollege.edu
156 Thaddeus France, Albert Petitpas and Judy L. Van Raalte
them for adult life. Unlike intervention programs that are designed to remediate existing
problem behaviors in youth or prevention programs that hope to protect or shelter youth from
various risk factors, PYD programs strive to build youth’s capacities to manage life
challenges.
Sport and other forms of physical activity have been identified as providing a fertile
context for PYD to occur (Larson, 2000). There is evidence, however, that participation in
sport can lead to negative developmental outcomes if not structured appropriately (Bailey,
Hillman, Arent, & Petitpas, 2013). The purpose of this chapter is to examine the role of
coaches as youth development specialists. In particular, an established framework for
planning sport-based youth development programs is outlined, autonomy supportive coaching
is reviewed, and strategies to educate coaches on how to promote PYD are examined through
the lens of an exemplar program.
Coaching Positive Youth Development through Sport
There are currently two types of youth sport programs operating in the United States:
sport-focused programs; and youth development programs that use sport as the vehicle to
engage youth. The majority of youth sport programs are designed to introduce participants to
a specific sport or structured recreational activity that satisfies their desire for belonging, fun,
and physical fitness.
Although these types of programs may espouse specific values or characteristics in their
mission statements, research has shown that this information does not typically trickle down
to coaches or participants in these programs (Forneris, Camire,& Trudel, 2012). In addition,
most youth sport coaches lack formal training in coach education or youth development
(Vella, Crowe, & Oades, 2013). Without trained leadership, it is doubtful that life skills and
other positive characteristics can be taught in a systematic manner.
Programs that have a primary focus on teaching sport skills are quite different from those
youth sport programs that are designed to promote academic, personal, or career
development. Youth sport programs that have a character education or life skills curriculum,
make an effort to teach sport skills and life skills concurrently, and engage participants in
non-sport roles or other activities in order to promote transfer of learning to school, home, or
other life domains would be classified as sport-based youth development programs (Petitpas,
Cornelius, Van Raalte,& Jones, 2005). The First Tee (Petlichkoff, 2004), Play It Smart
(Petitpas, Van Raalte, Cornelius,& Presbrey, 2004), Personal-Social Responsibility Model
(Hellison, 2003), and SUPER (Forneris, Conley, Danish,& Stoller, 2014), are examples of
youth sport programs that promote academic, personal, or career development.
Youth sport programs that are designed to foster positive youth development are those
that use sport as a means to provide experiences that promote self-discovery and assist
participants in acquiring life skills in an intentional and systematic manner. In addition, these
programs have explicit goals and strategies to enhance the generalizability and transfer of life
skills to other important life domains.
Petitpas et al. (2005) proposed a framework for planning and implementing sport-based
youth development programs that has provided a philosophical foundation for several
successful sport-based, multi-site programs, including: Play It Smart (football); Project
Rebound (basketball); and The First Tee (golf). The framework was based on research
Coaching for Positive Youth Development 157
findings and best practices identified in the PYD literature, and advanced the belief that
positive growth is most likely to occur when young people:
 Are in an appropriate context for self-discovery (i.e., a voluntary activity that is

intrinsically rewarding, contains clear rules and boundaries, and requires
commitment and effort over time);
 Are surrounded by external assets, including a positive community environment with
caring adult mentors;
 Learn or acquire internal assets (life skills and positive attitudes) that are important
for dealing with various life challenges, and have opportunities to gain self-
confidence by using these skills in leadership and community service roles outside of
sport; and
 Benefit from the findings of a comprehensive system of evaluation and research that
identifies best practices and enhances service delivery.
Two of the major assumptions inherent in the development of this framework are the
importance of a comprehensive life skills curriculum and the recruitment, education, and
retention of quality coaches. PYD is based on the belief that being shielded from, or free from
problems is not enough to prepare youth to transition into a constructive adulthood. Youth
need to acquire life skills, such as communication, decision-making, problem-solving,
planning, and self-management skills, in order to be prepared to manage various life
situations in a positive manner. Although the availability of a comprehensive life skills
curriculum facilitates the learning and internalization of these important skills, research has
shown that skills learned through sport do not automatically transfer to school, home, or other
contexts of children’s lives (Martinek, Schilling,& Carson, 2001). Youth sport programs that
are successful in promoting transfer are those that have a solid life skills curriculum,
intentionally teach for transfer and take advantage of “teachable” moments (Turnnidge,
Cote,& Hancock, 2014). PYD program effectiveness is highly dependent on youth sport
coaches, who value their role as caring adult mentors in promoting PYD. To ensure that a life
skills curriculum that emphasizes transfer of skills to different life domains is implemented in
a relatively consistent manner across all sites, coaches need education in mentoring and
relationship building, and commitment to the idea that the role of a PYD coach is to draw out
youth’s potential rather than to fill them up with adult knowledge.
AUTONOMY SUPPORTIVE COACHING

Research has shown that the most effective youth sport coaches are those that provide
high levels of coach instruction, but do so within an environment that provides plenty of
support and encouragement (Adie, Duda & Ntoumanis, 2008). Coaches that create a mastery-
driven learning environment and provide their athletes with opportunities to offer suggestions
and to make decisions, promote self-paced learning and an autonomy supportive instructional
style (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007). Rooted in Basic Needs Theory, a subset of Self-
Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), autonomy supportive coaching fulfills youth’s
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. For example, athletes, who have
opportunities to make decisions about what drills to practice might experience an increased
sense of autonomy. Those who develop personal goal ladders that highlight improvements
might experience individual success experiences and promote a sense of competence. Team
building activities structured to foster communication and awareness of self and others might
satisfy athletes’ need for relatedness. Although there is growing support for the efficacy of
autonomy supportive coaching in fostering positive youth development, there is evidence that
these strategies may not be sufficient or may even be counterproductive to PYD goals when
working with certain populations. For example, Cowan, Taylor, McEwan, and Baker (2012)
found that some of the autonomy-supportive coaching strategies used in a soccer program for
disadvantaged youth were counterproductive when youth lacked the skills and self-belief to
engage in the activities. Coach education programs should ensure that the life skills associated
with any youth sport program are part of a curriculum that is based on the age appropriate
developmental needs of the participants (Petitpas et al., 2005).
At this juncture, then, it is important to recognize that researchers have created strong
bases of literature and findings that support the essential components of a PYD environment,
namely the theoretical foundation for autonomy supportive coaching and perspectives on
developing coach expertise. Fewer researchers, however, have intentionally connected these
literature areas and/or created a coach education program founded on the principles of
positive youth development.
A MODEL OF COACH EDUCATION TO PROMOTE POSITIVE

YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
One coach education program that intentionally prepares coaches for delivering positive
youth development experiences is The First Tee. The First Tee is a youth development
organization that uses the game of golf to help youth acquire important life skills, healthy
habits, and core values (Weiss, Bolter,& Kipp, 2014). Coaches in The First Tee program are
individuals that choose to utilize the game of golf as a meaningful context through which they
can assist youth ages 7-17 in acquiring life skills. To better understand The First Tee coach
education curriculum, one must first examine the coach philosophy and building blocks that
are the foundation for delivering The First Tee Life Skills Experience. The First Tee coach
philosophy is built on the PYD constructs of context, internal assets and external assets. All
aspects of The First Tee coach education stem from this philosophy. The operationalization of
the philosophy begins to take shape through the “building blocks” that define the strategies
that The First Tee coaches use to create the context and build strong relationships with
participants.
Consultants for The First Tee with expertise in coaching, sport psychology, and PYD
created a series of instructional strategies called building blocks that serve as the cornerstones
for the delivery of the life skill curriculum. The four building blocks are: a) activity-based; b)
mastery-driven; c) empower youth; and d) continuous learning. The first building block,
activity-based, is based on the belief that a learning environment that emphasizes more “doing
versus telling” and introduces golf and life skills in a “fun and seamless” fashion is likely to
hold the interest of participants as they engage in self-discovery. In this instance coaches are
planning and facilitating an experiential learning environment where youths’ needs are central
in all decision-making and delivery strategies. As coaches design and deliver lessons, the
initial premise in this model is that “less talking equals more participant engagement” and
participant engagement is meaningful if youth are having fun while they seamlessly
experience golf and life skills. Seamlessness is the intentional design of activities where youth
concurrently engage in both golf and life skills. These coaching strategies associated with the
activity-based building block are consistent with both experiential learning theories and motor
learning principles.
The second The First Tee building block is mastery-driven. As participants engage in
activities, it is imperative that coaches create an environment that is mastery oriented. A
mastery-driven approach is an environment that focuses on self-improvements rather than
social comparisons. As a result, The First Tee coaches strive to “balance process and
outcomes” by emphasizing the importance of paying attention to the specific behaviors
(process) that are likely to lead to the individual’s desired outcomes. For example, if a
participant wants to make her high school golf team (outcome), she may recognize that
maintaining balance (process) is a key to developing the effective golf swing she will need to
meet her outcome goal.
A The First Tee coach could assist the golfer by creating fun activities that focus on
balance and could provide feedback on her ability to maintain balance (and not necessarily on
the result of the specific shot). The First Tee refers to this strategy as “intention equals
attention.” Too often youth, and coaches, will solely focus on performance and pay less
attention to the process needed to achieve performance and outcome goals. The importance of
creating a mastery-driven environment is well supported in literature from sport psychology
(e.g., Quested & Duda, 2011; Weiss, Amorose,& Wilko, 2009) .
The first two building blocks are focused on creating a context that is activity-based and
mastery-driven. The life skills and golf skills are seamlessly embedded in activities that
enable youth to acquire age appropriate internal assets as they progress through the The First
Tee curriculum. Together the first two building blocks help coaches create strategies and a
learning environment that integrates life skills with golf skills seamlessly. The next two
building blocks shift coaches’ focus to building strong relationships with youth as they serve
as external assets.
Empower youth is the third building block and focuses coaches on strategies to remain
“youth centered” in their interactions. Specifically, coaches strive to understand participants’
experiences from the youth’s perspectives. The belief is that by using appropriate listening
and rapport building skills, The First Tee coaches will empower youth and become mentors
rather than simply instructors of the golf swing. This is often a paradigm shift in which
coaches transition from a coach-centered model to a relationship-centered model. This shift,
however, is paramount if coaches are to deliver The First Tee’s PYD model with fidelity.
The final building block, continuous learning, provides a format for increasing
participants’ self-awareness and for providing feedback to participants through “coachable
moments.” Coaches utilize the strategy of helping youth be more reflective after engagement
in activities with the explicit intent of increasing self-awareness. The First Tee coaches
specifically use a Good-Better-How method of reflection created by Vision54 founders Lynn
Marriot and Pia Neilson. Coaches, also, utilize coachable moments to provide feedback to
youth. Feedback in this instance should help focus a participant’s attention to positive
behaviors that were just demonstrated.
The last two building blocks assist coaches in defining their behaviors as they become an
external asset for youth. Through empowering youth and continuous learning, coaches
position themselves as resources in order for youth to learn how to become their own best
coaches. The First Tee coaches also challenge youth to be reflective on their process and
performance as they become more responsible for their learning throughout the program.
The First Tee coach philosophy and building blocks provide a robust structure for
organizing both youth learning and coach education. The First Tee coach education model
can be compared to what physical education researchers have called an instructional model.
Instructional models help teachers define what to teach, how to teach, and how to assess. The
coach philosophy and building blocks define the content to be learned as life skills, golf skills
and healthy habits seamlessly integrated in all lessons. Similarly, the building blocks provide
more specific coaching strategies that assist coaches in shaping their instructional behaviors.
This instructional model is consistent with the literature from experiential education, motor
learning and sport psychology. The last component of The First Tee coach education involves
helping youth assess their process and performance in relationship to the program goals.
The First Tee Life Skills Experience highlights that youth progress through three levels in
their acquisition of life skills; knowledge, demonstration and exhibit. These levels reflect the
diminishing role of the coach in the learning process. For example, knowledge is assessed
through written evaluations or when a participant can respond to a question asked by a coach.
Demonstrations are assessed by youths’ ability to respond with a behavior when
prompted by a The First Tee coach. Exhibiting is assessed when participants have internalized
the life skills and are witnessed transferring the behaviors to other settings without coach
prompting. The ultimate goal of the assessment is to examine participants’ capacity to transfer
life skills to other contexts.
This progression to transfer does not happen automatically (Martinek et al., 2001). The role of
the coach is to intentionally challenge youth to transfer or “bridge to life” skills acquired
during The First Tee core lessons to other areas of youths’ experiences. Weiss et al. (2014)
explained that the “bridge to life” strategy is one of the more critical aspects of The First Tee
coaches’ role in assisting youth in internalizing core values and life skills.
The purpose of this section was to examine the coach education model of an exemplar
program, The First Tee. The First Tee coach education model provides a structure that assists
coaches and coach education trainers in examining coach behaviors respective to the intended
curriculum goals. Similarly, this coach education model is well aligned with the foundational
constructs in positive youth development. Once a strong coach education model has been
created trainers can shift their attention to the creation of coach education experiences to help
coaches progress to deliver the program with fidelity.
IMPLEMENTING A POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

COACH EDUCATION PROGRAM
The First Tee coach education progression has been created with an explicit concern for
both the coach education model and the developmental needs of coaches as they progress
through the program. Specifically, The First Tee coach education progression is based on a
developmental learning framework through which coaches progress through distinct phases;
exposure, application, and mastery. Schempp (1997) has described this progression as the
development of expertise in coaching. Based on this foundation, The First Tee coach
education progression has three distinct phases.
All individuals who seek to participate in The First Tee coach education program are
required to complete an online Assistant Coach Training program that introduces them to the
coaching philosophy, building blocks, life skills and healthy habits curriculum, safety, and
other content areas. Upon completion of the online course, individuals are now eligible for
level 1 training, the entry point for all The First Tee coaches. The training is two and a half
days and is an opportunity to expose coaches to the life skills curriculum, the coach
philosophy and the building blocks. The primary emphasis, however, is placed on coaching
novice players and the activity-based building block. This primary emphasis is explicit and
intentional. First, this initial training should ground all coaches in the belief that experiential
learning, or being activity-based, is critical to all learning in this program. Second, working
with novice players allows the coaches to return to the fundamental concepts of play, fun and
the use of developmentally appropriate games with players. There is also the idea that
focusing on novice players will confront many of the dominant coach beliefs about whom
they will work with and how players learn. The phase 1 training is purposely sequenced over
the course of the three days.
The first day of level 1 education is designed to have coaches in training participate in
several core lessons as students and, then, use the good-better-how strategy to reflect on their
experiences. In addition, the coaches in training will engage in a good-better-how on the
home office staff and training consultants’ delivery of the model lessons. This sequencing
allows The First Tee coach education staff to demonstrate the strategies associated with the
respective building blocks and model how to organize and implement the core lessons. The
remainder of the first day is spent developing a beginning core lesson plan under the direction
of coach education personnel. The second day of level 1 training provide opportunities for
The First Tee coaches in training to work directly with home office staff to deliver their core
lesson to groups of boys and girls from the local area. Once again, the coaches are challenged
to reflect on their delivery of the lessons and examine how to improve. Special attention is
given at the conclusion of the level 1 training to how coaches will return to their respective
locations and coach lessons with the new strategies and information. Coaches are also
assigned several continuing education requirements (e.g., creating sample lesson plans) that
must be completed in order to qualify to participate in a level 2 training.
The goal of level 2 training is to provide opportunities for The First Tee coaches to build
on their level 1 experience by reinforcing the activity-based building block and introducing
the concept of mastery-driven. Level 2 training is structured to be consistent with the PYD
philosophy of creating a suitable context for self-paced learning to occur. Coaches in training
are more focused on how to create mastery oriented learning environments. At this level,
coaches gain experience working with participants who are further along in their progression
through the life and golf skills curriculum. The youth at this level are usually more skilled in
golf and have progressed in their acquisition of life skills. As a result, coaches need to
reexamine and adjust their lesson plans and instructional style to accommodate the needs of
more skillful participants. The coaches should also be positioning these more challenging
activities in a mastery-driven environment. As in level 1, the coach education staff model core
lessons on the first day of training, allowing the coaches in training to examine the lessons
from both the participant and coach perspective through good-better-how feedback. The
primary focus of reflection at level 2 training shifts to examining coaching behaviors that
support and promote a mastery-driven learning environment. This shift provides youth with
opportunities to plan strategies for self-improvements in the acquisition of golf, healthy
habits, and life skills. The First Tee coaches in training also have opportunities to deliver
more complex core lessons to groups of participants from the local The First Tee facility.
The third level of The First Tee coach education progression is conducted over a 4 day
period and emphasizes the building blocks of empowering youth and continuous learning.
These building blocks were designed to assist coaches in gaining the relationship building
skills to function as external assets for the youth they serve. Coaches in training have
opportunities to demonstrate their advanced understanding of the core curriculum by creating
comprehensive lesson plans, delivering lessons to youth that have achieved higher levels of
the golf and life skills progression, and sharing their knowledge and ideas to peers and to the
home office staff in several structured group activities. Although The First Tee coaches in
training may not have attained “mastery” of all the materials and delivery formats, they know
the information well enough to incorporate their own ideas and activities into their lesson
plans. In addition, considerable time is spent on a series of self-awareness activities and
practicing more advanced listening and relationship building capabilities. These advanced
instructional skills align well with the role of external asset and the associated coaching
strategies for the empowering of youth and continuous learning building blocks.
Noteworthy, is that a coach’s progression through the three levels of The First Tee coach
education usually happens over 2-3 years. The design of the progression allows for coaches to
return to their respective locations and practice the related coaching strategies prior to moving
on to the next level of coach education. During the periods between progressing across the
levels of the training program, supervisors at the local chapters utilize the same coach
observation forms and the good-better-how reflection strategy to reinforce the process used in
coach education. This form of experiential education allows coaches to progress through the
coach education program with an explicit design that is based on a developmental learning
perspective. The First Tee coach education program is a well-balanced and designed
progression that challenges coaches’ beliefs while providing experiences that have been
structured on the coach philosophy and building blocks. Thus, coaches progressively build
their content knowledge and coaching knowledge as they are challenged to move from a
coach-centered to a youth-centered PYD philosophy. Upon completion of the three levels of
training, coaches must complete a series of additional requirements at their home facilities
before earning the status of a “Recognized The First Tee Coach.” These requirements include
activities such as completing a minimum of two years of The First Tee core lesson
instruction, delivering all levels of core lessons, mentoring eagle level participants, and
providing training to The First Tee volunteers and other interested adults. Once the status of
“Recognized The First Tee Coach” is achieved, coaches must complete continuing education
requirements to maintain their The First Tee coach status.
CONCLUSION
The last decade has seen a rise in researchers’ interests in PYD through sport. Sport
provides a unique opportunity to work with youth in the creation of meaningful coach-
participant relationships that could lead to the acquisition of life skills. Much of what
researchers have examined and/or created in the PYD through sport area has used findings
from related fields such as sport psychology, motor learning, coaching and physical
education. The maturation of PYD through sport, however, demands we begin to examine our
work with youth in the sport context and ask “how and why” questions that challenge our
assumptions. For example, there are numerous youth sport programs that champion the
integration of life skills, character development, and/or values; but, how do they train
coaches? How are coaches trained to explicitly teach for PYD outcomes? How do youth sport
programs train coaches to facilitate activities and practices that help youth acquire these life
skills? What are the models on which we build our coach education programs?
The purpose of this chapter was to review some of the literature on PYD through sport
and begin to examine coach education within PYD. Our belief is that we have “come a long
way” in our understanding, but now we must become more intentional and consistent. This
maturation will demand a more holistic and reflective look at coach education for PYD. All
PYD through sport coach education does not need to be as comprehensive as The First Tee’s,
however, we should celebrate these exemplars and examine how the coaches in these
programs have become what Larry Locke once called “technical virtuosos”, teachers or
coaches that are at the peak of their instruction. The demand for sport contexts to play a more
significant role in our communities will continue to grow. PYD through sport organizations
will need to better understand their coach education processes if coaches are to gain the
knowledge and skills requisite to building meaningful relationships with youth in pursuit of
acquisition of life skills and realization of PYD outcomes.

 Coaches need to be intentional in promoting positive youth development.
 Coaches should put emphasis on creating mastery-driven learning environments and
building quality relationships with youth participants.
 Coaches must assist youth in transferring life skills learned through sport to other
settings.
REFERENCES
Adie, J., Duda, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2008). Autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and
the optimal functioning of adult male and female sport participants: A test of basic needs
theory. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 3, 189-199.
Amorose, A., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and self-
determination motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-determination
theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 5, 654-670.
Bailey, R., Hillman, C., Arent, S., & Petitpas, A. (2013). Physical activity: An underestimated
investment in human capital. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 10, 289-308.
Cowan, D., Taylor, I., McEwan, H., & Baker, J. (2012). Bridging the gap between sel-
determination theory and coaching soccer to disadvantaged youth. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 24, 4, 361-375.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Forneris, T., Camire, M., & Trudel, P. (2012). The development of life skills and values in
high school sport: Is there a gap between stakeholder’s expectations and perceived
experiences? International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 1, 9-23.
Forneris, T., Conley, K., Danish, S., & Stoller, L. (2014). Teaching life skills through sport:
Community-based programs to enhance adolescent development. In J. Van Raalte & B.
Brewer (eds.), Exploring sport and exercise psychology (3rd ed., pp. 261-276).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hellison, D. (2003). Teaching responsibility through physical activity (2nd ed.). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Larson, R. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American
Psychologist, 55, 170- 183.
Martinek, T., Schilling, T., & Johnson, D. (2001). Transferring personal and social
responsibility of underserved youth to the classroom. Journal of Applied Sport
Petitpas, A. J., Van Raalte, J. L., Cornelius, A., & Presbrey, J. (2004). A life skills
development program for high school student-athletes. The Journal of Primary
Prevention, 24, 325-334.
Petitpas, A. J., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., & Jones, T. (2005). A framework for
planning youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sport
Psychologist. 19, 63-80.
Petlichkoff, L. M. (2004). Self-regulation skills for children and adolescents. In M. R. Weiss
(Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology (pp. 273-292). Morgantown, WV:
Pittman, K. J. (1991). Promoting youth development: Strengthening the role of youth-serving
and community organizations. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Extension Services. Washington, DC: Center for Youth Development and Policy
Research.
Quested, E., & Duda, J. (2011). Enhancing children’s positive experiences and personal
development: A motivational perspective. In I. Stafford (Ed.), Coaching children in sport
(pp. 123-138). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schempp, P. (1997). Developing expertise in teaching and coaching. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation, and Dance, 68, 2, 29.
Turnnidge, J., Cote, J., & Hancock, D. (2014). Positive youth development from sport to life:
Explicit or implicit transfer? Quest, 66, 2, 203-217.
Vella, S., Oades, L., & Crowe, T. (2013). The relationship between coach leadership, the
coach-athletes relationship, team success, and the positive developmental experiences of
adolescent soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18, 5, 549-562.
Weiss, M., Amarose, A., & Wilko, A. (2009). Coaching behaviors, motivational climate, and
psychosocial outcomes among female adolescent athletes. Pediatric Exercise Science,
21,475-492.
Weiss, M., Bolter, N., & Kipp, L. (2014). Assessing impact of physical activity-based youth
development programs: Validation of the Life Skills Transfer Survey (LSTS). Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85, 263-278.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Thaddeus France is an associate professor of physical education at Springfield
College. He is a developmental consultant for The First Tee, the National Schools Program
and Leaders in Academics, Community Engagement and Service (LACES). He has an
extensive background in adventure education and programming in positive youth
development
Dr Albert Petitpas is a professor of psychology at Springfield College where he directs

the Center for Youth Development and Research. He is a fellow and certified consultant of
the Association of Applied Sport Psychology and a fellow of the American Psychological
Association’s Division of Exercise and Sport Psychology.
Dr Judy Van Raalte is a professor of psychology at Springfield College where she

directs the Athletic Counseling graduate training program. She is a fellow and certified
consultant of the Association of Applied Sport Psychology, a fellow and former president of
Division 47 of the American Psychological Association, and listed on the US Olympic
Committee Sport Psychology Registry.
Chapter 10
CHALLENGING COACHING ORTHODOXY:

A SELF-DETERMINATION
THEORY PERSPECTIVE
Clifford J. Mallett*, Martin Rabjohns

and Joseph L. Occhino
The University of Queensland
Australia
ABSTRACT
High performance coaching practice has been influenced by social and cultural
forces over the past few decades and beyond. Significant theoretical perspectives and
their supporting empirical evidence has advanced our understanding of more effective
pedagogical practices in high performance sport. One of these theoretical frameworks is
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), which has been extensively examined in
sport over the past twenty-five years. SDT has provided a framework for understanding
how coaches can get the best from athletes (and support staff) in understanding
motivational processes, and the important role of coaches, who as ‘architects’, shape the
motivational climate, and subsequent athlete outcomes. The empirical base has advanced
the notion of adopting a more autonomy-supportive interpersonal coaching style to
produce adaptive athlete outcomes. Nevertheless, changing behaviour is not without its
challenges. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to report some of these challenges
and to make some recommendations in how coaches might become more autonomy-
supportive in their coaching practice.
Keywords: High performance sport culture, autonomy-supportive coaching, controlling

coaching behaviors, behavior change
* Corresponding Author address: Email: cmallett@uq.edu.au

168 Clifford J. Mallett, Martin Rabjohns and Joseph L. Occhino
INTRODUCTION
Sports coaching is a relatively new vocation compared to teaching, law, and medicine.
Nevertheless, the professionalization of coaching over the past few decades has prompted the
development of an appropriate evidence base to inform policy and practice associated with
effective coaching. These investigations of coaching practice from the broad and interrelated
fields of psychology, sociology and pedagogy have provided some insight into effective
practice, especially from a psycho-social perspective. Within these wide-ranging programs of
research there has been a significant quantum of inquiry in psychology that has examined
motivational antecedents and consequences in sports coaching and in particular within the
theoretical framework of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985). The findings
from several studies using SDT have highlighted that coach behaviors influence how athletes
think, feel, and act and subsequently has important motivational consequences for athletes
(e.g., Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).
Situated within SDT, the creation of an autonomy-supportive coaching style is proposed
to foster a motivational climate that facilitates positive outcomes, such as psychological well-
being, superior performance, enhanced self-worth, and increased effort (see Occhino, Mallett,
Rynne & Carlisle, 2014 for a review). In contrast, a controlling interpersonal coaching style
can lead to a maladaptive motivational climate and promote negative outcomes, such as fear
of failure, burnout and attrition from sport. Much of the positivist research has examined the
consequences of these contrasting coaching styles and supported the adoption of an
autonomy-supportive interpersonal style in sport coaching. Nevertheless, more recent
qualitative research has found the translation of theory to practice is somewhat problematic.
Essentially, coaches have reported that changing behaviors from a less autonomy-supportive
interpersonal style to a more autonomy-supportive interpersonal style has been challenging at
a number of levels.
The aim of this chapter is to report some recent qualitative research studies that have
explored directly and indirectly some key factors that underscore the challenges in shifting
from a controlling to an autonomy-supportive coaching style. First, we will outline the key
aspects of SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and then focus on an application of the key tenets of
SDT in Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003) motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship,
including a synopsis of two contrasting interpersonal styles: controlling and autonomy-
supportive. In the next section, we will draw your attention to the antecedents of coaches’
behaviors and these two contrasting coaching styles, which will be followed by an
examination of some recent research studies examining attempts in becoming more
autonomy-supportive and the challenges faced by coaches in that endeavor.
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Motivation is considered important because it contributes to high performance (Mallett,
2005). Deci and Ryan (1985) developed their organismic macro-theory of human motivation
and personality development from the earlier works of Freud, Hull, Spence, Skinner,
Bandura, Erikson, White and deCharms, among others. Proponents of organismic theories
view humans as active participants in initiating behaviors that contribute to their inherent
Challenging Coaching Orthodoxy 169
growth tendencies (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The organismic approach considers humans as
possessing intrinsic needs and physiological drives that provide impetus or energy
(motivation) for people to respond to the environment rather than being passive and reactive
to the external environment. A key focus of SDT is the social-contextual factors that
influence motivation rather than what causes intrinsic motivation (interest inherent enjoyment
in activity).
In this evolution of thinking about the why of behavior, Deci, Ryan and other SDT
scholars continue to build upon this initial macro-theory (1985) making the theory itself
dynamic. At present, there are five mini-theories that form the macro-theory of SDT;
however, additional mini-theories are likely to contribute to his evolving macro-theory in the
near future. The five mini-theories are: Basic Needs Theory; Cognitive Evaluation Theory;
Organismic Integration Theory; Causality Orientations Theory; and Goal Content Theory. For
the purposes of this chapter, we focus our attention on three of these mini-theories; namely,
Basic Needs Theory, Cognitive Evaluation Theory, and Organismic Integration Theory
because they have been the focus of research examining effective coaching.
Basic Needs Theory (BNT) underscores the central role innate psychological needs play
in fostering autonomous motivation and subsequent human thriving and personality
development (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Sheldon, Cheng & Hilpert, 2011).
These psychological needs are part of our evolutionary design (Sheldon et al., 2011) and are
foundational to McAdams’ (1996, 1998, 2006, 2009) three-level hierarchical model of
personality (traits, motives, and self-narratives). In Sheldon et al.’s (2011) Multilevel
Personality in Context (MPIC) Model, these psychological needs are the basis upon which
individual differences emerge as a consequence of the interdependency of individual and
social forces. Deci and Ryan (1985) posited three psychological needs: autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. The need of autonomy (self-determination), which has its
genesis in the work of de Charms (1968), is concerned with volition and the perception of
choice that emanates from the self (internal perceived locus of causality). The psychological
need for competence has its origins in White’s (1959) concept of effectance motivation,
which was further developed by Harter (1978). Effectively interacting with the environment
leads people to experience satisfaction and competence (sense of achievement) and continue
to undertake new challenges to satisfy this need for competence. Harter focused on the
importance of a motivational climate (positive feedback, optimally challenging activities) that
was conducive to children perceiving themselves as competent. The need for relatedness (a
sense of belonging to others) was initially considered more distal in terms of its influence on
self-determined motivation, compared to autonomy and competence (Baumeister & Leary,
1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, Baumeister and Leary concluded
that the need for attachment to others is a fundamental human motivation that fosters optimal
functioning and development. This need to be supported by and supportive of others
(reciprocity) is essential to human flourishment (Hagger, Chatzisarantis & Harris, 2006).
Importantly, SDT scholars do not deny the possibility of other needs but strong evidence and
theoretical bases for addition is essential (Vansteenkiste, Nieiec & Soenens, 2010).
Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) is concerned with external events (e.g., monetary
rewards and opportunities to have some say in decision-making) and intrinsic motivation
(inherent enjoyment associated with sport engagement). Intrinsically motivated activity
reflects an internal locus of causality, that is, the perception of choice rather than being
coerced or controlled by others to engage in tasks. Specifically, CET is concerned with the
conditions that foster intrinsic motivation through the satisfaction of three psychological
needs. Three central propositions within CET include, people’s intrinsic needs to be: (i) self-
determining (internal perceived locus of causality; deCharms, 1968); (ii) competent and
master optimal challenges accompanied by a sense of autonomy; and (iii) people’s perception
of the relative salience of events as informational in terms of competence (constructive
feedback), controlling (rewards, deadlines, coercion), or amotivating (consistent negative
feedback).
Organismic Integration Theory (OIT). As we increasingly engage with the world many
tasks and activities are not inherently enjoyable or interesting but rather necessary to achieve
some instrumental outcome in the future (extrinsic motivation). For these important but
inherently not intrinsically motivating tasks and activities, CET is not relevant. Therefore,
OIT was developed to understand extrinsically motivated behaviors. Specifically, OIT was
introduced to outline different forms of extrinsic motivation that differed in terms of the
extent to which it is experienced as controlled or autonomous (Ryan & Connell, 1989). This
view challenged the notion that extrinsic motivation was a unidimensional construct.
Moreover, it challenged the view that extrinsic and intrinsic motivations were dichotomous
regulations. In developing OIT, Deci and Ryan advanced the notion of a controlled-to-
autonomous continuum that reflected different forms of extrinsic motivation based on the
degree of external and internal perceived loci of causality. OIT was introduced to examine the
socio-contextual factors that fostered or thwarted the internalization and integration of non-
intrinsically motivated behaviors. The concepts of internalization and integration are part of
the socialization process and contribute to people’s natural and organismic growth tendencies.
Internalization is a process through which a person endorses an extrinsically motivated
behavior (e.g., endorse the need to train hard to improve performance). This endorsement of
the value of an extrinsically motivated behavior leads to autonomous engagement. Integration
is consequence of further transformation of an endorsed (identified) regulation that is
assimilated into one’s sense of self to foster effective functioning within one’s social group
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). Ryan’s (1982) and Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri and Holt’s (1984) earlier
work contributed to the development of OIT and specifically, the differentiated view of
extrinsic motivation. Indeed, extrinsic motivation can be either controlled or autonomous. A
person might feel pressure (controlled) or endorse why they do what they do and have a sense
of volition (autonomous) that contributes to personally valuing what they do (Koestner et al.,
1984).
Different forms of extrinsic motivation have been identified and are associated with
variable consequences. The least autonomous extrinsically motivated behaviors (external
regulation) are associated with rewards and punishment. People comply with the demands of
others and their actions have an external locus of causality (deCharms, 1968) and are
embedded in behaviorist principles of reinforcement central to operant conditioning (Skinner,
1971). As we move towards greater degrees of self-determination, slightly more autonomous
extrinsically motivated behaviors (introjected regulation) accommodate external forces but
are really accepted by the person. These actions are performed to avoid shame and guilt or
perhaps seek acceptance and a sense of self-worth and pride from significant others. Training
because one feels they should rather than doing so because they endorse it is an example of an
introjected regulation, which is associated with lower levels of persistence (Pelletier, Fortier,
Vallerand, & Brière, 2001). This intrapersonal pressure is consistent with the construct of
ego-involvement (deCharms, 1968; Nicholls, 1984) in which people are motivated to
demonstrate high ability or avoid showing low ability to maintain a sense of self-worth.
External and introjected regulations are considered non-self-determining. In contrast, two
self-determining forms of extrinsic motivation are classified as identified and integrated
regulations. The shift from introjected to identified regulation reflects a move from an
external to an internal locus of causality, which is associated with the sense of choice and
volition in commitment to an activity or task. This commitment is based on its perceived
meaning for one’s goals, values and identity. In other words, it is personally valued and
important. An example of identified regulation is training because you want to improve your
performance and you value and endorse the training. This transformation from introjected to
identified regulations encompasses the partial internalization of a behavior. Full
internalization involves further transformation of the regulation into an integrated sense of
self; that is, one has a full sense that the behavior is an integral part of who they are and is
thus self-determining (Deci & Ryan, 1985). An example of an integrated regulation is an
athlete who not only trains hard and commits to a healthy diet but the adoption of these
behaviors is consistent with living a healthy lifestyle, which integrates these behaviors with
other aspects of who they are (values, identity; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although integrated
regulations share some qualities with intrinsic motivation the key difference is the pursuit of
instrumentally personal goals (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Internalization is an active process that
involves one acquiring an attitude, belief, or behavioral regulation and transforming it into a
personally valued and endorsed goal that derives from one’s sense of self (Deci & Ryan,
1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
In summary, an adaptive motivational climate (social-contextual conditions) that satisfies
the three psychological needs will support intrinsic motivation as well as foster internalization
of extrinsic motivation and subsequently lead to myriad positive outcomes in sport (e.g.,
persistence, higher performance, well-being; Hodge, Henry & Smith, 2011; Mallett &
Hanrahan, 2004; McLean, Mallett & Newcombe, 2012; Pelletier et al., 2001).
MAGEAU AND VALLERAND’S (2003) MOTIVATIONAL MODEL OF

THE COACH-ATHLETE RELATIONSHIP
Mageau and Vallerand (2003) synthesized the SDT literature from various contexts,
including sport, in proposing a motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship. This
model has been widely examined in the sport literature (e.g., Amorose & Anderson-Butcher,
2007; Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011; Conroy &
Coatsworth, 2007; Gillet, Vallerand, Amoura, & Baldes, 2010; Stebbings, Taylor, & Spray,
2011). Essentially, Mageau and Vallerand propose that coaches’ behaviors (need-supportive
as well showing care for athletes, and provision of structure and role clarification in training
and competition) contribute to psychological need satisfaction and subsequent self-
determined forms of motivation. A key point in the model and previous work in SDT is that
coaches’ behaviors have an indirect effect on athletes’ motivation. Indeed, psychological need
satisfaction mediates the relationship between coaching behaviors and athletes’ motivation.
Therefore, the model underscores the central role of effective coaching practises that foster
athletes’ psychological need satisfaction. Coaching environments that are classified as
autonomy-supportive are characterized by coaches who acknowledge the feelings, thoughts
and perspectives of athletes and who are not strongly influenced by external pressures and
demands such as those associated with the demands of high performance sport.
In Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003) model, three antecedent factors are proposed to
influence coaches’ behaviors: coaches’ personal orientation, coaching context, and coaches’
perceptions of athletes’ behaviors and motivation. Implicit in the model is an interdependent
relationship between these three factors. Furthermore, two other factors (structure, care) have
also been included in the model that influences specific psychological needs, namely
competence and relatedness respectively. Coaches’ personal orientation relates to a
preference for some behaviors. For example, a “win at all costs” mentality reflects a coach-
centered approach to coaching; whereas, an athlete-centered approach is associated with a
more holistic view of coaching in developing the whole person (Occhino et al., 2014). The
coaching context also exerts pressure to perform and produce winning outcomes, especially in
high performance contexts in which unsuccessful outcomes can and do affect on-going coach
employment. The third factor influencing coach behaviors is the coach’s perceptions of
athletes’ behaviors and perceived motivations. Coaches are likely to differentially engage
with more or less motivated athletes. As previously mentioned, two other factors that
influence competence and relatedness independently also contribute to overall psychological
need satisfaction. Coaches who provide athletes with structure and role clarity and purpose in
training and competitions support athletes’ perceptions of competence. Moreover, coaches
who show care and support for athletes within and beyond the sport setting foster the
psychological need of relatedness.
AUTONOMY-SUPPORTIVE AND CONTROLLING

INTERPERSONAL STYLES
In their model, Mageau and Vallerand propose seven pedagogical behaviors in creating
an autonomy-supportive coaching environment: (i) provide athletes choice in some decisions
but within some boundaries; (ii) provide a rationale for tasks; (iii) acknowledge thoughts and
feelings of athletes; (iv) provide athletes with opportunities for initiative and independence;
(v) provide non-controlling competence feedback; (vi) avoid controlling behaviors; and (vii)
reduce ego-involvement in athletes. An important point made by Mageau and Vallerand is
that these behaviors represent a pedagogical approach (i.e., an autonomy-supportive
interpersonal style) rather than seven discrete behaviors. Within the theoretical framework of
SDT, a controlling interpersonal style contrasts an autonomy-supportive style. Controlling
coach behaviors thwart psychological need satisfaction. Bartholomew and colleagues (2010)
identified some of these controlling coach behaviors: controlling use of rewards, negative
conditional regard, intimidation, and excessive personal control.
It is noteworthy that these two contrasting interpersonal styles are not oppositional but
possibly orthogonal because research has shown weak to moderate relationship between the
two interpersonal styles (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2009; Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011; Smith,
Ntoumanis & Duda, 2010). In other words, coaches are likely to use a mix of autonomy-
supportive and controlling interpersonal coaching behaviors (Bartholomew et al., 2009;
Pelletier et al., 2001) with variation across time and context. Furthermore, an absence of
autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors does not necessarily mean that coaches are
controlling (Bartholomew et al., 2010).
Mageau and Vallerand (2003) propose that an autonomy-supportive interpersonal style
will enhance athletes’ internal motivation (internal perceived locus of causality) through
psychological need satisfaction. In their review of the literature, Occhino et al. (2014) found
that coaches who use autonomy-supportive behaviors provide support for their athletes in a
few ways: (i) foster psychological need satisfaction; (ii) nourish intrinsic motivation; (iii)
promote on-going sport engagement; and (iv) enhance sport performance through, for
example, increased persistence and effort. In contrast, coaches’ controlling interpersonal style
(e.g., use of coercion and pressure to perform) has been found to thwart psychological need
satisfaction and shifting towards an external perceived locus of causality (Ryan & Deci, 2002)
in relation to their sport engagement.
Two case studies that examined motivational climate in elite sport within SDT (Hodge,
Henry & Smith, 2014; Mallett, 2005) have underscored the capacity of coaches to translate
theory to practice with significant effect in producing high performance. These two studies
support SDT and an autonomy-supportive approach to high performance coaching.
Nevertheless, the authors of both studies inadvertently and implicitly suggest a rather
unproblematic journey in adopting an autonomy-supportive interpersonal coaching style.
There might be some sense that simply adopting the seven pedagogical behaviors espoused
by Mageau and Vallerand (2003) is a straightforward process; that is, use these behaviors and
you will foster psychological need satisfaction and subsequently promote internal motivation
and produce adaptive athlete outcomes, including superior performance. Mallett and Hodge et
al. in describing the benefits of autonomy-supportive coaching did not provide any insight
into the likely problematic process in adopting this interpersonal style and shifting from a
more controlling approach.
In the previous sections, we have provided the theoretical foundations and the empirical
base for promoting coaches to adopt a more autonomy-supportive interpersonal style. Then
we highlighted two case studies that portrayed an unproblematic approach to autonomy-
supportive coaching practice. However, behavior change can be challenging and there has
been a paucity of research that has examined attempts to shift towards an autonomy-
supportive coaching style. Therefore, in the next section we present some preliminary
findings from a few studies that provide some insight into these challenges with the aim of
encouraging future research in this area to better inform practice and those who are
responsible for their development.
BECOMING AUTONOMY-SUPPORTIVE:
CHALLENGING COACHING ORTHODOXY
Amorose (2007) and more recently Occhino et al. (2014) have called for research
examining the antecedents of coaches’ behaviors. One contribution to the broad research
agenda examining coaches’ behaviors within SDT would be a deeper understanding of how
coach developers can foster this shift towards an autonomy-supportive interpersonal style.
Mallett and colleagues have undertaken a number of studies that have attempted to
understand both the antecedents of coaches’ behaviors but also using action research
methodologies to examine the journey of coaches attempting to become more autonomy-

supportive in their coaching practice (e.g., Ahlberg, Mallett & Tinning, 2008; Byrne, 2010;
Occhino, 2014; Rabjohns, 2014). In this section, we report some key findings from this
program of action research that we hope you will find beneficial in thinking about how to
facilitate a shift towards being more autonomy-supportive in how coaches interact with
athletes to promote adaptive athlete motivational outcomes.
Action research (AR), is an approach to professional development that embraces self-
reflective practice, and has two major goals: (i) increase one’s understanding of their own
professional practice through systematic analysis; and (ii) to use this understanding to
improve the quality of that practice (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). In these studies, the
primary aim of this research was to improve the coach’s awareness and subsequent practice
using a self-reflective enquiry approach, which is the essence of the technical AR
methodology (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Koshy, 2005). Facilitation of the participatory
AR is the guidance provided by a critical friend; someone who facilitates the AR process in
providing guidance and constructive feedback throughout the process.
Three key findings emerge from these studies that we think are worth discussing: (i)
limited understanding of autonomy-supportive behaviors; (ii) the transition from improved
awareness to adoption of autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors is challenging; and (iii)
culturally entrenched and implicitly learned conceptions of quality coaching are aligned with
a controlling interpersonal style.
A superficial understanding of SDT and specifically the seven pedagogical practices
hinders the creation of an autonomy-supportive learning environment and potential adaptive
athlete outcomes. In all four action research studies (Ahlberg et al., 2008; Byrne, 2010;
Occhino, 2014; Rabjohns, 2014) the coaches’ lack of an in-depth understanding of the
theoretical underpinnings of the seven coaching pedagogical behaviors challenged attempts to
become autonomy-supportive (i.e., translate the theory to practice). Nevertheless, engagement
in the AR provided coaches with opportunities to develop their understanding of the
underlying theory to enhance their understanding of the pedagogical approach to creating an
autonomy-supportive learning environment. This engagement in the AR process enabled the
critical friend to guide the coach participatory action research to deepen their understanding
of the relationship between the theory and the pedagogical practices and in so doing moving
beyond a ‘recipe’ and linear approach to translating theory to practice. In addition, coaches’
views of their personal orientation (controlling or autonomy-supportive) might be incongruent
with the players’ view, which is consistent with research on teachers (Reeve, 2009). It is our
experience that coaches think they are more autonomy-supportive compared to the players
they coach. Feedback from players and the critical friend, combined with coaches’ personal
video-analysis, provide opportunities for challenging coaches’ perceptions and promoting
enhanced self-awareness and subsequent reflection. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that
providing choice is not the same as a laissez faire approach to coaching. Limiting athletes to
two or three choices provides an important limit that enables a coach to foster psychological
need satisfaction and subsequent internal motivation but also to guide the athlete in particular
ways.
Linked to a limited understanding of autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors has been
coaches’ poor understanding of motivation. Given the nature of competitive sport, coaches
can at times focus on the quantity of motivation rather than the quality of the motivation.
Recent work by Occhino et al. (2014) found that a sample of youth basketball coaches
believed that part of their coaching role was to motivate their athletes to be better players.
Interestingly, these coaches used punishments such as running lines or push-ups for missing
shots or in order to shape the behaviors of their athletes. The players viewed these coach
behaviors as punishment and ineffective. While well intentioned, these coaches were
thwarting the very thing they were attempting to create – an internally motivated player.
Proponents of SDT propose that motivation that is maintained over longer periods and more
importantly is self-initiated is likely to produce adaptive outcomes such as persistence, higher
performance, and superior well-being (e.g., Hodge, et al., 2011; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003;
Mallett & Hanrahan, 2004; McLean et al., 2012; Pelletier et al., 2001). The role of the coach
in supporting athletes’ internal motivation should be targeted at creating a motivational
climate that facilities motivation through increased need satisfaction that fosters persistence
and determination to produce improved performance.
Knowing about autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors does not guarantee adoption of
those behaviors. Coaches’ intentions to provide athletes some say in decision-making is likely
more rhetorical rather than reality (McLean & Mallett, 2012). Cognitive understanding of
autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviors is a good starting point for promotion a
behavioral shift towards more autonomy-supportive coaching. However, shifting the focus
away from what coaches do (behaviors) to how they impact the athletes (learners) is
challenging. It moves the discussion away from a single focus on what (i.e., coach behavior)
to a greater focus on the why and how and from a transactional to a more transformative
understanding of autonomy-supportive coaching (McLean & Mallett, 2012). It is noteworthy
that some coaches through coach development activities have understood the seven
pedagogical coaching as espoused by Mageau and Vallerand (2003) as ‘rules’ to be applied
(personal communication, 12th July, 2014) supporting the ‘recipe’ approach adopted by some
coaches and further highlighting coaches’ superficial understanding of autonomy-supportive
coaching.
A key challenge in moving from knowing to doing that was identified in our research was
the expectations of self and others to produce winning performances that were perceived to
interfere with adopting an autonomy-supportive pedagogical approach to coaching. When
there is a perceived desire (importance) to win it is likely that coaches will find themselves
defaulting to a more controlling behaviors during this transition from knowing to doing (on a
consistent basis). The coaches in our studies found it difficult to consistently behave in
autonomy-supportive ways especially under the pressures of winning. Similarly, Reeve
(2009) suggested one of the reasons teachers were controlling was because of the pressures
placed on teachers to produce high achieving students. The pressure to perform, especially in
elite level sport, contributes to coaches’ stress and the typical default to more controlling
behaviors (Amorose, 2007; Occhino et al., 2014; Su & Reeve, 2011).
Rabjohns (2014) found that coaches within a high performance rowing context believed
in their formula for success and were reluctant to make changes that have previously been
untried. The coaches were all open to considering new ideas and listening to the ideas of other
coaches to develop their own coaching, including an autonomy-supportive interpersonal style.
The biggest hurdle to implementing change was the constantly busy schedule of coaches and
athletes. Coaches regularly commented on the significant and ever-increasing task list that
was required of the athletes and coaches. Rabjohns suggested that perhaps the most
convenient time for a high performance coach to implement an autonomy-supportive
behavior intervention is at the beginning, or the very early stages of the season. This would
allow sufficient time to examine the impact of the intervention, and possibly conduct a second
intervention within the same season. He reported that coaches felt that they would require
support to undertake any behavioral intervention and expressed concerns that it could be
perceived as the coach showcasing a perceived weakness that might, in turn, thwart the
coach’s sense of competence and also relatedness.
Similarly, Occhino and colleagues (2014) found that the pressure to win was associated
with the coaches’ perception of what makes a quality coach. Ego involvement is the extent to
which a coach is over-invested in the performance of their athletes. As a result the self-image
of the coach created an internal pressure to perform as a successful team means they are a
successful coach. Therefore, the coach adopted mostly controlling behaviors (e.g., use of
punishment) in order to produce the desired outcome. A coach that places the thoughts,
feelings, and needs of their athletes second to their personal goals is likely to struggle to
display autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors. The problematic nature of the translation of
theory to practice is that it is challenging for a coach to suppress their ego-involvement
(especially in a domain such as sport where the emphasis on performance is so pervasive) and
shift to an autonomy-supportive style even though the coach knows the benefits of such an
approach.
The third theme that emerged from these studies was the culturally entrenched and
implicitly learned conceptions of quality coaching, which are aligned with a preference for a
controlling interpersonal style (personal orientation). Controlling coaching practices are
probably viewed as characteristic of quality coaching; similar findings have been reported in
education where controlling teachers are often viewed as the most effective teachers (Reeve,
2009). In thinking about how coaches get the best from athletes, a prevalent view is that
coaches need to be controlling to achieve successful outcomes. Coaches’ pursuit to deliver
successful performance outcomes necessitates the perceived control of as many variables as
possible (Lyle, 2002; Mallett, 2010). From our research, coaches, players, and parents all
view that quality coaching is associated with a controlling interpersonal style. In these
studies, it became apparent that an autonomy-supportive approach to coaching was
considered ineffective in producing successful performance outcomes (i.e., winning),
especially in elite sporting contexts. Furthermore, it could be argued that controlling
behaviors have become so prevalent that in many cases they have become normalized to the
extent that controlling athletes is seen as a useful way to produce successful outcomes. When
coaches behave in a manner that is not consistent with how parents, other coaches, and
athletes perceive successful coaching should look like it can influence one’s reluctance to
adopt an autonomy-supportive style. The views of some are that autonomy-supportive
coaching is ‘soft’ coaching and unsuitable to the demands and pressures of elite sport in youth
and adult settings. The publication of case studies in elite sport such as Hodge et al. (2014)
and Mallett (2005) have the potential to challenge these attitudes and beliefs; however, more
case study research is needed to provide compelling support for a shift towards an autonomy-
supportive interpersonal style in elite sport. Furthermore, some athletes may have a
preference for the coach to tell them what to do (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In these cases, the
athlete’s need for autonomy is probably satisfied promoting internal motivation because the
athlete chooses to pass those decisions to the coach (identified regulation because the athlete
endorses such actions).
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we initially provided an overview of the Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003)
motivational model of the coach-athlete relationship within the theoretical framework of SDT
(Deci & Ryan, 1985). Then we compared and contrasted two interpersonal styles as espoused
by Mageau and Vallerand: autonomy-supportive and controlling. In the final section of the
chapter we discussed the challenges coaches face in shifting from a controlling to a more
autonomy-supportive style based on the findings from several qualitative studies. Three key
themes were highlighted: lack of deep understanding of autonomy-supportive coaching and
motivation; implementation of autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors is challenging; and
cultural conceptions of quality coaching.
Understanding and implementing an autonomy-supportive approach to sport coaching
has significant merit. Nevertheless, in this chapter we highlighted some of the challenges in
coaching differently and specifically in shifting from a culturally endorsed and valued
controlling interpersonal style. Our intention was to challenge a simplistic view of adopting
and implementing an autonomy-supportive interpersonal coaching style. We suggest some
modesty in progressing the shift from a controlling style to that which considers the coaching
context and culture, the importance of time, and small progressive steps. Finally, we
encourage researchers to undertake further case study (action) research, which is necessary to
demonstrate the potential of an autonomy-supportive interpersonal style in coaching,
including high performance sport, but also to unpack some of the complexity associated with
coaching differently.

 We strongly encourage coaches to shift to a less controlling and a more autonomy-
supportive coaching style.
 Develop a deeper understanding of SDT - Effective autonomy-supportive coaching
requires a good understanding of the underpinning theory (Deci and Ryan’s SDT
[1985]; and Mageau and Vallerand’s [2003] motivational model of the coach-athlete
relationship).
 Be patient in shifting towards an autonomy-supportive coaching style. Take small
steps (e.g., gradually provide some choice in one aspects of training such as a choice
of two options) and seek feedback from players about what they like and don’t like
regarding your attempts to be more autonomy-supportive.
 A “less is more approach” to coaching enables more time for coaches to observe
athletes and how they respond to the coaching environment created by the coach.
Remember the coach is the “architect of the motivational climate.” Compare and
contrast athlete behaviors when using controlling and autonomy-supportive
interpersonal styles and observe differences in player engagement. Spend more time
facilitating learning and psychological growth than “telling” athletes what to do, and
when to do it, in addition to shaping behavior through rewards, punishment,
coercion, and making them feel guilty when they perform poorly.
REFERENCES
Ahlberg, M., Mallett, C. J., & Tinning, R., (2008). Developing autonomy supportive coaching
behaviors: An action research approach to coach development. International Journal of
Amorose, A. (2007). Coaching effectiveness: Exploring the relationship between coaching
behavior and self-determined motivation. In, M.S. Hagger, & N.L.D. Chatzisarantis
(Eds), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport (209-227).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and self-
determined motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-determination
theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 654–670.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A. & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.
(2011). Self-Determination Theory and diminished functioning: The role of
interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1459-1473.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N. & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2009). A review of
controlling motivational strategies from a Self-Determination theory perspective:
Implications for sports coaches. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
2(2), 215-33.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2010). The controlling
interpersonal style in a coaching context: Development and initial validation of a
psychometric scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 193-216.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Byrne, K. (2010). Developing an autonomy-supportive learning environment: Improving
coaching practice through action research. MPhil Thesis, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane.
Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2007). Coaching behaviors associated with changes in
fear of failure: Changes in self-talk and need satisfaction as potential mechanisms.
Journal of Personality, 75, 383–419.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior.
New York: Academic Press.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organiszational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., Amoura, S., & Baldes, B. (2010). Influence of coaches' autonomy
support on athletes' motivation and sport performance: A test of the hierarchical model
of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 155-161.
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Harris, J. (2006). From psychological need
satisfaction to intentional behavior: Testing a motivational sequence in two behavioral
contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 131-148.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model.
Human Development, 1, 34-64.
Hodge, K., Henry, G., & Smith, W. (2014). A case study of excellence in elite sport:
Motivational climate in a world champion team. The Sports Psychologist, 28, 60-74.
Hodge, K., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport: The role of
coaching style, autonomous versus controlled motivation, and moral disengagement.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 527-547.
rd
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3 ed.). Victoria,
Australia: Deakin University.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s
behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on children’s
intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 54, 233-248.
Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving practice: A practical guide. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behavior. London:
Routledge.
Mageau, G. A. & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883-904.
Mallett, C. J. (2005). Self-Determination Theory: A case study of evidence-based coaching.
Mallett, C. J. (2010). High performance coaches' careers and communities. In J. Lyle & C.
Cushion (Eds.), Sports Coaching: Professionalism and practice (pp. 119–133). London:
Elsevier.
Mallett, C. J., & Hanrahan, S. J. (2004). Elite athletes: What makes the "fire" burn so
brightly? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 183-200.
McAdams, D. P. (1996). Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary
framework for studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 295–321.
McAdams, D. P. (1998). Ego, trait, identity. In P. M. Westenberg & A. Blasi (Eds),
Personality development: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical investigations of
Loevinger’s conception of ego development (pp. 27–38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an
integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.
McAdams, D. P. (2009). The person: An introduction to the science of personality psychology
(5th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
McLean, K. N., & Mallett, C. J. (2012). What motivates the motivators? An examination of
sports coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17(1), 21-35.
McLean, K. N., Mallett, C. J., & Newcombe, P. (2012). Assessing coach motivation: The
development of the Coach Motivation Questionnaire (CMQ). Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 34, 184–207.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective
experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
Occhino, J. L. (2014). Promoting a psychological need-supportive environment: An
investigation into changing behavior. PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland, St
Lucia, Brisbane.
Occhino, J. L., Mallett, C. J., Rynne, S. B., & Carlisle, K. N. (2014). Autonomy-supportive
pedagogical approach to sports coaching: Research, challenges and opportunities.
International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 9, 401–416.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Perceived autonomy
support, motivation, and persistence in physical activity: A longitudinal investigation.
Motivation and emotion, 25, 279-306.
Rabjohns, M. (2014). The role of relatedness in rowing. MPhil Thesis, The University of
Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and they
can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159-175.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 749–761.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 2000, 55(1),
68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic
dialectical perspective. In E.L. Deci, & R.M. Ryan (Eds.) Handbook of self-
determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester NY: University of Rochester Press.
Sheldon, K. M., Cheng, C., & Hilpert, J. (2011). Understanding well-being and optimal
functioning: Applying the Multilevel Personality in Context (MPIC) Model.
Psychological Inquiry, 22, 1-16.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Smith, A., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2010). An investigation of coaching behavior, goal
motives, and implementation intentions as predictors of well-being in sport. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 17-33.
Stebbings, J., Taylor, I. M., & Spray, C. M. (2011). Antecedents of perceived coach
autonomy supportive and controlling behaviors: Coach psychological need satisfaction
and well-being. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 255-272.
Su, Y., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs
designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159-188.
Vansteenkiste, M., Nieiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of five mini-
theories of Self-determination Theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and
future directions. In T.C. Urdan, S.A. Karabenick (Eds), The decade ahead: Theoretical
perspectives on motivation and achievement, Advances in Motivation and Achievement,
Volume 16 Part A (pp.105 – 165). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review, 66, 297-331.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Clifford J. Mallett is an Associate Professor of Sport Psychology and Coaching at
The University of Queensland and an Honorary Professor in Sports Coaching at Edge Hill
University (UK). He is a former Australian Olympic coach in track and field. His research
and teaching focuses on coaches' motivation and behaviors, mental toughness, coach learning
and development.
Martin Rabjohns is a former Olympic rower for Australia, who completed his MPhil at
the University of Queensland. His research interests focus on maximizing team performance
through the contribution of the individual and creating a sense of belonging within individuals
and teams.
Dr Joseph L Occhino completed his PhD at The University of Queensland in the area of
Sport Psychology. He is interested in the impact of leadership behaviors on motivational
outcomes of others. After several years in the University sector, Joseph works as a
management consultant focusing on people and performance.
Chapter 11
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF PERCEIVED

COACH-ATHLETE INTERACTIONS IN RELATION
TO MARKERS OF GOAL PROGRESS?
AN APPLICATION OF
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
J. Paige Pope1, Philip M. Wilson2,†, Diane E. Mack2

and Sarah Deck2
1
2
Brock University, Canada
ABSTRACT
The primary aim of this chapter was to examine changes in perceived autonomy
support, structure, and involvement provided by the head coach to university-level rugby
players over the latter portion of a competitive season. The secondary aim of this chapter
was to link variability across perceived supports from the coach with markers of goal
progress. Female rugby players (N = 44; Mage = 19.36 years; SDage = 3.01 years) served as
the participants in this study and completed assessments of perceived coaching style at
the mid-point and end-stage of a competitive season, plus assessments of goal effort and
goal attainment. The results of paired samples t-tests (all p’s < .05) indicated that
decreased perceptions of autonomy support (Cohen’s d = 1.39), structure (Cohen’s d =
1.07), and involvement (Cohen’s d = 0.82) provided by the head coach were reported by
female rugby players across the latter portion of the competitive season. Reductions in
goal effort (Cohen’s d = 0.81) but not goal attainment (t43 = 1.29, p = .20) were also
reported between mid- to end-of season assessments. Pearson correlations indicated that a
reduction in perceived autonomy support from the coach was associated with less effort

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada (SSHRC). Thanks are extended to the participants who gave freely of their time and effort in this
study. This data was collected as a portion of an honors thesis completed by Dr. J. Paige Pope (née Gregson)
under the supervision of Dr. Philip M. Wilson at Brock University.
†
Corresponding Author address: Email: pwilson4@brocku.ca
184 J. Paige Pope, Philip M. Wilson, Diane E. Mack et al.
(r12 = 0.27) and decreased attainment (r12 = 0.25) of goal pursuits. Overall, the results
presented in this chapter imply that the latter half of a competitive rugby season may be
an important watershed period for understanding coach-athlete interactions given the
substantial changes noted across waves of assessment in this study. This phase of the
competitive season may also represent an important timeframe for interventions designed
to bolster goal progress as a function of enhancing support from the coaching staff with
particular emphasis on autonomy support.
Keywords: Self-determination theory, self-concordance model, autonomy support,

interpersonal coaching styles, structure, involvement, goals, effort
INTRODUCTION
Within the sporting arena, coaches have been recognized as one of the most influential
agents that can impact how athletes experience their sport both behaviorally and
psychologically (Amorose, 2007; Chan, Lonsdale, & Fung, 2012). Previous research has
indicated that some coaching behaviors are linked to athletic outcomes such as higher levels
of athlete performance (e.g., Jowett & Cramer, 2010), sport competence (e.g., Jowett &
Cramer, 2010), athlete satisfaction (e.g., Jowett, Shanmugam, & Caccoulis, 2012), athlete
enjoyment (e.g., Chan et al., 2012), and team cohesion (e.g., Jowett et al., 2012). Conversely,
additional studies have reported that certain coaching behaviors may be associated with
negative athletic consequences including burnout (e.g., Harris & Ostrow, 2008), drop-out
(e.g., Stewart & Taylor, 2000), and depression (e.g., Mouratidis, Lens, & Vansteenkiste,
2010). Understanding which coaching behaviors lead to more effective athletic performance
and enhanced psychological and emotional well-being is therefore a worthwhile area of
research (Amorose, 2007).
Guided by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Deci and Ryan (2002) advocate that
interpersonal styles focused on perceptions of autonomy support, structure, and involvement
can provide a framework to understand perceived coach-athlete interactions in sport (Mageau
& Vallerand, 2003).
Autonomy supportive coaches provide the athletes with choice, opportunities to initiate
and control their behaviors, while minimizing controlling statements, pressures, and demands
(Deci & Ryan, 2002; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Coaches who provide structure,
communicate their expectations clearly to athletes, and give the athletes the necessary
information to understand what to do and how to do it in sport (e.g., feedback, learning
strategies, directions, standards, challenges, plans, and schedules; Reeve, 2006). Involved
coaches offer their athletes emotional resources (e.g., affection and sympathy), show genuine
interest in the athlete as a person, acknowledge their feelings, and spend time with them
(Ratelle, Larose, Guay, & Senécal, 2005). Previous studies have demonstrated the merits of
the approach to understanding perceived interpersonal styles advocated by Deci and Ryan
with reference to teachers (e.g., Reeve, 2006) and parents (e.g., Ratelle et al., 2005). Stated
differently, desirable consequences such as more self-determined motives, greater persistence,
sustained engagement, and higher overall satisfaction are apparent in students and children
when they experience greater autonomy support, structure, and involvement from coaches,
teachers, or parents (c.f., Reeve, 2006; Ratelle et al., 2005).
What Is the Role of Perceived Coach-Athlete Interactions …? 185
The pragmatic appeal offered by Deci and Ryan’s (2002) theorizing concerns the ability
to understand a host of behavioral and well-being issues in the sporting milieu impacted by
perceived coach-athlete interactions. Extrapolating from Deci and Ryan’s (2002) contentions,
Mageau and Vallerand (2003) recommend that all three dimensions of perceived
interpersonal style be considered simultaneously when studying coach-athlete interactions
while Amorose (2007) suggests combining all three interpersonal styles provides “the most
accurate and complete understanding” (p. 222) of the athlete. To date, a substantial research
base in sport partially corroborates Deci and Ryan’s (2002) theorizing given that athletes who
report experiencing greater autonomy support from their coaches also experience more
adaptive consequences (e.g., behavioral engagement, subjective vitality; Curran, Hill, &
Niemiec, 2013; Jõesaar, Hein, & Hagger, 2012; López-Walle, Balaguer, Castillo, & Tristán,
2012).
Closer inspection of the evidence applying SDT to the study of coach-athlete interactions
in sport indicates that limited research has examined perceptions of structure and involvement
in comparison to perceived autonomy support (Wilson, Gregson, & Mack, 2009). The
overarching purpose of this study was to address the following two questions: (a) Do
perceived interpersonal style dimensions vary over time?; and (b) How do changes in
perceived interpersonal style dimensions link with markers of goal progress?
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRESENT STUDY

Applications of SDT to the study of coach-athlete interactions within sport using
dimensions of interpersonal style provided the impetus for the current study. First, it is
evident from the systematic review published by Wilson and colleagues (2009) that the lion’s
share of the sport psychology research has excluded perceived structure and involvement in
favor of assessing only perceived autonomy support (Wilson et al., 2009). Specifically, over
half of the coded studies (52.9%) examined autonomy support, while less than a quarter of the
studies (23.5%) assessed structure and involvement in conjunction with autonomy support
(Wilson et al., 2009). Even a cursory inspection of the sport psychology literature since
Wilson et al.’s review makes it apparent that autonomy support dominates the research
landscape in terms of the interpersonal style dimension investigated in sport (e.g., Adie,
Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2008; Chan & Hagger, 2012; Gillet, Vallerand, Amoura, & Baldes,
2012). The net impact of this restrictive focus in the sport psychology literature has been the
development of a greater understanding of the importance of autonomy support to athletes
when considering coach-athlete interactions. Overall, it appears that providing autonomy
support by the coach is beneficial for competitive athletes in terms of promoting adaptive
behavioral and psychological consequences (e.g., Curran et al., 2013; Jõesaar, et al., 2012;
López-Walle et al., 2012; Pope & Wilson, 2012).
A few isolated studies have included perceptions of structure and involvement when
investigation the role of interpersonal style dimensions in relation to coach-athlete
interactions within sport. In line with Deci and Ryan’s (2002) theorizing, it appears that
provision of structure accompanied by involvement from the coach is beneficial for
competitive athletes given links with greater psychological need satisfaction and behavioral
engagement (Curran et al., 2013; Gagné, Ryan, & Bargmann, 2003; Pope & Wilson, 2012).
Closer inspection of this literature suggests more research attention is worthwhile to fully
evaluate Deci and Ryan’s (2002) claims regarding the role of structure and involvement in
relation to autonomy support within coach-athlete interactions. For example, it is worth
noting that several investigations which have included each dimension of interpersonal style
advocated by Deci and Ryan (2002) within SDT amalgamated these psychological constructs
into a solitary variable (e.g., De Backer et al., 2011; Pope & Wilson, 2012). Additional
studies assessing each interpersonal style dimension did not test for unique contributions in
relation to criterion variables under study (e.g., Pelletier, et al., 1995; Pope & Wilson, 2014).
Collectively, the available data make it apparent that autonomy support from the coach
matters to competitive athletes, yet insufficient evidence is available with which to evaluate
Deci and Ryan’s (2002) contentions pertaining to either structure or involvement.
A second line of reasoning supporting this investigation concerns the overreliance on
cross-sectional designs within sport when testing Deci and Ryan’s (2002) assertions
(Amorose, 2007; Wilson et al., 2009). Deci and Ryan portray autonomy support, structure,
and involvement as dynamic entities that characterize how people (e.g., athletes, etc.) feel
when interacting with others in positions of power or authority (e.g., coaches, etc.).
Extrapolating from SDT, it seems reasonable to contend that longitudinal designs be used
when testing Deci and Ryan’s claims in order to capture variability in autonomy support,
structure, and involvement that epitomizes this ‘dynamism’. Suffice it to say that the sport
psychology literature using SDT to investigate dimensions of interpersonal style has been
dominated by cross-sectional research designs (Wilson et al., 2009).
One notable exception is the work of Balaguer and colleagues who tested whether
variation in perceived autonomy supportive (and controlling) interpersonal styles experienced
by youth soccer players predicted changes in psychological need satisfaction/thwarting,
subjective vitality, and burnout (Balaguer, Gonzálex, Fabra, Castillo, Mercé, & Duda, 2012).
With respect to perceived autonomy support, Balaguer et al. (2012) reported that a mid-to-late
season decline was evident in youth soccer players and this change was linked with variation
in psychological need satisfaction as well as need thwarting. At present, it remains unclear if
Balaguer et al.’s findings generalize beyond the realm of youth sport or extend to the
provision of structure and involvement by coaches. Yet, when combined with Deci and
Ryan’s study, the findings reported by Balaguer et al. make it apparent that longitudinal
research studies embracing unique time points (e.g., mid-to-late season vs. pre-post season)
seem in order to fully test this component of SDT in sport.
A final line of reasoning used to justify this study concerns the nomological network
(Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) of constructs linked with dimensions of interpersonal style
attributed to the coach in sport. In their classic work on construct validation, Cronbach and
Meehl (1955) forwarded the idea of a nomological network as a framework to use that
situates ‘focal’ construct(s) (e.g., autonomy support, structure, involvement) within a network
of relationships with other constructs (e.g., psychological needs, motives, etc.). Examining the
range of variables linked mainly with autonomy support and to a lesser extent to structure and
involvement within sport makes it apparent that a considerable nomological network already
exists drawing heavily from Deci and Ryan’s (2002) theorizing.
For example, dimension of interpersonal style attributed to the coach by athletes have
been linked in previous studies with motivational processes integral to SDT (e.g., fulfillment
of psychological needs, behavioral regulations; Pope & Wilson, 2012), indices of well-being
(e.g., subjective vitality; López-Walle et al., 2012), and markers of adaptive behavior (e.g.,
behavioral engagement; Curran et al., 2013). Limited attempts have been made to link the full
range of interpersonal style dimensions within sport to constructs from other models (or
theories) that might shed light on the relative importance of structure and involvement in
conjunction with autonomy support.
We sought to address this issue in the present study by exploring associations between
dimensions of interpersonal style and markers of goal process drawn from Sheldon’s (2002)
work on the Self-Concordance Model (SCM; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999)
Within the SCM, Sheldon (2002) forwarded the notion that multiple goal-related
variables can enhance well-being including the amount of effort expended in the pursuit of
self-set goals and goal attainment. Understanding the potential mechanisms that facilitate
goal-related effort and goal attainment is a worthwhile area of research in sport given that a
central focus of sport psychology research concerns understanding how to optimize
psychological experiences for athletes.
Research grounded in the SCM has demonstrated that satisfying key psychological needs
proposed by Deci and Ryan (2002) within SDT serves as an antecedent for adopting self-
concordant goals (Milyavskaya, Nodolny, & Koestner, 2014).
Milyavskaya et al. have further recommended that future research should examine the
extent to which needs support (i.e., autonomy support, structure, and involvement) can
influence self-concordant goals. Therefore, the present study will extend the nomological
network of variables linked with SDT’s interpersonal style dimensions in competitive sport
by testing links with markers of goal progress focused on effort and attainment.
AIMS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The aim of this study was twofold. First, we sought evidence to determine if perceived
dimensions of interpersonal style (namely autonomy support, structure, and involvement)
changed as expected based on SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2002) over the latter half of a competitive
sport season.
Drawing on the theorizing of Deci and Ryan, and previous studies in sport psychology
(e.g., Adie et al., 2012), we anticipated changes in perceived dimensions of interpersonal
style, yet the directionality of these changes remained exploratory in this study. Second,
assuming changes were evident in perceived dimensions of interpersonal style attributed to
the head coach, we explored the possibility that those variations could be linked to the degree
of effort expended, and attainment, of self-set goals in competitive athletes. No formal
hypotheses were delineated a priori regarding the directionality or magnitude of the
relationship expected between changes in dimensions of perceived coaching styles and
markers of goal progress given the exploratory nature of this study.
METHODS
Participants
Female rugby players (N = 48) provided data for this study.1 All participants were varsity
rugby players competing for a team enrolled in the Ontario University Athletics provincial
sport conference. Participants ranged in age from 18.00 to 23.00 years (Mage = 19.36 years;
SDage = 3.01 years) at the time of data collection. Levels of experience playing organized
rugby varied across this sample ranging from 1.00 to 10.00 years (Myears = 6.05; SDyears =
1.84) with on average 2.23 years (SD = 1.26 years) spent playing university-level rugby.
Playing experience beyond the university-level varied across this sample. Most of the
participants indicated high school (15.90%) or club (58.80%) as the highest level of rugby
engaged in other than university. A smaller portion of the sample indicated playing rugby at
either the representative (11.40%), provincial (13.60%) or national (2.30%) levels of
competition. Participants spent more time per week training for rugby in-season (Mhours/week =
15.68; SDhours/week = 3.55) than during either the pre-season (Mhours/week = 8.50; SDhours/week =
4.86) or off-season (Mhours/week = 6.02; SDhours/week = 3.81). Most of the sample indicated that
they expected their role on the team to be a non-starter (50.00%) while starter status (36.40%)
and occasional starter status (9.10%) was reported by less than half the sample. See Table 1
for a more descriptive depiction of the demographic profile of participants.
Instruments
Demographics. Each participant was asked to provide their age, playing position, years
spent playing organized/university-level rugby, hours spent training for rugby, and current (or
expected) status as a starter/non-starter on their university rugby team.
Interpersonal Style (Head Coach). Each participant completed an 18-item questionnaire
designed to measure perceptions of autonomy support, structure, and involvement
experienced by rugby players from their head coach. Six items were used to assess
perceptions of autonomy support (Sample item: “My rugby coach listens to how I would like
to do things”), structure (Sample item: “My coach provides clear feedback about my
progress”), and involvement (Sample item: “My coach puts time and energy into helping
me”). The full set of items comprising this instrument was preceded by a stem that
contextualized athletes’ responses with reference to the head coach of their rugby team (Stem:
“This questionnaire contains items that are related to your experiences with your head rugby
coach. Coaches have different styles in dealing with athletes, and we would like to know more
about how you have felt about your encounters with your head rugby coach.”). Each item
was assessed on a Likert-scale with verbal anchors affixed to 1 (Not at all true), 4 (Sometimes
true), and 7 (Very true). The autonomy support items were adapted from the Health Care
Climate Questionnaire (Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996) while the structure
and involvement items were adapted from the work of Markland and Tobin (2010). Previous
1
Four additional female rugby players provided data at the first assessment but opted not to complete the second
assessment protocol outlined in this study. For the purposes of this investigation, these participants were
removed from consideration prior to the data analysis.
research has used adapted versions of these instruments for the assessment of interpersonal
coaching styles perceived by university-based athletes engaged in competitive sport (e.g.,
Pope & Wilson, 2012). Subscales scores were created to represent perceptions of autonomy
support, structure, and involvement from the head rugby coach by averaging the responses
provided from each item per subscale (Morris, 1979).
Goal Progress. Two items were adapted from the work of Sheldon (2002) to serve as
markers of goal progress consistent with the SCM. The first item was designed to gauge the
degree of effort being expended in pursuing personal goals (Item: “How hard are you trying
to pursue your goal at this stage of the season?”). Responses to this item were provided on a
9-point Likert-scale anchored at the extremes by 1 (Not at all hard) and 9 (Very hard). The
second item was designed to measure perceived attainment experienced by each athlete in
relation their personal goals (Item: “How well are you doing in terms of achieving your goals
at this stage of the season?”). Responses to this item were provided on a 9-point Likert-scale
anchored at the extremes by 1 (Not well at all) and 9 (Very well). Both items were adapted
from Sheldon’s (2002) work concerning the development of the SCM that has been tested
extensively in university-aged samples (e.g., Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).
Data Collection and Data Analysis
Each rugby player provided data at the mid-point (Time 1) and late-stage (Time 2) of the
same competitive season. Data collections were separated by approximately a 3 week interval
between the first and second test administrations with the Time 2 assessments occurring
during the last week of the rugby season. During the first assessment (Time 1), each athlete
provided their demographic information plus assessments of the coaches’ interpersonal style
in addition to markers of goal effort and goal attainment up to that point of the rugby season.
At the second wave of data collection (Time 2), each rugby player provided their perceptions
of the coaches’ interpersonal style at that juncture of the season in addition to their estimates
of goal effort and goal attainment at the late stage of the season. Before commencing the data
collection at both time points, scripted written and verbal instructions were delivered from the
same principal investigator to reduce the likelihood of between-subjects or between-time
effects attributed to test administration. Informed consent was obtained from each athlete
prior to their entrance into the study at Time 1. Each participant was given the opportunity to
ask questions of the principal investigator during the recruitment phase for this study. The
protocol for this study was reviewed and cleared for data collection by a university-based
Research Ethics Board prior to any contact with any study participant during the recruitment
or data collection phases of this investigation.
Data analysis proceeded in an iterative fashion. First, the data were screened for out-of-
range responses, conformity with relevant statistical assumptions, and presence or statistical
outliers. Second, estimates of internal consistency reliability using coefficient α (Cronbach,
1951) were calculated for relevant study variables. Third, descriptive statistics were
calculated for all study variables. Fourth, a series of paired samples t-tests were computed to
test group-level changes in study variables. Fifth, bivariate correlations (Pearson) were
computed between change score variables representing variability in perceived autonomy
support, structure, involvement, goal effort, and goal attainment. Change scores were
computed using a residual approach (Zumbo, 1999) that involved regressing the Time 2 score
onto the Time 1 score for the same variable and saving the residual variance as an index of
change.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses and Missing Data
No out-of-range responses were evident in the data provided by this sample. No missing
data was evident in participant responses at the first wave of assessment (i.e., Mid-Season).
Four participants failed to provide data at the second wave of assessment (i.e., End-of-
Season). These four cases were removed leaving a sample size of 44 complete cases for
subsequent analyses. No grave departures from assumptions of univariate normality were
evident in the data provided at either the first (MSkewness = -0.31; SDSkewness = 0.53;
MKurtosis = -0.32; SDKurtosis = 0.67) or second (MSkewness = 0.23; SDSkewness = 0.72;
MKurtosis = 0.41; SDKurtosis = 0.65) waves of assessment (see Table 2 for specific values). No
univariate outliers were noted in the sample at either the mid- or end-of-season assessment
periods in this study.
Estimates of Score Reliability for Perceptions of Coaches’ Interpersonal

Style
Score reliability values for scores assessing autonomy support, structure, and
involvement perceived from the head rugby coach are presented in Table 2. At the both waves
of assessment, scores for the involvement items exhibited the most error variance. Scores for
the structure items displayed the least error variance at both waves of assessment. Item-level
analyses provided no evidence that removal of any items would substantively improve score
reliability estimates for perceived autonomy support, structure, or involvement in this sample
at either wave of assessment.
Group-Level Changes in Perceptions of Coaches’ Interpersonal Style
Changes in autonomy support, structure, and involvement perceived by rugby players

from the head coach over the latter half of the competitive season were assessed using paired
samples t-tests. Estimates of effect size were calculated using the procedures outlined by
Morris and DeShon (2002) for repeated measures designs. Significant decreases in perceived
autonomy support (t43 = 8.73, p < .05), structure (t43 = 7.12, p < .05), and involvement
(t43 = 5.43, p < .05) were evident across the assessment period. The overall magnitude of
these changes based on the calculated effect sizes for autonomy support (Cohen’s d = 1.39),
structure (Cohen’s d = 1.07), and involvement (Cohen’s d = 0.82) exceeded common
thresholds of 0.80 that typify large effects (Cohen, 1988). Significant reductions in goal effort
(t43 = 5.05, p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.81) but not goal attainment (t43 = 1.29, p = .20, Cohen’s
d = 0.20) were also noted between mid- to end-of-season assessments.
Table 1. Demographic profiles of female rugby players in this sample
Study Variables M(SD) Percentage (%)

Demographics
Age (in years) 19.35 (2.88) -
Training History -
Hours/Week of training - Pre-Season 8.61 (5.05) -
Hours/Week of training - In Season 15.35 (3.62) -
Hours/Week of training - Off-Season 5.88 (3.69) -
Playing History
Playing Position
Fly-Half - 10.40
Flanker - 10.40
Prop/Forward - 12.50
Eight-Man - 4.20
Lock - 10.40
Full-Back - 3.60
Centre (Inside/Outside) - 16.70
Scrum Half - 8.30
Hooker - 6.30
Wing - 10.40
Second Row - 4.20
Highest Level of Play
High School - 14.60
Club - 58.30
Representative - 10.40
Provincial - 14.60
National Team - 2.10
Current Status
Non-Starter - 54.20
Occasional Starter - 8.30
Starter - 33.30
Unsure - 4.20
Note. Values are presented as either M (SD) or Percentage (%) as a function of the scale on which each
variable was measured in this study. The item addressing highest level of play was querying the
upper level of competitive experience other than university-level rugby reported by each athlete.
Associations between Changes in Perceptions of Coaches’ Interpersonal Style

and Goal Progress
Bivariate correlations (Pearson r) were calculated between change score variables for
each dimension of perceived interpersonal coaching style and markers of goal progress (see
Table 3). Associations between changes in perceived coaches’ interpersonal style dimensions
were uniformly positive and stronger (Mr12 = 0.63; SDr12 = 0.04), on average, than the
relationship between changes in perceived coaching style and either marker of goal progress
(Mr12 = 0.19; SDr12 = 0.06). These associations were consistent with large effects (i.e., |r12| ≥
0.50; Rosenthal & Rosonow, 1984). Changes in perceived autonomy support from the coach
displayed marginally stronger albeit positive associations with changes in goal effort and goal
attainment than either changes in perceived structure or involvement.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and estimates of score reliability for study variables over test administrations
Time 1 (Mid-Season) Time 2 (End-of-Season)

Variables M SD Skew. Kurt. α M SD Skew. Kurt. α
Autonomy Support 4.04 0.92 0.12 -0.91 0.81 2.79 0.91 0.77 1.13 0.88
Structure 4.43 1.07 -0.48 -0.05 0.90 3.09 1.07 1.02 0.93 0.90
Involvement 4.15 0.83 0.03 -0.39 0.74 3.44 0.89 -0.30 0.46 0.67
Goal Effort 7.19 1.24 -0.07 -0.92 - 5.45 2.18 -0.70 -0.06 -
Goal Attainment 5.66 1.71 -1.17 0.68 - 5.23 2.14 0.36 -0.42 -
Note. M = Mean. SD = Standard Deviation. Skew. = Univariate Skewness. Kurt. = Univariate Kurtosis.
Table 3. Bivariate correlations between changes in perceived interpersonal style dimensions attributed to the head
coach and goal progress
Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Δ Autonomy Support -
2. Δ Structure 0.60 -
3. Δ Involvement 0.67 0.61 -
4. Δ Goal Effort 0.27 0.14 0.16 -
5. Δ Goal Attainment 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.80 -
Note. Δ = Change scores for each measured variable across test administrations. Values presented in the lower diagonal of the matrix are
Pearson r’s based on a fixed sample size (n = 44) for each cell in the matrix. Pearson r-coefficients > |0.50| were statistically
significant at p < .05 (two-tailed significance). Pearson r-coefficients > |0.26| but < |0.50| were statistically significant at p ≤ .08
(two-tailed significance). Pearson r-coefficients > |0.20| but less than |0.25| were statistically significant at p ≤ .11 (two-tailed
significance).
The magnitude of the observed relationship between changes in perceived autonomy

support and changes in markers of goal progress typified small-to-medium effects (i.e., |r12| ≥
0.10 but < |0.30|; Rosenthal & Rosonow, 1984). Changes in goal effort and goal attainment
were positively correlated and representative of large effects.
DISCUSSION
The primary aim of this study was to examine changes in perceived autonomy support,
structure, and involvement provided by the head coach to university-level rugby players over
the latter portion of a competitive season. The secondary aim of this study was to link
variability across perceived supports from the coach with markers of goal progress. Guided
by Deci and Ryan’s (2002) SDT and Sheldon’s (2002) SCM, it appears that perceptions of
autonomy support, structure, and involvement athletes experience from the head coach
fluctuate markedly over the latter half of even a short period (i.e., ~ 3 weeks) of the
competitive season. It also seems evident that changes in perceived autonomy support in
particular are linked with changes in the amount of effort athletes expend trying to achieve
their goals and their overall sense of goal attainment. Taken together, these observations
imply the latter half of a competitive season may be a crucial watershed period for
understanding coach-athlete interactions especially in relation to markers of goal progress that
can be important for evaluations used by athletes to gauge their overall self-worth and well-
being (Sheldon, 2002).
The observations noted in Table 2 address the primary aim of this study and imply that
changes are evident in dimensions of interpersonal styles attributed to the head coach in sport
over the latter portion of a competitive season. Such observations are consistent with respect
to the directionality of changes reported in previous studies examining variation in perceived
coaching styles experienced by athletes (e.g., Balaguer et al., 2012; Gagné et al., 2003).
Perhaps of greater interest in this study is the size of the decreases noted in perceived
autonomy support, structure, and involvement afforded the head coach. Balaguer et al. (2012)
argued that performance (i.e., win:loss record) may be a contributing factor that impacts upon
changes in perceived interpersonal styles exhibited by coaches and experienced by athletes. In
the present study, it seems plausible that the performance record of the team (one win:four
loses) is in line with Balaguer et al.’s (2012) arguments concerning the mechanisms
influencing diminished feelings of autonomy support, structure, and involvement on behalf of
the athletes from their head coach.1
A second key finding from the present study concerns the observation that changes in
perceived autonomy support were linked with changes in markers of goal progress focused on
effort and attainment of self-set goals (see Table 3). No such discernible pattern was evident
for changes in either perceived structure or involvement in this sample of rugby players.
Overall, this observation suggests that provision of autonomy support from the head coach to
the athlete over the latter portion of the competitive season is the key interpersonal style
dimension likely to effect goal progress. Such observations are wholly in line with the
underlying principles of SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2002) where it is clear that supporting the
1
It is worth noting that the head coach of this rugby team was released from his/her duties at the end of the season
due, in part, to unfavorable year-end assessments given by the athletes.
autonomy of others especially by those in positions of authority (such as coaches, teacher,

parents, etc.) yield numerous benefits. This finding also substantiates the lion’s share of sport
psychology research that has demonstrated the beneficial consequences emanating to athletes
from coaches who display an autonomy supportive interpersonal style (e.g., Gagné et al.,
2003; Pope & Wilson, 2012).
Theoretical Implications
Dimensions of interpersonal style of autonomy support, structure, and involvement that

were the focus within this study are central to the framework of SDT developed by Deci and
Ryan (2002). SDT has become a useful framework to advance our understanding of the
nature and function of the interplay between coaches and athletes in competitive sport in
terms of resultant effects on motivational processes and performance markers (e.g., Adie et
al., 2012; Amorose, 2007; Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumanis,
2011; Pope & Wilson, 2012). Our findings reported in this study provide insight into at least
two issues of importance for the further development and refinement of SDT. First, it is
evident from the magnitude and direction of the aggregate-level changes in perceived
autonomy support, structure, and involvement that the interpersonal style dimensions central
to SDT appear fluid in the context of sport. Previous studies have focused mostly on
autonomy support yielding minimal insight into the malleability of perceived structure and
involvement that both appear dynamic and reasonable targets for intervention on behalf of
coaches. Second, it is further evident from the links with markers of goal progress that
perceived structure and involvement may have reduced impact on outcomes of interest to
coaches such as goal progress in comparison to autonomy support. Such implications should
be tempered with caution however given the limited statistical power evident in this study as
a function of sample size (Cohen, 1988), the lack of attention focused on the measurement of
structure and involvement in comparison to autonomy support in the SDT literature (Wilson
et al., 2009), and the challenges associated with modeling change in psychological research
(Rogosa, 1995). Continued investigation of perceived autonomy support alongside both
structure and involvement in the context of competitive sport will ultimately address the
connection between the distinct interpersonal style dimensions proposed by Deci and Ryan
(2002) within SDT and the role of these constructs in the interplay between coaches and
athletes in the context of competitive sports.
Practical Implications
While the design and execution of this study focused primarily on testing propositions set
forth by Deci and Ryan (2002) within the confines of SDT, a number of practical implications
can be derived for sport coaches from the data reported in this investigation. The key practical
implication of note from his study concerns identifying which interpersonal style dimension
coaches may wish to focus on especially during the latter portion of the competitive season to
promote adaptive changes in markers of goal progress. Given the observation that perceived
autonomy support was the only interpersonal style dimension linked with changes in effort
and attainment of self-set goals in this study it seems plausible that recommendations
designed to foster the development and maintenance of autonomy support are in order (c.f.,
Reeve, 2002). Several areas of focus could be incorporated by the coach into his/her
interpersonal style repertoire to bolster autonomy support including, but not limited to: (a)
acknowledging the athletes’ perspectives (e.g., asking athletes what they did well and what
they could improve; Deci & Ryan, 2002); (b) integrating athletes opinions in decision making
(e.g., seeking input from athletes into team protocols for practice or competition; Reeve,
2002); (c) providing athletes with choice (e.g., permitting athletes to choose from a range of
drills that focus on a skill set designated for a practice session with justification from the
coaching staff for the selected focus; Reeve, 2002); and/or (d) giving athletes a sense of
control (e.g., providing transparency by informing athletes how you select starters/rosters;
Deci & Ryan, 2002).
It is also plausible that practical implications could be gained from the design and
execution of this study with reference to the timing of assessments. Coaches may find it
valuable to note that interpersonal styles can change even over the course of a short time
frame (i.e., ~3 weeks) during the latter half of a competitive season. On the basis of the
present study, coaches may wish to be cognizant that their interpersonal style could wane in
terms of quality as the season progresses to culmination and that such changes may have
important implications for athlete’s pursuit (and attainment) of self-set goals. Overall, the
watershed period from the mid to late season may be an important time when coaches focus a
greater portion of their attention on making positive changes to their interpersonal style to
yield adaptive effects on athletes’ perceived goal progress.
Limitations
A number of limitations are inherent in this study that warrants consideration when
interpreting the findings. First, the study used a non-experimental design with purposive
sampling of a small and relatively homogenous cadre of female athletes competing in a single
sport. Such design considerations limit both the external validity of the conclusions derived
from this study and offer very limited insight regarding the causal dynamics associated with
dimensions of interpersonal style exhibited by the coach. Second, the instrumentation used to
assess dimension of interpersonal style is limited in terms of the breadth and depth of
available construct validity evidence informing score interpretations. Reeve (2002) suggested
that providing structure entails offering clear expectations, detailed and timely feedback, and
providing optimal challenges.
Involvement refers to the quality of the interpersonal relationship and entails the
provision of psychological (e.g., showing interest) and emotional (e.g., being attentive)
resources. Careful inspection of the items used to measure both structure and involvement
dimensions of interpersonal style in this study suggest both constructs may be under-
represented which could mask (or even negate; Messick, 1995) relationships between these
variables and markers of goal progress in this study.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Although there are a number of potential future directions that could stem from the
present study, we have identified four issues that may be timely and useful for this literature
to develop with a view of aiding sport coaches. First, it is likely important for a sustained and
rigorous program of research to focus on the development of items to assess each dimension
of interpersonal style outlined by SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Most of the literature in this area
has focused exclusively on autonomy support given the availability and popularity of items to
assess this construct yet sport-specific instruments to assess all dimensions of interpersonal
style have yet to be forthcoming. Messick (1995) has recommended taking a rigorous
approach to item development and evaluation using a construct validation framework and we
echo those sentiments with reference to the development of items designed to measure
perceptions of autonomy, structure, and involvement specific to sport participation.
A second useful direction to advance the literature in this area would be to further explore
the temporal changes associated with interpersonal coaching styles imparted on athletes by
coaches. More specifically, it may be of interest to investigate if different trends exist among
cohorts of athletes that differ in terms of ages (e.g., youth, adult, or masters athletes) or
competitive levels (e.g., recreational, introduction to competition, or elite). Careful
consideration of the window of time between assessments of interpersonal style seems to be a
key factor worthy of exploration to advance this line of research. To date, the literature has
primarily focused on mid-to-late season (Balaguer et al., 2012), or has included assessments
across a short time frame (e.g., two weeks) without any justification for the significance of
these epochs (Bartholomew et al., 2011). It is recommended that researchers consider
examining season-long changes (i.e., Pre-season  Competitive season  Post-season),
increasing the number of assessment points based on justifiable transition periods (e.g., post-
match, post-tournament), or isolating unique time-points in the season (e.g., Regular season
 Playoff games).
The third plausible future direction emanating from this study concerns focusing on
various factors that could impact upon changes in coaches’ provisions of structure, autonomy
support, and involvement. Mageau and Vallerand (2003) contend that coaches’ interpersonal
styles may be influenced by the coach’s personal orientation, coaching context, and their
perceptions of the athlete’s behaviors and motivation. Furthermore, Balaguer and colleagues
(2012) recommend exploring whether factors such as the fatigue, or pressures and demands
coaches experience influence the interpersonal styles they provide their athletes. Taken
together we suggest that researchers examine how various coaching context factors (e.g., win:
loss record, pressures placed on coaches), and the perceived behaviors and motivation of the
athletes impact variation of interpersonal styles exhibited by coaches.
A final tenable direction for future studies is to extend the nomological network within
which the dimensions of interpersonal style outlined by Deci and Ryan (2002) are situated.
To date, the lion’s share of the research in this area has tested links between dimensions of
interpersonal coaching style and central components of SDT (e.g., need fulfillment, motives;
Deci & Ryan, 2002). In particular, coaches may be interested in how their interpersonal styles
could (or do) influence athletic performance. If coaches are in fact altering their behaviors for
performance related reasons (as proposed by Balaguer et al., 2012), it may prove informative
if coaches knew (and could track) the actual impact these interpersonal styles have on athletes
under their tutelage.
CONCLUSION
In summary, this study provided evidence that female university rugby players perceived
that their head coach demonstrated less structure, autonomy support and involvement at the
end of the season in comparison to the mid-point. Interestingly enough, these relatively large
changes occurred over the narrow time frame of three weeks. When we examined the
relationship between the three interpersonal coaching styles to the amount of effort athletes
put into achieving their self-set goals and the attainment of these goals, only changes in
autonomy support was linked to changes in markers of goal progress. Therefore coaches
interested in facilitating athletes’ goal related factors should concentrate their efforts on
offering a more autonomy supportive environment.
RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS
 Athletes who perceive their coaches to be less autonomy supportive from mid to late
season, report a decrease in markers of goal progress
 Coaches are encouraged to incorporate autonomy support, structure, and involvement
into their coaching practices with emphasis on autonomy support
 Sport administrations could provide opportunities for coaches to learn how to
maximize all three interpersonal styles (e.g., workshops, mentor programs, written
resources)
 Coaches, administration, and athletes would benefit from working together to
identify factors that influence changes in coaches’ provisions of interpersonal styles
REFERENCES
Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic
need satisfaction, and the well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: A longitudinal
investigation. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 13, 51-59. doi: 10.1016/
j.psychsport.2011.07.008
Amorose, A. J. (2007). Coaching effectiveness: Exploring the relationship between coaching
behaviour and motivation from a self-determination theory perspective. In N.
Chatzisarantis & M. S. Hagger (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
sport and exercise (pp. 209–228). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Balaguer, I., Gonzálex, L., Fabre, P., Castillo, I., Mercé, J., & Duda, J. L. (2012). Coaches’
interpersonal style, basic psychological needs and the well- and ill-being of young soccer
players. A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Sport Sciences, 30(15), 1619-1629. doi:
1080/02640414.2012.731517.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R., Bosch, J. A., & Thøgersen-Ntoumanis, C.
(2011). Self-Determination Theory and diminished functioning: The role of
interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality & Psychological
Bulletin, 37(11), 1459-1473. doi: 10.1177/0146167211413125.
Chan, D. K., & Hagger, M. S. (2012). Transcontextual development of motivation in sport
injury prevention among elite athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(5),
661-682.
Chan, D. K., Lonsdale, C., & Fung, H. H. (2012). Influences of coaches, parents, and peers on
the motivational patterns of child and adolescent athletes. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sport, 22(4), 558-568. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01277.x.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edition).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16, 297-334. doi: 10.1007/BFO2310555.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.
Curran, T., Hill, A. P., & Niemiec, C. P. (2013). A conditional process model of children’s
behavioral engagement and behavioral dissatisfaction in sport based on Self-
Determination Theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 30-43.
De Backer, M., Boen, F., Ceux, T., De Cuyer, B., Høigaard, R., Callens, F., Fransen, K., &
Broek, G. V. (2011). Do perceived justice and need support of the coach predict team
identification and cohesion? Testing their relative importance among top volleyball and
handball players in Belgium and Norway. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 12(2), 192-
201. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.09.009.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. New York, NY:
Rochester University Press.
Gagné, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in
the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15,
372-390. doi: 10/1080/10413200390238031.
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., Amoura, S., & Baldes, B. (2010). Influence of coaches’ autonomy
support on athletes’ motivation and sport performance: A test of the hierarchical model
of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 11(2), 155-151.
doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.10.004.
Harris, B., & Ostrow, A. (2008). Coach and athlete burnout: The role of coach’s decision-
making style. In S. R. Bakere (Ed.), Hot topics in sports and athletes (pp. 143–157).
New York, NY: Nova Science.
Jõesaar, H., Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2012). Youth athletes’ perception of autonomy
support from the coach, peer motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in sport
setting: One-year effects. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 13, 257-262. doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.001.
Jowett, S., & Cramer, D. (2010). The prediction of young athletes’ physical self from
perceptions of relationships with parents and coaches. Psychology of Sport & Exercise,
11(2), 140-147. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.10.001.
Jowett, S., Shanmugam, V., & Caccoulis, S. (2012). Collective efficacy as a mediator of the
association between interpersonal relationships and athlete satisfaction in team sports.
International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10(1), 66-78. doi:

10.1080/1612197X.2012.645127.
López-Walle, J., Balaguer, I., Castillo, I., & Tristán, J. (2012). Autonomy support, basic
psychological needs and well-being in Mexican athletes. The Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 15(3), 1283-1292. doi: 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n3.39413.
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21(11), 883-904. doi: 10.1080/
0264041031000140374.
Markland, D., & Tobin, V. J. (2010). Need support and behavioral regulations for exercise
among exercise referral scheme clients: The mediating role of psychological need
satisfaction. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 11, 91-99.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from
persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American
Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
Milyavskaya, M., Nadolny, D., & Koestner, R. (2014). Where do self concordant goals come
from? The role of domain specific psychological need satisfaction. Personality & Social
Psychology, 40(6), 700-711. doi: 10.1177/0146167214524445.
Morris, J. D. (1979). A comparison of regression prediction accuracy on several types of
factor scores. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 17-24.
Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with
repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105-125.
Mouratidis, A., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). How you provide corrective feedback
makes a difference: The motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supporting
way. Journal of Sport & Exercise Physiology, 32(5), 619–637.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Brière, N. M., & Blais, M. R.
(1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and
amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 17, 35- 53.
Pope, J. P. & Wilson, P. M. (2012). Understanding motivational processes in university rugby
players: A preliminary test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
at a contextual level. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7, 89-107.
Pope, J. P., & Wilson, P. M. (2014). Testing a sequence of relationships from interpersonal
coaching styles to rugby performance, guided by the coach-athlete motivation model.
International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. doi: 10.1080/
1612197X.2014.956325.
Ratelle, C. F., Larose, S., Guay, R., & Senécal, C. (2005). Perceptions of parental
involvement and support as predictors of college students’ persistence in a science
curriculum. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 286–293. doi: 10.1037/0893-
3200.19.2.289
Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why
their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225–236. doi:
10.1086/501484
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R.
M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183-204). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Rogosa, D. R. (1995). Myths and methods: “Myths about longitudinal research” plus
supplemental questions. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Rosenthal, J. A., & Rosonow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and
data analysis. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Sheldon, K. M. (2002). The self-concordance model of healthy goal striving: When personal
goals correctly represent the person. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of
self-determination research (pp. 65-86). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction and longitudinal well-
being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76,
482-497.
Stewart, C., & Taylor, J. (2000). Why female athletes quit: Implications for coach education.
Physical Educator, 57(4), 170-177.
Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996).
Motivational predictors of weight-loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 115-126.
Wilson, P. M., Gregson, J. P., & Mack, D. E. (2009). The importance of interpersonal style in
competitive sport: A Self-Determination Theory approach. In C. H. Chang (Ed.),
Handbook of Sport Psychology. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). The simple difference score as an inherently poor measure of change:
Some reality, much mythology. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science
methodology, Vol. 5 (pp. 269-304). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr J. Paige Pope. Paige completed her PhD in 2014. In general, her research interests
incorporate central SDT concepts (e.g., interpersonal styles, and regulations) in the context of
sport and exercise. In the sport discipline, Paige’s research primarily concerns understanding
psychological processes of the coach and mechanisms through which coaches can influence
athletes.
Dr Philip M. Wilson. Phil’s research interests concern understanding the determinants

and consequences of participation behavior (e.g., physical activity, food intake, substance
use) using motivational concepts, and applied measurement issues with an emphasis on
instrument development and evaluation. He is particularly interested using Self-
Determination Theory to study motivational and psychological well-being issues in various
contexts.
Dr. Diane E. Mack. Diane is a Professor at Brock University. Her research profile is
centralized around the focus on health-enhancing physical activity as a mechanism to promote
well-being. Additionally, she is interested in include cognitive and behavioral manifestations
of self-presentation in physical activity settings.
Sarah Deck. Sarah is a Master's student at Brock University who is interested in sport
performance and behavior. More generalized, her focus is on the motivation of athletes, as
individuals and as a team. She graduated from Gannon University with a bachelor's degree in
science, and hopes to pursue a doctoral degree after her work at Brock.
Chapter 12
THE DYNAMIC MANAGEMENT

OF ATHLETES’ ROLE EXPECTATIONS
Alex J. Benson*, Mark Surya and Mark Eys

Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
ABSTRACT
The formulation and dissemination of athletes’ role expectations are critical to the
psychological structure within sport groups. However, the ways in which athletes come to
understand their roles in a sport group is a dynamic process; beginning upon initial group
entry and continuing to evolve throughout the competitive season. The purpose of the
present chapter is to highlight the processes underlying the development and
communication of role responsibilities, and to discuss key time frames that influence
athletes’ understanding of their role expectations. In the first section we discuss the
sources of information athletes rely on to inform their understanding of their role
responsibilities. Second, we draw attention to how the arrival of newcomers represents a
planned, yet substantive shift in the types of roles athletes perceive to occupy. In doing
so, we describe the ways in which sport teams socialize newcomers into their prevailing
team culture, and the potential difficulties coaches may encounter during this process.
Finally, we describe how coaches and athletes adapt and respond to unanticipated events
that punctuate the equilibrium of the group (e.g., major injury). Recommendations for
how coaches can address role-related obstacles that arise from these events are discussed.
Keywords: Coaching, group dynamics, mentoring, organizational socialization
INTRODUCTION
A Marcus Stroman slip-up during a bunt drill has significantly altered plans for the
Toronto Blue Jays’ starting pitching rotation. The right-hander suffered a torn anterior
cruciate ligament in his left knee during pitchers’ fielding practice at spring training Tuesday
*
Corresponding Author address: Email: bens9230@mylaurier.ca
204 Alex J. Benson, Mark Surya and Mark Eys
and likely will miss the entire 2015 season. So, the trickle-down effect of this news goes as
follows: Daniel Norris’s career as a full-time major league starter might be accelerated.
Newcomer Marco Estrada may return to starting. Plans to turn Aaron Sanchez into a closer
could be shelved. (Harrison, 2015, para. 1)
The beginning of a new competitive season brings with it promising expectations for
individual as well as collective contributions and outcomes. In the case of the Toronto Blue
Jays (Major League Baseball; see above quote), the anticipated pitching rotation for the 2015
season was significantly altered due to a rather unusual injury (for a pitcher), on a common
play, to a young and strong athlete. While clearly devastating to Stroman as an individual, the
effects of the injury immediately resonated throughout the organization. The open roster spot
raised questions about the team’s quality, fostered competition among teammates, and
fundamentally changed the structure of a professional sport group. In essence, this situation,
one that is common in sport, highlights the dynamic nature of both team structure and role
expectations derived for athletes.
The structure of sport teams can be considered from both physical and psychological
perspectives (Carron & Eys, 2012). The number of athletes required to fill a roster and the
formal organizational subunits (e.g., offensive and defensive units in American football)
provide clear examples of the physical structure. From a psychological perspective, the
structure of a sport team forms as members have opportunities to interact with one another,
develop expectations for their behavior, and ultimately allow for differentiation to occur. In
other words, status differences emerge (e.g., leaders vs. followers), generalized expectations
for all (or most) team members become entrenched (e.g., team norms for productivity and
effort), and specific role expectations for athletes are communicated and adopted.
Of the three concepts identified in the previous paragraph (i.e., status, norms, and roles),
the examination of role perceptions has yielded the most research within sport. The set of
behavioral expectations for an individual, who holds a position within a particular context,
represents the constitutive definition of a role (Biddle & Thomas, 1966; Katz & Kahn, 1978).
A research focus has been placed on how athletes respond to perceived role expectations. For
example, several studies provide support for the importance of communicating clear role
expectations for athletes. Perceptions of role clarity are positively linked with athletes’
intentions to return (Eys, Carron, Bray, & Beauchamp, 2005), satisfaction (Bray, Beauchamp,
Eys, & Carron, 2005), and evaluations of coach competence (Bosselut, Heuzé, Eys, Fontayne
& Sarrazin, 2012), while negatively related to competitive state anxiety (Beauchamp, Bray,
Eys, & Carron, 2003). Furthermore, researchers have communicated the importance of other
role perceptions including role efficacy (i.e., athletes’ beliefs about their abilities to execute
role functions; Bray, Brawley, & Carron, 2002), satisfaction (Surya, Eys & Benson, 2014),
and acceptance (Benson, Eys, Surya, Dawson & Schneider, 2013).
Although the emphasis on the individual perceptions athletes hold of their role
responsibilities is reflected in several attempts to summarize this past work (see Eys,
Beauchamp & Bray, 2006; Eys, Schinke, Surya & Benson, 2014), recent research has
explored the dynamic nature of the role development process. The purpose of the present
chapter is to highlight specific processes underlying the development and communication of
role responsibilities, and to discuss critical timeframes that influence athletes’ role
occupancies. The following sections highlight these areas of interest. First, the role episode
model (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964) will be highlighted as a framework
The Dynamic Management of Athletes’ Role Expectations 205
for studying how coaches formally communicate role expectations to athletes, and will be
further contrasted with informal role development. In the second section, a focus is placed on
disruptions to the group’s psychological structure. We first discuss the structural ramifications
of integrating new team members at the beginning of the season. Specifically, recent research
pertaining to organizational socialization tactics within sport is presented and practical
recommendations are offered. Next, we highlight situations that ultimately challenge the on-
going psychological structure (i.e., personnel changes over the course of a season). As the
situation at the outset of this chapter illustrates, unanticipated events (e.g., injuries) can
severely disrupt the trajectory of the team. Group development, as a result, does not progress
in a linear fashion.
SOURCES OF ROLE EXPECTATIONS

As noted by Dierdorff, Rubin, and Bachrach (2012), “role expectations represent an
individual’s construal of what is actually necessary to successfully perform his/her [team]
role” (p. 575). To this end, coaches are often the primary source of these role expectations
and are responsible for ensuring athletes have a concrete understanding of their role as a team
member (Benson, Surya & Eys, 2014). However, role expectations can also arise in lieu of
any formal prescription by the coach (Cope, Eys, Beauchamp, Schinke & Bosselut, 2011). As
such, it is useful to differentiate between role expectations that are prescribed by an authority
figure in the group (i.e., formal roles) and role expectations that arise incidentally out of
repeated social interactions and/or self-imposed pressures (i.e., informal roles).
Formal Role Expectations
The role episode model illuminates how coaches formulate, communicate, and adjust role
expectations for a particular athlete (Eys, Carron, Beauchamp, & Bray, 2005, adapted from
Kahn et al., 1964). According to the role episode model, five key events underscore the
generation and communication of role responsibilities, beginning with a coach determining
what role he/she envisions for an athlete (Event 1). Once a coach has formulated these role
expectations, he/she must ensure these expectations are directed toward the athlete (Event 2).
Notably, an athlete should be provided with enough information to understand the scope of
one’s role responsibilities, the behaviors required to fulfill these responsibilities, how role
performance will be evaluated, and the consequences of not fulfilling role expectations
(Beauchamp, Bray, Eys & Carron, 2002). Ideally, this information would be conveyed
explicitly and reinforced by subsequent interactions, such as ensuring an athlete is provided
with sufficient opportunities to fulfill a prescribed role (Mellalieu & Juniper, 2006). Once the
appropriate cues are directed toward an athlete, he/she will then experience these expectations
in the form of role pressures (Event 3). At this point, it is up to the athlete to appraise these
role pressures and respond accordingly (Event 4). Finally, how an athlete responds to these
role pressures creates a feedback loop, as role episodes are a cyclical process that are
reciprocally influenced by an athlete’s response (Event 5). Put simply, coaches may have to
calibrate or readjust the role expectations they set for athletes over the course of a season. For
example, successfully executing prescribed role functions may lead to role stability or,
perhaps, an expanded role with greater responsibilities and opportunities to contribute in
competitive situations. In contrast, athletes who are unable to fulfill prescribed
responsibilities may motivate coaches to reconsider roles within the team, resulting in
lowered performance expectations and/or reduced competitive playing time.
Potential issues during role episodes. An important point to emphasize is that the
disruption of any phase within the role transmission process creates a potential for
misunderstanding and/or conflict surrounding which role an athlete should fulfill, or how to
go about doing so.
For example, if a coach is unsure of what role an athlete should fulfill (Event 1), then it is
unreasonable to expect an athlete to understand which role behaviors are desirable,
permissible, or inappropriate. Similarly, if a coach is able to formulate a clear vision of a
specific role for an athlete, but fails to communicate those expectations (Event 2), then once
again problems are likely to arise. In contrast, athletes may simply fail to detect or assimilate
role-related information provided by the coach (Event 3) or refuse their assigned role (Event
4). Perhaps most relevant to the current chapter, group processes can be hampered if coaches
are unable to successfully renegotiate role expectations when circumstances dictate that
adjustments must be made (Event 5).
Informal Role Expectations
Although coaches are ideally situated to outline athletes’ role expectations for an
upcoming season and adjust these expectations when necessary, role pressures inevitably
develop through more informal avenues. As initially described by Mabry and Barnes (1980),
the tacit development of expectations that arise as a result of repeated interpersonal
interactions is an often overlooked, but critical aspect of the role-making process. Expanding
upon this initial theorizing, Benson et al. (2014) suggested that self-imposed role pressures
can arise in addition to expectancies that are created and reinforced by interactions with group
members over time.
Personal role-crafting. As most coaches will intuitively recognize, some athletes take it
upon themselves to expand or redefine their role. We refer to this personal role-taking
endeavour as role-crafting, which is akin to the concept of job-crafting (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001). Essentially, people are naturally inclined to carve out their own niche within
group settings. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) suggested that self-imposed role revision
processes takes on two distinct forms. First, role content innovation refers to the attempts by
individuals to seek out additional information or devise an alternative strategy for fulfilling
their role-related responsibilities. This could also include an athlete’s desire to expand his/her
role-set within the group by taking on additional responsibilities. Second, role mission
innovation refers to the attempts by individuals who do not accept the basic premise of their
responsibilities to actively redefine what their basic role functions entail. On the positive side,
actively redefining aspects of a role may reinvigorate athletes’ willingness to fulfill role-
related duties while providing a sense of fulfillment and personal control; all of which can
have positive psychological benefits (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). On the negative side,
athletes who redefine their role may not always do so in a way that complements existing
team dynamics, as personal interests do not always match up with collective goals (Jones &
Wallace, 2004). Consider a veteran athlete who has no formal leadership role within the
group, but decides to take it upon herself to mentor a newcomer. In one scenario, a coach
might benefit from this impromptu mentorship, especially if the veteran is a competent
mentor and genuinely has the newcomer’s best interests in mind (Hoffman & Loughead,
2015). In another scenario, if the mentorship is misguided and hinders a newcomer’s
integration into the group, this personal role-taking has now created conflict with the existing
leadership structure.
Role expectations that arise out of interpersonal interactions. A second way informal
role expectations develop is through repeated interactions that occur among team members. It
is well known within the broader domain of psychology that people’s expectancies influence
other individuals’ actual behaviors (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1978). Though preconceived
expectancies can exert an immediate influence on others’ actions, expectancies also develop
over time. As teammates spend time with one another they inevitably develop a deeper
understanding of one another’s personalities and behaviors. Through this iterative process
people come to expect certain behaviors over time, which can lead to new role-related
behaviors. For example, an athlete who is gregarious and extremely well-organized might
eventually fall into the role of the social coordinator, as teammates begin to turn toward that
athlete with increasing frequency about where the next social event will take place. Although
some roles that develop out of group-member interactions might be wholly social in nature,
similar examples can also be found in relation to task-related roles, such as the aggressive ice
hockey player whose behavior among teammates eventually leads him to become the team’s
enforcer.
Implications of informal role emergence. Informal roles can reinforce or resist the
existing formal structure in the group, either of which can be functional or dysfunctional
depending on the effectiveness of the structure that is already in place (Hare, 1994). Table 1
depicts hypothetical examples of when informal roles can hinder versus facilitate team
functioning. In cases where a team is functioning cooperatively and efficiently as a unit, the
emergence of informal roles that reinforce a team’s existing psychological structure would be
advantageous. In contrast, roles that deviate from the structure that is in place can be a
nuisance to the team or lead to the development of isolating and destructive designations such
as the bad apple/team cancer (Cope, Eys, Schinke & Bosselut, 2010).
Table 1. The potential implications of informal role emergence

as a function of the existing group structure
Well-functioning group Dysfunctional group

structure structure
Role that supports existing group Positive influence Negative influence
structure
Role that resists existing group Negative influence Positive influence
structure
However, as the far right column of Table 1 depicts, there are times when the group is
already marred by dysfunction. In such cases, roles that reinforce the existing group structure
may further exacerbate issues that are already plaguing the group (e.g., hazing). For instance,
given that veterans are a key conduit for passing down knowledge about how things ought to
be done within the group, negative role-related behaviors can be easily transferred from
veterans to newcomers. In contrast, there are times when informal roles arise in a way that
resists the existing group structure. Indeed, if an elected team leader is ineffective because of
their laissez-faire (i.e., hands off) approach to leadership, another veteran might take it upon
himself to fill this void and step into a role of leadership. In this sense, informal roles that
resist the existing structure within the group may serve a beneficial function.
Practical Recommendations Related to the Transmission of Role

Expectations
As described in the foregoing sections, there are a number of ways that informal roles can
hinder a team’s functioning, which is why the early identification of informal roles is critical.
However, given the breadth of issues coaches must oversee and manage throughout a given
season (Santos, Jones & Mesquita, 2013) it may be difficult for them to discern these
informal role behaviors. To this end, sub-leadership groups and assistant coaches who are
attuned to the pulse of the team dynamics can be especially valuable resources for identifying
the emergence of informal roles within the team. Whereas informal roles that positively
contribute to existing team dynamics can be nurtured and, in some cases, encouraged (e.g.,
formalized), problematic informal roles should be thwarted in their early stages, before those
behaviors become habitual and engrained in a group’s psychological structure.
From a practical perspective, it warrants emphasizing that sport team dynamics are
jointly influenced by the role expectations formally established by authority figures within the
group, and the role expectations that naturally emerge over the course of group membership.
In addition, athletes who do not feel they have a well-outlined and meaningful role within the
team may resort to finding their own ways to contribute within the team (Benson et al., 2014).
In other words, athletes who are not provided with clear role boundaries may redefine their
role in a way that creates friction with the team’s existing structure. As such, proactively
establishing and setting role expectations on a team-wide basis helps to avoid confusion
within the group related to who should be doing what, while also deterring the emergence of
negative informal roles.
DISRUPTIONS TO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

OF SPORT TEAMS
Drawing upon the punctuated equilibrium model of group development (Gersick, 1991),
there are certain timeframes when the psychological structure of the group undergoes
noticeable change or is challenged. Every year, sport teams undergo anticipated, yet
potentially dramatic changes as the combination of departing veterans and new group
members alters the personnel available to fulfill the various task- and social-oriented roles
within the team. In addition, over the course of a season a team will undoubtedly incur
structural and psychological changes. These changes are often initiated by unexpected
absences to team members due to injuries, trades, externally mandated absences (e.g., league
suspension), and internally mandated absences (e.g., violation of a team policy). In the
following sections, we discuss how newcomer integration processes and personnel changes
throughout a given season can serve to disrupt the psychological structure of sport teams.
Integrating Newcomers at the Onset of a Season
The onset of a new season—a timeframe characterized by significant turnover as the

exodus of veteran team members is offset by an influx of newcomers—is also an ideal time
for re-establishing team directives and clarifying role boundaries. Given that newcomers are
unaccustomed to the generalized expectations and norms adhered to by existing group
members, the acquisition of new information lies at the core of successful newcomer
integration. Another issue in highly competitive sport teams is that teammates are often in
direction competition with one another for playing time and opportunities to contribute in
competitive situations. As such, coaches have the difficult job of ensuring group members are
able to reconcile their individual aspirations with the collective needs of the group. Put
simply, the ways in which the group is managed during the timeframe of newcomer
integration is a key component to ensuring a sound psychological structure.
Organizational scholars have long-studied the process of how newcomers adapt and
become accustomed to the values, norms, and responsibilities expected of them as a new
group member, a process referred to as organizational socialization (Van Maanen & Schein,
1979). Generally speaking, successful socialization processes reduce ambiguity and
uncertainty for the newcomers upon entry. An institutionalized approach to socialization is
based on this premise, which entails the following tactics: (a) structuring and delivering
learning opportunities in a formal manner on a group-wide basis while minimizing
performance repercussions during newcomers’ initial learning curve (i.e., collective and
formal tactics); (b) delineating what group members must accomplish (and when) to procure
additional responsibilities or status in the group’s hierarchy (i.e., sequential and fixed tactics);
and finally, (c) having veterans who are willing to share their knowledge with newcomers and
act as a source of social support (i.e., serial and investiture tactics; Jones, 1986; Van Maanen
& Schein, 1979). A meta-analysis of 70 studies—specific to the workplace—that examined
the strategies employed by organizations during the initial stages of newcomer integration
found that institutionalized tactics confer a number of benefits for both the group and the
individual (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo & Tucker, 2007). Summarizing these benefits,
Bauer et al. (2007) found that the use of institutionalized tactics was positively linked to self-
efficacy, role clarity, job satisfaction, intentions to remain, and feelings of social acceptance
in newcomers.
Although organizational socialization theory was initially developed for workplace
contexts, recent work has drawn attention to its applicability as a framework for gaining
insight into how athletes can be integrated into sport teams in a way that accelerates the
acquisition of knowledge related to team expectations, norms, and individual role
understanding, while minimizing disruption to the existing psychological structure within the
group (Benson, Evans, & Eys, 2015). Based on the insights garnered from coaches and
athletes of Canadian Interuniversity Sport programs, the newcomer integration practices
prevalent in sport teams appear to be conceptually similar to the aforementioned socialization
tactics identified in organizational contexts. However, sport team socialization processes also
present several distinct challenges, each of which has implications for managing athletes’ role
expectations. In the following section we highlight these challenges and offer
recommendations.
Practical challenges related to newcomer integration strategies in sport. Given that people
have a tendency to inflate their expectations in anticipation of a new endeavor (Louis, 1980),
the onset of a new season is likely characterized by athletes who have overly optimistic
expectations regarding what their role will entail. Indeed, discrepancies between athletes’
initial expectations for a particular role and their actual experiences can be a source of tension
within the group (Benson et al., 2015). A related challenge is that an athlete’s role within the
group is often contingent upon how well he/she is performing relative to others in the group,
which means both newcomers and veterans are subject to a degree of role uncertainty. As
such, outlining clear timelines related to an athlete’s role progression might be problematic,
as there are too many variables that can alter this progression over the course of a season
(e.g., skill development, unforeseen events, and teammate performance). Nonetheless, this
does not preclude coaches from proactively addressing unrealistic expectations for an
upcoming season through explicit communication, rather than reacting to complaints as they
arise over the course of the season. Alternatively, a more indirect approach would be to
provide athletes with opportunities to get realistic feedback on how they are performing. For
example, a coach might intentionally pair an athlete with a more skilled teammate in a one-
on-one drill to help an athlete realize how his skill-set compares to others. As it specifically
pertains to newcomers, it would be advantageous to focus on lowering these unrealistic
expectations that potential recruits might formulate prior to group entry experiences.
Another practical issue that requires concerted effort in sport teams is managing the
development of social relations between existing group members. In the previously referred
to qualitative study (Benson et al., 2015), athletes consistently identified that gaining the
acceptance and approval of veteran team members was a primary concern prior to entering
the group. Considering that hazing rituals are an unfortunate example of how far athletes are
willing to go to gain entry into a team’s inner social circles (Balish, Eys & Schulte-Hostedde,
2013), formally structuring team wide social activities provides a degree of control and
oversight over initial group-member interactions. Beyond initial team-building activities, the
development of protégé-mentor relationships between newcomers and competent senior
group members has been one of the most potent predictors of newcomer adjustment in studies
of the workplace (see Chao, 2007, for a review), and more recently has shown promise in
fostering beneficial outcomes for athletes (Hoffman & Loughead, 2015). A clear challenge
for coaches is creating (or finding) opportunities to leverage the positive influence of
exemplar team members.
A final issue is recognizing that newcomers entering a team sport environment are in the
process of developing a new identity as a group member. On the one hand, enforcing rules,
policies, and codes of conduct is paramount to ensuring newcomers understand which
expectations they must adhere to as a group member. This may involve disconfirming
athletes’ previously held beliefs about what team membership entails, especially if they are
entering a higher level a competition where team policies and rules are markedly different.
On the other hand, this should be balanced with events that foster perceptions of social
inclusivity, as affirming a newcomer’s personal identity in more social domains can elicit
greater commitment to the group (Allen & Shanock, 2013). In sum, strictness surrounding
accountability to team rules and policies does not have to come at the expense of an inclusive
social environment.
Influence of Key Personnel Losses on the Group Environment
In addition to the changes anticipated from one season to the next, sport teams often
experience multiple disruptions to the group’s psychological structure over the course of a
season. Understanding the group and individual responses to these changes may aid coaches
in optimizing the modifications that are likely to occur during these times of instability. A
qualitative study by Surya, Benson, Balish, and Eys (2015) illustrated that sport teams
undergo several changes following injuries to contributing athletes. However, many of the
themes highlighted in this work are applicable to any unexpected absences that are likely to
occur throughout the course of a competitive season. As such, in drawing upon the themes put
forth by Surya et al. (2015), we discuss the challenges coaches encounter during times of
instability in the group.
Group and individual task adjustments to changes in structure. The most proximal
adjustment involves changes to the on-field strategies employed by a team. Given the nature
of highly interdependent teams, an absence to a key team member may force a coach to re-
evaluate the efficacy of a previously employed strategy given the available personnel. For
example, an injury to the leading scorer on a basketball team may cause the team to become
more defensive in response to this unexpected absence. An important individual consequence
that stems from these shifts in team strategy, however, may involve modifications to the
individual role responsibilities that team members perceive to hold within the team.
Sport teams—including those traditionally classified as individual sports (e.g., track and
field)— can share collective goals, resources, and/or must work together to achieve an
objective (Evans, Eys & Bruner, 2012). However, the high degree of task interdependence in
team sport environments means that a single team member’s absence is likely to have far
reaching effects within the group. For example a shift in team strategies that evolves in
response to an unexpected team member absence is often accommodated by subsequent
modifications to other team members’ role responsibilities. Given the various consequences
linked to how athletes view their role (Eys et al., 2014), coaches should be acutely aware of
the cognitive and affective consequences that athletes may experience following a change to
their role-set. For example, a basketball player who is thrust into the starting line-up in
response to a suspension of a fellow teammate will recognize that her responsibilities have
been modified, however, she may not fully understand the scope of these new expectations.
Coaches may benefit from clearly communicating how their expectations have changed in
response to the collective shifts in team strategy, particularly for those players who are
expected to directly account for the unexpected team member’s absence.
Modified expectations perceived as an opportunity or threat. A number of cognitive
processes accompany the sudden absence of a team member. Anecdotally, athletes often
discuss enthusiasm regarding increased opportunities to contribute, which are often tied to
higher status within a group’s social hierarchy. For example, Vancouver Canucks [National
Hockey League] defenseman Adam Clendening noted that with top defenseman Alex Edler
out due to a shoulder injury, he was provided, “A great opportunity. It is something I take
pride in, my ability offensively and to quarterback the power play. To get that opportunity,
especially with the (Sedin) twins and Burr (Alex Burrows) and Verbie (Radim Vrbata), is a
big responsibility” (Ziemer, 2015, para. 4).
In line with these anecdotal experiences, Surya et al. (2015) found that several athletes
responded favorably to their increased responsibility accompanying a teammate absence.
However, a sub-set of athletes also intimated instances where negative feelings accompanied
these newly formed responsibilities. Drawing upon Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theory of
stress and coping is useful in understanding why some athletes experience negative affect,
rather than excitement. The first stage of the theory involves a primary appraisal whereby an
individual interprets the motivational relevance of the situation. Once an event is appraised to
be of importance, a secondary appraisal process occurs whereby the potential stressor is
evaluated in reference to the available resources.
From an intrapersonal perspective, athletes may be appraising the stressor (i.e., the newly
formed responsibilities) as exceeding their current available resources (i.e., their current
ability). As a result of this secondary appraisal, athletes may feel ill-equipped to successfully
navigate their new responsibilities and as a result negative feelings may arise. It may be
useful for coaches to verbally encourage and acknowledge the suitability of an athlete’s skill
for his/her newly formed responsibilities, as verbal persuasion is an effective method for
increasing self-efficacy, especially when it comes from respected others (Feltz, Short &
Sullivan, 2009).
Interpersonal responses to changes in structure. Coaches would also be well served to
understand the interpersonal changes that occur as a result of the cascade of role
responsibilities experienced by team members. For example, Surya et al. (2015) noted the
potential development of tensions among group members, as athletes described instances
whereby team members were fiercely competing for higher status positions following the
absence of a high status team member.
In line with work by Bendersky and Hays (2012) regarding intra-group conflict, status
conflicts may arise when there are disagreements regarding relative positions in a group’s
social hierarchy. Given the relative uncertainty that may accompany a cascade in role
adjustments across the group, posturing for higher status roles in response to a team member
absence is likely, and these status conflicts can potentially undermine effective group
functioning.
In addition to status conflicts that arise, coaches need to consider strategies regarding the
absentee team member’s reintegration into the group. As an example, Donta Montiejunas is a
second year player for the Houston Rockets [National Basketball Association].
The rockets best player, Dwight Howard had been out for an extended period of time
with an injury, and “Motiejunas has made the most out of his newfound opportunity by
displaying his agility and soft touch on the low block.
When Howard returns to the starting lineup, it’s on Kevin McHale to find ways to better
incorporate Motiejunas in the offense” (Rafferty, 2015, para. 7-8.). In line with the
recommendations made throughout the chapter, explicit communication regarding the
responsibilities of both the returning team member as well as the other group members likely
to be affected by the return may aid in the reintegration process.
From a practical perspective, coaches may benefit from preparing for future team
member absences by inducing situational instances where absences to key team members are
simulated. One proactive strategy would involve dedicating portions of practice with various
personnel to ensure that athletes will have a degree of preparedness if called upon to fulfill a
higher status role.
A second strategy would be verbally communicating various changes in structure that are
likely to occur when different team members incur unexpected absences. If athletes are able
to understand their own personal role modifications as well as their teammates’ role
modifications during times of instability, then coaches may be well suited to optimally
respond to the inevitable within season disruptions that occur over the course of a season. In a
sense, these strategies are both pre-emptive measures to promote a greater degree of role
flexibility among team members, which may lead to a more resilient team dynamic.
CONCLUSION
The psychological structure of sport teams provides continuity and order in what would
otherwise be a chaotic environment. As the foregoing sections detailed, the role
responsibilities athletes perceive to occupy are a major component of this psychological
structure, and coaches are well-positioned to actively shape and manage how athletes view
their role as a group member. How coaches communicate and manage their athletes’ role
expectations over the course of a season, and from one season to the next, are likely key
ingredients for achieving and sustaining team success (Carron & Eys, 2012).
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
 Athletes derive a sense of value within the group from a variety of roles, which vary
in how they develop (i.e., formal vs. informal) and the function they serve (i.e., task
vs. social).
 Athletes should receive role-related information in a proactive—rather than
reactive—manner, through explicit communication, and on a team-wide basis.
 Role expectations should be monitored and re-evaluated on an ongoing basis to
ensure role adjustments are communicated when needed.
 Modification to one athlete’s role-set often elicits a cascade of changes related to
group dynamics.
 The influence of peer leaders on teammates should be leveraged to manage athletes’
role expectations on a day-to-day basis.
REFERENCES
Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and embeddedness
as key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among
new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 350-369.
Balish, S. M., Eys, M. A., & Schulte-Hostedde, A. I. (2013). Evolutionary sport and exercise
psychology: Integrating proximate and ultimate explanations. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 14, 413-422.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer
adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents,
outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707-721.
Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2002). Role ambiguity, role
efficacy, and role performance: Multidimensional and mediational relationships within
interdependent sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 229-
242.
Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2003). The effect of role
ambiguity on competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25,
77-92.
Bendersky, C., & Hays, N. A. (2012). Status conflict in groups. Organization Science, 23,
323-340.
Benson, A. J., Evans, M. B., & Eys, M. A. (2015). Organizational socialization in team sport
environments. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports. Advance online
publication.
Benson, A. J., Eys, M. A., Surya, M., Dawson, K. A., & Schneider, M. A. (2013). Athletes’
perceptions of role acceptance in interdependent sport teams. The Sport Psychologist,
27, 269-280.
Benson, A. J., Surya, M., & Eys, M. A. (2014). The nature and transmission of roles in sport
teams. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3, 228-240.
Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (1966). Role theory: Concepts and research. Oxford:
Butterworth-Henemann.
Bosselut, G., Heuzé, J. P., Eys, M. A., Fontayne, P., & Sarrazin, P. Athletes’ perceptions of
role ambiguity and coaching competency in sport teams: A multilevel analysis. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34, 345-364.
Bray, S. R., Beauchamp, M.R., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2005). Need for clarity as a
moderator of the role ambiguity – satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Sport
Bray, S. R., Brawley, L. R. & Carron, A. V. (2002). Efficacy for interdependent role
functions: Evidence from the sport domain. Small Group Research, 33, 644-666.
Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Morgantown, WV:
Chao, G. T. (2007). Mentoring and organizational socialization: Networks for work
adjustment. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work:
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 179-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cope, C. J., Eys, M. A., Beauchamp, M. R., Schinke, R. J., & Bosselut, G. (2011). Informal
roles on sport teams. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9, 19-30.
Cope, C. J., Eys, M. A., Schinke, R. J., & Bosselut, G. (2010). Coaches’ perspectives of a
negative informal role: The ‘Cancer’ within sport teams. Journal of Applied Sport
Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Bachrach, D. G. (2012). Role expectations as antecedents of
citizenship and the moderating effects of work context. Journal of Management, 38,
573-598.
Eys, M. A., Beauchamp, M. R., & Bray, S. R. (2006). A review of team roles in sport. In S.
Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 227-256).
Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2005). The relationship
between role ambiguity and intention to return. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17,
255-261.
Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Beauchamp, M. R., & Bray, S. R. (2005). Athletes’ perceptions of
the sources of role ambiguity. Small Group Research, 36, 383-403.
Eys, M. A., Schinke, R. J., Surya, M., & Benson, A. J.. (2014). Role perceptions in sport
groups. In M. Beauchamp, & M. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics in exercise and sport
psychology (pp. 131-146). Oxford: Routledge.
Evans, M. B., Eys, M. A., & Bruner, M. W. (2012). Seeing the “we” in “me” sports: The need
to consider individual sport team environments. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie
Canadienne, 53, 301-308.
Feltz, D., Short, S., & Sullivan, P. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport: Research and strategies for
working with athletes, teams and coaches. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 3, 293-295.
Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the
punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10-36.
Hare, A. (1994). Types of roles in small groups. Small Group Research, 25, 433-448.
Harrison, D. (2015, March 10). Marcus Stroman injury leaves hole in Blue Jays’ rotation.
CBC Sports. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/marcus-stroman-
injury-leaves-hole-in-blue-jays-rotation-1.2989517.
Hoffmann, M. D., & Loughead, T. M. (2015). Investigating athlete mentoring functions and
their association with leadership behaviours and protégé satisfaction. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/1612197X.2014.999348
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to
organizations. Academy of Management journal, 29, 262-279.
Jones, R. L., & Wallace, M. (2005). Another bad day at the training ground: Coping with
ambiguity in the coaching context. Sport, Education and Society, 10, 119-134.
Mabry, E. A., & Barnes, R. E. (1980). The dynamics of small group communication.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mellalieu, S. D., & Juniper, S. W. (2006). A qualitative investigation into experiences of the
role episode in soccer. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 399-418.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).
Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY:
Springer.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Career transitions: Varieties and commonalities. Academy of
Management Review, 5, 329-340.
Rafferty, S. (2015, December 13). Donatas Motiejunas finds his niche in Dwight Howard’s
absence. Upside & Motor. Retrieved from http://upsidemotor.com/2014/12/13/houston-
rockets-donatas-motiejunas-finds-his-niche-in-dwight-howards-absence/.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345
studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 377-386.
Santos, S., Jones, R. L., & Mesquita, I. (2013). Do coaches orchestrate? The working
practices of elite Portuguese coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84,
263-272.
Surya, M., Benson, A. J., Balish, S. M., & Eys, M. A. (2015). The influence of injury on
group interaction processes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27, 52-66.
Surya, M., Eys, M. A., & Benson, A. J. (2014, October). Correlates of role satisfaction.
Presented at the Canadian Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology,
London, Ontario.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201.
Ziemer, B. (2015, February 16). Injury to Canucks' Alex Edler creates ‘opportunity’ for
others. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from: http://www.vancouversun.com/
sports/hockey/Vancouv er-canucks/Injury Canucks Alex Edler creates/10818509/
story.html#__federated=1#ixzz3V G9RpFS2.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Alex J. Benson is a graduate student in the Social Psychology program at Wilfrid Laurier
University. His doctoral research examines how newcomers are integrated into sport teams,
which is currently funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.
Mark Surya is a graduate student in the Social Psychology program at Wilfrid Laurier
University. His doctoral research broadly examines team members’ perceptions of
satisfaction with the various aspects of their role set, and this work has been funded by an
Ontario Graduate Scholarship.
Dr Mark Eys is an Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Group Dynamics
and Physical Activity at Wilfrid Laurier University (Canada). His research interests include
role perceptions in sport as well as cohesion within physical activity contexts. He is co-editor
of Group Dynamics in Exercise and Sport Psychology (2014; Routledge).
Chapter 13
THE SELF-REGULATION OF SPORT COACHES:

HOW COACHES CAN BECOME MASTERS
OF THEIR OWN DESTINY
Natalie Durand-Bush*, Kylie McNeill and Jamie Collins

ABSTRACT
Self-regulation plays a pivotal role in sport and as key social agents, coaches should
strive to develop their self-regulation skills and those of their athletes. The purpose of this
chapter is to present self-regulation research from the domains of education and sport that
is particularly relevant to coaching. Specifically, various self-regulatory phases,
processes, and strategies deemed valuable for learning and performance are addressed.
Results of studies informed by the Social-Cognitive Model of Self-Regulation, the Four-
Level Model of Self-Regulated Learning, and the Resonance Performance Model
demonstrate that planning, self-monitoring, and self-reflection are crucial for effective
self-regulation. Co-regulation processes in which coaches provisionally facilitate the self-
regulation of athletes and then assist them in shifting toward independent regulation are
highlighted. An innovative feature of the chapter is the integration of a self-regulation
program designed to help coaches effectively perform and achieve adequate levels of
well-being. Practical guidelines and recommendations for future research are provided in
order to advance knowledge and practice in this area.
Keywords: Self-regulation, coach, sport, performance, well-being, intervention
INTRODUCTION
Coaches are instrumental at all levels in sport. Among the numerous roles that they play,
they are known to lead, teach, guide, prepare, organize, motivate, and support athletes trying
to achieve their goals and derive fulfilling experiences from their sport participation. In many
*
Corresponding author address: Email: ndbush@uottawa.ca
218 Natalie Durand-Bush, Kylie McNeill and Jamie Collins
ways, coaches help athletes learn to self-regulate so that they are capable of successfully
performing across a variety of contexts and situations without the coaches’ direct assistance
(Collins & Durand-Bush, 2014). However, while executing their various tasks, coaches must
equally be masters of their performance and well-being. One way for them to consistently be
able to do this is by perfecting their own self-regulation capacity.
From a social-cognitive perspective, self-regulation is a dynamic, multi-faceted process
in which individuals attempt to proactively plan, generate, evaluate, and adapt their thoughts,
feelings, and actions in order to achieve personal standards and goals in their constantly
changing environment (Zimmerman, 2000). It is the “exercise of control over oneself, with
regard to bringing the self into line with preferred standards” (Vohs & Baumeister, 2004, p.
2). Self-regulation involves the implementation of a network of processes such as goal-
setting, strategic planning, self-control, self-monitoring, and self-reflection, which are
contingent upon self-motivational beliefs (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004; Zimmerman, 1996).
Of importance, these processes allow individuals to be both proactive and reactive in their
quest to achieve success. For instance, they are able to anticipatorily exert control over their
inner states before and during performances through planning and monitoring capabilities, as
well as react to feedback after performances. Furthermore, they lead individuals to engage in
behaviors that are indispensable but not necessarily gratifying (e.g., do weight training three
times per week), and omit those that are deemed unfavorable (e.g., resist temptation of
staying out late the night before a competition) for goal achievement.
It is empowering to recognize that self-regulation is a fundamental quality of human
beings, thus every individual has the capability to self-manage to optimize personal
functioning. According to Zimmerman (2000), the difference between effective and
ineffective self-regulation is not whether or not one has this capability but rather “the quality
and quantity of one’s self-regulatory processes” (p. 15). As such, there is merit for coaches to
learn how to implement fundamental self-regulatory processes and to hone them to be able to
apply them with the utmost quality and consistency. Interestingly, evidence suggests that
deficiencies in self-regulation explain many performance and health problems that individuals
face (Jordet, 2009; Zimmerman, 1996), including difficulties coping with stress and adversity
(Elliot, Thrash & Murayama, 2011). This was corroborated in two recent studies examining
the self-regulation of coaches of developing and high performance athletes (Durand-Bush,
Collins & McNeill, 2012; McNeill, Durand-Bush & Lemyre, 2014a). Given the elevated and
complex demands that coaches face on a daily basis and the link between self-regulation
competence and both performance and health outcomes, it appears to be worthwhile for
coaches to prioritize the development and maintenance of self-regulatory skills.
This chapter will address the following content deemed important for the self-regulation
of sport coaches: (a) self-regulation research from the domains of education and sport, (b) an
applied self-regulation program designed for sport coaches to improve their coaching
performance and well-being, and (c) recommendations for future research and coaching.
SELF-REGULATION RESEARCH
Self-regulation has been the focus of much research within educational psychology
during the past 20 years (Alexander, 2008; Ruban, McCoach & McGuire, 2003). One can
argue that the impetus has been evidence that individuals who are capable of self-regulation
The Self-Regulation of Sport Coaches 219
can learn and perform better than peers who lack self-regulatory capacity (Boekaerts, Pintrich
& Zeidner, 2005; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Shapiro, 2000;
Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). Extensive work on self-regulated learning led Barry
Zimmerman (2000) to develop a leading model designed to understand and synthesize key
self-regulation processes and their relation to motivation and self-efficacy. Grounded in
social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991; Zimmerman, 1989, 2000), this model has been
successfully applied in the domains of education (Zimmermamn & Martinez-Pons, 1992),
health (Zimmerman, Bonner, Evans & Mellins, 1999), and sport (Cleary & Zimmerman,
2001; Collins & Durand-Bush, 2014; Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002; McNeill et al., 2014a;
McNeill, Durand-Bush & Lemyre 2014b; Toering et al., 2011), and thus has great relevance
for coaching.
Social-Cognitive Model of Self-Regulation
Zimmerman’s (2000) model includes three self-regulatory phases: forethought,

performance (volitional control), and self-reflection. These phases will be subsequently
described to show the links to similar processes and tasks that coaches must perform.
Forethought phase. This phase (e.g., planning to perform tasks within a sport context)
consists of (a) examining key motivational beliefs, (b) setting personal standards (i.e., how
one wants to feel, think, and behave), goals, and learning/performance outcomes, and (c)
establishing a sound strategic plan in order to effectively and efficiently complete tasks. Self-
efficacy, which consists of one’s beliefs about executing tasks with a specific standard of
performance, is a crucial component as it predicts choice of activities, effort, and persistence
(Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman, 1989). While goal-setting involves determining specific targets
to reach learning/performance outcomes (Locke & Latham, 1990), strategic planning involves
setting up strategies to optimize efforts toward goal attainment (Zimmerman, 2000).
Forethought processes are foundational as they influence one’s propensity and capacity to
engage in the performance phase (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004).
Performance phase. This phase (i.e., performing and monitoring tasks within a sport
context) involves implementing the strategic plan established in the forethought phase in
order to perform tasks with the utmost efficacy. It comprises (a) self-control and (b) self-
observation processes. Self-control serves to help one maintain focus on current tasks and to
optimize efforts toward goal realization. It includes sub-processes such as self-instruction,
imagery, attention focusing, and task strategy mobilization (Zimmerman, 2000). Self-
observation consists of monitoring and recording specific aspects of one’s performance and
environment during task completion (Zimmerman, 1989). While self-monitoring techniques
(e.g., self-questioning) help to keep track of and gauge success, self-recording (e.g.,
journaling) increases the effectiveness and accuracy of feedback and leads to self-awareness
by providing relevant personal and environmental data that can be synthesized into future
adapted strategies. It is noteworthy that self-recording is not amenable to all sport contexts
and situations. For example, it is difficult for coaches to record aspects of their performance
while they are teaching skills on the field or when they are overseeing their athletes’
performances during competitions. As such, it is more feasible in these cases to record
relevant information after performances.
The self-reflection phase (i.e., reflecting and learning from performing tasks) consists of
comparing the self-monitored data gathered from the performance phase with self-standards
and/or goals from the forethought phase (i.e., determining where one is in relation to where
one wants to be), and assigning attributions or causal significance to the results. Self-
satisfaction regarding one’s task-related performance and adaptive inferences made to
improve future regulatory attempts are also part of this process. Making sound attributions
and adaptive rather than defensive inferences is important because this allows one to sustain
motivation, maximize learning, and further engage in forethought processes (Clifford, 1986).
Self-regulation is therefore a highly cyclical process because one uses feedback information
from this phase as well as previous experiences to make adjustments for the future
(Zimmerman, 2000). The significance of self-reflection was discussed by Toering, Elferink-
Gemser, Jordet and Visscher (2009), as well as Jonker, Elferink-Gemser and Visscher (2010)
as they found that this aspect of self-regulation distinguished between elite and less/non elite
athletes.
Zimmerman’s (2000) social-cognitive perspective of self-regulation is pertinent to
coaching given its emphasis on learning and socializing agents (e.g., coaches, teammates,
parents). It underscores the mutual effect that these individuals have on each other’s actions
and development of self-regulation (Toering et al., 2011). Interestingly, Schunk (2001) stated
that self-regulation competence “develops initially from social sources and subsequently
shifts to self-sources” (p. 142). Schunk and Zimmerman (2003) also reported that “self-
regulation does not develop automatically with maturation, nor is it acquired passively from
the environment. Systematic interventions assist the development and acquisition of self-
regulatory skills” (p. 72). This demonstrates that one typically develops self-regulation
capacity with the help of others (e.g., via modeling, instruction, feedback, support) and
becomes self-sufficient with deliberate practice and consistent successful implementation of
processes. Hadwin, Jarvelä and Miller (2011) called this co-regulation, that is, the process in
which one interacts with another to temporarily facilitate self-regulation in order to help this
person shift toward independent regulation. This certainly resonates with the work of coaches.
It shows the important role that they play in nurturing their athletes’ self-regulation
competence (Collins & Durand-Bush, 2010). It is fair to say that many coaches aim to help
their athletes become autonomous so that the latter can compete without direct intervention.
However, coaches may not be using systematic social-cognitive processes to do this and may
therefore lack efficacy or consistency in their approach. Although fostering autonomy is an
important goal, coaches must nonetheless continue to provide assistance to their athletes in
various ways because athletes are constantly learning and growing and the environment in
which they compete regularly changes (Durand-Bush et al., 2012). Furthermore, while
coaches strive to lead their athletes toward higher self-regulation competence, they must work
on their own self-regulation to maximize their performance and goal achievement. Given the
value of co-regulation and the considerable demands and defies that coaches face on a daily
basis (Durand-Bush et al., 2012), seeking additional support and practicing strategies to refine
their self-regulation skills seems like a worthwhile endeavor.
Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) illustrated how “self-regulated learning coaches” (SRC)
empower individuals, in this case, adolescent students, “to engage in more positive, self-
motivating cycles of learning” (p. 537). In their two-part intervention program guided by
Zimmerman’s (2000) model, SRC first evaluate students’ self-regulation beliefs and task
strategies. They then train students to use self-regulation strategies in a cyclical fashion,
thereby enabling them to “proactively set goals, monitor performance processes and
outcomes, evaluate their performance, and then make strategic adjustments to improve their
performance” (p. 549). The argument and evidence is that students who are able to detect
progress in their learning and performance increase both their self-satisfaction and self-
efficacy to perform at a high skill level (Schunk and Ertmer, 2000). Sport coaches can
arguably use a similar approach to train themselves and their athletes to effectively implement
self-regulation processes and successfully perform. This implies establishing a sound
structure and a series of processes to adequately set personal goals, evaluate their
performance against these targeted goals, and continuously make adjustments as they learn
and face new challenges.
Goal setting is a key element in the self-regulation process that should not be
underestimated (Kirschenbaum, 1984; Locke & Latham, 1990; Wolko, Hrycaiko & Martin,
1993; Zimmerman, 2002). Zimmerman (2002) noted the positive effects of setting goals,
distinguishing between novice and expert learners’ goal-setting practices. For instance, novice
learners tend not to set specific goals and self-monitor, and consequently evaluate their
effectiveness by comparing their performance to that of others. Conversely, expert learners
set hierarchical goals (i.e., process goals that lead to outcome goals) and judge their
effectiveness by determining how their performance measures up to their personal goals
rather than the performance of others. This leads to greater satisfaction, self-efficacy, and
intrinsic interest. Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1997) and Kolovelonis, Goudas and Dermitzaki
(2011) have equally showed the value of combining both process and outcome goals in
learning and performance contexts.
Wolko and colleagues (1993) showed the feasibility and value of involving sport coaches
in self-regulation interventions targeting goal-setting, monitoring, and rewards. They
compared the effects of the following three conditions designed to improve five gymnasts’
beam skills during practice over an 8-week period: (a) standard coaching (i.e., corrective
feedback, praise, encouragement, reprimands, spotting as necessary), (b) standard coaching
plus private self-regulation intervention (i.e., private self-written goals, private self-recording
and graphing without coach feedback, reward contingent upon goal attainment), and (c)
standard coaching plus public self-regulation intervention (i.e., coach-written goals, public
self-recording and graphing, coach feedback on results, reward contingent upon goals
attainment). Results showed that the private self-regulation intervention was the most
effective for enhancing the 10 to 13 year old gymnasts’ beam skills. The coaches
corroborated the trained observers’ findings and the gymnasts reported a preference for both
self-regulation interventions over the standard coaching option. Even though the sample was
limited, this is an excellent illustration of how coaches can integrate self-regulation training
into their coaching and empower their athletes to drive part of the learning process.
Four-Level Model of Self-Regulated Learning

Another useful model to which coaches can refer when nurturing self-regulation is
Zimmerman’s (2000) four-level model of self-regulated learning. Zimmerman (2000)
postulated that the development of self-regulation spans four sequential levels: (a)
observation (i.e., observe a model performing a sport skill), (b) emulation (i.e., practice the
sport skill to emulate the model and receive feedback), (c) self-control (i.e., practice the sport
skill and self-monitor; receive no feedback), and (d) self-regulation (i.e., effectively
implement and adapt the sport skill in varying contexts). This four-level training model was
supported in physical education contexts in which motor and sport skills were taught to
students (Kitsantas, Zimmerman & Cleary, 2000; Kolovelonis, Goudas & Dermitzaki, 2010;
Kolovelonis, Goudas & Dermitzaki, 2011; Kolovelonis, Goudas, Hassandra & Dermitzaki,
2012).
If physical educators can use this approach to facilitate the acquisition of motor/sport and
self-regulation skills (Goudas, Kolovelonis & Dermitzaki, 2013), one can surmise that
coaches may benefit from putting it into practice with their athletes. In doing so, they engage
in co-regulation processes. For example, they can provide effective demonstrations,
instructions, and feedback in initial phases of learning but then as skills are mastered, they
can gradually diminish social support so that athletes can take responsibility for their learning
and direct themselves by establishing their own goals and engaging in self-monitoring.
Although social support can be typically diminished in the latter phases of co-regulation,
coaches must be mindful of establishing an autonomy-supportive climate that optimizes
athletes’ motivation and self-efficacy so that the athletes can persist, particularly in the face of
challenges or setbacks (Adie, Duda & Ntoumanis, 2012; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand &
Brière, 2001).
The importance of the practice environment was highlighted in Toering and colleagues’
(2011) study in which they examined six expert soccer coaches’ views of self-regulated
learning (i.e., self-directed processes enabling learners to transform their mental abilities into
performance skills, Zimmerman, 2008) and correlated them with elite soccer players’ actual
self-regulated behaviors and scores on a self-regulation scale. They found that coaches
perceived effective self-regulation to be associated with both (a) interdependent (i.e., co-
regulation) behaviors, which were reflected in athletes’ interactions with the coach during and
after instruction/exercises (e.g., ask questions) and with teammates (e.g., observe and give
instruction/feedback, ask for the ball, apologize for making errors), and (b) independent
behaviors, which were perceived to be indicative of athletes’ high self-efficacy and
motivation (e.g., take responsibility for learning and work alone on weak points before
practice, be the first in line to start an exercise, focus and perform an exercise as intended).
After correlating coaches’ responses with athletes’ scale scores, the authors concluded:
Overall, the expert coaches’ views were supported by the relationships found between
behavioral items and the scores that the players obtained on the self-report instrument. Some
behavioral items thought by the coaches to reflect certain self-regulated learning aspects,
appeared to be associated with other self-regulation aspects as reported by individual players
(Toering et al., 2011, pp. 125-126).
This suggests that coaches and athletes’ perceptions of self-regulated behaviors may
differ. Consequently, as coaches help their athletes progress through levels of self-regulated
learning, they should examine their athletes’ viewpoints and provide clear explanations and
expectations. This, in turn, will arguably lead to more harmony and efficacy in the learning
process.
Resonance Performance Model
Another educational model that coaches can consider when fostering self-regulation
competence is the Resonance Performance Model (RPM, Collins & Durand-Bush, 2010).
This model particularly targets the regulation of how one feels in different contexts and
situations (Callary & Durand-Bush, 2008), and thus is considerably relevant to sport in which
sensations are often the focus of task execution (e.g., golfer feels his swing). Adapted from
the work of Newburg, Kimiecik, Durand-Bush and Doell (2002), the RPM encapsulates a
process in which individuals learn to self-regulate by (a) identifying how they want to feel in
different aspects of their life (i.e., establish their preferred standards, Vohs and Baumeister,
2004), (b) developing and applying strategies enabling them to feel this way as often as
possible, (c) identifying obstacles that get in the way, and (d) developing and applying
strategies allowing them to reconnect with the way they want to feel in order to sustain
motivation and engagement. With a focus on wholeness and integration, this approach leads
them to experience resonance, that is, a seamless fit between their inner self and environment.
The concept of feel is at the core of the RPM. It is defined as a subjective
multidimensional experience that is mediated by individuals' capacity to perceive, to be aware
of, or to be conscious of their inner states and surrounding (Burke, Durand-Bush & Doell,
2010). In this context, felt experiences are generated by individuals, that is, they are not
predetermined nor imposed by external sources such as coaches or consultants. Feel can be
experienced, for example, physically (e.g., I feel strong), cognitively (e.g., I feel confident),
emotionally (e.g., I feel happy), socially (e.g., I feel connected to the group), and also
spiritually (e.g., I feel at peace with myself). As such, this broader concept of feel is more
encompassing and may be differentiated from more traditional definitions of emotions and
feelings (Hansen, 2005; Vallerand & Blanchard, 2000).
The following components of the RPM are distinctively presented, however, the process
and experience of resonance is holistic, dynamic, and cyclical thus there is significant
interaction between components (Newburg et al., 2002).
The Way You Want to Feel. One of the most unique features of the RPM that
distinguishes it from other performance or self-regulation models is the first component – the
way you want to feel. It represents the many ways individuals want to feel in their daily
activities and life (Callary & Durand-Bush, 2008; Newburg et al., 2002). The meaning and
relevance of different dimensions of felt experiences can evolve and change across time,
situations, and contexts, which highlights the importance for coaches to promote ongoing
self-monitoring and self-reflection throughout the self-regulation process (Arcand, Durand-
Bush & Miall, 2007).
Preparation. Preparation targets what individuals do to feel the way they want while
pursuing their goals (Newburg et al., 2002). Preparation strategies are highly personalized and
can be, for example, cognitive (e.g., engage in positive self-talk), physical (e.g., exercise),
emotional (e.g., cry), social (e.g., talk to a friend), and organizational (e.g., prioritize tasks) in
nature (Callary & Durand-Bush, 2008; Doell, Durand-Bush & Newburg, 2006). During this
phase, individuals attempt to align their thoughts and behaviors with how they want to feel in
a particular situation or context and implement different strategies to experience resonance
(i.e., congruence).
Obstacles. All individuals, including coaches and athletes, face obstacles in the pursuit of
their goals, which can lead to dissonance rather than resonance. Obstacles can be internal
(e.g., self-doubt, fear) or external (e.g., deadlines, parental pressure). This phase of the
process entails anticipating and accepting life’s inevitable challenges and setbacks rather than
denying or avoiding them. By recognizing how they respond to obstacles (i.e., feeling the way
they do not want to feel) and having a crucial reference point (e.g., clear and tangible desired
way to feel) to which they can bring themselves, individuals can more efficiently overcome
difficulties in their daily life (Simon & Durand-Bush, 2009).
Revisit The Way You Want to Feel. It is important for individuals to revisit the way
they want to feel on a regular basis, particularly when encountering challenges. This prevents
them from possibly losing sight of what is important and meaningful to them, which can
result in decreased motivation, enjoyment, and satisfaction (Newburg et al., 2002). By
reconnecting with their desired felt experiences, individuals are able to re-energize
themselves and refocus on important elements of their pursuits. This part of the process
involves identifying and applying strategies that may or may not be similar to preparation
strategies. These can involve physical (e.g., take a break from training), cognitive (e.g., re-
appraise a situation), emotional (e.g., listen to feel-good music), social (e.g., meet with
coach), and/or organizational (e.g., eliminate unnecessary tasks) elements (Callary & Durand-
Bush; Simon & Durand-Bush, 2009; Newburg et al., 2002).
The RPM was implemented in 20 independent intervention studies to foster self-
regulation in a total of 117 participants including professional and club athletes (Arcand et al.,
2007; Burke et al., 2010; Collins & Durand-Bush, 2010; Doell et al., 2006), university
student-athletes (Dubuc-Charbonneau & Durand-Bush, 2015; Callary & Durand-Bush, 2008),
modern dancers (Lussier-Ley & Durand-Bush, 2009), university students (Guérin, Arcand &
Durand-Bush, 2010; Simon & Durand-Bush, 2009), and coaches (Collins & Durand-Bush,
2014; McNeill et al., 2014b). Overall, results have shown that all of the participants identified
with the RPM components. Moreover, the participants uncovered and deliberately applied
various self-regulation processes and strategies throughout the interventions conducted by the
trained researchers. This resulted in varying heightened levels of self-awareness, self-
regulation capacity, performance, and well-being (ex. satisfaction, engagement, self-efficacy),
and reduced levels of ill-being (ex. stress, burnout). Examples of some these studies are
subsequently provided to shed light on how coaches may help themselves and their athletes to
increase their self-regulation effectiveness.
Doell and colleagues (2006) tracked the self-regulation of four female track athletes over
a 10-week period. Each athlete participated in four individual intervention sessions promoting
self-discovery and reflection, and completed a journal comprising semi-structured questions.
Results showed that although the athletes found it challenging to initially articulate how they
wanted to feel (i.e., their preferred standard), they were eventually capable of doing so
through questioning, reflection, and the use of analogies (e.g., desired to feel “on fire”,
“hungry”). As the intervention progressed and they became more self-aware, they verbalized
a greater number of preparation strategies (e.g., engage in facilitative self-talk, eat well,
express feelings). Interestingly, identifying obstacles (e.g., anxiety, negative results) was
effortless for them. Strategies to reconnect with their desired feel were also put in place (e.g.,
relax, simulate races). As a result of the intervention, the athletes perceived a number of
positive outcomes, including enhanced well-being, confidence, performance, and decision-
making. As articulated by a participant,
I think I have been more conscious about my decisions than before. I will pull myself out of
situation[s] that I knew beforehand I wouldn’t really want to be in.... I’ve been conscious about the
fact that I want to feel a certain way most of the time... (Doell et al., 2006).
Arcand et al. (2007) focused on the case of one rock climber’s self-regulation experience.
The intervention spanned 16 weeks and involved seven intervention sessions, three interviews
conducted at competitions, a post-intervention interview, and daily reflective journaling.
Results showed that initially, the 27 year-old athlete benefited from the researcher’s questions
during the intervention. However, as time elapsed, he became more self-directed and
controlled his own reflection. Specifically, he became more aware of the discrepancy between
how he was feeling and the way he wanted to feel, and was able to implement ways to align
the two more often. This supports Clarke’s (2004) finding that individuals may benefit from
having some guidance during early reflective processes, for example, through general and
specific questioning and shared reflective discussions. That said, the fact that the athlete
learned to become more self-directed with practice is consistent with the aim of co-regulation
to develop self-sufficient learners and performers (Hadwin et al., 2011).
Lussier-Ley and Durand-Bush (2009) studied the perceived impact of a feel-based
intervention delivered in a group setting with six pre-professional dancers. Participants
engaged in 12 weekly group intervention sessions, which similar to previous studies (Doell et
al., 2006; Arcand et al., 2007), centered around identifying the way they wanted to feel,
preparing to feel this way, anticipating obstacles that could interfere, and when facing
challenges, implementing strategies to reconnect with their desired feel. Using an
ethnographic approach, data were collected via observations, field notes, participation in
dance classes, discussions with participants and significant others in their environment, and
written feedback submitted by the dancers after the intervention. Results indicated that each
of the dancers valued feeling a certain way when they performed; they used terms such as
“joy”, “magic”, and “in the moment’ to describe how they wanted to feel while dancing. The
dancers also clearly understood the importance of preparation:
I think that how I feel affects me a great deal. If I perform when I feel well, I will perform
well. But it is not all to know that when you feel good, you can give a good performance or
when you feel poorly, you will give them a bad one… It is how do you do to get to, let’s say
September 17th, to feel good... happy and well? (Lussier-Ley and Durand-Bush, 2009, p.
208).
Preparation strategies were centered on managing thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and
included developing pre-performance routines, managing time, and balancing task demands.
Interestingly, the dancers noted that preparation required ‘rehearsing for feel’. Obstacles that
interfered with their creative process were predominantly related to over-thinking
performances (as opposed to feeling them) and mis-managing emotions. Although the dancers
were able to articulate their obstacles with ease, recognizing strategies to refocus on their
desired feel was not as straightforward. Consequently, they benefited from the group-based
discussions wherein they learned strategies from one another and adapted them to meet their
own needs. This highlights the benefit of coaches facilitating not only individual but also
group discussions when attempting to develop self-regulation skills.
Building on Lussier-Ley and Durand-Bush’s (2009) research approach, Burke et al.

(2010) employed an ethnographic design to study the self-regulation and motivation of four
male Mount Everest climbers. As an avid climber herself, the lead researcher participated in
two different Mount Everest expeditions, that is, one with two recreational climbers (6 weeks)
and another with two elite climbers (8 weeks). The data were gathered via ongoing
observations, field notes, and five semi-structured interviews with each climber at different
time points during the climb. The participants were able to articulate how they wanted to feel
on the mountain and identified physical, mental, social, and emotional dimensions. However,
the two elite climbers also noted a spiritual dimension: “When I climb, I don’t want to be
anywhere else. I feel like I totally belong and that is what keeps be going in the mountains”
(Burke et al., 2010, p. 385), which was quite unique to this context. In terms of differences
between the recreational and elite climbers, the initial motivations of the recreational
participants centered around achievement and outcomes, whereas the elite climbers were
motivated by the process and the way they wanted to feel (e.g., physical and emotional effort,
pain). This is similar to Zimmerman’s (2002) finding that novice learners tend to judge their
effectiveness based on outcomes and comparisons to others whereas experts focus more on
themselves as reference points. In line with their motivations, the recreational climbers
implemented preparation strategies that facilitated achievement (e.g., imagery), whereas the
elite climbers strategically prepared to feel a certain way, listen to their body, and respond to
obstacles. One elite climber stated, “You set goals that are ambitious in climbing. But if while
trying to achieve those goals you eliminate the fun, then it’s not going to happen. At least for
me, I won’t perform well if it isn’t fun” (Burke et al., 2010, p. 386). Interestingly, the
recreational climbers worried more about obstacles than their more experienced counterparts,
perhaps in part because they were less able to accept and respond to challenging elements that
were an inevitable part of the environment. Furthermore, the elite climbers seemed to be more
aware of discrepancies between the way they were feeling and the way they wanted to feel,
and were able to self-regulate in order to reconnect. The authors noted that a “difference
between the recreational and elite climbers was that the latter seemed to use how they felt as
data to help overcome obstacles or adversity and sustain their internal drive towards the
summit” (Burke et al., 2010, p. 389). This furthered their motivation and confidence to reach
the peak. The recreational climbers, on the other hand, often found it difficult to reconnect
with their desired feel, which appeared to hinder their motivation and enjoyment. In terms of
implications for coaches, this suggests that there is value in helping both novice and expert
male athletes to collect and use feel-related data to self-monitor, effectively respond to
challenges and setbacks, and sustain motivation.
The aforementioned studies focused on high functioning athletes/performers. Dubuc-
Charbonneau and Durand-Bush (2015) wanted to explore whether or not a feel-based self-
regulation intervention could have a positive impact on a more vulnerable population. In an
initial phase, they administered the Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (Raedeke & Smith, 2001)
to 147 university student-athletes. From this sample, eight athletes who had elevated burnout
scores were selected to participate in a season-long intervention. The intervention involved
seven to nine individual bi-weekly sessions focusing on self-regulation development. The
impact of the intervention was assessed using burnout, stress, well-being, and self-regulation
questionnaires at four different time points as well as pre- and post- interviews. Results
revealed that stress and burnout levels significantly decreased and well-being and self-
regulation capacity levels significantly increased as the intervention progressed. Moreover,
the qualitative data corroborated these findings (Dubuc-Charbonneau & Durand-Bush, 2015).
It thus appears that a feel-based intervention may be useful to help vulnerable athletes more
effectively manage themselves and their environment in order to reduce adverse symptoms
and improve optimal functioning. The authors recommended that coaches be proactive in
assessing and monitoring athletes throughout a season and create a safe and supportive
environment for athletes to develop their self-regulation capacity.
The role of coaches in cultivating self-regulation processes were brought to light in two
particular feel-based intervention studies. Specifically, the coaches were taught and
empowered to help their athletes develop and apply self-regulatory skills (Callary & Durand-
Bush, 2008; Collins & Durand-Bush, 2010, 2014). First, Callary and Durand-Bush (2008)
studied a university women’s volleyball team and their male coach participating in a 26-week
intervention consisting of four team intervention sessions, individual coach-researcher
sessions, ten structured reflective journaling exercises, regular participant observation, and
final interviews. Throughout the intervention, the coach recognized that he had previously
been unaware of how his athletes wanted to feel individually and collectively when
performing, and consequently was unable to nurture this. However, based on a newfound
awareness, the coach adapted some of his coaching behaviors (e.g., the way he communicated
with the team) to help his athletes feel the way they wanted more often. Furthermore, the
coach increasingly took on a more active role in facilitating discussions amongst team
members (e.g., by asking questions), and encouraged them to be aware of how the way they
felt impacted the team’s performance. Interestingly, while the intervention was designed to
empower the coach to facilitate the development of his athletes’ self-regulatory skills, the
coach also improved his own competence as a result of participating in this process. For
example, he recognized that when he was unable to control his emotions, this hindered both
the athletes’ ability to feel the way they wanted and the team’s performance. The coach
reported that he continued to facilitate self-regulation without the assistance of the researcher
following the intervention. He also articulated that the intervention was a key contributor to
their team success: [It was a] “valuable part of focused training with our team, it’s just not a
little aside anymore…. I hope to continue to expand on it, and reset it when needed and run
with it at other times.” A limitation of the study was, however, the restricted amount of
information regarding the specific interactions of the coach. Based on this, it was
recommended that more attention be paid to how the coach applied different self-regulation
processes and strategies to respond to daily situations and obstacles.
In the other study, Collins and Durand-Bush (2010, 2014) tracked an elite women’s
curling team and their male coach’s self-regulation via an intervention and linked it to
cohesion and performance. Data collection spanned 24 weeks and involved multiple group
sessions, individual interviews with the athletes and the coach, participant observation, and a
post-intervention questionnaire. The researcher facilitated the intervention through co-
regulation processes such that the coach was encouraged to take an increasingly active role in
the process. Results showed that the coach used various strategies (n=29) to help the athletes
self-regulate (i.e., prepare for, control, and evaluate performances, Collins & Durand-Bush,
2014). For example, he led them to set process goals, anticipate and respond to obstacles, and
share preferences for communication in order to allow the athletes to feel the way they
wanted. This in congruent with Beauchamp, Maclachlan and Lothian’s (2005) finding that in
order to optimally function, team members must understand and respect individual
preferences for communication. The coach also fostered self-instruction and attention
focusing by providing performance reminders (Collins & Durand-Bush, 2014). This supports
coaching strategies proposed by Cutton and Hearon (2013) to facilitate athletes’ focus (e.g.,
provide feedback, use appropriate cue words). Helping the athletes engage in self-reflection
by charting performances, providing constructive feedback and instruction, encouraging
accountability, and helping the athletes adapt to one another were other strategies used by the
coach (Collins & Durand-Bush, 2014). As a result of the intervention, the athletes perceived
an increased capacity to self-regulate as well as enhanced cohesion (Collins & Durand-Bush,
2010). Overall, these findings are in line with those emerging from research on leadership and
motivational climate established by coaches. They suggest that when coaches create an
autonomy-supportive and task-oriented environment, athletes experience positive outcomes
such as heightened emotional affect and engagement (Adie et al., 2012; Pelletier et al., 2001).
Collins and Durand-Bush’s (2014) study was novel in that it provided evidence of
specific actions and strategies that an elite coach used to nurture his athletes’ self-regulation.
However, it is noteworthy that akin to Callary and Durand-Bush’s (2008) findings, the
athletes reported that the coach also had the ability to hinder their self-regulation
effectiveness, particularly when he himself was not in control of his own thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors (Collins, 2009). This is in line with studies underscoring how coaches
influence their athletes’ performances (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2009; Vallée & Bloom, 2005).
Their subpar self-regulation can have negative implications and hinder athletes’ confidence,
focus, and overall performance (Donoso, Bloom, & Caron, 2015). As such, there is a need for
coaches to be able to effectively self-regulate if they want their athletes to be able to do so as
well. The following section will shed more light on coaches’ self-regulation competence.
Coaches’ Self-Regulation Competence
Very few studies have explicitly explored the self-regulation skills and strategies that
coaches use to manage their own demands and optimally perform. This is a warranted area of
study as coaches face many challenges on a daily basis and have been shown to be prone to
stress (Frey, 2007; Levy, Nicholls, Marchant and Polman, 2009) and burnout (Hjälm, Kenttä,
Hassménan & Gustafsson, 2007). Durand-Bush and colleagues (2012) examined women
coaches’ use of self-regulation strategies in relation to stress and burnout. The eight coaches
reported experiencing numerous internal (e.g., expectations of self) and external (e.g., second
job) demands that resulted in stress when they did not feel that they had the necessary
resources (e.g., social support, planning skills) to meet them. However, each of the coaches
used a number of self-regulation strategies to manage these demands and cope with any
resulting stress. The most common ones involved planning, engaging in self-reflection,
communicating, and relaxing. Prioritizing tasks, creating change, reducing workload,
focusing on breathing, eating well, and getting sufficient sleep were additional ones discussed
by half of the sample. Interestingly, two coaches referenced an emotional coping strategy,
which centered on experiencing emotions and then letting them go (Durand-Bush et al.,
2012). A number of the aforementioned strategies are consistent with those put forth by
Zimmerman (2000). For example, planning, prioritizing tasks, eating well, sleeping,
communicating, and reducing workload are all consistent with strategic planning initiatives in
Zimmerman’s forethought phase. Similarly, breathing and letting go of emotions are
congruent with performance control strategies. Finally, engaging in self-reflection and

creating change are akin to strategies linked to Zimmerman’s self-reflection phase.
With regards to outcomes, each of the coaches reported that when they were unable to
self-manage and cope with stress, this had a negative impact on their coach effectiveness and
well-being. In discussing an extended bout of stress, one coach stated, “I don’t think that I
was coaching to the best of my abilities and I don’t think that the kids were seeing my best
side” (Durand-Bush et al., 2012, p. 34). Another coach reported that “reducing that stress for
me will mean only more positive experiences for the athletes” (p. 34). Furthermore, six of the
eight coaches described experiencing burnout at least once in their coaching career, at which
time they had difficulty self-regulating. One coach highlighted the importance of prioritizing
her own self-regulation and well-being when she said, “I will give and give and give and give
and give of myself, but I need to [realize that] in order to give anything, I have to give to
myself first, and I have to be okay first” (p. 35).
Another study that has shed light on the self-regulation of coaches was conducted by
Donoso and colleagues (2015). In examining how four Canadian University coaches prepared
championship teams, the authors found that coaches’ emotional regulation was a key factor.
One of the coaches brought this to light when he stated:
During that first championship game, I became emotional. I became stressed. I started to
yell at the players, trying to wake up the players, I thought that’s what coaches did…But these
behaviors are absolutely the opposite behaviors you have to bring to win.
Another coach highlighted, “That’s what I learned, the way I behaved myself and the way
I spoke really influenced their performance. So, I think that is the main lesson for me from
that championship.” In particular, this emphasizes the importance of both self-control and
self-reflection within the self-regulation process. Interestingly, these findings have parallels
with emotional intelligence (EI), which is “the ability to perceive, monitor, employ, and
manage emotions within oneself and in others” (Thelwell, Lane, Weston & Greenlees, 2008,
p. 226). Unfortunately, the concept of EI has received minimal attention in sport in
comparison to other widely referenced constructs (e.g., self-determination). However, one
particular study has shown that coaches’ EI was significantly correlated with their coaching
efficacy (Thelwell, Lane et al., 2008). This suggests that in order to be effective, coaches
must recognize when they and their athletes are not feeling the way they want and take
actions in order to reconnect with their desired emotional states.
Additional research has implicitly addressed the self-regulation of coaches. In studies
pertaining to coaches’ use of mental skills, researchers have indirectly revealed numerous
strategies that coaches employ to set, manage, and achieve performance standards (Thelwell,
Weston, Greenlees & Hutchings, 2008; Weinberg, Butt, Knight & Perritt, 2001). For
example, in a study of 13 professional coaches, Thelwell, Weston and colleagues (2008)
found that coaches used the following four mental skills before training and competition in
order to prepare to perform: self-talk, imagery, relaxation, and goal-setting. Each coach used
self-talk to get into ideal affective states, increase confidence and motivation, and plan for
performance. Eleven coaches also used imagery techniques to focus, relax, control their
emotions, anticipate potential obstacles and responses, and familiarize themselves with the
training or competition venue. Relaxation, in contrast, was used by only six coaches prior to
competition to calm down, control body language, think rationally, and facilitate
communication. Lastly, with regards to goal-setting, only five coaches set goals for
themselves before training or competition, which were perceived to help them to
communicate more effectively, be more organized, and set standards for themselves.
Additionally, coaches reported that their training goals helped them to visualize and get
focused on what they wanted to accomplish in training, while pre-competition goals led them
to get into the right frame of mind. Of note, although Thelwell, Weston and colleagues (2008)
provided insight into coaches’ use of various mental skills prior to training and competition,
they did not provide information regarding the coaches’ actual implementation processes.
In another study with 14 NCAA collegiate coaches, Weinberg, Butt and colleagues
(2001) found that in addition to conducting individual and team goal setting with athletes,
coaches set goals for themselves. These goals related to player and team development,
personal development, as well as administration/organization. Consistent with Thelwell,
Weston and colleagues’ (2008) findings, the coaches’ purpose for setting these goals was to
provide direction and focus and help their athletes succeed. The coaches’ goals were
predominantly subjective, short-term in proximity (e.g., from one practice to the next), and
focused largely on how they could assist their athletes. Interestingly, their own goals were
rarely written down in contrast to team and individual player goals, which were often
recorded. This was similar to results of another study showing that high school coaches’ goal
setting practices were inconsistent (Weinberg, Butt & Knight, 2001). The coaches only
sporadically recorded their goals, which pertained to the team more often than to themselves.
They also differed a great deal in the extent to which they understood the goal setting process:
Some coaches had vague ideas of how to set goals and this could be seen in their lack of
depth and detail in implementing their goal-setting programs. This typically resulted in a very
nonsystematic use of goals, which often were not written down, not measured in a formal
sense, and not reevaluated… (Weinberg et al., 2001, p. 26).
In addition to engaging in self-regulation processes related to planning (i.e., forethought),

coaches were shown to use processes related to performance or volitional control. According
to Thelwell, Weston and collaborators (2008), coaches heightened their self-regulation by
using the same four skills (i.e., self-talk, imagery, relaxation, and goal setting) not only prior
to but also during training and competition. For example, they employed self-talk in an effort
to maintain focus, cope with challenges, and control body language (e.g., in response to
obstacles) while performing. Self-talk also helped them solve problems and sustain
motivation during training, as well as maintain an appropriate mindset and engage in
emotional control during competition. Imagery, on the other hand, allowed them to maintain
focus, relax, and control emotions during both training and competition. Coaches applied
relaxation skills to enhance communication and control body language during training, and to
display confidence and control decision-making in competition. Lastly, although few coaches
reported using goal-setting, some felt that its use during training helped them to cope and be
in control of their emotions, whereas in competition, it facilitated their focus (Thelwell,
Weston et al., 2008).
An additional self-regulatory strategy that coaches have implemented to control
performance is self-monitoring. In a study of 31 expert golf instructors, Schempp, McCullick,
Busch, Webster and Mason (2006) explored the facets that they most often monitored.
Results indicated that the instructors monitored their skills (e.g., teaching, communication),
knowledge (e.g., golf or business-specific knowledge), personal attributes (e.g., caring,

passion), teaching/coaching philosophy, and teaching tools (e.g., technology). Engaging in
self-monitoring allowed the instructors to clarify or simplify instruction, learn, communicate,
and gauge their personal qualities. In particular, it led them to seek help from others (e.g.,
observe other instructors) and adapt their instructional practice (e.g., take notes) (Schempp,
Webster, McCullick, Busch & Mason, 2007), which are important elements of self-regulation.
Studies have shown that coaches can also use mental skills to reflect on and evaluate their
performance. For instance, Thelwell, Weston and colleagues (2008) found that coaches
additionally used self-talk to evaluate training and competitions: “I talk to myself quite a lot,
just chit chat when I reflect and think about the session ... I try to tell myself what was good
and what was not so good and how it fits together” (p. 45). Imagery also served to review
practices and competitions. In their study, Weinberg, Butt and colleagues (2001) reported that
nearly all coaches took the time to evaluate the goals they set in some way. Most of them re-
evaluated them either each day or once per week. However, others only did so once per year,
or even every couple of years, which is arguably insufficient if goals are used as targets to
guide performance and self-regulation efforts. Feedback from players and assistant coaches,
as well as observations, appeared to be important for re-evaluating goals (Weinberg, Butt et
al., 2001).
Knowles, Tyler, Gilbourne and Eubank (2006) investigated the self-reflection of six
coaching science graduates who were coaching on a regular basis. These coaches had been
exposed to a curriculum that promoted reflective practice at a technical (i.e., reflecting on the
mechanical aspects of coaching), practical (i.e., reflecting on personal meaning within
coaching), and critical (i.e., reflecting on the constraints of larger social, political, and
economic forces) level. Interestingly, however, the authors noted that none of the coaches
reported engaging in reflection at a practical or critical level; instead, the coaches described
their reflection at a technical level only. They also tended to engage in informal reflection,
such as through making mental notes and conversing with others, as opposed to more formal
methods, like journaling, which they had utilized during their coaching science degree.
Moreover, similar to the findings emerging from Gilbert and Trudel’s (2001) research,
reflection-in-action (i.e., occurs during the course of an activity such as a coaching session)
was not frequently addressed by the coaches, as they reported predominately engaging in
reflection-on-action (i.e., takes place after an activity but can still exert influence on the
situation at hand such as a practice or game). Taken together, these two studies may highlight
the difficulty of reflecting while in the midst of action for coaches, a sentiment that has been
addressed by other authors as well (e.g., Cassidy, Jones & Potrac, 2008).
Building from this, intervention studies were implemented to help enhance coaches’
effective use of reflection or reflective practice (Cropley, Miles & Peel, 2012; Hughes, Lee &
Chesterfield, 2009). Specifically, in an attempt to overcome the difficulties of engaging in
reflection-in-action, Hughes and colleagues (2009) developed and subjected coaches to the
use of reflective cards (r-cards), a reflective learning tool “designed as a fast and focused way
to reflect quickly and efficiently whilst in-action” (p. 370). The r-cards allowed coaches to
reflect in the moment by checking off the particular focus for their reflection, which was
further elaborated at a later time using a structured reflective learning record sheet (e.g., what
is the most important thing you are learning?). At the end of the six-week intervention, the
three equestrian coaches deemed that the r-cards and subsequent reflective conversations
were a simple way to reflect and foster self-awareness. However, the practicality of the r-
cards was also brought into question, as the coaches reported that it was difficult to complete
the r-cards during their coaching sessions, and as such, they opted to complete them after
sessions (i.e., reflection-on-action) instead.
More recently, Cropley and colleagues (2012) developed a structured reflective journal
that, in broad terms, guided coaches to examine their actions, thoughts, and feelings in
response to a specific critical coaching incident. The coaches were also prompted to make an
action plan in response to what they had learned (i.e., what will you do next time to maintain
the strengths and improve the limitations of this experience?), which is conceptually-similar
to making adaptive inferences within the self-reflection phase of Zimmerman’s (2000) self-
regulation model. For the purpose of developing their reflective practice, the 12 UK Coaching
Certificate (UKCC) Level 2 coaches were asked to complete the journal once per week over
the course of 12 weeks. Results indicated that for 11 coaches, the reflective journaling
increased their self-awareness and understanding of their practice (e.g., better appreciation of
their environment), and five of the coaches reported that the process improved their coaching
practice (e.g., development of alternative approaches). However, the coaches also described
several barriers to reflective practice, the most prominent of which were lack of time and lack
of motivation to engage in reflection. Moreover, many of the coaches indicated that they
would have benefited from having support from a mentor or tutor throughout the process, a
viewpoint that was reported in other studies as well (e.g., Gilbert & Trudel, 2013).
In sum, this section covered self-regulation research deemed relevant to coaching.
Findings support the current widespread view that coaches are much more than just peripheral
bystanders in athletes’ quest to achieve positive experiences and success in sport. They
significantly impact whether or not athletes can self-regulate and attain their personal goals.
Intervention studies revealed that coaches can employ a number of processes and strategies to
nurture athletes’ competencies to self-manage. Furthermore, evidence shows that coaches
should refine their own self-regulatory skills in order to sustain their effectiveness and well-
being. The next section will shed light on a particular self-regulation program that was
developed to help vulnerable coaches experiencing burnout to self-regulate. Given that the
program was guided by the Social-Cognitive Model of Self-Regulation and the RPM, and
because research has supported the use of these models with normal populations of athletes
and coaches, it is anticipated that the processes, strategies, and exercises included in the
program are applicable to other coaches desiring to work on personal performance and well-
being goals.
A SELF-REGULATION PROGRAM FOR COACHES

As previously mentioned, self-regulation interventions have been implemented with
numerous efficacious samples of athletes and coaches, but they have not been extensively
implemented with vulnerable ones. Dubuc-Charbonneau and Durand-Bush’s (2015) study
involving university student-athletes experiencing burnout provided preliminary support for
the value of nurturing self-regulation with these populations. With this in mind, Durand-Bush
and McNeill developed a self-regulation (SEWP - Self-Regulation for the Enhancement of
Well-Being and Performance) program for coaches, which was implemented in a study with
five Canadian coaches experiencing burnout (McNeill et al., 2014b). In order to put in place a
process and concrete strategies to develop self-regulatory skills, a workbook was developed
to guide the intervention. This workbook was based on an integrated model of self-regulation
stemming from Zimmerman’s (2000) self-regulation model and the RPM (Collins & Durand-
Bush, 2010; Dubuc-Charbonneau & Durand-Bush, 2015). The aim of the study was to
examine the impact of the intervention, the hypothesis being that it would enhance the
coaches’ capacity to self-regulate and in so doing, reduce their levels of stress and burnout
and enhance their overall well-being and performance.
Development of the SEWP Program
The workbook guiding the SEWP program was composed of six sections, each tapping
into components of the integrated model of self-regulation through specific written exercises.
The content of these sections will be illustrated in subsequent tables. Overall, the exercises
addressed the three phases of self-regulation: forethought, performance, and self-reflection
(Zimmerman, 2000). In order to make the intervention more relatable for the coaches,
however, these phases were adapted and renamed: (a) preparation, (b) execution, and (c)
evaluation (see Figure 1). Similarly, the notion of preferred standards (Vohs and Baumeister,
2004) was translated to “gold standards” to describe in a more user-friendly language the
reference point individuals use when regulating their thoughts, feelings, and actions.
With the aim of developing coaches’ self-regulatory skills, each of the six sections of the
workbook targeted one or more phases and contained exercises that engaged various self-
regulatory motives, processes, and sub-processes, including self-motivational beliefs (e.g.,
self-efficacy), task analysis (e.g., goal-setting), self-control (e.g., self-instruction), self-
observation (e.g., self-recording), self-judgement (e.g., causal attributions), and self-reaction
(e.g., adaptive inferences) (Zimmerman, 2000, 2013). Within the phases, the components of
the RPM (i.e., The Way You Want to Feel, Preparation, Obstacles, Revisit the Way You
Want to Feel; Collins & Durand-Bush, 2010) were integrated to address important additional
and complementary self-regulatory processes. For example, as part of the preparation phase,
the coaches reflected on how they wanted to feel (i.e., their gold standards), how they could
prepare to feel this way, the barriers they might encounter, and strategies they could use to
realign themselves with their gold standards in response to these barriers.
In addition to the exercises, Sections 2 to 6 of the workbook began with a structured
journaling section, which promoted ongoing self-reflection and served as a self-recording
tool. The journal included rating scales and open-ended questions that built progressively
from the previous week; that is, it comprised the same core scales and questions regarding
well-being, stress/burnout, gold standards, goal progress and satisfaction, and self-regulation
capacity but new questions were also added based on the previous week’s content (see
subsequent section for an excerpt of the journaling exercise).
Illustration of the SEWP Program
In order to illustrate the content and implementation process of the SEWP program in
greater detail, selected exercises from the workbook, along with results (i.e., coaches’
responses and reported experiences) of the aforementioned intervention study will be
presented in this section. To provide some context, five full-time paid Canadian coaches
working with athletes competing at a provincial (n=1), national (n=3), and international (n=1)
level participated in this study. The three male and two female coaches ranged in age from 26
to 37 years, and possessed an average of 13 years of coaching experience. Two of the coaches
were figure skating coaches, while the others coached tennis, swimming, and athletics. The
coaches were recruited based on their scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory – Educator’s
Survey (MBI-ES; Maslach, Jackson & Leiter, 1996) obtained during an earlier screening
phase. Using normative data for the MBI-ES, the coaches were selected to participate if they
scored moderate to high on the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization subscales of the
MBI-ES, which are considered to be the key dimensions of burnout (Demerouti, Bakker,
Friedhelm & Schaufeli, 2001).
As part of the intervention study, the coaches participated in two individual interviews:
an intake interview one week before the SEWP program was initiated, and an outtake
interview approximately two weeks after completion of the program. The purpose of the
intake interview was to develop rapport, explain the format of the intervention, and introduce
the key concepts featured in the program (i.e., stress, burnout, well-being, and self-
regulation). The objective of the outtake interview was to explore the coaches’ overall
experiences with the program, including perceived outcomes of the intervention and future
directions. The coaches also completed a burnout, stress, well-being, and self-regulation
questionnaire not only during the screening phase but also at five time-points throughout the
study to track changes in the outcome variables. The coaches received a section of the
workbook via email on a bi-weekly basis, and based on the person-centered nature of the
intervention, they had the option to complete it either individually or with the help of the
facilitator (i.e., the second author) in person or over Skype/the telephone. Based on their
needs and interests, they could also choose among certain exercises and take additional time
to complete the program. Of note, three of the coaches completed the SEWP program within
the anticipated time frame of 10 weeks, while the other two coaches required 20 and 22
weeks, respectively, to complete the program as a result of demands and challenges, which
were noted in the results.
Section 1: Introduction to Self-Regulation

The goal of Section 1 of the workbook was to introduce the coaches to the concept of
self-regulation and its related processes, and to set the foundation for their efforts to self-
regulate going forward. Given the importance of this section and the fact that it constituted
the first session of the program, each coach completed Section 1 with the facilitator either in
person or over Skype.
Section 1 began by defining self-regulation and gold standards, and presenting the
guiding model using language that was accessible (see Table 1 and Figure 1 below).
Table 1. Section 1: Defining Self-Regulation and Gold Standards
Self-regulation reflects our capacity to plan, generate, and adjust our thoughts, feelings, and
actions in order to adapt to our environment and bring ourself in line with our gold standards
and achieve our goals.
Our gold standards represent how we want to feel. Here, feel is much more than feelings; it can
be experienced at a physical or physiological level (e.g., feel strong, tired, tense), cognitive
level (e.g., feel confident, focused, stimulated), emotional level (e.g., feel content, sad, angry),
spiritual level (e.g., feel deep sense of meaning, at peace, blessed, grateful), social level (e.g.,
feel connected to athletes, useful to others), and/or at any other level relevant to you. How we
want to feel can also vary depending on the context or situation in which we are (e.g., as a
coach, as a parent, at home, at work).
Establishing our gold standards is an important aspect of self-regulation; these standards
become our reference point when regulating the rest of our thoughts, feelings, and actions –
and identifying them is therefore part of our preparation. Self-regulation also involves
execution (i.e., monitoring and controlling ourself in the moment) and evaluation (i.e.,
reflection on how we did after the fact). The diagram below illustrates these three phases and
the cyclical nature of self-regulation.
Figure 1. Phases of self-regulation.
Given that individuals’ gold standards can vary depending on the context, it is useful to
consider the important areas of their life and how they want to feel in these different areas. As
such, coaches were asked to reflect on the important areas of their life (e.g., coaching, family)
and to depict their relative importance on a pie chart (see Table 2). Following this, the
coaches were guided through the process of defining their gold standards (i.e., preferred
standards; Vohs and Baumeister, 2004) based on how they wanted to feel in these different
areas of their life, which reflects the first component of the RPM (Collins & Durand-Bush,
2010).
Table 2. Section 1: Establishing Gold Standards
In order to effectively self-regulate, we must engage in preparation, which includes

establishing our gold standards. Since our gold standards can vary depending on contexts, it
is useful to consider the important areas of our life and how we want to feel in these
different areas.
Table 2. (Continued)
Can you identify the important areas of your life using a pie chart? The extent of the
importance of the different areas can be reflected in the size of the pie pieces.
What are the important areas of your life?
 ______________________
 ______________________
 ______________________
 ______________________
 ______________________
 ______________________
Now take a moment and reflect on how you want to feel in these areas of your life,
particularly in your coaching. Since this is highly subjective and self-defined, try to describe
this to the best of your ability.
My Gold Standards:
Overall, the coaches found that their gold standards served as a crucial reference point
that guided their efforts to self-regulate: “A lot of it has to do with having standards, of
creating set behaviours that you will do or you won’t do, and living authentically towards
that” (Coach 1, outtake interview). Moreover, defining their gold standards initiated self-
reflection and set the foundation going forward in the self-regulation process. Coach 5
articulated in the outtake interview:
I find myself now thinking about how I want to feel, my goals, and everything, so it’s “do
I want to go for lunch today or do I want to just grab the salad? Do I want to plug in and really
grind through work, or should I take a break?” So I think it’s been good for me in terms of
questioning things a little bit and a little self-dialogue.
Importantly, for these coaches who were experiencing burnout, these gold standards
reflected less depleted states they sought to experience. For instance, the coaches described
wanting to feel energized, confident, in control, and/or calm, in addition to experiencing
positive affective states (e.g., satisfaction, engagement, enthusiasm) in their coaching roles.
Next, the coaches were invited to set a performance and well-being goal for the SEWP
program, keeping in mind the gold standards they had just defined. They were guided through
a goal-setting process, using the SMARTEST principle (see Table 3).
Table 3. Section 1: Setting SMARTEST Goals
The next part of preparation involves setting goals for yourself. One way to increase your
chances of fulfilling them or at least doing the work to try to achieve them is by ensuring that
your goals are in line with your gold standards. Goals are best reflected by statements that can
be transformed into actions that you can perform. The following acronym can further remind
you of what’s important to consider when setting goals: SMARTEST. The guidelines
provided below can help you to set the SMARTEST goals for yourself and to be in a better
position to evaluate and monitor your progress.
Specific
Set detailed, focused, meaningful, and positive goals.
Ex. “I want to have a narrow focus while I am on court during my coaching sessions to stay
in the moment and eliminate distractions on other courts” (Coach 2)
Measurable
Set quantifiable goals that give you a standard for comparing your performances.
Ex. “I want to score over five on a personally-meaningful rating scale of narrow focus
ranging from zero to seven” (Coach 2)
Action oriented
Set goals that target actions to improve your performance, rather than end results.
Ex. “Making sure that I have my plan, that I’m focused in the moment on my plan, that I’m
paying attention to detail … that I’m able to find solutions I’m looking for … making sure my
back is to the other courts so I can centre my focus and stay on my court” (Coach 2)
Realistic
Set practical and achievable goals but make sure that they are challenging enough.
Ex. “I want to score between five and seven on my personally-meaningful rating scale”
(Coach 2)
Time and resource based

Set a deadline to achieve your goals. Consider the extent of the resources available to you.
Ex. “Within the next two weeks, I want to have a narrow focus while on court” (Coach 2)
Elastic
Set goals using a target window rather than a target that is too narrow to allow some flexibility
and more opportunity to succeed, and avoid limiting yourself in what you can achieve.
Ex. “I want to score between five and seven for at least one of my two daily coaching
sessions” (Coach 2)
Synchronized with how you want to feel

Set goals that will allow you to feel the way you want as often as possible in your pursuit so
that the process is rewarding and sustainable regardless of the outcome.
Ex. “During coaching sessions, feel connected with my intention, focused, and present in the
moment” (Coach 2)
Trustworthy
Set goals that will allow you to repeat your performance several times and trust that you have
fully mastered the task at hand and can reliably/consistently perform it under the most
stressful situations.
Ex. “Noticing at the end of the session that I have done it without thinking, moving from
consciously competent to unconsciously competent.” (Coach 2)
In light of my gold standards and the SMARTEST principle, my goals for the next few weeks
are:
Performance goal:
Well-being goal:
Of note, in addition to setting a coaching performance goal, the coaches were asked to set
a well-being goal given the negative implications that elevated stress and burnout can have
for coaches’ well-being (Durand-Bush et al., 2012). This distinction was deemed important
by the coaches. As stated by Coach 2 during the outtake interview:
By having the two separate goals, [it] created more of a distinction between the two parts
of my life and so by having the goals being separate like that, I was able to kind of cut the ties
from one part of the relationship to the other part and so that helped me enjoy each part as a
compartment.
Moreover, setting these goals provided the coaches with direction and focus, not only for
the SEWP program but for their personal and professional life in general:
Certainly I’ve had goals in terms of what I was looking to accomplish professionally, but
I haven’t had anything in terms of goals I was looking to accomplish personally. Where now, I
feel I have direction and a clear sense of what the marching orders are in order to move in that
direction. (Coach 4, outtake interview).
In the next portion of Section 1, the coaches engaged in strategic planning (Zimmerman,
2000). After considering what would be required to achieve each goal (i.e., task analysis),
they established strategies and methods to do so (see Table 4).
Table 4. Section 1: Strategic Planning
Now that you have identified your goals, it is important for you to determine what you will
do to accomplish these goals. Your preparation is key and will largely contribute to the
process and outcome of your performance.
My Goals How I will achieve them

(e.g., actions/strategies/methods)
Performance:
Well-Being:
Moreover, as part of strategic planning, the coaches were asked to anticipate potential
internal (e.g., procrastination, perfectionism) and external (e.g., administration, parents)
barriers to their gold standards and goals (i.e., Obstacles, Collins & Durand-Bush, 2010) in
order to be proactive in their preparation. In response to these barriers, the coaches then
developed action plans and strategies to be able to realign with their gold standards and goals
after encountering them (i.e., Revisit the Way You Want to Feel, Collins & Durand-Bush,
2010). For instance, as part of her proactive strategic planning, Coach 1 reflected:
I like to make to-do lists, especially if I’m feeling anxious about something. So trying to
break it down into chunks that I can deal with more easily. And I kind of make a deal with
myself: if I get step one and two done, then I can do something else and come back to it later.
Moving into the execution phase of self-regulation, the coaches were introduced to the
acronym FAST, which represented a shorthand reminder of the elements they could control
when working towards achieving their gold standards and goals: their Feelings, Actions,
Sensations (i.e., physical/physiological), and Thoughts. This portion also laid groundwork for
subsequent sections of the workbook; that is, coaches identified relevant “execution phase”
strategies for self-control (e.g., self-talk, breathing, imagery) and self-observation (e.g.,
monitoring physical cues) (see Table 5). Coach 2, for example, identified using key words as
an effective self-control strategy he could employ: “When I say ‘be determined’, it’s to
remind myself to push. I tell myself, ‘If I feel uncomfortable, I’m not going to die from this’.”
Table 5. Section 1: Establishing Techniques for Self-Control

and Self-Monitoring
Self-regulation involves a performance phase, which reflects the implementation of your

strategic plan - the execution of tasks/actions identified in this plan. Within this phase, it is
important to focus on managing what you can control (i.e., your FAST). This means exerting
control over yourself while you are performing; it also means observing and monitoring
yourself and your environment in order to assess and track your performance and adapt when
necessary.
Brainstorm some techniques you could use to help you maintain focus and control your
FAST while performing and carrying out the plans that will help you achieve your
goals.
Technique How and what (FAST)
Having a way to monitor your FAST and your environment is also imperative. Over time, you
will collect a lot of personal data and having a means to track and examine this data is
essential. It is therefore important to find a way that is relevant to you.
What techniques can you use to monitor your FAST and your environment while
executing different tasks?
Self- Monitoring Techniques
FAST Environment
Finally, coaches were exposed to the evaluation phase of self-regulation in order to

develop specific methods for engaging in regular self-reflection regarding their performance
towards achieving their gold standards and personal goals (e.g., seeking feedback from
colleagues or mentors, reviewing performance mentally, keeping a reflective journal) (see

Table 6). Here, the coaches were also asked to reflect on indicators of success in order to
develop outcome expectations regarding their performance and enhance their self-
motivational beliefs (Zimmerman, 2013).
Table 6. Section 1: Developing Evaluation Strategies and Indicators
In order to maximize your learning and opportunity to grow and change, it is not sufficient to
simply collect, record, and monitor data. It is really important to take time to reflect on it.
Evaluation implies that you are able to effectively self-reflect; if self-reflective skills are not
part of your repertoire yet, you will likely develop them by completing these workbooks over
the course of the SEWP program, since you will be asked to self-reflect on a consistent basis.
When you are evaluating yourself and your performance, you are referring back to your
reference point, your gold standards, and to the goals you have set for yourself. As you
examine yourself and reflect, challenge yourself to be more than descriptive. Be honest,
critical, and thorough to get the most out of the process.
What strategies or methods can you use to evaluate yourself and your performance (i.e.,
execution of tasks/plans)?
Strategies/methods:
How will you know if you are achieving your gold standards and goals? Bear in mind
your FAST as well.
Indicators:
For the coaches, these indicators included both intrapersonal (e.g., being patient, feeling
happy, taking time to address their own needs) and interpersonal (e.g., having good dialogue
with athletes, picking up on athletes’ cues) elements. Moreover, as articulated by Coach 4,
these indicators were in line with their gold standards and performance and well-being goals:
I think the athletes feeling more satisfied will be part of it. But I think for me, as well,
feeling more relaxed and satisfied … feeling like I’ve done something with that practice or
that day to have gotten better, I think is going to be a big part of that.
Section 2: Preparation
The intended outcome of Section 2 was to build on the preparation plan and strategies
from Section 1 in order to help the coaches attain their goals and experience their gold
standards (i.e., feel the way they want) as consistently as possible. As previously mentioned,
the coaches first completed the structured journaling section of the workbook (see Table 7).
Table 7. Section 2: Reflective Journal
TODAY’S DATE: __________________________
Take a moment to reflect on your well-being (e.g., feeling happy, positive, satisfied with
life, connected to others, self-accepting, autonomous, purposeful, competent, motivated).
On a scale of 0-100%, how would you rate your level of well-being today?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
What has been your experience of well-being over these past two weeks? Please explain
below:
Take a moment to reflect on your level of stress and/or burnout (e.g., feeling
overwhelmed, unable to manage demands, emotionally drained, cynical, physically
exhausted, detached, ineffective).
On a scale of 0-100%, how would you rate your level of stress and burnout today?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 stress
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 burnout
What has been your experience of stress and/or burnout over these past two weeks?
Please explain below:
Take a moment to reflect on your gold standards and your capacity to self-regulate
(e.g., planning, controlling, adjusting your thoughts, feelings, actions so you can feel the way
you want in different situations/areas of your life while attempting to achieve your coaching
and well-being goals).
On a scale of 0-100%, how would you rate your capacity to self-regulate today?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
What has been your experience of your gold standards and self-regulation over these
past two weeks? Please explain below:
Take a moment to think about the past two weeks. Consider: what went well, what didn’t
go as well; what you would like to change or improve; what you can try during the next two
weeks:
After completing the journaling component, coaches were given an opportunity to revisit
their goals and describe their initial progress towards them over the past two weeks
(see Table 8).
Table 8. Section 2: Revisiting Goals
Now that you have had some time to reflect on your goals and work towards achieving them
during the past two weeks, do you feel you need to modify them (e.g., further refine or
adapt them)? If so, how would you change them? Use the SMARTEST guidelines (see
Table 3 in Section 1 of the Workbook) to help you modify your goals if this is necessary and
make sure your goals are aligned with your gold standards.
Over the past two weeks, have you made any progress towards achieving the goals you
originally set? Progress can represent any form of success or positive experience and can
include, for example, spending time reflecting on your goals, sharing your goals with
someone else, implementing your action plans, etc. Please provide examples below:
Two of the coaches opted to modify their goals to make them more realistic or elastic,
given their current workload (e.g., building in more flexibility, breaking tasks down), while
one coach’s revisions involved adding in more intermediary steps to achieving her goals. The
remaining two coaches were happy with their goals and did not feel the need to revisit them at
this point.
Table 9. Section 2: Reflecting on Personal Resources
One way to enhance your belief and your motivation to achieve your goals is to tap into
your resources. Take a moment to consider the skills you possess and other outside
resources that can help you achieve these goals. These resources can be internal (e.g.,
skills you have developed, prior experience from which to draw, personal strengths and
attributes) or external (e.g., support from colleagues or loved ones, resources from your
club/organization, a mentor) in nature. Identify your internal and external resources below:
My Internal Resources My External Resources
Next, the coaches were asked to assess their self-efficacy (e.g., how would you rate your
belief in your capacity to meet your goals?) and motivation (e.g., how would you rate your
motivation to meet your goals?) (Zimmerman, 2000, 2013) using rating scales ranging from 0
to 100%. To enhance their self-efficacy and motivation, coaches were then asked to reflect on
internal and external resources that could help them achieve their goals (see Table 9).
Coaches reported having a variety of resources, most notably social support (e.g., from loved
ones and/or colleagues) and personal attributes such as drive, passion for engaging in ongoing
learning and development, and coaching experience.
The next portion of Section 2 involved further developing preparation strategies to help
coaches achieve their gold standards in the important life contexts they identified in Table 2
(see Table 10).
Table 10. Section 2: Developing Preparation Strategies
Preparation also refers to what you can do to feel the way you want as often as possible while
achieving your goals. You might already be aware of what works (and doesn’t work) for you
when attempting to meet your gold standards. It’s important to note that Preparation involves
DOING, that is, developing and applying strategies that can be physical (e.g., exercise),
cognitive (e.g., visualize), social (e.g., call a friend), emotional (e.g., laugh while watching a
movie), spiritual (e.g., connect with nature) and/or organizational (e.g., prioritize tasks and
make a schedule) in nature. Your strategies to feel the way you want will likely depend on the
context or situation in which you are in.
Take a moment to list some strategies in the table below that allow you to achieve your
gold standards in different areas of your life. Consider physical, emotional, cognitive,
social, spiritual, and organizational types of strategies that you currently use or could use
going forward.
Context Gold Standards Preparation Strategies

(how I want to feel) (what allows me to feel the
way I want)
For the five coaches, these preparation strategies were primarily organizational (e.g.,
setting phone to “do not disturb”, planning, eliminating distractions), cognitive (e.g.,
visualizing, using key words, stopping negative thoughts), and physical (e.g., exercising,
physically removing oneself from certain situations, breathing) in nature, but some developed
emotional (e.g., taking time to feel emotions as they arise and then move on), social (e.g.,
doing things for others), and/or spiritual (e.g., going outdoors to connect with nature)
strategies as well.
The section then concluded with exercises to further develop preparation strategies. The
coaches were able to choose between a breathing or confidence-building technique. In line
with the person-centered orientation of the SEWP program, choice was offered to promote a
sense of autonomy and to allow the coaches to select the technique most meaningful to them.
Indeed, one coach opted to complete the breathing technique, another selected the confidence-
building technique, and the remaining two coaches completed both. The fifth coach did not
complete either exercise.
Section 3: Execution - Self-Control

The intended outcome of Section 3 was to further develop the coaches’ ability to utilize
specific self-control strategies to effectively engage in the execution phase of self-regulation.
To begin, coaches completed the journaling component and then revisited the self-control
strategies they had outlined in Section 1 to manage their FAST. They also reflected on new
strategies they could implement going forward (e.g., visualizing water to feel at peace,
trusting one’s abilities as a coach). Following this, the coaches were given the opportunity to
complete one of three exercises to develop a specific self-control strategy: self-talk,
attentional focus, or imagery. These three strategies are in line with the specific self-control
techniques of self-instruction, imagery, and attentional focusing outlined in Zimmerman’s
(2000) model. Interestingly, four coaches elected to complete the self-talk exercise (see Table
11), while the remaining coach completed all three of them.
Reflecting on the utility of the self-talk exercises, Coach 2 responded: “I’m going to be
more active in going beyond passively noticing my thoughts and how they affect my moods
and actions. Replacing them could cut down on the amount of worry that I have regarding my
teaching.”
In this segment of the workbook and intervention, the coaches were able to develop a
repertoire of strategies they could use to help control their FAST during the execution phase
in order to bring themselves in line with their gold standards and achieve their goals.
Table 11. Section 3: Identifying and Shifting My Self-Talk
Take a moment to reflect on the typical self-talk in which you engage – the thoughts and
statements about yourself (and your performance) that make up your internal script or
narrative. Write down the first couple of thoughts/statements that come to mind:





Now, think of the recurring negative or debilitative thoughts you may have about yourself
and your performance. If it helps, think back to a recent performance (e.g., in coaching) and
reflect on negative thoughts you might have had. Do you notice any patterns? Write these
negative thoughts down and then list positive thoughts with which you will replace
them:
Negative thoughts about my performance Positive thoughts to replace the

or myself negative ones
– e.g., “I always screw up under pressure.” + e.g., “I can do this no matter what, just
focus on what you can control.”
– +
– +
– +
Finally, take a moment to come up with a few personal statements that you can repeat to
yourself before, during, and after performances (e.g., while carrying out the plans and
tasks to achieve your goals) to get into and maintain an optimal physical, mental, and
emotional state. If it helps, remind yourself of what has worked well for you in the past. Try
to keep your statements short, concise, and positive. For example: “I’m in control”, “Trust
yourself”, “Be in the moment.”





An important component to consider when developing or trying to change your self-talk is

thought stopping. It can be used to deal with negative or debilitative thoughts as they enter
your mind, before they become harmful. If you have a tendency of thinking about or seeing
in your mind poor past performances, mistakes, or things that went wrong in your day, this
technique will likely be useful. Essentially, thought stopping consists of the following steps:
Step 1. Recognize that you are having a negative/debilitative thought or image.
Step 2. Immediately stop the thought or image by using a cue or trigger, and clear your
mind. This cue can be a word, for example, “stop” or “release” or “let go.” It can also be a
gesture, such as touching your thumb with your index finger or rubbing your thigh, or it can
even be an image such as a stop sign or a remote control to change the channel - whatever is
relevant to you and what you are doing.
Step 3. Replace the negative/debilitative thought or image with a positive one (e.g., the
positive thoughts you identified in the previous exercise).
To practice this technique right now, begin by eliciting a negative thought (you can use some
of the negative self-talk from the exercise above if you would like). In response to the
negative thought(s) you have elicited, practice your thought stopping for the next 2 minutes.
Reflect on how you feel before, during, and after using this technique.
While these strategies varied among the coaches, the most commonly implemented
strategies over the course of the SEWP program, as captured in the journals in Sections 4
through 6, were cognitive (e.g., imagery, self-talk/affirmations, thought-stopping) and
physical (e.g., breathing, taking meaningful breaks) in nature. Ultimately, the coaches
described being able to use their personal strategies to engage in self-control in the moment in
order to effectively manage and adapt their thoughts, feelings, and actions. This is illustrated
by Coach 3 in Section 6 of the workbook:
For a smidgen, I would feel a little bit of anxiety about something, it wouldn’t actually
start to happen, but … I would immediately jump on – like immediately jump on – like I
didn’t even let myself go there and I started self-talking and I was fine … I just recognize it
faster. I don’t get stuck in it, I just recognize the thought process.
Section 4: Execution – Self-Observation

In Section 4, the intended outcome was to enhance the coaches’ ability to effectively self-
observe by monitoring and tracking their performance and the conditions that surrounded it
(Zimmerman, 2000). Following the journaling component, the coaches established daily
checkpoints to build in systematic self-observation (i.e., metacognitive monitoring;
Zimmerman, 2013) regarding their FAST, gold standards, and goals (see Table 12).
Table 12. Section 4: Establishing My Daily Checkpoints
Take a moment to establish checkpoints throughout your day when you will take the time to
self-examine (i.e., observe your FAST - feelings, actions, sensations, and thoughts - and your
environment). These checkpoints can be specific times in your daily schedule (e.g., 9am,
12pm, 5pm, 10pm) or they can be tied to when you change contexts or activities (e.g., when I
step onto the court to coach, when I am walking home after work). Consider when it would be
most meaningful for you to “check in.”

Reflect upon the observations you will make during these “check-ins.” What specific data
will you want to collect about yourself and your environment? If it helps, think of some
relevant questions you can ask yourself in that moment (e.g., how is my heart rate right now?
Who is with me right now?).
What I will observe about myself (e.g.,
What I will observe about my environment
FAST - feelings, actions, sensations,
(e.g., conditions, presence of others
thoughts)
 
 
 
Building from Section 1, the coaches then further reflected on the indicators they could
observe in themselves (e.g., energy level, affective state) and their environment (e.g., athletes’
focus, intensity, execution) that would signify they were achieving their gold standards in that
moment. In order to draw the link between engaging in self-observation and employing self-
control strategies in response to these observations (Zimmerman, 2000), the coaches then
established specific strategies to implement when they observed a discrepancy between their
FAST and their gold standards (e.g., Revisit the Way You Want to Feel, Collins and Durand-
Bush, 2010). Examples of revisiting strategies included redirecting thoughts with key words,
listening to music, watching motivational video clips, going for a walk, and reaching out to
others for support.
The second half of Section 4 involved creating a feasible plan for systematic self-
recording by outlining the specifics of where, when, and how they would self-record going
forward (see Table 13).
Table 13. Section 4: Developing My Self-Recording Plan
Take a moment to reflect on how you will record/track your personal data going
forward. Consider what you might already do, what you have done in the past, what other
coaches you know (e.g., mentors, colleagues) do, and/or the suggestions above. Be creative
and ensure your selected method of self-recording is suitable and feasible for you. Describe
how you plan to self-record, including when (e.g., timing, how often) and where you plan
to do so below.
My method of self-recording:
In terms of methods of self-recording, two coaches elected to use free mobile applications
(i.e., Quiller, Day One), one coach decided to write by hand in a notebook, and another coach
used cue cards similar to reflective cards (r-cards; Hughes et al., 2009) that the facilitator
developed at the coach’s request. The remaining coach opted to build self-recording into his
existing training logbook:
Where I’m now keeping track, checking in and checking out, pre and post workout,
inside of my logbook, I found has been really good. And it’s a strategy I will continue going
forward. It was a really good exercise for me. It didn’t create a lot of work for me to do that, it
was something I was already doing and it was just a couple of thoughts and a rank on how I
felt before and after the practice. And the fact that I was doing that regularly was useful in
terms of contextualizing where I was. (Coach 4, outtake interview)
Ultimately, going through this process heightened the coaches’ awareness of the
importance of engaging in ongoing self-observation and the value of systematic self-
recording. As Coach 5 explained in the outtake interview,
I make more notes now. Throughout this process, it highlighted I need to be more diligent
in recording my awareness. It’s one thing to say that I’m aware, it’s another thing to put it
down on paper so I can be aware when I’m not aware.
Section 5: Evaluation – Self-Judgement

By Section 5, the coaches had been engaging in regular reflection through the bi-weekly
journals. Moreover, the ongoing self-recording initiated in Section 4 served to prompt
additional self-reflection on the part of the coaches. For instance, Coach 4 stated:
I can reflect back over the past couple of days and see if things have not been going in the
direction that I either would like or want. The way I keep my training log, there is usually at
least a day or two visible in front of me, so if I look back and see a bunch of 4’s, then “what
the hell am I doing? Okay I have all this stuff on the go, but really I need to find some time to
stop and reset.”
Building on this, the intended outcome of Section 5 was to further develop the coaches’
ability to self-reflect by evaluating their performance and the factors explaining their
performance (i.e., causal attributions; Zimmerman, 2000).
To deepen the coaches’ understanding and use of self-reflection, this section began with
an introduction to different types of reflection: (a) “reflection in action” (i.e., reflecting on an
action, situation, or experience while immersed in it, which corresponds to self-observation),

(b) “reflection on action” (i.e., reflecting on an action, situation, or experience after the fact
when it does not have a direct impact on performance), and (c) “reflection on reflection” (i.e.,
reflecting on a previous reflection by stepping back to examine reflections and lessons
learned regarding an action, situation, or experience; retrospective reflection on action,
Gilbert & Trudel, 2001). The coaches were then prompted to engage in “reflection on
reflection” by evaluating their performance towards their gold standards and goals up to that
point in the program (see Table 14).
To optimize self-judgement (Zimmerman, 2000), the coaches were encouraged to be
honest and critical in their self-evaluation of their efforts to execute the tasks and strategies to
achieve their gold standards and goals that they outlined in the preparation phase
(Zimmerman, 2013). As articulated by Coach 2:
Once involved in the process, I found it surprising just how often I was falling into
mental traps and not staying on task as often as I had wanted. I feel that I have made good
moves forward and shown that I can achieve my gold standards upon occasion but I will have
to get better at dealing with adversity as a tool to allow me to consistently achieve that level.
Table 14. Section 5: Evaluating My Performance
To begin, take some time to really reflect on your efforts to achieve your gold standards and
your coaching and well-being goals over the past 7 weeks. Consider your performance when
executing the strategies/carrying out the plans to achieve your gold standards and your
personal goals, as well as the conditions surrounding your performance (e.g., what you were
thinking, feeling, and doing before, during, and after). Try to relive these experiences in
your mind as best you can.
Based on this, how would you evaluate your performance so far? Remember your
performance standards (i.e., reference points) include the mastery of your gold standards and
your coaching and well-being goals. Try to move from being descriptive to engaging in deep
level analysis by breaking your performance down into specific elements (e.g.,
implementation of particular strategies, plans, tasks, etc.). Ask yourself, “How do these
elements compare/stack up to my performance standards?”; “How effective have I been at
executing these elements?”; “What evidence (e.g., observations, concrete examples,
indicators) can I use to evaluate my performance?” Challenge yourself to be honest, critical,
and thorough to get the most out of the process.
Evaluating my performance towards achieving my coaching and well-being goals so far:
Evaluating my performance towards achieving my gold standards in my coaching and my

daily life so far:
As illustrated in the above quote, self-evaluative judgements are closely linked to causal
attributions regarding one’s performance (Zimmerman, 2013). To explore this, the coaches
were asked to reflect on the primary factors (e.g., use of particular strategies, personal
attributes, barriers) that explained their performance outcomes (i.e., successes and
shortcomings) up to that point (see Table 15).
Table 15. Section 5: Drawing Causal Attributions
Based on your evaluation of your performance so far, reflect on what explains your
performance outcomes. Consider the primary factors that underlie your performance.
Specifically, ask yourself, “How do I explain my performance?”; “What do I attribute my
performance to?” Be as specific, critical, and honest as you can about the factors that you feel
explain specific aspects of your performance (e.g., particular skills, strategies, techniques,
processes that you have been utilizing; particular qualities and attributes such as your level of
effort and your confidence in your abilities; external support; certain internal or
environmental barriers you have faced, etc.).
My explanations / attributions regarding my performance outcomes so far:
Most of the coaches attributed their success to their use of preparation (e.g., planning,
prioritizing personal well-being), execution (e.g., checking in, engaging in self-talk), and
evaluation (e.g., reflecting on recent performances) strategies developed in the SEWP
program. The coaches also attributed their successful performance to personal attributes (e.g.,
mindset, confidence) and situational factors (e.g., support, change in coaching environment).
In contrast, shortcomings in performance were attributed to internal (e.g., cynicism, lack of
motivation) and external (e.g., time demands, work overload) barriers, as well as ineffective
strategic planning. For example, Coach 4 reflected:
It’s incumbent on me to plan ahead, and going down to [Southern US] I just kind of
assumed that there would be a fitness center. I could have taken the five minutes of legwork to
find out if there was, and knowing that there wasn’t, made alternative arrangements so I could
do something [to workout while there].
Section 6: Evaluation – Self-Reaction

The purpose of Section 6 was to build from Section 5 to encourage the coaches to reflect
on their reactions to their performance and make adaptive decisions regarding their
performance going forward (i.e., adaptive inferences; Zimmerman, 2000). In order to promote
greater “reflection on reflection”, Section 6 included graphs (see Figures 2 and 3) that the
facilitator created using the rating scale data from the journaling sections (i.e., coaches’ self-
reported levels of well-being, stress, burnout, and self-regulation capacity, and their goal
progress and satisfaction).
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5
Well-Being Stress Burnout Self-regulation capacity
Figure 2. Sample graph of a coach’s ratings of well-being, stress, burnout, and self-regulation capacity
in Section 6.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time 3 Time 4 Time 5
Performance goal progress

Satisfaction with performance goal progress
Well-being goal progress
Satisfaction with well-being goal progress
Figure 3. Sample graph of a coach’s ratings of goal progress and goal progress satisfaction in Section 6.
According to the coaches, reflecting this data back in this manner incited more objective
self-evaluation and pushed their self-reflection even further:
After seeing the chart, I am surprised with how consistent my well-being goal has been. I
am happy that after having a tough two-week period at home, I was able to come back and
improve upon my performance efforts. I feel that I may not be good at taking outside factors
into account when reflecting on the success of efforts of myself and others. (Coach 2)
Moreover, these graphs helped to heighten the coaches’ overall self-awareness. As

articulated by Coach 1 in the outtake interview,
When you were able to track it over time and then put it on the graph and notice the
trends between the two things [objective rating scales and subjective journal], that sort of
solidified what was only a suspicion for me before that point - that the two were connected.
And I think that if we hadn’t gone through and tracked those over time, I wouldn’t have been
able to notice anything as a long-term trend; it would have been very much “every day is a
brand new day, and I can’t draw any bigger conclusions from anything I’m experiencing.”
Then coaches were asked to gauge their satisfaction regarding their performance towards
achieving their gold standards and goals and the resulting affective reactions (i.e., self-
satisfaction, Zimmerman, 2000) in order to help sustain their motivation, self-efficacy, and
self-regulation efforts going forward (Zimmerman, 2013) (see Table 16).
Table 16. Section 6: Reacting to My Performance
To begin, take a moment to allow yourself to approach this “Reflection on reflection” from
a position of self-acceptance, with a focus on learning and growing from your experiences.
Now reflect on your efforts to achieve your gold standards and your coaching and well-being
goals over the past 9 weeks. Remember to also consider the conditions surrounding your
performance (e.g., what was under your control vs. outside of it).
How satisfied are you with your performance overall throughout this program? How
do you feel right now as you consider this? How does this impact your motivation going
forward?
My reaction to my performance so far:

In general, the coaches reported feeling satisfied with their performance towards
achieving their gold standards and personal goals, although all of them recognized that their
efforts could be optimized, reflecting the on-going challenges associated with effective self-
regulation:
I believe I have been a better coach than last year at this time and have made positive
performance changes to my coaching, my profession, and my abilities as a coach. Were they
all perfect and optimized? No. I am still young. I am still growing, learning, and experiencing
… [But] I am very proud of my steps forward and while I may take big steps back on the
personal and physical department, the professional and performance side of things are moving
forward. (Coach 6)
Importantly, the coaches felt that the progress they made and the positive emotions this
elicited helped fuel their motivation going forward. For instance, Coach 4 reflected: “It does
help a lot [with motivation], in terms of feeling like I’m actually getting better at what I’m
doing, rather than just treading water … Now I’m actually feeling like I’m starting to move
forward.”
Building from this, the coaches were prompted to reflect on what they needed to Start,
Stop, Do more of, and Do less of (Dixon, Lee & Ghaye, 2013) in order to develop an action
plan to optimize their efforts to self-regulate after completing the SEWP program (see Table
17). As such, the coaches were encouraged to make adaptive inferences by drawing
conclusions about how to alter their approach (e.g., use of strategies, processes, and
techniques) in subsequent efforts, which in turn fed back cyclically into the preparation phase
and their strategic planning (Zimmerman, 2013).
For the coaches, these action plans included maintaining their use of specific strategies
that they developed over the course of the SEWP program, including those related to strategic
planning (e.g., delegating, creating reminders in Outlook for certain tasks), self-control (e.g.,
keeping things in perspective, shifting negative thoughts), and self-observation (e.g.,
engaging in regular check-ins, maintaining self-recording plan). The coaches’ adaptive
inferences also involved altering plans and adding new strategies in order to more effectively
experience their gold standards and reach personal goals (e.g., rebalancing work schedule to
have more family time, incorporating running and working out into plans to take better care
of oneself). In so doing, the coaches were anticipating to not only enhance their performance
and well-being, but also reduce their stress and burnout:
Even if I haven’t necessarily achieved all of my well-being goals every single week, I’ve
recognized the need to somehow prioritize them more, even at this crazy time of the year. And
then maybe that means that this particular window, I have to have a different plan than I have
during the rest of the year to make sure I don’t burn-out. (Coach 1).
Table 17. Section 6: Making Adaptive Inferences
Next, take a moment to reflect on the primary factors that have underlined your performance,
paying particular attention to the key strategies, processes or techniques that have been most
helpful in achieving your gold standards and goals throughout this program.
Based on this, what conclusions can you draw regarding how to improve and/or sustain
your performance going forward? What adjustments (e.g., setting new goals,
revisiting/refining existing ones, implementing new plans, optimizing use of current
strategies) do you feel you need make? Challenge yourself to be as specific as possible in
order to fully benefit from what you have learned. Consider the specific strategies or tactics
you can use to maintain the strengths and improve the limitations of your performance
moving forward. Specifically, ask yourself: “What do I need to START doing, STOP doing,
do MORE of, and do LESS of, in terms of achieving my goals and experiencing my gold
standards?”
My action plan moving forward:
Moreover, when reflecting further on these adaptive inferences during the outtake
interview, Coach 5 stated:
This process came at the right time when I was going through our weekly training
program. I used to do a Monday to Wednesday, Thursday off, Friday, Saturday, [and then]
Sunday off. But kind of through this, ... [it’s now] Monday through Friday, weekends off for
everyone, and the training response has been better. And my response has also been better. I
come back to Monday a little more recharged and ready to go, and the athletes have too.
Finally, to recapitulate the coaches’ change process throughout the SEWP program and
facilitate their future efforts to effectively self-regulate, a personalized table summarizing all
of the strategies they had developed over the course of the program was included at the end of
Section 6, along with take-home suggestions (see Table 18).
Table 18. Summary Suggestions and Take-Home Messages
1. Strive to feel the way you want (your gold standards) and achieve your goals every single
day. Developing and refining your ability to effectively self-regulate will help you do this.
2. During the process of achieving your goals, take control and prepare to experience your
gold standards on a daily basis by identifying and applying strategies that may be
physical, cognitive, emotional, social, spiritual, and/or organizational in nature. This will
give you the energy and drive to sustain your efforts over time.
3. Identify and anticipate barriers that can prevent you from achieving your goals and
experiencing your gold standards, as well as effective responses to them, so that you can
be proactive in your preparation.
4. Revisit your goals and gold standards as often as necessary in order to stay motivated and
keep improving/learning over time. You may do this by identifying and applying different
types of strategies (e.g., physical, cognitive, emotional, social, spiritual, and/or
organizational), particularly after encountering barriers.
5. Self-regulation does not happen haphazardly, it involves ongoing self-observation, self-
monitoring, and self-reflection to collect and analyze personal data that you can use to
make the right decisions for yourself. Continue to identify and apply different check-in,
tracking, and evaluation strategies that will help you effectively execute and adapt during
and/or after performance.
6. Be aware that your gold standards, goals, performance, and experiences (e.g., well-being,
stress, burnout) will likely change with time, as you are constantly evolving, learning,
facing barriers, and being influenced by your environment in many different ways. What
is important is that you check in with yourself on a regular basis and adjust as needed.
The scales you used during the intervention may help you to track your experiences.
Closing Remarks
Overall, through this SEWP program, the coaches were able to develop various
preparation, execution, and evaluation strategies that they could enact in an effort to bring
themselves in line with their gold standards (i.e., preferred standards, Vohs & Baumeister,
2004; how they wanted to feel, Collins & Durand-Bush, 2010) and achieve their personal
goals (Zimmerman, 2000). With respect to achieving their performance and well-being goals
specifically, the coaches did face barriers at different points in the program such as changes in
work environment, lack of motivation, and increased workload and travel obligations. In
response to these challenges, two of the coaches revisited their goals on different occasions to
make them more realistic and attainable, while the remaining three felt their goals were
achievable and thus wanted to achieve them on a more consistent basis before revisiting them.
Ultimately, however, the coaches were satisfied with their performance efforts when
reflecting on their progress at the end of the process:
I definitely feel like I’m moving in the right direction with my goals. It’s funny, actually,
we got to the hotel yesterday and it was just a long travel day, but today I was able to get
down to the fitness centre and actually get in and get active, which was one of the things that
I’d been working on. So that was good. I feel like I’m moving in the right direction on those
fronts. (Coach 4, outtake interview).
Moreover, as a result of engaging in self-regulatory processes such as goal-setting,

strategic planning, self-control, self-observation, and self-judgment (Zimmerman, 2000)
during the program, the coaches reported heightened self-awareness and self-efficacy
regarding their ability to effectively self-regulate (e.g., “I’ve definitely pushed myself and I
know I am capable, I’ve done the work as far as proving to myself that I can do it”, Coach 2).
This, in turn, had implications for managing stress, reducing burnout, and enhancing well-
being and performance. As articulated during the outtake interview:
Absolutely, I feel less burnt-out, less stressed, and more in control, which is not how I felt
three months ago, which is good. The self-regulation and writing it out and going through the
process of developing goals to move me slowly in the direction I wanted to … those together
made me realize that I don’t need to be reactive to everything, I actually can take ownership of
it and start to move myself in the direction I want to go. (Coach 4)
Stress is always going to be there and I need to plan for it and not judge myself for
experiencing it. And I would say that … I have a tool kit now for things I can do to try to
mitigate things, control my environment, and then apply all of that to the work that I do. And
when I do keep on top of those goals, especially the stuff not connected to work, it does
influence the quality of what I do at work and … my relationships at home. (Coach 1)
In terms of practical recommendations, as in previous intervention studies (Arcand et al.,

2007; Callary & Durand-Bush, 2008; Doell et al., 2006; Guérin et al., 2010; Simon &
Durand-Bush, 2009), ongoing structured self-reflection through journaling was essential to
optimize the coaches’ efforts to self-regulate. As highlighted by Coach 4 during the outtake
interview, “There is something a little bit different when you’re actively writing something
out, rather than thinking it in your head. When you write it out, it actually becomes tangible,
real.”
In addition, supporting findings from previous intervention studies (e.g., Callary &
Durand-Bush, 2008; Dubuc-Charbonneau & Durand-Bush, 2015; Simon & Durand-Bush,
2009), an important feature of the SEWP program was the person-centered delivery approach,
even though a structured workbook was used to cover the content. Specifically, with the aim
of empowering coaches to create a personally-meaningful and self-directed approach to their
self-regulation (i.e., through their own strategies, plans, and techniques), the workbook
provided autonomy regarding which particular strategies to cultivate.
Moreover, the coaches were offered individual support and additional resources from the
facilitator as needed, and the timeframe to complete the program varied among the coaches
based on their unique circumstances, which helped enhance the coaches’ self-motivational
beliefs and sustain their participation in the program. For instance, the two coaches who
worked independently felt that this approach worked best with their schedule or their
personality (e.g., “I feel like the conclusions are going to be best when they are my own”,
Coach 2), whereas those who worked with the facilitator over Skype or the telephone
appreciated the accountability it offered: “Some people are really good at independent study;
I am not … so having a meeting like this was a good way for me to get out of the process
what I was hoping to get out of it” (Coach 4). Indeed, having the flexibility to choose the
approach was deemed beneficial overall:
I think I had to kind of go through it the way I did go through it, because doing the first
few, at least one or two over paper, gave me a sense of the way that I needed to be thinking
about things. I think if I’d only done it over Skype, then I might just have talked without
thinking about what framework you were trying to use. So I think starting on paper and then
shifting to Skype … it was interesting having the balance between the two. (Coach 1).
Finally, it is important to note that developing effective self-regulation is a deliberate

process necessitating ongoing reflection, learning, and adaptation. The strategies that coaches
employ may not necessarily be effective across all contexts and/or may lose effectiveness
over time. As such, self-regulatory strategies need to be adapted in response to their changing
environment. As articulated by Coach 3 during Section 6 of the workbook:
I will go through this process again when I start to lose control, because this has been
great, but I believe that when you’re learning something, there’s the acquisition phase, and
there’s the practicing phase, and then there’s the perfection phase. So this is [the] acquisition
phase and … the way I’ve come to terms with this process is that we’ve revisited things
enough times that it’s imbedded into my head. [It] kind of retrains me how to approach my
burnout or my stress … it’s become more repetitive; I’m actually picking up the tools and
using them. So I think that’s been really valuable, but on the other hand, it’s easy to forget. So
I think I’m going to definitely have this workbook available to me so that when I start to feel
stressed out, I go, “Okay wait a minute, here are the tools I can use” and “What problems do I
have right now?” and go back to it and kind of go through the process again to see where the
missing link is or what I can do to help myself.
CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FUTURE RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
The purpose of this chapter was to provide an overview of research from the domains of
education and sport considered germane for the self-regulation of sport coaches. A second
purpose was to present an applied self-regulation program designed for sport coaches to
improve their coaching performance and well-being. From this, a third purpose was to
provide recommendations for future research and practice.
Overall, it is evident from this chapter that coaches play an important role in nurturing the
self-regulation competence of their athletes. Remarkably, there are numerous processes and
strategies related to planning, execution, and evaluation that coaches can use to help them
manage their performance. Of importance, coaches must build a strong motivational and self-
efficacious climate so that athletes can gradually become independent thinkers and
performers. By respecting principles of co-regulation, coaches can learn to give up some
control so that athletes can set their own goals and strategic plan, and become skilled at
monitoring, evaluating, and adapting them. The following quote from a coach who
participated in a self-regulation intervention demonstrates the powerful effect of this:
We stayed with [the intervention] long enough this year, trusted it, and we’ve seen some
results. That’s what’s got me hooked on it and it will stay more in the front of my mind. I can
now more easily create the best environment for the athletes to feel the way they want
collectively and get the most from their performance (Callary and Durand-Bush, 2008).
Coaches are performers themselves and must equally prioritize their own self-regulation.
They regularly face excessive demands and are susceptible to stress and even burnout. Self-
regulation skills can help buffer some of this and assist coaches in meeting expectations and
achieving their performance and well-being goals. Evidence shows that self-regulation does
not develop haphazardly nor automatically with experience. As such, it is recommended that
more support and structures be put in place for coaches to develop these valuable skills.
While one particular self-regulation program was presented in this chapter, there is generally
a lack of evidenced-based resources available to coaches.
In an era in which knowledge transfer is continuously promoted, it is imperative that

scholars translate their findings into readily useable knowledge and training for coaches. It is
no longer sufficient to prioritize the dissemination of knowledge to academic communities.
Researchers must invest considerable time and energy into mobilizing coaches to inform them
of relevant practical implications of research and offer training to cultivate coaching practice.
Self-regulation is a cyclical process continuously influenced by the environment, and
self-regulation research and practice follow suit. As the coaching landscape evolves over
time, it is recommended that scholars continue to study and stay abreast of what coaches need
to best develop their athletes and themselves, in order to help them become masters of their
own destiny.
Intervention-based research aiming to enhance coaching performance and experiences in
sport is warranted as there are important gaps. We need to ensure that coaches have the
knowledge and skills required to not only get involved in sport but also sustain their
engagement over time. We also need to prioritize coaches’ views and experiences in research.
Consequently, it would be worthwhile to vary research approaches and employ more
grounded theory, narrative inquiry, ethnography, and action research designs that lead to
positive system and policy changes, and concrete education and training. This way, we will
be in a better position to ensure that coaches have the necessary requisites to succeed and
manage adversity, and maximize coach retention in sport.
Key Recommendations for Practice
 Coaches should prioritize their own self-regulation competence by developing

various preparation, execution, and evaluation strategies to bring themselves in line
with their personal standards and goals.
 Coaches should hone their athletes’ self-regulation capacity by teaching them how to
engage in their own planning, self-monitoring, and self-reflection.
 Coaches can facilitate the development of self-regulation skills by taking the time to
help their athletes adequately set personal goals, evaluate their performance against
these goals, and continuously make adjustments as they learn and face new
challenges.
 Coaches can nurture self-regulation competence by creating a strong motivational
and self-efficacious climate that enables their athletes to become autonomous and
experience positive affect and satisfaction.
REFERENCES
Adie, J., Duda, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic needs
and well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: A longitudinal investigation.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 51-59. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.008.
Alexander, P. A. (2008). Why this and why now? Introduction to the special issue on
metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology
Review, 20(4), 369-372.
Arcand, I., Durand-Bush, N., & Miall, J. (2007). ‘You have to let go to hold on’: A rock
climber’s reflective process through resonance. Reflective Practice, 8, 17-29.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Beauchamp, M. R., Maclachlan, A., & Lothian, A. M. (2005). Communication within sport
teams: Jungian preferences and group dynamics. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 203-220.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2005). Handbook of self-regulation.
Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
Burke, S. M., Durand-Bush, N., & Doell, K. (2010). Exploring feel and motivation with
recreational and elite Mount Everest climbers: An ethnographic study. International
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8, 373-393.
Callary, B., & Durand-Bush, N. (2008). A group resonance intervention with a volleyball
team: An exploration of the process of between a consultant, coach, and athletes. Athletic
Insight, 10(3), Retrieved from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol10Iss3/Process.htm.
Cassidy, T. G., Potrac, P., & Jones, R. L. (2008). Understanding sports coaching: The social,
cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice (2nd ed.). Florence, KY:
Routledge.
Clarke, M. (2004). Reflection: Journals and reflective questions: A strategy for professional
learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 29(2), 1-13.
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Self-regulation differences during athletic practice
by experts, non-experts, and novices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 185-206.
Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-
based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning.
Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 537-550.
Clifford, M. (1986). Comparative effects of strategy and effort attributions. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 56, 75-83.
Coatsworth, J. D., & Conroy, D. E. (2009). The effects of autonomy-supportive coaching,
need satisfaction, and self-perceptions on initiative and identity in youth swimmers.
Developmental Psychology, 45, 320-328.
Collins, J. (2009). Implementing a self-regulation intervention with an elite sport team to
enhance performance and cohesion (Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa). Retrieved
from https://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/28446/1/MR61354.PDF
Collins, J., & Durand-Bush, N. (2010). Enhancing the cohesion and performance of an elite
curling team through a self-regulation intervention. International Journal of Sports
Collins, J., & Durand-Bush, N. (2014). Strategies used by an elite curling coach to nurture
athletes’ self-regulation: A single case study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26(2),
211-224.
Cropley, B., Miles, A., & Peel, J. (2012). Reflective practice: Values of, issues, and
developments within sports coaching. Sports coach UK research project. Retrieved from
http://www.sportscoachuk.org/sites/default/
files/Reflective-Practice-Report_0.pdf
Cutton, D. M., & Hearon, C. M. (2013). Applied attention-related strategies for coaches.
Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 4, 5-13.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
Dixon, M., Lee, S., & Ghaye, T. (2013). Reflective practices for better sports coaches and
coach education: Shifting from a pedagogy of scarcity to abundance in the run-up to Rio
2016. Reflective Practice, 14(5), 585-599.
Doell, K., Durand-Bush, N., & Newburg, D. (2006). The process of performance of four track
athletes: A resonance-based intervention. Athletic Insight, 8(2). Retrieved from
http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol8Iss2/Process.htm
Donoso, D., Bloom, G. A., & Caron, J. G. (March, 2015). Canadian university coaches’
insights on developing a championship team. Paper presented at the 19th annual Eastern
Canada Sport & Exercise Psychology Symposium (ECSEPS), Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dubuc-Charbonneau, N., & Durand-Bush, N. (2015). Moving to action: The effects of a self-
regulation intervention on the stress, burnout, well-being, and self-regulation capacity
levels of university student-athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 9, 173-192.
doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2014-0036
Durand-Bush, N., Collins, J., & McNeill, K. (2012). Women coaches’ experiences of stress
and self-regulation: A multiple case study. International Journal of Coaching Science,
6(2), 21-43.
Elliot, A. J., Thrash, T. M., & Murayama, K. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of self-
regulation and well-being: Avoidance personal goals, avoidance coping, stress
generation, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 79 (3), 643-674.
Frey, M. (2007). College coaches’ experiences with stress: “Problem solvers have problems,
too.” The Sport Psychologist, 21, 38-57.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2001). Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in
model youth sport coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 16-34.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2013). The role of deliberate practice in becoming an expert
coach: Part 2 - Reflection. Olympic Coach, 24(1), 35-44.
Goudas, M., Kolovelonis, A., & Dermitzaki, I. (2013). Implementation of self-regulation
interventions in physical education and sports contexts. In H. Bembenutty, T. Cleary, &
A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A
tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 383-416). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Guérin, E., Arcand, I., & Durand-Bush, N. (2010). A view from the inside: An in-depth look
at a female university student’s experience with a feel-based intervention to enhance self-
confidence and self-talk. The Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1058-1079.
Hadwin, A. F., Jarvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2011). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially
shared regulation of learning. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hansen, F. (2005). Distinguishing between feelings and emotions in understanding
communication effects. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1426-1436.
Hjälm, S., Kenttä, G., Hassménan, P., & Gustafsson, H. (2007). Burnout among elite soccer
coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30(4), 415-427.
Hughes, C., Lee, S., & Chesterfield, G. (2009). Innovation in sports coaching: The
implementation of reflective cards. Reflective Practice, 10(3), 367-384.
Jonker, L., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Visscher, C. (2010). Differences in self-regulatory
skills among talented athletes: The significance of competitive level and type of sport.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(8), 901-908.
Jordet, G. (2009). Why do English players fail in soccer penalty shootouts? A study of team
status, self-regulation, and choking under pressure. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 97-
106.
Kirschenbaum, D. S. (1984). Self-regulation and sport psychology: Nurturing an emerging
symbiosis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 159-183
Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among
novice, non-expert, and expert volleyball players: A microanalytic study. Journal of
Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation
in the development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
811-817.
Knowles, Z., Tyler, G., Gilbourne, D., & Eubank, M. (2006). Reflecting on reflection:
Exploring the practice of sports coaching graduates. Reflective Practice, 7(2), 163-179.
Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2010). Self-regulated learning of a motor skill
through emulation and self-control levels in a physical education setting. Journal of
Kolovelonis, A., Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2011). The effect of different goals and self-
recording on self-regulation of learning a motor skill in a physical education setting.
Learning and Instruction, 21, 355-364.
Kolovelonis, A., Goudas M., Hassandra, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2012). Self-regulated learning
in physical education: Examining the effects of emulative and self-control practice.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 383-389.
Levy, A., Nicholls, A., Marchant, D., & Polman, R. (2009). Organisational stressors, coping,
and coping effectiveness: A longitudinal study with an elite coach. International Journal
of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(1), 31-45.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lussier-Ley, C., & Durand-Bush, N. (2009). Exploring the role of feel in the creative process
of modern dancers: A realist tale. Research in Dance Education, 10(3), 199-217.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual (3rd
ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
McNeill, K., Durand-Bush, N., & Lemyre, P. N. (2014a, October). Coaches’ capacity to self-
regulate and its association with perceived stress, burnout, and well-being. Poster
presented at the meeting of the 29th Annual Conference of the Association for Applied
Sport Psychology (AASP), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
McNeill, K., Durand-Bush, N., & Lemyre, P. N. (2014b, November). A case study of a
coach’s experiences throughout a self-regulation intervention: Implications for managing
stress and burnout and enhancing well-being. Paper presented at the Petro-Canada Sport
Leadership Sportif Conference, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Newburg, D., Kimiecik, J., Durand-Bush, N., & Doell, K. (2002). The role of resonance in
performance excellence and life engagement. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14,
249-267.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. (2001). Associations among
perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective
study. Motivation & Emotion, 25(4), 279-306. doi: 10.1023/A:1014805132406.
Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of
cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of
achievement motivation (pp. 249-284). New York, NY: Academic.
Raedeke, T. D., & Smith, R. E. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an athlete
burnout measure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 281-306.
Ruban, L. M., McCoach, D. B., & McGuire, J. M., & Reis, S. M. (2003). The differential
impact of academic self-regulatory methods on academic achievement among university
students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(3),
270-286. doi:10.1177/002221940303600306.
Schempp, P. G., McCullick, B. A., Busch, C., Webster, C. A., & Mason, I. S. (2006). The
self-monitoring of expert sport instructors. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 1(1), 25-35.
Schempp, P., Webster, C., McCullick, B. A., Busch, C., & Mason, I. S. (2007). How the best
get better: An analysis of the self-monitoring strategies used by expert golf instructors.
Sport Education and Society, 12(2), 175-192.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 125–151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy
enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Seidner (Eds.), Self-
regulation: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 631–649). Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-
reflective practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2003). Self-regulation and learning. In W. M. Reynolds
& G. E. Millar (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 59-78). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Shapiro, E. S. (2000). School psychology from an instructional perspective: Solving big, not
little problems. School Psychology Review, 29(4), 560-572.
Simon, C. R., & Durand-Bush, N. (2009). Learning to self-regulate multi-dimensional felt
experiences: The case of four female medical students. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Health and Well-being, 3, 1-18.
Thelwell, R. C., Lane, A. M., Weston, N. J. V., & Greenlees, I. A. (2008). Examining
relationships between emotional intelligence and coaching efficacy. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 224-235.
Thelwell, R. C., Weston, N. J. V., Greenlees, I. A., & Hutchings, N. V. (2008). A qualitative
exploration of psychological-skills use in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 38-52.
Toering, T., Elferink-Gemser, M., Jordet, G., Jorna, C., Pepping, G. J., & Visscher, C. (2011).
Self-regulation of practice behavior among elite youth soccer players: An exploratory
observation study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 110-128.
Toering, T. T., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Jordet, G., & Visscher, C. (2009). Self-regulation and
performance level of elite and non-elite youth soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences,
27, 1509-1517.
Vallée, C. N., & Bloom, G. A. (2005). Building a successful university program: Key and
common elements of expert coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(3), 179-
196.
Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. M. (2000). The study of emotion in sport and exercise:
Historical, definitional, and conceptual perspectives. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in
sport (pp. 3-37). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation: An introduction. In
R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory,
and applications (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Weinberg, R., Butt, J., Knight, B., & Perritt, N. (2001). Collegiate coaches’ perceptions of
their goal-setting practices: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Applied Sport
Weinberg, R. S., Butt, J., & Knight, B. (2001). High school coaches’ perceptions of the
process of goal setting. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 20-47.
Wolko, K. L., Hrycaiko, D. W., & Martin, G. L. (1993). A comparison of two self-
management packages to standard coaching for improving practice performance of
gymnasts. Behavior Modification, 17(2), 209-223.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1996). Enhancing student academic and health functioning: A self-
regulatory perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 11 (1), 47-66.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-42).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In
F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (Vol. 2, pp. 1–27).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical
background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational
Research Journal, 45, 166-183.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive
career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135-147.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bonner, S., Evans, D., & Mellins, R. (1999). Self-regulating childhood
asthma: A developmental model of family change. Health Education and Behavior, 26,
53- 69.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting
from process to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 29-36.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for
assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational
Research Journal, 23(4), 614-628.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Perceptions of efficacy and strategy use in
the self-regulation of learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in
the classroom: Causes and consequences (pp. 185-207). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Natalie Durand-Bush is an Associate Professor in the School of Human Kinetics at
the University of Ottawa. Through her research and practice, she aims to understand self-
regulatory processes and interventions underlying the development of optimal performance
and well-being in different contexts including sport, medicine, the performing arts, and
academia.
Kylie McNeill is a doctoral candidate in the School of Human Kinetics at the University
of Ottawa. Her doctoral research, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, focuses
on coaches’ well-being and ill-being (i.e., stress and burnout), and the impact of a self-
regulation intervention on these outcomes.
Jamie Collins is a doctoral candidate in the School of Human Kinetics at the University
of Ottawa. She is investigating the development and maintenance of optimal team functioning
within high performance curling teams. Her research is funded by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada and supported by Curling Canada.
Chapter 14
STRENGTHS-BASED COACHING:
CASE OF MENTAL TOUGHNESS
Sandy Gordon*
The University of Western Australia, Australia
ABSTRACT
This chapter concerns positive psychology applications in sport and, specifically,
how a strengths-based approach can be used to coach behaviors associated with mental
toughness. The content will draw on literature and principles from applied positive
psychology, appreciative inquiry, appreciative inquiry coaching, as well as strengths-
based coaching. The extant research on mental toughness in sport and the history of
strengths approaches will be presented. In addition, the contrasting assumptions of
strengths-based coaching methodology and traditional psychological skills training will
be discussed. To illustrate how a strengths-based approach to developing mental
toughness behaviors is conducted, the author will provide examples from his experience
working with professional athletes and teams in basketball, cricket and golf. Readers of
this chapter, and sport psychologists and coaches in particular, need to consider the
developmental stage of athletes when promoting the development of any mental skill or
in this case mental toughness behaviors. Conceivably, with novice athletes or early in any
athlete’s career, a strategy that combines traditional psychological skills training with
strengths-based approaches would likely be optimal. However, all practitioners and
coaches are encouraged to consider trialing strengths-based approaches to developing
mental toughness behaviors in any sport at any age and at any competitive level.
Keywords: Applied positive psychology, appreciative inquiry, mental toughness, strengths-

based coaching
*
Corresponding Author E-Mail: Sandy.Gordon@uwa.edu.au.
268 Sandy Gordon
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the use of a strengths-based approach that
coaches can use to develop behaviors associated with mental toughness. First, the background
and principles of strengths-based coaching are presented. Next, some contrasting assumptions
of strengths-based coaching methodology and traditional psychological skills training are
discussed, followed by a brief overview of the research on mental toughness in sport. Finally,
to illustrate how strengths-based approaches to developing mental toughness behaviors could
be conducted, three examples from the author’s experience working with professional athletes
and sport teams are described.
STRENGTHS-BASED COACHING
As alluded to by Maslow (1954) and Seligman (1999, 2011), historically human
endeavors have been characterized as ‘fixing weaknesses’ and, arguably, the coaching
process in sport is no exception. Currently ‘deficit-based’ coaching, including the delivery of
traditional psychological skills by sport psychologists, typically focuses on identifying
athletes’ weaknesses and fixing them. Strengths-based coaching, on the other hand, is about
spotting and exploiting athletes’ strengths (Biswas-Diener, 2010; Driver, 2011; Linley, 2008;
Linley, Willars & Biswas-Diener, 2010). According to Linley, Nielsen, Wood, Gillett, and
Biswas-Diener (2010) the two key elements of a strength are “delivering a high level of
performance and experiencing a sense of energy when you are doing it” (p. 67). In other
words, a strength is something individuals are not only good at, they are also passionate about
doing it. During strengths-based coaching the focus is on what is already working, and
because strengths are part of basic human nature our areas of greatest potential are in the
areas of our greatest strengths. Linley and his colleagues acknowledge that you can develop
from working on weaknesses, however, improvement is only possible when you are also
working on your strengths. They suggest that strengths spotting (Linley & Burns, 2010) and
strengths-based coaching can be regarded as being both an approach to coaching (i.e.,
strengths are used more effectively in the attainment of goals) and a value-adding outcome of
coaching (i.e., coaching is used to enable the realization and development of an individual’s
and team’s strengths; Linley & Harrington, 2006; Linley, Woolston & Biswas-Diener, 2009).
Readers are directed elsewhere (e.g., Linley & Joseph, 2004; Lopez & Snyder, 2009;
Peterson, 2006) to full histories and philosophical perspectives of strengths approaches and
positive psychology and their applications. However, the following individuals represent a
brief chronology of important events and activities. Bernard Haldane (1947) is credited as the
first to refer to “human aptitudes” and believed that the core reason for inefficiency in the
workplace was that senior management did not sufficiently identify strengths and talent
among their staff. Abraham Maslow (1954, p. 354) commented on the historical focus of
psychology, which “has revealed to us much of man’s shortcomings, his illness, his sins, but
little about his potentialities, his virtues, his achievable aspirations, or his full psychological
height.” From the mid-1950’s Donald O. Clifton spent five decades studying what is right
about people, focusing on the positive instead of the negative. Clifton bought The Gallup
Organization (founded in 1958) and, with Marcus Buckingham (Buckingham & Clifton,
Strengths-Based Coaching 269
2001) and Tom Rath (Rath & Clifton, 2004), co-authored several bestselling books on
strengths approaches. Peter Drucker (1967), regarded as the “Father of Management Theory”,
claimed that “the effective executive” builds on strengths, their own strengths, the strengths
of superiors, colleagues, subordinates, and on the strengths of the situation. Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi (1975) described “flow” and elements of optimal experiences and
enjoyment that are present in those activities that consume us and become intrinsically
rewarding but don’t take energy away, in fact they give energy to us. David Cooperrider
(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987) launched Appreciative Inquiry (AI) and its basic premise is
to build organizations around what works rather than fix what doesn’t. In 1998 Martin
Seligman (Seligman, 1999) gave the field of Positive Psychology its name, generally referred
to at the time as the scientific study of optimal human functioning. A vast array of research
directions quickly developed including measuring wellbeing and mapping human strengths
spawning several strengths identification assessment tools such as the VIA Inventory of
Strengths (Petersen & Seligman, 2004), Strengths Finder (Rath, 2007), and Realise2
Strengths (Linley, Willars & Biswas-Diener, 2010). Mike Pegg (2008) and Sir Ken Robinson
(2009) claim we are in our “element” when our natural aptitude and personal passions meet,
similar to characteristics of “flow” experiences (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). More recently, Alex
Linley (2008; Linley, Willars & Biswas-Diener, 2010) and his colleagues at the Centre of
Applied Positive Psychology (CAPP) distinguished both unrealized and realized strengths
from learned behaviors and weaknesses, which will be discussed in more detail later.
Why a Strengths Focus?
Evidence from strength-based approaches to coaching in a variety of non-sport

performance environments provides compelling outcomes that sport coaches should consider.
For example, research shows that in addition to being more confident, having higher levels of
energy and vitality (Govindji & Linley, 2007), and being more likely to achieve their goals
(Linley, Nielsen, Wood, Gillett & Biswas-Diener, 2010; MacKie, 2014), individuals who use
their strengths are more effective at developing themselves and growing as individuals than
individuals who do not (Sheldon, Kasser, Smith & Share, 2002). Linley et al. (2010) have
also demonstrated that individuals who use their strengths more, are happier, have higher self-
esteem, experience less stress, are more resilient, perform better at work, and are more
engaged at work. In addition, Toogood (2012) has reported research with executive coaches
who have adopted a strengths approach and, from an exploration of their perceptions of the
benefits of focusing on strengths, the following desirable coaching outcomes were evident:
easier and more enjoyable goal achievement; improved team performance and faster and
better results; more energy for doing what coachees want to do; a wider perspective and more
clarity about choices; increased confidence, self-belief and a stronger sense of identity; and
greater satisfaction, fulfilment and engagement.
270 Sandy Gordon
CONTRASTING STRENGTHS-BASED
AND TRADITIONAL MENTAL SKILL APPROACHES
Following Cameron and Spreitzer (2012), Driver (2011), Hawkins (2012), Linley and
Joseph (2004), Lopez and Snyder (2009), and the author’s experiences, a summary of the
contrasting assumptions of strengths-based coaching and traditional psychological skills
training approaches are illustrated in Table 1.
First, steeped in Positive Psychology traditions, the strengths-based coaching philosophy
is about looking for ‘what is already working’ (strengths spotting) as opposed to identifying
problems. Typically sport psychology practitioners, schooled in the ‘mental skills canon’ and
Applied Sport Psychology principles (e.g., Burton & Raedeke, 2008; Hanrahan & Andersen,
2010; Hanton & Mellalieu, 2012; Williams, 2010), ‘look for and assess weakness’ and
discuss what can be learned from mistakes. Practitioners become expert at analyzing failure,
which explains why sport, like most other performance environments, rarely studies
‘winning’ and what can be learned from success. It perhaps also explains why traditionally
trained practitioners ignore or forget the fact that all athletes have been successful in the past
in some way, and are personally resourceful. It follows that remedial coaching, that focuses
on ‘fixing weaknesses,’ characterizes the type of coaching thought to be appropriate, which
involves ‘training and telling’ by the expert practitioner who dominates the engagement. In
contrast, a strengths-based proactive coaching and learning process is more of a collaborative
partnership, and the coach’s expertise lies in assisting ‘athletes as experts’ exploit as well as
identify their strengths. Subsequently the goals from strengths-based coaching are more self-
concordant than those created from traditional mental skills coaching, which are likely to be
external and introjected.
Table 1. Comparison of strengths-based coaching and traditional psychological

skills training
ASSUMPTIONS Strengths-Based Approach to Psychological (Mental) Skills

Coaching Training
Coach philosophy Strengths spotting Problem Identification
Areas of development & Strengths Weaknesses
learning focus for coaching Learn from successes Learn from mistakes
Athletes ... are resourceful and have …. require expert assistance in
experienced success dealing with failures
Type of Coaching Required Proactive Remedial
Exploit existing strengths Fix existing weaknesses
Learning Process Coaching Training
‘asking,’ self-directed (athlete) ‘telling;’ other-directed
(practitioner)
Source of Expertise & Athlete Practitioner
Coach/athlete relationship Collaboration Coach-led
Behavioural Goal type Self-Concordant External/Introjected
MENTAL TOUGHNESS IN SPORT

There are several detailed reviews of the extant research related to understanding,
measuring and developing mental toughness (MT) in sport (e.g., Gucciardi & Gordon, 2011).
Recently, Gucciardi and Hanton (in press) proposed three waves of scholarly activity on the
topic. First wave (1950-2000) activity, entitled professional practice knowledge, focused on
reports from practitioners and their experiences and observations working with mentally
tough athletes and coaches. Second wave (2000-2015) activity, identification of unobservable
personal attributes, involved both qualitative and quantitative studies that examined
unobservable personal qualities (e. g., confidence, optimism), sources of influence (e. g.,
coaches, parents), and processes (e. g., motivational climate) associated with the development
of MT. Third wave (2015-onwards) activity, observable behavior from person x situation
interactions, centers on overt and observable behaviors that occur during interactions between
the person and the situation. While the importance of behaviors was acknowledged previously
(e.g., Gucciardi, Gordon & Dimmock, 2008; Jones et al., 2007) its significance has been
reestablished through more recent research (Gucciardi, Jackson, Hodge, Anthony & Brooke,
in press; Hardy, Bell & Beattie, 2014).
Defined as “a personal capacity to deliver high performance on a regular basis despite
varying degrees of situational demands” (Gucciardi & Hanton, in press, p. x), there is
empirical evidence to support the centrality of MT for sport performance (e.g., Gucciardi,
Hanton, Gordon, Mallett & Temby, 2015; Hardy et al., 2013). In addition, several researchers
have recognized the important role coaches play in the development of MT in sport (e.g.,
Connaughton, Hanton & Jones, 2010; Connaughton, Wadey, Hanton & Jones, 2008;
Gucciardi, Gordon, Dimmock & Mallett, 2009), and others have described techniques and
processes specifically designed for this purpose (e.g., Crust & Clough, 2011; Gucciardi,
Gordon & Dimmock, 2009a, b). Sport specific inventories for MT research in Australian
football (Gucciardi, Gordon & Dimmock, 2009c) and cricket (Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009) are
available, as well as an 8-item general MT measure (Gucciardi et al., 2015).
APPLICATIONS OF STRENGTHS-BASED APPROACHES

Three examples of applying strengths-based coaching processes are presented from the
author’s experiences. Specifically, the application of Appreciative Inquiry Coaching with a
female golfer who was experiencing difficulty handling pressure, strengths spotting with a
professional cricket team, and strengths and weaknesses coaching with a professional
basketball player.
Golf
Appreciative Inquiry (AI; Cooperrider, Whitney & Stavros, 2008) evolved in the 1980s as
a revolutionary and positive philosophy aimed at creating positive institutional change, and is
a process that focuses on leveraging an organisation’s core strengths, rather than seeking to
overcome or minimise its weaknesses. Appreciative Inquiry Coaching (AIC; Orem, Binkert &
272 Sandy Gordon
Clancy, 2007) evolved from AI as a philosophy and approach to coaching and was recently
employed by Gordon (2008a, b) to develop mental toughness. AIC builds on the ‘natural’ MT
characteristics already present within the client and is a significant departure from traditional
approaches to mental skills training used by sport psychologists. The first step in an AIC
approach to developing MT involves identifying what the terms associated with MT mean to
the coachee e. g., handling pressure. This step is necessary because coaches first need to help
coachees understand what MT is and is not, when it is required and when it is not required,
and how, in general, coachees personally construe their realities. Gordon (2008a, b)
recommends that coaches ask each set of questions from the AI 4-D Model in turn, allowing
plenty time for reflection, and to summarise the mutual understanding in each part of the
cycle prior to proceeding to the next one. The AI 4-D Model contains four key processes as
described by Cooperrider and Whitney (2005):
1. Discovery: Identifying the “best of what has been or what is.”

2. Dream: Creating a clear results-oriented vision in relation to discovered potential
“what is the world calling us to become?”
3. Design: Creating possibility propositions that people feel capable of drawing upon
and magnifying to realize the newly expressed dream.
4. Destiny: Strengthening affirmative capability to build hope and sustain momentum
for ongoing positive change and high performance.
In the following example the questions used by the author related to a female golfer’s
perceived inability to handle pressure. The coach’s focus at each stage in the 4-D cycle is
described by Orem, Binkert Clancy, (2007).
Discovery
 So you wish to improve your ability to handle pressure. Please describe what you
consider pressure to be. Can you offer a definition, phrase or quote to describe it and
provide an example?
 When recently did you display the ability to cope with pressure? What was the
situation which required coping behaviour?
 What attitude(s) did you adopt at that time? What were you thinking?
 Describe your emotions while you were coping with pressure, how did you react,
what did you do?
Coach’s Focus in This Stage:
 Establishing a positive connection between coach and golfer.

 Leading the golfer to a more empowering perspective.
 Affirming a sense of the possible.
 Cultivating and supporting the golfer’s belief in a positive future (Orem et al., 2007,
p. 109).
Dream
1. Imagine one night while you were asleep a miracle occurred, and when you woke up
your coping behavior was just as you’ve described, in all pressure situations. How
would you know you were handling pressure well?
2. What would be different? What changed in your habits?
3. Who would be the first to notice these changes?
4. What will they say or do, and how will you respond?
 Encouraging the golfer to create images of possibilities.

 Inviting the golfer to give voice to her preferred future.
 Affirming the golfer’s dream (Orem et al., 2007, p. 135).
Design
 How will you act differently to make the above work?

 How best can you develop your ability to handle pressure?
 Are there ‘significant others’ who you feel play a crucial role in the development of
your ability to handle pressure?
 What do you think these individuals do to help? What do they not do?
 Assisting the golfer in bringing the dream into focus.

 Affirming the reality of the dream based on the golfer’s strengths.
 Supporting mindful choices and actions (Orem et al., 2007, p. 151).
Destiny
 Reflecting on what you really want and where you are right now regarding handling
pressure, what do you see as the most significant changes you could make that would
help you get what you want?
 What one small change could you make right now, no matter how small, that would
improve your ability to handle pressure? The change does not have to be a physical
action – it could be a shift in thinking or attitude.
 Just try it. Do this small change today that will move you in the direction of what you
want and when it feels comfortable or becomes a habit, consider making another
small change using the same small steps.
274 Sandy Gordon
 Helping the golfer recognize her dreams in the present.

 Enabling the golfer to expand her capacity to create the dream.
 Supporting the golfer in holding faith when the going gets tough (Orem et al., 2007,
p. 171).
The above process can be used to explore any attribute an athlete identifies as important
in pursuit of her/his goals. Orem et al. (2007) have suggested that coaches could embrace AIC
as their primary coaching model and approach, or employ it as an additional tool within an
established coaching practice. They also suggested that the underlying theory, principles and
stages of AIC could be used in training teachers and technical coaches in an educational
context to create and embed strengths-based coaching cultures.
Cricket
In an attempt to develop MT among 22 male professional cricketers the 15-item Cricket

Mental Toughness Inventory (Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009) was administered, which is
comprised of the five factors illustrated in Table 2. All players were invited to discuss their
CMTI data either with each other, and/or their coaches, or individually in person with the
author. As described elsewhere (Gordon & Gucciardi, 2011) during individual consultations
the author used the same Appreciative Inquiry Coaching (AIC) approach, illustrated in the
previous example. In addition, to enhance general technical performance among the same
group, the CAPP Realise2 Model (Linley, 2008; Linley, Nielsen et al., 2010) was employed.
Briefly, the Realise2 model (R2; Linley, Willars & Biswas-Diener et al., 2010) considers
strengths as things that we do that we are good at and that energize us, such as Realized
Strengths that we get to do regularly, or Unrealized Strengths that we don’t get as much
opportunity to use so much and yet are our greatest areas for development. Learned
Behaviors, on the other hand, are activities we are good at but drain us of energy, which is
particularly relevant for elite/professional athletes because if activities are not energising
doing them repeatedly can lead to an increasing sense of feeling disengaged. Finally,
Weaknesses are things we are not good at and also drain us. Subsequently, from the model,
the best advice is to marshal realized strengths, by using them differently to best effect;
maximize unrealized strengths, by finding opportunities to use them more; moderate learned
behaviors, by not using them too much; and minimize weaknesses, by finding ways to stop
having to focus on them at all. If weaknesses matter for performance and cannot be ignored,
the R2 Model provides five ideas on how to minimize their relevance and impact on
performance, as illustrated in Figure 1.
To apply the R2 model the author asked the head coach and his assistant to determine
individual player perceptions of strengths related to general cricket ability (technical,
physical, and tactical skills). Specifically, they asked players to respond to strengths-based
questions about their batting, bowling and fielding. The questions used, and responses from a
top-order batsman who is also a spin bowler, are illustrated in Table 3, which also includes
his response to a question asking how he could use his strengths more at practice.
Subsequently, both coaches and each player discussed the implications from this exercise for
each individual’s self-regulated performance enhancement and training priorities.
Table 2. Cricket Mental Toughness Inventory (CMTI): Factors and example item
(Gucciardi & Gordon, 2009)
CMTI Factors Description Item example “I ...

Affective Intelligence The ability to regulate one’s emotions Am able to deal with anxiety.
and moods in any circumstance to
facilitate performance
Desire to Achieve An internalized, insatiable desire and In general, display a hard work
commitment to consistently improve ethic.
one’s performance levels and achieve
success
Resilience The ability to withstand and bounce Am able to deal with setbacks
back from situations in which negative associated with cricket.
outcomes are experienced (i.e.,
pressure, adversity, challenge)
Attentional Control The ability to manage one’s attention Remain focused despite
and focus over extended periods of cricket-related distractions.
play involving various distractions
Self-Belief An unshakeable self-belief in your Never experience doubts.
physical ability to perform in any
circumstance.
Table 3. Cricket: Identification of strengths of a top-order batsman
BATTING Responses BOWLING Responses FIELDING Responses

My strengths “I feel strong when I am My strengths “Bowling to a My strengths “My
are … I feel coming into bat when the are … I feel game plan” are ... I feel strengths are
strong when I innings needs rescuing or strong when strong when I my hands,
am ... (doing a game is to be won” I am ... am ... (doing slip catching
this) (doing this) this) or catching
in general”
What is your “Straight drive” What is your “By building What is your “2nd slip and
best shot? best pressure on best position? mid-wicket”
How do you delivery? batsman and Where and
get most of How do you executing my when do you
your runs? get most of bowling plan. feel most
your Reading batsmen effective?
wickets? and their game
plans. Breaking
partnerships
I deliver my “Rebuilding an innings I deliver my “By being I deliver my “Fielding at
best and feel when the team is in best and feel patient and best and feel 2nd slip”
in my trouble. Guiding the team in my involving myself in my element
element to victory using a calm element in the contest” doing these
doing these and clever mind set. doing these activities ...
activities ... Involving myself in the activities ...
contest”
276 Sandy Gordon
BATTING Responses BOWLING Responses FIELDING Responses

My favorite “Being the player that My favorite “Tying a team My favorite “Being a
role(s) that I stands up during the role(s) that I
down, sliding role(s) that I captain”
find most tough times and most find most under their find most
stimulating is difficult periods of play” stimulating is
radar, being stimulating is
(are) ... (are) ... underesti- (are) ...
mated”
Things I can “To train mostly by Things I can “Ritualize my Things I can “To
do to build simulating game do to build on pre- and post- do to build on improve
on my situations under greater my strengths, delivery my strengths, my
batting pressure” put myself into routines put myself catching
strengths, situations through into situations under
put myself where I am in simulated where I am in greater
into my element pressure my element pressure at
situations are ... practice at the are ... training”
where I am nets”
in my
element are
...
Yes Weakness Identified No
Is the weakness irrelevant?
Mission accomplished - the Try a different solution

weakness is minimized and is no
longer undermining performance
No
Yes 1. Reshape your role on the

team
Is this a workable solution? 2. Use your strengths to
Has this been effective? compensate
3. Find a complementary
partner
4. Adopt strengths-based team
work
5. Undertake training &
development to mitigate the
weakness (e.g.,
psychological skills training)
Figure 1. Minimizing weaknesses to make them irrelevant (adapted from Linley et al., 2010).
Several players expressed embarrassment and discomfort when asked to read out their
responses to the strengths-based questions (Table 3) and discussion inevitably led to concerns
about ignoring weaknesses and the importance of working to improve them. Based on how
the R2 model addresses weaknesses (see Figure 1) players were asked to consider if they
could reshape their role on the team so that they could play in their ‘element’ more often,
rather than have to bat, bowl or field at times and in positions in which they felt vulnerable;
second, to consider using their strengths to compensate for their weaknesses, such as being
more decisive about shot selection with both short and full-length quick deliveries (fast
bowling); third, players were asked to consider finding a complementary partner, someone
who was strong in areas they were weak so they could buddy-up at training and during games
and learn vicariously from watching strengths in action; fourth, players and coaches were
asked to consider grouping certain players according to their strengths and weaknesses,
thereby chunking up a level from ‘complementary partner’ and adopt strengths-based team
work off-field as well as during training and games; and finally, when none of the above
strategies was possible players were invited to consider undertaking specific training and
development sessions with coaches, with the aim of becoming ‘good enough,’ but not
excellent. All players reported enormous benefits from making their weaknesses less relevant
using all five ideas, and were particularly impressed with the overall value of a strengths-
based approach to specifically technical development. One player remarked, “This was very
different to what I’m used to. I much prefer the idea of spending the majority of my practice
time realizing my strengths rather than trying to fix weaker areas.”
Basketball
To introduce a strengths-focus to a professional basketball team for developing technical,

tactical and MT behaviors, the author asked all players to respond to similar questions that
were posed to cricketers in the previous example. Specifically, basketball players were asked
to reflect on their offensive and defensive strengths, what they could do at practice to work on
these strengths more, and what they could do during games to exploit their strengths. They
were also asked to identify their purpose motive, i.e., reflect on why they play basketball and
responses to all questions from five players are illustrated in Table 4. Individual consults with
all players followed during which the author asked questions, illustrated in Table 5, related to
both perceived weaknesses as well as strengths.
The reasoning behind asking the purpose motive question was that several players
appeared, to the coaches and management, as either being disengaged or burned out.
Responses, however, unanimously reignited the core intrinsic reasons for playing basketball –
love of the game - and restored a sense of perspective for some players who play the game
professionally almost all year round (Australia, Europe, South America). Remembering why
they played the game also helped players and the author discuss what some commentators
have identified as the dark side of MT. For example, Andersen (2011) has commented on the
potential dysfunctional outcomes for performance and general well-being of being overly MT
stemming from athletes pushing themselves beyond their physical limits (risking
overtraining), appraising serious injuries as minor (denial), and silencing their emotions
(Emotional Labor).
Responses to questions in Table 5 have since prompted regular player-player and player –
coach interactions related to improving individual strengths and weaknesses but also to
improving team tactics, and priorities for practice leading up to games. For example, when
discussing each opponent team strengths-based team coaching conversations consist of
coaches and team members identifying the best offensive and defensive plays they
collectively have available to exploit the weaknesses of opposing teams and specific
opponents. Based on the strengths of individuals on the team, the head coach and his
assistants also appear better able to align each player to specific tasks. The captain of the team
278 Sandy Gordon
recently commented that “So far I’ve noticed that, because of the complementariness of
strengths in our team, which we openly discuss during strategy meetings, we seem to be able
to align and distribute all the offensive and defensive tasks required to win games more
equitably among all team members. This wasn’t the case previously mainly I suppose because
we didn’t really know what our individual strengths were.”
Table 4. Strengths-based questions for Basketball
PURPOSE “Can’t stop, “I don’t settle “Simply love the “I love the “Love to
MOTIVE: won’t stop, love for ‘good game!” game, every compete,
Why I play hard work” enough’ in facet of it” encourage, feel
basketball anything” great’
My strengths are Offensively: Offensively: Offensively: Offensively: Offensively:
… I feel strong Playing more of On the wing 3pt shot, coming Playing free Receiving the
when … I a half court where I can off screens, without thinking. ball: on the
deliver my best game, not fast shoot or attack ability to get Being elbow and
and feel in my game. More on a the basket open aggressive. making a play
‘element’ when I drive and pull Shoot, pass, from that spot;
am ... (doing shot. A lot of create. Make in the post and
what?) isolation in the teammates hitting a wide
wing or in the better. Any open teammate.
post. I am more position, I just Free to read
of a freelance want to be on the defences and
player. floor. design plays to
exploit how
teams defend us
for either myself
or teammates
Defensively: Defensively: Defensively: Defensively: Defensively:
My opponents Playing on ball When I’m Toughness. I feel really
can’t pass me defence e.g., on confident and Communicate. confident when I
when I am the point guard don’t lose Enjoy guarding am in helpside
playing half full court. concentration best player and and can
court defence. stopping them. communicate
with teammates
to help out.
During practice Pushing myself Play aggressive Get up as many Continue to talk Work on shots
things I can do hard in every when I get the reps as possible and out of offense
to build on my situation so that ball on the wing. before and after communicate. from my
strengths, put when game time Defend the point training. Work after preferred spot.
myself into more comes it would guards full court practice, extra Communicate
situations where be easy. with clean shots. Recovery. loud and
I am in my defence. continuously
element, are … during training
on ‘D’
During games Be a good Be low and look Read the game Be aggressive Speak to point
to exploit my rebounder and like a scoring and situations to and confident guard if there is
strengths I scorer. To help threat. be able to get a mismatch I
can/need to … the team shoot open to shoot the know we can
(do what?) well when ball. exploit.
opponent team is Know the other
playing zone. I team’s scout
know how to get very well to be
open. I need to prepared
work on defence offensively and
more in games. defensively
Table 5. Strengths-based questions: Weaknesses and Strengths
Consider a perceived weakness and respond to the following questions.

1. Is the weakness ‘performance critical,’ does it matter? Elaborate.
2. How does it affect you, impact your game, your feelings (yours and others)?
3. Where are you now in terms of improving the weakness on a scale 1 (terrible) - 10 (no
probs) __/10
4. What would improvement look like e.g., if you moved up one notch?
5. How have you successfully addressed this weakness in the past?
6. Can you ‘collaborate it away’ with teammates? If so how?
7. Can you ‘compensate it away’ using your strengths in other areas? If so, how?
 To achieve the change you want, what will you need to commit to doing differently?
 How will you go about doing this?
 How will you measure change? What indicators of improvement will you use?
 Who can help you?
 How will I/others know you have achieved it?
 What will hold you back? What excuses will you use to not achieve this goal?
Consider a perceived strength and respond to the following questions:
1. Brainstorm how to find a way to exploit this strength. Where’s the shiny opportunity?
2. How have you successfully used this strength more in the past?
3. Who do you know who has this strength and uses it well? What do they do?
4. If you were using it more what would this look like?
5. Where would you say you are now on a 1 – 10 scale (1 = not using it; 10 = using all the
time)? __/10 What would it look like if you moved up one notch?
6. In your role on the team what opportunities are there for increasing the frequency of use?
How can you stretch yourself?
 To achieve the change you want, what will you need to commit to doing differently?
 How will you go about doing this?
 How will you measure change? What indicators of improvement will you use?
 Who can help you?
 How will I/others know you have achieved it?
 What will hold you back? What excuses will you use to not achieve this goal?
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this chapter was to introduce a strengths-based approach to both coaching
and managing athletes that can be applied to improving any technical, tactical, physical and
mental skill, including mental toughness. Readers are encouraged to consider the models,
principles and strategies grounded in Positive Psychology that were presented, and to reflect
on how they could be adapted for their own use. Hopefully, the exciting and effective ‘new
school’ coach education practices using strengths-based approaches will in time successfully
challenge and perhaps replace the traditions of ‘old school’ coaching methodologies and
assumptions of how to motivate and inspire human beings and teams.
280 Sandy Gordon

 Consider which theoretical assumptions you currently employ in your coaching and
management. How might a strengths-based approach assist your interventions on mental
toughness?
 Spot the strengths of the individuals and of the team using the questioning illustrated in
this chapter. Are these strengths aligned with the purpose of the team?
 Develop the strengths of individual players and the team by shifting priorities at practice
from ‘fixing weaknesses’ to ‘exploiting strengths.’ Be careful of overusing strengths and
be prepared to deal with perceived weaknesses.
 Embed regular strengths-based conversations by sharing all stakeholder perspectives
regarding relevant individual and team performance criteria.
REFERENCES
Andersen, M. B. (2011). Who’s mental, who’s tough and who’s both? Mutton constructs
dressed up as lamb in D. F. Gucciardi & S. Gordon (Eds.) Mental toughness in sport:
Developments in research and theory (pp. 69-88). London: Routledge.
Biswas-Diener, R. (2010), Practicing positive psychology coaching. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001), Now, discover your strengths: How to develop
your talents and those of the people you manage. Sydney: Pocket Books.
Burton, D., & Raedeke, T. D., (2008), Sport psychology for coaches, Lower Mitchum, SA:
Human Kinetics.
Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (eds.) (2012), The Oxford handbook of positive
organizational scholarship, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Connaughton, D., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2010), The development and maintenance of
mental toughness in the world’s best performers. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 168-193.
Connaughton, D., Wadey, R., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2008). The development and
maintenance of mental toughness: Perceptions of elite performers. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 26, 83-95.
Cooperrider, D. L. & Srivasta, S. (1987), Appreciative inquiry in organizational life in W. A.
Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (eds.), Research in organizational change and development
(Vol. I), Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cooperrider, D. L. & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in
change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook (2nd
ed.) Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom.
Crust, L., & Clough, P. J. (2011), Developing mental toughness: From research to practice.
Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 2(1), 21-32.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975), Beyond boredom and anxiety, London: Jossey-Bass.
Driver, M. (2011), Coaching positively: Lessons for coaches from positive psychology.
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Drucker, P. F. (1967). The effective executive, London: Heinemann.
Gordon, S. (2008a). An appreciative inquiry coaching approach to developing mental

toughness in D. B. Drake, D. Brennan & K. Gørtz (Eds.), The philosophy and practice of
coaching: Insights and issues for a new era (pp. 128-144). Europe: Wiley.
Gordon, S. (2008b), Appreciative Inquiry coaching, International Coaching Psychology
Review, 3(1), 17-29.
Gordon, S., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2011), Strengths-based approach to coaching mental
toughness. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 2, 143-155.
Govindji, R., & Linley, P. A. (2007), Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being:
Implications for strengths coaching and coaching psychologists, International Coaching
Psychology Review, 2, 143-153.
Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (Eds.) (2011). Mental toughness in sport: Developments in
research and theory. London: Routledge.
Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of the cricket
mental toughness inventory (CMTI). Journal of Sport Sciences, 27, 1293-1310.
Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2008), Towards an understanding of mental
toughness in Australian football. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 261-281.
Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2009a), Evaluation of a mental toughness
training program for youth-aged Australian footballers: I. A quantitative analysis. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 307-323.
Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. (2009b), Evaluation of a mental toughness
training program for youth-aged Australian footballers: II, A qualitative analysis, Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 324-339.
Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., & Dimmock, J. A. (2009c), Development and preliminary
validation of a mental toughness inventory for Australian football. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 10, 201-209.
Gucciardi, D. F., Gordon, S., Dimmock, J. A., & Mallett, C. J. (2009), Understanding the
coach’s role in the development of mental toughness: Perspectives of elite Australian
football coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1483-1496.
Gucciardi, D. F., & Hanton, S. (in press), Mental Toughness: Critical reflections and future
considerations in R. Schinke, K. McGannon, & B. Smith (Eds.), The Routledge
international handbook of sport psychology: Routledge.
Gucciardi, D. F., Hanton, S., Gordon, S., Mallett, C. J., & Temby, P. (2015). The concept of
mental toughness: Tests of dimensionality, nomological network and traitness, Journal of
Personality, 83, 26-44.
Gucciardi, D. F., Jackson, B., Hodge, K., Anthony, D. R., & Brooke, L. (in press), Implicit
theories of mental toughness: Relations with cognitive, motivational, and behavioral
correlates, Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology.
Haldane, B. (1947). A pattern for executive placement. Harvard Business Review, 25(4a),
652-663.
Hanrahan, S. J., & Andersen, M. B. (Eds.) (2010), Routledge handbook of applied sport
psychology: A comprehensive guide for students and practitioners. London: Routledge.
Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S. D. (Eds.) (2012), Professional practice in sport psychology: A
review. London: Routledge.
Hardy, L., Bell, J., & Beattie, S. (2014), A neuropsychological model of mentally tough
behavior, Journal of Personality, 82, 69-81.
Hawkins, P. (2012), Creating a coaching culture, Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
282 Sandy Gordon
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2007), A framework of mental toughness in the
world’s best performers, The Sport Psychologist, 21, 243-264.
Linley, A. (2008). Average to A+: Realizing strengths in yourself and others. Coventry,
England: CAPP.
Linley, P. A., & Burns, G. W. (2010), Strengths spotting in G. W. Burns (ed.) Happiness,
healing, enhancement: Your casebook collection for applying positive psychology in
therapy (pp. 3-14). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & sons.
Linley, P. A., & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengths coaching: A potential-guided approach to
coaching psychology, International Coaching Psychology Review, 1, 37-46.
Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (Eds.) (2004), Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Joh
Wiley & Sons.
Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Wood, A. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010), Using
signature strengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and
well-being, and implications for coaching psychologists, International Coaching
Psychology Review, 5, 8-17.
Linley, A., Willars, J., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010), The strengths book: Be confident, be
successful, and enjoy better relationships by realising the best of you. Coventry, UK:
CAPP.
Linley, P. A., Woolston, L., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009), Strengths coaching with leaders,
International Coaching Psychology Review, 4, 37-48.
Lopez, S. J., & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.) (2009), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.).
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
MacKie, D. (2014). The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full
range leadership development: A controlled study, Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 66(2), 118-137.
Maslow, A. H. (1954), Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Orem, S. L., Binkert, J., & Clancy, A. l. (2007), Appreciative coaching: A positive process for
change. San Francisco: John Wiley.
Pegg, M. (2008), The strengths toolbox: All the tools you need to build and develop strengths
in the workplace, Cirencester, UK: Management Books 2000.
Peterson, C. (2006), A primer in positive psychology. Melbourne: Oxford University press.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004), Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. Washington, DC: APA.
Rath, T. (2007), Strengths finder 2.0. New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Rath, T., & Clifton, D. O. (2004), How full is your bucket? Positive strategies for work and
life, New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Robinson, K. (2009). The element: How finding your passion changes everything. London:
Penguin Group.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1999), The president’s address, American Psychologist, 54, 559-562.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish. Sydney: Heinemann.
Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., Smith, K., & Share, T. (2002), Personal goals and psychological
growth: Testing an intervention to enhance goal-attainment and personality integration.
Journal of Personality, 70, 5-31.
Toogood, K. (2012), Strengthening coaching: An exploration of the mindset of executive
coaches using strengths-based coaching, International Journal of Evidence Based
Coaching and Mentoring (Special Issue No. 6), pp. 72-87.
Williams, J. M. (Ed.) (2010). Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak

Performance, (6th ed.). Sydney: McGraw Hill.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr Sandy Gordon is with the School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, at The
University of Western Australia, Perth. A Registered Sport Psychologist and Fellow Member
of the Australian Psychological Society, his research interests include mental toughness and
strengths-based approaches to coaching psychology. He has consulted on coach education
programs in over ten countries and with the Cricket Boards and National teams of Australia,
India, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. He currently consults with the Australian Professional
Golfers Association (PGA), Perth Wildcats (NBL), and Perth Lynx (WNBL).
Chapter 15
EMOTIONS AND EMOTION REGULATION

IN COACHING
Paul A. Davis* and Louise Davis

ABSTRACT
Emotions have been shown to be central to sport performance outcomes. The
practice of coaching is performance-oriented and can be influenced by emotions. The
ability to regulate emotions effectively has implications for performance outcomes,
individuals’ well-being, and interpersonal relationships. Individual differences related to
personality variables can influence intrapersonal emotion regulation and interpersonal
relationships. The present chapter reviews current knowledge of the implications of
emotions and emotion regulation in coaching. The influence of personality on emotion
regulation and the coach-athlete relationship is outlined. A number of emotion regulation
strategies are suggested for use by coaches to optimize their emotions as well as their
athletes’ emotions. Limitations of past research are discussed and future research areas
are proposed.
Keywords: Emotions, emotion regulation, personality, coach-athlete relationship
INTRODUCTION
It is well established that sport is an emotional performance domain (Botterill & Brown,
2002; Hanin, 2007; Lazarus, 2000), and emotions play a key role in determining performance
outcomes (Jones, 2003; Woodman, Davis, Hardy et al., 2009). The emotion-performance
relationship has received substantial attention within sport psychology research (Hanin, 2007;
Lazarus, 2000; Vallerand & Blanchard, 2000); however, the primary focus of studies
investigating emotions in sport has been centered upon athletes and their experience of
*
Corresponding author: Email: paul.davis@northumbria.ac.uk.
286 Paul A. Davis and Louise Davis
anxiety (Mellalieu, Neil, Hanton & Fletcher, 2009; Woodman & Hardy, 2001). More recently
the examination of the emotion-performance relationship has broadened to include the
consideration of a wider range of emotions (e.g., hope, anger; Davis, 2011; McCarthy, 2011;
Ruiz & Hanin, 2011) and begun to consider coaches’ emotional experiences (Hill & Davis,
2014; Nelson, Potrac, Gilbourne, et al., 2013). The aim of the present chapter is to provide a
review of research examining the role of emotions in coaching and outline the implications of
emotion regulation for coaching effectiveness. We will also highlight how individual
differences (e.g., personality) can influence the regulation of emotions and impact upon the
coach-athlete relationship. Finally, we will offer strategies for coaches to regulate their own
emotions and/or the emotions of their athletes.
RESEARCH EXAMINING EMOTIONS IN SPORT COACHING

The development of knowledge regarding coaches’ emotions has mirrored the
progression of research investigating athletes’ emotions; specifically, the concept of stress has
predominantly been the focus of preliminary studies examining the emotional experiences of
coaches (e.g., Olusoga, Butt, Maynard & Hays, 2009; Olusoga, Butt, Maynard & Hays, 2010;
Thelwell, Weston, Greenlees & Hutchings, 2008a). Sources of stress as well as their
subsequent impact upon performance outcomes, inter-personal relationships and the
wellbeing of the coach have been examined (Fletcher & Scott, 2010; Frey, 2007). Research
suggests that stress can originate from a range of performance, organizational, and personal
aspects of life with implications for coaching effectiveness and wellbeing (Levy, Nicholls,
Marchant, & Polman, 2009; Olusoga et al., 2009; Olusoga et al., 2012; Thelwell et al.,
2008a).
In particular, Thelwell et al., (2008a) highlight that over half of the stressors reported by
coaches could be categorized as being organizational in nature. Thelwell and colleagues
identify that these organizational stressors are related to: environment; leadership; personal;
and team. Levy et al., (2009) lend further support to the position that organizational demands
are particularly influential to coaches’ perceived stress. In a longitudinal case-study with an
elite coach, various organizational demands fluctuated in prominence over the duration of the
28 day coaching period; these included demands associated with environmental factors,
personal issues, leadership considerations, and team relationships. Concerns relating to
professionalism, commitment, and performing to potential have all been identified by coaches
as being related to their stress (Olusoga, et al., 2009).
Lundkvist, Gustafsson, Hjalm, & Hassmen (2012) also highlight that interpersonal issues
arising between coaches and athletes can increase coaches’ stress. Coaches indicate that their
responsibilities associated with the athletes’ development could be considered as stressors; for
example, meeting athletes’ training needs and managing athletes psychologically can increase
perceived demands upon coaches. Similarly, the management of various organizational
resources (e.g., sport science support staff) as well as demands (e.g., performance related
funding) are stressful for coaches, as they are required to coordinate all aspects of athletes’
performance and development (Olusoga, et al., 2009). This potential conflict associated with
organizational demands (i.e., management cohesion; interference; forced collaboration) can
contribute to coaches’ stress. Pressures and expectations put on the coach by themselves (e.g.,
Emotions and Emotion Regulation in Coaching 287
self-imposed pressure) as well as those ascribed from significant others (e.g., rate of progress)
have been highlighted as stressors. Coaches consider the sport’s status, maintaining elite
standards, preparation for major events, sacrificing personal time, and isolation all contribute
to perceptions of stress.
In the short term, stress and emotions can have a range of acute implications for both
physical and cognitive subcomponents of performance. Sport coaching has been identified as
being a performance-oriented activity on the part of the coach (Lyle, 2002). Research
investigating the emotion-performance relationship in athletes highlights that physical and
cognitive subcomponents of performance appear to be differentially affected by aspects of
emotional arousal (Parfitt, Hardy & Pates, 1995; Parfitt, Jones & Hardy, 1990; Woodman et
al., 2009). For example, physiological arousal induced by emotion has been positively
associated with increased strength (Perkins, Wilson, & Kerr, 2001) and performance of
aerobic tasks (Parfitt et al., 1995). Conversely, physiological arousal has been shown to be
detrimental to the performance of tasks requiring fine motor control (Noteboom, Fleshner, &
Enoka, 2001; Parfitt et al., 1990). Depending on the nature of the coaching context, and the
associated practices underlying the session, coaches may either benefit or be hampered by
increased arousal. For example, a squash or tennis coach that becomes angry (increased
arousal) during a drill requiring balls to be fed precisely to youth athletes may have their
technique compromised due to a loss of fine motor control.
In terms of cognitive functioning, effective coaching relies upon a coach’s ability to make
numerous decisions (Frederick & Morrison, 1999; Harvey, Lyle, & Muir, 2015). The role of
emotions in decision making is extremely complex and underpins both positive and negative
outcomes (Laborde, Dosseville & Raab, 2013; Ross, 2013). Suffice (it) to say, a coach’s
emotional state will be a strong guide in the decisions they make. Decisions made in haste to
manage anxiety may not benefit from effective information processing (Hofmann, Ellard &
Siegle, 2012); conversely too much deliberation may lead to ‘paralysis by analysis’
(Ehrlenspiel, 2001) and a lack of decisive action being taken. This is particularly important
when under intense emotional circumstances coaches may be looked upon by athletes as role
models of effective leadership and appropriate behavior.
Heightened emotional intensity and arousal may be beneficial to performance if it
motivates individuals to invest greater resources to the task at hand (cf. Eysenck & Calvo,
1992; Fredrickson, 2001; Lazarus, 2000). However, attempts to manage intense emotions
have been found to divert cognitive resources from the primary task toward coping strategies
(Janelle, 2002; Woodman & Davis, 2008). For coaches, intense emotions may help them
persevere under challenging circumstances (e.g., in the final moments of a lengthy, tightly
contested match). Alternatively if they are experiencing emotions that are not ideal, they may
take their attention away from their coaching practice in attempts to manage their
uncomfortable emotional state. Consequently, if a coach perceives themselves to not be in
their individualized ideal performance state the effectiveness of their coaching may suffer.
In consideration of the idiosyncratic nature of the emotion-performance relationship,
Hanin’s (1997, 2000) individual zones of optimal functioning (IZOF) model was developed
in an effort to delineate and predict the influence of emotions on individual athlete’s
performance. The IZOF model puts forward an explanation of the optimal and dysfunctional
impact of emotions upon performance in light of athletes’ best and worst performance
patterns. The IZOF, like other theories of instrumental emotion regulation (e.g., Tamir, 2009),
propose that athletes are motivated to experience emotions they identify as being associated
with enhanced performance despite the degree of pleasantness attributed to the emotion. That
is, the temporary discomfort of an unpleasant emotion is worth the sacrifice in order to
maximize performance. Coaches may also benefit from understanding the IZOF model;
individualized emotional profiles for optimal coaching practice may be identified by
reflecting upon best and worst coaching sessions. That said, adopting coaching behaviors that
are optimized by a specific underpinning emotion may require coaches to undertake a degree
of emotional labor in either the suppression or expression of task-appropriate emotions (Lee,
Chelladurai & Kim, 2015).
The specific emotions that coaches experiences through the process of coaching (and
associated activities) have not been identified definitively. By extension, the emotions that
have been established as being present for athletes are likely to be similarly experienced by
coaches given the intimacy of the coach-athlete relationship (Davis & Jowett, 2010;
Lafrenière, Jowett, Vallerand, Donahue, & Lorimer, 2008). One specific emotion that has
been identified during the coaching process (beyond the anxiety associated with stress) is
anger (Keegan, Harwood, Spray, & Lavalee, 2009; Kerr & Stirling, 2012; Omli & LaVoi,
2009). This is potentially concerning given the unpleasant nature of the emotion of anger and
the prospective of coaches discontinuing their involvement in sport as a means of avoiding
anger inducing activities. However, more important for the study of emotions (i.e., anger) in
coaching are the serious consequences of mismanaged anger. Abusive coaching behaviors
have been associated with an inability to control anger (Stirling, 2013); the implications of
emotional abuse on athletes are severe and raise athlete protection issues (Stirling & Kerr,
2013). Coach education programs frequently include topics associated with the safeguarding
of athletes and outline ethical considerations that surround appropriate coaching behaviors
(Kerr & Stirling, 2015); however, these programs (and the wider sporting public) may be well
served by including specific discussion of the potential emotional experiences of coaches, the
implications of mismanaged emotions, and the training of strategies to regulate emotions such
as anger.
EMOTION REGULATION IN COACHING

An increasing amount of research literature has investigated how the ability to regulate
emotions in accordance with performance demands is a critical determinant of performance
outcomes and social interactions (Jones, 2003; Lane, Beedie, Devonport, & Stanley, 2011;
Moore & Gardner, 2011; Woodcock, Cumming, Duda, & Sharp, 2011; Wagstaff, 2014). A
number of theories have been developed to explain the manner in which individuals control or
regulate emotions (see Koole, 2009, for a review). In particular, Gross’s (1998) model of
emotion regulation has been applied to the study of emotions in sport performance (e.g.,
Lane, Davis & Devonport, 2011; Uphill, McCarthy & Jones, 2008; Wagstaff, 2014), sport
organizations (e.g., Wagstaff, Hanton & Fletcher, 2013) and recently sport coaching (Hill &
Davis, 2014). Gross’s model offers insight into the processes that underpin both intrapersonal
and interpersonal attempts to influence the frequency and intensity of emotions; given that
coaches are responsible for managing their emotions as well as their athletes (to an extent),
Gross’s model provides a useful framework for discussing coaches’ emotion regulation.
The emotion regulation model forwarded by Gross (1998; Gross & John, 2003), suggests
that emotion regulation strategies can be categorized as either (a) antecedent –focused (i.e.,
initiated prior to the emotion occurring) or (b) response-focused (i.e., initiated following the
emotion occurring). Individual differences in the inclination for implementing these types of
emotion regulation strategies are thought to underlie attempts to manage emotions. More
specifically, individuals that typically adopt an antecedent-focused approach to emotion
regulation are identified as having a preference for reappraisal; they attempt to alter their
perception of the emotion-eliciting situation. Conversely, those individuals inclined to adopt a
response-focused approach are likely to employ efforts of suppression with the aim of
inhibiting ongoing behaviors associated with emotion-expression.
Expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal have divergent implications for emotion
regulation. As described by Gross (1998) and colleagues (Gross & John, 2003; Richards &
Gross, 2000), cognitive reappraisal is an earlier form of intervention in the emotion-
generative process and permits not only the augmentation of feelings but also behaviors.
Consequently, it provides greater opportunity to effectively regulate positive and negative
emotions. For example, coaches using a reappraisal strategy for emotion regulation may alter
their perception of an athlete’s error and reduce the potential of experiencing anger (before it
is induced). By contrast, expressive suppression is an intervention in the emotion-generative
process that occurs after the emotion has initially arisen; it provides a means of changing
behavior but has limited impact upon the feelings experienced. Expressive suppression can
lock the coach into enduring the (unwanted) emotion and requires ongoing efforts at
managing the behaviors typically associated with the emotion. Coaches that attempt to hide
their emotions can create a sense of inauthenticity within interactions and relations with
others.
The implications of the emotion regulation strategies of reappraisal and suppression are
evident in research that has found that they have different consequences. Specifically,
expressive suppression contributes to negative affective experiences, lower general well-
being, and poorer interpersonal functioning; conversely, cognitive reappraisal has the
opposite effect (Gross, 1998; Gross & John, 2003; Richards & Gross, 2000). In the domain of
sport, athletes’ use of reappraisal has been found to correlate with pleasant emotions;
however, the use of suppression has not been observed to associate with either negative or
positive affective experiences (Uphill, Lane & Jones, 2012).
Coaches can be central to athletes’ developing their use of emotion regulation strategies
(Davis, 2011), and a coach’s effectiveness as a leader can be linked with their ability to
manage their own emotions (Haver, Akerjordet & Furunes, 2013; Hill & Davis, 2014).
However, studies across various organizational contexts suggest that the link between a
leader’s emotion regulation competency and effective leadership may differ between
performance domains and cultures (Kafetsios, Nezlek & Vassilakou, 2012; Liu, Prati,
Perrewé & Brymer, 2010). In sport organizations, the use of reappraisal and suppression has
been observed to influence interpersonal relationships (Wagstaff et al., 2012) although the
impact of their use upon coaching effectiveness and the quality of the coach-athlete
relationships has not yet been identified.
Individual differences in emotion regulation can also be measured in relation to specific
emotions, such as anger. As previously discussed, anger is a common emotion in sport and is
one of the more frequently observed emotions in coaches (Keegan, et al., 2009; Kerr &
Stirling, 2012; Omli & LaVoi, 2009). Anger is an emotion consisting of feelings that range
from mild irritation to intense fury and rage (Spielberger, 1999). For example, coaches may
experience mild frustration when an athlete repeats a mistake despite a coach feeling they
have provided effective instruction to correct the error. Further, a coach may feel a more
intense version of anger when they perceive a member of the opposition has attempted to
seriously injure a player on the coach’s team. Indeed, the core relational theme of anger is, ‘‘a
demeaning offence against me and mine” (Lazarus, 2000, p.242), which links to the
associated action tendency of, ‘‘a powerful impulse to counterattack in order to gain revenge
for an affront or repair a wounded self-esteem” (Lazarus, 2000, p. 243). The extent to which a
coach acts on these angry impulses, and implements the associated action tendency, is guided
by individual differences in emotion regulation.
Research has investigated the influence of athletes’ individual differences in the anger-
performance relationship (e.g., Davis, Woodman & Callow, 2010; Robazza & Bortoli, 2007;
Woodman et al., 2009). In particular, Robazza & Bortoli (2007) noted rugby players that
report experiencing a moderate frequency of angry feelings perceive their symptoms of anger
to be facilitative for performance. In an experimental study, Woodman et al. (2009) found
that extraversion moderated the anger-performance relationship, such that extraverts
experienced greater anger-derived performance enhancement than introverts. These studies
taken together offer a potential explanation for why some coaches openly express their anger
at athletes and/or officials; that is, their behavior may be based on the perception that anger
can be facilitative of both their own performance as well as their athletes’.
A number of individual difference variables specific to the regulation of anger have been
identified (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell & Crane, 1983). In particular, trait anger is proposed
to have a role in the experience of anger and may influence performance (Smits, De Boeck &
Vansteelandt, 2004; Spielberger et al., 1983). Trait anger reflects an individual’s tendency
toward experiencing anger, and has been reported to influence the frequency and intensity of
anger (Spielberger et al., 1983). Moreover, research has revealed that trait anger is associated
with the activation of anger’s action tendency, as the increased frequency of angry feelings
has been found to promote the action tendency towards verbal acts of aggression (Smits et al.,
2004). Therefore, a coach that is high in trait anger and has demonstrated the potential for
verbally lashing out at players is more likely to lash out again in the future and with greater
intensity than a coach that is low in trait anger and has not expressed their anger.
How feelings of anger are regulated is evident in how they are expressed and controlled.
Spielberger (1999) describes how feelings of anger can be directed outwards towards others
or the environment (“anger-out”) alternatively anger can be directed toward the self (“anger-
in”). Anger-in (i.e., “bottle it up”) has been associated with attempts to suppress anger’s
action tendency (Smits & De Boeck, 2007). Anger that is directed inward has been associated
with debilitative moods including fatigue and depression (Lane & Terry, 2000). Anger-out
corresponds with the release of anger’s action tendency (Smits & Kuppens, 2005). Anger that
is directed outward has been associated with increases in determination and effort (Lane &
Terry, 2000).
While the frequency of inward and outward expression will have different personal and
intrapersonal effects, regardless of its “direction” greater control over anger provides the basis
for more effective anger regulation (Bresin & Robinson, 2013; Ruiz & Hanin, 2011). It is
established that individual differences in the ability to regulate anger can influence the
performance implications of angry feelings (Davis et al., 2010), yet coaches need to be
mindful of the full range of potential outcomes. In a “best case” scenario appropriately
directed anger can increase strength; at worst, mismanaged anger can have catastrophic
consequences including physical aggression that has resulted in fatalities (Isberg, 2000). A
coach’s awareness of the idiosyncratic nature of coaching contexts and individual differences
will help to moderate the implications of (in) effective emotion regulation both for themselves
and their athletes.
Coaches’ regulation of emotion and anger specifically, has been investigated in
consideration of their type of perfectionism (Hill & Davis, 2014). Using the 2 x 2 model of
dispositional perfectionism, Hill and Davis’s study provides evidence that perfectionism
influences the emotion regulation engaged in by coaches. The 2 x2 model is comprised of two
subtypes of perfectionism (i.e., personal standards perfectionism; PSP & evaluative concerns
perfectionism; ECP) when each subtype is taken as being high/low. These subtypes of
perfectionism provided greater insight into the complexity of the patterns of emotion
regulation engaged in by coaches (i.e., consideration of both dimensions of perfectionism
offered greater understanding of emotion regulation). As expected, within Hill and Davis’s
study, pure PSP (high PSP/low ECP) was associated with the highest capacity for emotion
regulation (i.e., highest use of cognitive reappraisal and highest control of anger directed
inwards and outwards) and pure ECP (high ECP/low PSP) with the lowest capacity (lowest
cognitive reappraisal and lowest anger control inwards and outwards). Unexpectedly,
however, mixed perfectionism (high PSP/high ECP) was associated with the highest levels of
expressive suppression suggesting that in some instances personal standards perfectionism
might worsen rather than assuage perfectionistic concerns.
Research suggests that athletes’ perfectionistic cognitions are influenced by the
motivational climate created by the coach (Appleton, Hall & Hill, 2011); further an athlete’s
perfectionism has also been associated with trait anger (Dunn, Gotwals, Dunn & Syrotuik,
2006). Therefore, it appears that coaches’ and athletes’ personalities may influence emotions
and co-occurring emotion regulation; they also can impact upon the quality of coach-athlete
relationships.
An additional personality characteristic that has recently been explored within sport and
linked with athletes’ experiences of emotions as a result of coach-athlete interactions is
attachment styles (Davis & Jowett, 2014). Attachment styles stem from the receiving of care
giving experiences early in life (see Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978 or Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2007 for full review), and are categorized as being secure, anxious-ambivalent, and
avoidant; they also are identified as being secure or insecure (anxious and avoidant) styles of
relating. Within adolescence and adulthood, a secure attachment style reflects those
individuals who have experienced consistent and available care and support. Secure
individuals are comfortable with mutual dependency, they perceive themselves to be capable,
and regard others as well intentioned. A secure attachment style promotes exploration and
results in a more trusting, sociable, and confident individual (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
An anxious–ambivalent attachment style reflects inconsistency in their caregivers’
availability and support. Anxious-ambivalent individuals worry about the availability and
supportiveness of their partner and their need for closeness is rarely satisfied. Anxious-
ambivalent individuals are often unable to develop trust in their partners resulting in a
‘clingy’ and anxious relationship (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Finally, an avoidant
attachment style reflects caregiver neglect and amplifies discomfort with interdependence and
promotes attempts to remain behaviorally independent and self-reliant. These individuals
remain emotionally distant and inexpressive.
Within the context of sport, Davis and Jowett (2010, 2013, 2014) have conducted a series
of studies to examine the role of athletes’ and coaches’ attachment styles in association with
the quality of the coach-athlete relationship and athlete well-being. Specifically, and in
relation to this chapter, Davis and Jowett (2014) examined whether athletes’ attachment styles
with the coach were linked to aspects of the coach–athlete relationship quality and, in turn,
whether relationship quality was linked to athletes’ positive affect (e.g., feelings of happiness)
or negative affect (e.g., feelings of distress). One hundred and ninety-two athletes completed
a questionnaire measuring their attachment styles and relationship quality with the coach as
well as their feelings of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). Analyses revealed
athletes’ avoidant and secure attachment styles to be associated with aspects of coach–athlete
relationship quality and athletes’ PA and NA. Specifically, an avoidant attachment style
appeared to predict higher levels of conflict and greater NA (e.g., distressed, nervous); whilst
secure attachment positively predicted perceptions of social support, lower levels of conflict
and greater feelings of PA (e.g., happiness, excitement). Davis and Jowett’s (2014) study
provides some insight into the links between attachment and positive and negative emotional
experiences; however, the study did not examine how athletes regulated their emotions (i.e.,
PA or NA).
Research conducted within mainstream psychology has identified that the regulation of
emotions and the quality of attachment bonds are closely linked (Cassidy, 1999). Specifically,
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005) highlights that
attachment styles include a number of cognitive, affective and behavioral orientations that can
potentially alter the activation, expression and/or suppression of one’s emotions (Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2005; Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Hayden, 2007). For example, we are all born with
a pre-disposed biological attachment system that serves to (a) protect us from danger, stress
and or threat and (b) to help regulate negative emotions. When potential threats are perceived,
secure individuals are able to remain confident in their partner and enhance their feelings of
security, deactivating the need to seek out proximity. This allows them to experience positive
emotions through the use of constructive problem focused coping strategies (Simpson et al.,
2007). Anxious individuals are more likely to hyperactivate their attachment system as they
perceive an uncertainty that their needs will be met. This heightens feelings of anxiety and
uncertainty. Simpson et al. (2007) suggest that these individuals adopt emotion focused
coping strategies (e.g., remain hypervigelent) and as a result may experience more negative
emotions. Similarly, avoidant individuals may also feel heightened levels of stress and
anxiety when their attachment system is activated (although perhaps not consciously).
However, they are more likely to adopt avoidant coping strategies to minimize their negative
emotional experiences (Simpson et al., 2007).
Although the role of attachment styles and its potential relationship with emotion
regulation within the coach-athlete relationship has not yet been examined, the research
outlined above presents an interesting and important potential line of research within the
context of sport. Close relationships can induce intense emotions; specifically, they can be
influenced by partners’ emotional reactions to positive/negative relational events. Within
relational contexts (e.g., the coach-athlete relationship) an individual’s emotions can affect
not only his or her own action tendencies but also shape their partner’s responses. Intense
emotions surrounding coaches and athletes may have implications for the quality of the
coach-athlete relationship as well as performance oriented outcomes. Coach education would
benefit from evidence based knowledge regarding attachment related emotion regulation
strategies for coaches and athletes.
EMOTION REGULATION STRATEGIES FOR COACHES

Research examining the emotional experience of coaches has established that stress is a
feature of the context that many coaches work within (e.g., Lundkvist, et al., 2012; Olusoga,
et al., 2010; Thelwell, et al., 2008). Considering the multitudinous sources of stress coaches
are potentially dealing with, the lack of support and education surrounding stress management
is likely to amplify the implications of mismanaged emotions (e.g., anxiety & anger; Giges,
Petitpas & Vernacchia, 2004). Recent studies have attempted to elucidate how coaches
operate under pressure and have evaluated the coping strategies that they are implementing
(Frey, 2007; Levy et al., 2009; Olusoga et al., 2010). Preliminary examinations of coaches’
attempts to cope with stressors indicate that a number of strategies are implemented to
manage situational demands. Specifically, Frey (2007) outlines that cognitive strategies (e.g.,
reappraisal), emotional control strategies (e.g., social support), and behavioral strategies (e.g.,
preparation) are used by coaches endeavoring to cope with stress. These cognitive and
behavioral strategies offer some insight into the efforts coaches are investing in attempts to
balance their resources with the demands that are placed upon them. However, Frey’s study
did not consider responses to organizational stress and suffers from methodological
limitations (Thelwell et al., 2008).
Levy et al., (2009) provide a more comprehensive assessment of coaches’ coping
strategies as well as their perceived effectiveness. In particular, using a qualitative diary
methodology, Levy and colleagues examined longitudinally, organizational stressors, coping
strategies and perceived coping effectiveness in a single case study with an elite level coach.
In line with Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) model of coping, over the duration of the study,
the elite coach used both problem focused and emotion focused coping strategies;
additionally, avoidance (e.g., blocking thoughts and feelings) was an approach adopted by the
coach on occasion.
Of note within the Levy et al., (2009) longitudinal study, the coping strategy most
frequently used by the elite coach was to “vent disagreement” in response to stressors.
Although, it was classified as a problem focused strategy and perceived to be highly effective,
venting disagreement also involves emotional expression and relates to emotion focused
coping. The venting of disagreement was identified as a form of communication; however the
emotional expression inherent to venting does not always require interaction with others. It is
well documented that writing about stressors and associated emotions can result in positive
psychological and physiological benefits (Cameron & Nicholls, 1999; Smyth, 1998). One
proposed reason why written and verbal disclosure is beneficial is that ascribing labels for
emotional experiences facilitates the integration and understanding of the emotions
surrounding the stressful event (Pennebaker & Francis, 1996; Pennebaker, Mayne & Francis,
1997).
Written Emotional Disclosure
For more than twenty-five years, written emotional disclosure has been found to be a
particularly effective emotion regulation strategy and therapeutic tool when dealing with a
range of emotional events within a variety of situations and social contexts (e.g.,
bereavement; job loss; diagnosis of illness; for a review see Pennebaker and Chung, 2007).
Within sport, two studies (i.e., Mankad & Gordon, 2010; Mankad, Gordon & Wallman, 2009)
have adapted Pennebaker’s (1989) emotional disclosure paradigm for use with injured
athletes. More specifically, elite injured athletes underwent the written emotional disclosure
protocol with the aim of reducing stress and enhancing their mood. Results from these studies
suggest that the writing intervention employed during injury rehabilitation could have
beneficial psychological outcomes for individuals expressing their emotions associated with
the stressors comprising a particular situation. A number of situations in coaching may lend
themselves well to using the written emotional disclosure as a strategy for emotion regulation.
For example the professional sport coach is “hired to be fired”; undertaking expressive
writing has been shown to be beneficial in adapting to job loss and may help regulate the
emotions induced by dismissal.
Further, Mankad and Gordon (2010) highlight that written emotional disclosure was
associated with immunological benefits; this finding supports previous research by
Pennebaker and colleagues (e.g., Pennebaker & Seagal, 1999; Petrie et al., 2004)
investigating immunological function as a result of undertaking the writing protocol. For
athletes and coaches performing at high level competitions in foreign countries, a weakened
immune system caused by situational stress has implications both for themselves and their
colleagues. Another potential use of written emotional disclosure may relate to the selection
of athletes to attend major international competitions. The stressful and emotional experience
of team (de)selection can be difficult for both coaches and athletes (Grove, Fish & Eklund,
2004). The use of written emotional disclosure may facilitate both the regulation of emotions
as well as the development of enhanced perspective regarding social and athletic identity
which can be impacted upon by not being selected to compete (Rees, Haslam, Coffee &
Lavallee, 2015).
Hudson and Day (2012) identified that athletes re-evaluated and had a change in
perspective as a result of undertaking a written emotional disclosure protocol involving
instructions aligned with reversal theory. Writing outcomes also related to self development;
confrontation of the stressor and problem solving; emotion management; and development of
a potential preparation strategy. This finding lends support to the suggestion that expressive
writing may provide positive health benefits by reducing cognitive confusion surrounding the
emotional event and by offering the individual the opportunity to integrate the antecedents
and outcomes of the experience into their cognitive representation of themselves (Graybeal,
Sexton & Pennebaker, 2002; Pennebaker & Francis, 1996).
Expressive writing tasks offer individuals the opportunity to systematically construct a
story that helps to minimize confusion and disorder surrounding events; this relates to
narrative psychology framework (Richert, 2006) and reflective practice (Knowles &
Gilbourne, 2010). Critical reflection is often used as a developmental practice for early career
coaches (Knowles, Gilbourne, Borrie & Nevill, 2001); therefore if written emotional
disclosure is framed as a form of reflection, coaches may be more likely to engage with the
protocol and present less resistance due to their familiarity with the process. Written
emotional disclosure offers coaches both a therapeutic modality that can be used for stress
management, as well as a mechanism for enhancing coaching practice and learning through
reflection upon emotional events in the coaching context (or beyond).
Implementation Intentions
The use of implementation intentions or “if-then” plans has been shown to be an effective
self-regulation technique in a variety of domains including exercise (Milne, Orbell, &
Sheeran, 2002) and sport (Achtziger, Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2008). In particular,
implementation intentions have been used to minimize the effects of athletes’ anxiety and
may offer coaches similar benefits. Specifically designed to facilitate goal progress by
strengthening the association between goals and the actions required to achieve them,
implementation intentions are a cognitive self-regulatory strategy that can be aimed at
managing emotions (Gollwitzer, 1993, 1999). Implementation intentions differ from goal
intentions (as they align with the intended outcome of goal striving), implementation
intentions are specific in that they outline the “when, where, and how” goal striving will
occur by detailing “if-then” plans for commencing and maintaining goal striving (Gollwitzer,
1993).
Related research by Smith, Ntoumanis, and Duda (2010) investigated coaching
behaviors, goal intentions and implementation intentions as predictors of well-being in
athletes. Interestingly, their findings suggest that there are potential risks to well-being
resulting from goal striving prompted by guilt, shame, or external coercion, particularly when
coaches create a controlling motivational climate. The focus of Smith and colleagues study
did not relate to coaches (or athletes) use of implementation intentions for emotion regulation
purposes specifically; but it does highlight the interaction that coaching behaviors and goal
striving may have with emotions. Coaches are advised that when considering the use of
implementation intentions with athletes they should build in opportunities for autonomy
support, and emotion regulation strategies should be developed with potential individual
differences in mind.
For example, coaches and/or athletes may develop the use of implementation intentions
to cue themselves to recognize that if they are not feeling the emotions associated with their
ideal performance state then they can use well rehearsed strategies to reduce the potential
cognitive interference of inappropriate emotions. Well rehearsed “if-then” plans are intended
to be automatic so that they do not detract resources away from the primary task of skill
execution.
Further, if coaches and athletes effectively apply implementation intentions, the potential
negative effects of emotion contagion within a team can be minimized (e.g., Totterdell, 2000).
Additionally, coaches and teammates can assist each other in recognizing when they are
drifting beyond their individual zone of optimal functioning (Hanin, 2007) and cue each other
to initiate their “if-then” plan. If this is done effectively, emotions can be regulated prior to
them escalating out of control and negatively impacting upon performance and/or
interpersonal relationships.
Mental Skills
A number of mental skills aimed at regulating emotions are reported to be used by

coaches (Thelwell, Weston, Greenlees & Hutchings, 2008b), these include: imagery;
preperformance plans and refocusing routines; relaxation strategies centered on breathing
techniques; and self-talk.
Coaches’ use of imagery has been linked with enhanced self-efficacy beliefs specific to
coaching practice (Short, Smiley & Ross-Stewart, 2005). Further, emotional intelligence has
also been linked with self-perceptions of coaching efficacy (Thelwell, Lane, Weston &
Greenlees, 2008). In athletes, the use of imagery has been shown to increase self-efficacy in
managing anxiety (Levy, Nicholls & Polman, 2011) as well as facilitate adaptive stress-
appraisal associated with successful performance outcomes (Williams & Cumming, 2012).
Motivational general-arousal imagery interventions have been shown to be effective in
managing anxiety in contact sports (Mellalieu, Hanton & Thomas, 2009) as well as individual
high risk sporting activities (Jones et al., 2002). As a mental skill to enhance self-efficacy and
manage emotions, imagery is acknowledged by coaches as being effective both for
themselves and their athletes (Hall, Jedlic, Munroe-Chandler, & Hall, 2007; Ross-Stewart,
Short & Kelling, 2014). Coaches have reported their emotional state benefits from the use of
imagery prior to training and competitions (Thelwell et al., 2008b).
In review of the extensive research literature surrounding imagery use in sport, coaches
are advised that this mental skill may serve them well by enhancing preperformance self-
efficacy. That said, the study of coaches’ use of imagery to manage emotions may benefit
from further research integrating psychophysiological methods or neuropsychology
techniques (e.g., fMRI) being applied in imagery studies (e.g., Jiang, Edwards, Mullins &
Callow, 2015).
Mental skills use to modify precompetitive psychobiosocial states have been found to be
effective in promoting peak performance based on the in/out-of-zone notion applied to an
athlete’s ability to perceive emotions and bodily symptoms (Robazza, Pellizzari & Hanin,
2004). Coaches similarly report their use of preperformance plans/routines to manage
perceptions of preperformance anxiety and stress (Bloom, Durand-Bush & Salmela, 1997;
Olusoga et al., 2012).
During a match, attempts to restore one’s self-efficacy can include a deliberate slowing
down of the pace of play and the use pre-rehearsed routines that endeavor to remind a
performer of their ideal performance state (Ravizza & Osborne, 1991); coaches can play a
role in both, either by calling a time-out (if a break in play is possible) or by providing verbal
instructions to athletes. In particular, using breathing techniques have been cited by both
athletes and coaches as a mechanism for centering oneself and initiating a relaxation response
(Gould, Eklund & Jackson, 1992; Kudlackova, Eccles, & Dieffenbach, 2013). A recent study
of interpersonal emotion regulation amongst teammates in the sport of curling highlighted
that athletes identify breathing as an important technique to maintain control of their emotions
and relax themselves and subsequently their teammates (Tamminen & Crocker, 2013).
Further, breathing techniques are often paired with self-talk as a means to deepen the
suggestion of the relaxation response and the salience of the optimal emotional state
(Rogerson & Hyrcaiko, 2002).
Thelwell and colleagues’ (2008) study of coaches’ use of mental skills identified
coaches’ use self-talk before and during competitions to control emotions. One underpinning
mechanism identified by coaches in relation to self-talk’s influence upon emotions, links the
use of self-talk with its efficacy for improving attentional focus (Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos,
Mpoumpaki, & Theodorakis, 2009). This assertion by coaches is in line with research
indicating that self-talk can enhance attentional focus, increase confidence, regulate effort,
control cognitive and emotional reactions as well as trigger automatic execution
(Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis & Chroni, 2008; for a review of self-talk in coaching see the
chapter by Zourbanos and colleagues in this book).
Mindfulness
Recent popular interest and scientific research into the concept of mindfulness suggests
that coaches and sport psychology practitioners would benefit from being aware of its
potential benefits for athlete performance outcomes and managing stress and emotions
(Blecharz, Luszczynska, Scholz, et al., 2014; Gustafsson, Davis, Skoog, Kenttä, & Harberl, in
press). In short, mindfulness is “paying attention in a particular way, on purpose, in the
present moment, nonjudgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p. 4). To date, many coaches and
sport psychology consultants have identified with the utility of adopting this ‘position’ when
observing both themselves as well as the athletes they work with.
The associations between athletes’ self-efficacy, flow and performance outcomes have
been highlighted within studies examining the performance outcomes related to mindfulness
(e.g., Aherne, Moran & Lonsdale, 2011; Kaufman, Glass & Arnkoff, 2009). That said, it is
important to note that mindfulness research has explored both the predisposition to being
mindful (e.g., Kee & Wang, 2008; Kee & Liu, 2011) as well as cognitive based interventions
that have largely been adapted from established therapies widely used and validated in other
areas (e.g., treatment of clinical issues related to anxiety, for a review see Hofmann, Sawyer,
Wit, & Oh, 2010). Mindfulness based interventions directly aimed at coaches have recently
emerged with preliminary support being offered for training aimed at increasing mindfulness
and emotional stability whilst reducing levels of anxiety. Results from early investigation of a
program of mindfulness training for coaches suggest it is a promising intervention for
reducing stress, improving well-being, and enhancing coach-athlete interactions (Longshore
& Sachs, 2015).
Taken collectively, support for interventions aimed at enhancing intrapersonal, as well as
interpersonal, emotion regulation is encouraging; particularly as a recent systematic review
identified a paucity of theory-based interpersonal coach education interventions (Langan,
Blake, & Lonsdale, 2013). A lack of education and training of the associated implications of
emotion regulation may contribute to coaches feeling poorly prepared to deal with
interpersonal conflict and subsequently experience increased stress as a result. The social
nature of coaching suggests that the effects of ineffective emotion regulation may be
amplified by emotion contagion (Totterdell, 2000) as coaches and athletes can influence each
other’s emotions (Davis & Jowett, 2010; Lafreniere, et al., 2008). Consequently, for coaches
to be in a position to help athletes regulate their emotions, coaches must first be aware of their
own emotional state and the implications of (in)effective emotion regulation strategies.
CONCLUSION
The nature of sport coaching necessitates that in order to be effective, coaches must be
responsive to the multifaceted demands of the role (Côté & Gilbert, 2009); in particular,
coaches must understand their athletes’ emotional experiences and attempt to align their goals
and efforts accordingly (Lorimer, 2013). Perceptions of coaching efficacy largely depend
upon the frequency of effective coaching behaviors, although the context of the coaching
(e.g., elite performance; youth participation) will dictate which behaviors are most
appropriate within the interpersonal interactions (e.g., positive feedback, correction of
technique; Sullivan, Paquette, Holt & Bloom, 2012). Consequently, situational factors and
athletes’ individual differences will influence coaches’ selection and implementation of
emotion regulation strategies (Thelwell, et al., 2008b). The present chapter set out to identify
the implications of emotions and emotion regulation in sport coaching as well as offer
suggestions for optimizing both. We appreciate that the idiosyncrasies and complexities
underlying sport coaching will test current knowledge; we remain optimistic that the proposed
lines of research identified in this chapter will address a number of important issues in sport
coaching going forward.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPLIED PRACTICE

 Emotions can impact upon physical and cognitive aspects of performance.
 Individual differences related to personality will influence how emotions are
regulated.
 Considering the personality of athletes will assist in regulating emotions and
enhancing coach-athlete relationships.
 Emotion regulation strategies can be used to develop awareness and maintenance of
ideal emotional states for optimal performance and well-being.
REFERENCES
Achtziger, A., Gollwitzer, P. & Sheeran, P. (2008). Implementation intentions and shielding
goal striving from unwanted thoughts and feelings. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34(3), 381.
Aherne, C., Moran, A. P. & Lonsdale, C. (2011). The Effect of Mindfulness Training on
Athletes’ Flow: An Initial Investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 177-189.
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E. & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment:
Observations in the Strange Situation and at home. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Appleton, P. R., Hall, H. K. & Hill, A. P. (2011). Examining the influence of the parent-
initiated and coach-created motivational climates upon athletes' perfectionistic
cognitions. Journal of sports sciences, 29(7), 661-671.
Bernier, M., Thienot, E., Codron, R. & Fournier, J. F. (2009). Mindfulness and Acceptance
Approaches in Sport Performance. Journal of Clinical Sports Psychology, 4, 320-333.
Blecharz, J., Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., Schwarzer, R., Siekanska, M. & Cieslak, R. (2014).
Predicting performance and performance satisfaction: mindfulness and beliefs about the
ability to deal with social barriers in sport. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 27(3), 270-287.
Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N. & Salmela, J. H. (1997). Pre-and postcompetition routines of
expert coaches of team sports. The Sport Psychologist, 11(2), 127-141.
Botterill, C. & Brown, M. (2002). Emotion and perspective in sport. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 33(1), 38-60.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic
Books.
Cameron, L. D. & Nicholls, G. (1998). Expression of stressful experiences through writing:
Effects of a self-regulation manipulation for pessimists and optimists. Health Psychology,
17, 84–92.
Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications, New York:
Guilford.
Côté, J. & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and
expertise. International journal of sports science and coaching, 4(3), 307-323.
Davis, L. & Jowett, S. (2010). Investigating the interpersonal dynamics between coaches and
Psychology, 4(2), 112-132.
Davis, L. & Jowett, S. (2013). Attachment Styles Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 7 (2),
120-145.
Davis, L. & Jowett, S. (2014) Coach-athlete attachment Journal of Sports Sciences, 32 (15),
1454-1464.
Davis, L., Jowett, S. & Lafrenière, M. A. (2013). An attachment Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 35 (2), 156-67.
Davis, P. A., Woodman, T. & Callow, N. (2010). Better out than in: The influence of anger
regulation on physical performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 457-
460.
Davis, P. A. (2011). Angry Athletes: Psychological, Physiological, and Performance
Implications. In J.P. Welty (Ed.) Psychology of Anger: Symptoms, Causes and Coping.
New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Dunn, J. G., Gotwals, J. K., Dunn, J. C. & Syrotuik, D. G. (2006). Examining the relationship
between perfectionism and trait anger in competitive sport. International Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 4(1), 7-24.
Ehrlenspiel, F. (2001). Paralysis by analysis? A functional framework for the effects of
attentional focus on the control of motor skills. European Journal of Sport Science, 1(5),
1-11.
Eysenck, M. W. & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency
theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409-434.
Fletcher, D. & Scott, M. (2010). Psychological stress in sports coaches: A review of concepts,
research, and practice. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(2), 127-137.
Frederick, C. M. & Morrison, C. S. (1999). Collegiate coaches: An examination of
motivational style and its relationship to decision making and personality. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 22(2), 221.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218.
Frey, M. (2007). College coaches’ experiences with stress—“problem solvers” have
problems, too. The Sport Psychologist, 21, 38-57.
Giges, B., Petitpas, A. J. & Vernacchia, R. A. (2004). Helping coaches meet their own needs:
Challenges for the sport psychology consultant. The Sport Psychologist, 18(4), 430-444.
Graybeal, A., Sexton, J. D. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). The role of story-making in
disclosure writing: The psychometrics of narrative. Psychology and Health, 17(5), 571-
581.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences.
Psychophysiology, 39, 281-291.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review
of General Psychology, 2, 271-299.
Gross, J. J. & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation Processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. European Review of
Social Psychology, 4, 141–185.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.
American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.
Gould, D., Eklund, R. C. & Jackson, S. A. (1993). Coping strategies used by US Olympic
wrestlers. Research quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64(1), 83-93.
Grove, J. R., Fish, M. & Eklund, R. C. (2004). Changes in athletic identity following team
selection: Self-protection versus self-enhancement. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 16(1), 75-81.
Gustafsson, H., Davis, P. A., Skoog, T., Kenttä, G. & Harberl, P. (in press). Mindfulness and
its relationship with perceived stress, affect, and burnout in elite junior athletes. Journal
of Clinical Sport Psychology.
Hall, N., Jedlic, B., Munroe-Chandler, K. & Hall, C. (2007). The effects of an education
program on coaches’ encouragement of imagery use. International Journal of Coaching
Science, 1(1), 79-86.
Hanin, Y. L. (1997). Emotions and athletic performance: Individual Zones of Optimal
Functioning model. European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 1, 29-72
Hanin, Y. L. (2000). Successful and poor performance and emotions, In Y. Hanin (Ed.).
Emotions in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hanin, Y. L. (2007). Emotions in sport: Current issues and perspectives. In G. Tenenbaum &
R.C. Eklund (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of Sport Psychology 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons
Harvey, S., Lyle, J. W. B. & Muir, B. (2015). Naturalistic Decision Making in High
Performance Team Sport Coaching. International Sport Coaching Journal, 2 (2), 152-
168.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Mpoumpaki, S. & Theodorakis, Y. (2009). Mechanisms
underlying the self-talk–performance relationship: The effects of motivational self-talk
on self-confidence and anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 186-92.
Haver, A., Akerjordet, K. & Furunes, T. (2013). Emotion Regulation and Its Implications for
Leadership An Integrative Review and Future Research Agenda. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 20(3), 287-303.
Hill, A. P. & Davis, P. A. (2014). Perfectionism and emotion regulation in coaches: A test of
the 2×2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Motivation and Emotion, 38(5), 715-726.
Hofmann, S. G., Ellard, K. K. & Siegle, G. J. (2012). Neurobiological correlates of cognitions
in fear and anxiety: a cognitive–neurobiological information-processing
model. Cognition & Emotion, 26(2), 282-299.
Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A. & Oh, D. (2010). The Effect of Mindfulness-
Based Therapy on Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 169-183.
Hudson, J. & Day, M. C. (2012). Athletes' experiences of expressive writing about sports
stressors. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(6), 798-806.
Isberg, L. (2000). Anger, aggressive behaviour, and athletic performance. In Y. Hanin (Ed.),
Emotions in Sport. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.
Janelle, C. M. (2002). Anxiety, arousal and visual attention: A mechanistic account of
performance variability. Journal of sports sciences, 20 (3), 237-251.
Jiang, D., Edwards, M. G., Mullins, P. & Callow, N. (2015). The neural substrates for the
different modalities of movement imagery. Brain and cognition, 97, 22-31.
Jones, M. V. (2003). Controlling emotions in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 471-486.
Jones, M. V., Mace, R. D., Bray, S. R., MacRae, A. W. & Stockbridge, C. (2002). The impact
of motivational imagery on the emotional state and self-efficacy levels of novice
climbers. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 25(1), 57-73.
Kaufman, K. A., Glass, C. R. & Arnkoff, D. B. (2009). Evaluation of Mindful Sport
Performance Enhancement (MSPE): A New Approach to Promote Flow in
Athletes. Journal of Clinical Sports Psychology, 4, 334-356.
Kafetsios, K., Nezlek, J. B. & Vassilakou, T. (2012). Relationships between leaders' and
subordinates' emotion regulation and satisfaction and affect at work. The Journal of
social psychology, 152(4), 436-457.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are. New York: Hyperion.
Kee, Y. H. & Wang, C. K. J. (2008). Relationships between mindfulness, flow dispositions,
and mental skills adoption: A cluster analytic approach. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 9, 393–411.
Kee, Y. H. & Liu, Y. T. (2011). Effects of dispositional mindfulness on the self-controlled
learning of a novel motor task. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 468–471.
Keegan, R. J., Harwood, C. G., Spray, C. M. & Lavallee, D. E. (2009). A qualitative
investigation exploring the motivational climate in early career sports participants:
Coach, parent and peer influences on sport motivation. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 10(3), 361-372.
Kerr, G. A. & Stirling, A. E. (2012). Parents’ reflections on their child's experiences of
emotionally abusive coaching practices. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24(2),
191-206.
Kerr, G. A. & Stirling, A. E. (2015). Professionalization of coaches to reduce emotionally
harmful coaching practices. International Journal of Coaching Science, 9(1), 21-35.
Knowles, Z. & Gilbourne, D. (2010). Aspiration, Inspiration and Illustration: Initiating
Debate on Reflective Practice Writing. The Sport Psychologist, 24, 504-520.
Knowles, Z., Gilbourne, D., Borrie, A. & Nevill, A. (2001). Developing the reflective sports
coach: A study exploring the processes of reflective practice within a higher education
coaching programme. Reflective Practice, 2(2), 185-207.
Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Cognition
and Emotion, 23(1), 4-41.
Kudlackova, K., Eccles, D. W. & Dieffenbach, K. (2013). Use of relaxation skills in
differentially skilled athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(4), 468-475.
Laborde, S., Dosseville, F. & Raab, M. (2013). Introduction, comprehensive approach, and
vision for the future. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(2), 143-
150.
Lafrenière, M. A. K., Jowett, S., Vallerand, R. J., Donahue, E. G. & Lorimer, R. (2008).
Passion in sport: On the quality of the coach-athlete relationship. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology. 30 (5), 541-560.
Lane, A. M., Beedie, C. J., Devonport, T. J. & Stanley, D. M. (2011). Instrumental emotion
regulation in sport: relationships between beliefs about emotion and emotion regulation
strategies used by athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 21(6),
445-451.
Lane, A. M., Davis, P. A. & Devonport, T. J. (2010). Effects of music interventions on
emotional States and running performance. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 10(2),
400-407.
Lane, A. M. & Terry, P. C. (2000). The nature of mood: Development of a conceptual model
with a focus on depression. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12(1), 16-33.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. In Y.L. Hanin
(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 39–63). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, coping, and adaptation. New York: Springer.
Lee, Y. H., Chelladurai, P. & Kim, Y. (2015). Emotional Labor in Sports Coaching:
Development of a Model. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 10(2),
561-576.
Levy, A., Nicholls, A., Marchant, D. & Polman, R. (2009). Organisational stressors, coping,
and coping effectiveness: A longitudinal study with an elite coach. International Journal
of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(1), 31-45.
Levy, A. R., Nicholls, A. R. & Polman, R. C. J. (2011). Pre‐competitive confidence, coping,
and subjective performance in sport. Scandinavian journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports, 21(5), 721-729.
Liu, Y., Prati, L. M., Perrewé, P. L. & Brymer, R. A. (2010). Individual differences in
emotion regulation, emotional experiences at work, and work‐related outcomes: A
two‐study investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1515-1538.
Lorimer, R. (2013). The development of empathic accuracy in sports coaches. Journal of
Sport Psychology in Action, 4(1), 26-33.
Lundkvist, E., Gustafsson, H., Hjälm, S. & Hassmén, P. (2012). An interpretative
phenomenological analysis of burnout and recovery in elite soccer coaches. Qualitative
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4(3), 400-419.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches' behaviour. Psychology
Press.
Mankad, A. & Gordon, S. (2010). Psycholinguistic changes in athletes’ grief response to
injury after written emotional disclosure. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 19(3), 328-342.
Mankad, A., Gordon, S. & Wallman, K. (2009). Psycholinguistic Analysis of Emotional

Disclosure: A Case Study in Sport Injury. Journal of Clinical Sports Psychology, 3, 182-
196.
McCarthy, P. J. (2011). Enhancing positive emotions in sport. In D. Lavallee, J. Thatcher, &
M. V. Jones (Eds.). Coping and Emotion in Sport. London Routledge.
Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S. & Thomas, O. (2009). The effects of a motivational general-
arousal imagery intervention upon preperformance symptoms in male rugby union
players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 175-185.
Mellalieu, S. D., Neil, R., Hanton, S. & Fletcher, D. (2009). Competition stress in sport
performers: Stressors experienced in the competition environment. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 27(7), 729-744.
Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and
change. New York: Guilford Press.
Milne, S., Orbell, S. & Sheeran, P. (2002). Combining motivational and volitional
interventions to promote exercise participation: Protection motivation theory and
implementation intentions. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7(2), 163-184.
Moore, Z. E. & Gardner, L. F. (2011). Understanding models of performance enhancement
from the perspective of emotion regulation. Athletic insight: The Online Journal of Sport
Psychology, 13 (3).
Nelson, L., Potrac, P., Gilbourne, D., Allanson, A., Gale, L. & Marshall, P. (2013). Thinking,
feeling, acting: The case of a semi-professional soccer coach. Sociology of sport
journal, 30(4), 467-486.
Noteboom, J. T., Fleshner, M. & Enoka, R. M. (2001). Activation of the arousal response can
impair performance on a simple motor task. Journal of Applied Physiology, 91(2), 821-
831.
Olusoga, P., Butt, J., Hays, K. & Maynard, I. (2009). Stress in elite sports coaching:
Identifying stressors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 442-459.
Olusoga, P., Butt, J., Maynard, I. & Hays, K. (2010). Stress and coping: A study of world
class coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(3), 274-293.
Omli, J. & LaVoi, N. M. (2009). Background anger in youth sport: A perfect storm. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 32(2), 242-260.
Parfitt, G., Hardy, L. & Pates, J. (1995). Somatic anxiety and physiological arousal: their
effects upon a high anaerobic, low memory demand task. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 26(2), 196-213.
Parfitt, G., Jones, G. & Hardy, L. (1990). Multidimensional anxiety and performance. In G.
Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport. New York: Wiley.
Pennebaker, J.W. (1989). Confession, inhibition, and disease. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press
Pennebaker, J. W. & Chung, C. K. (2007). Expressive writing, emotional upheavals, and
health. Foundations of health psychology, 263-284.
Pennebaker, J. W. & Francis, M. E. (1996). Cognitive, emotional, and language processes in
disclosure. Cognition & Emotion, 10(6), 601-626.
Pennebaker, J. W. & Seagal, J. D. (1999). Forming a story: The health benefits of
narrative. Journal of clinical psychology, 55(10), 1243-1254.
Perkins, D., Wilson, G. V. & Kerr, J. H. (2001). The effects of elevated arousal and mood on
maximal strength performance in athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(3),
239-259.
Petrie, K. J., Fontanilla, I., Thomas, M. G., Booth, R. J. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Effect of
written emotional expression on immune function in patients with human
immunodeficiency virus infection: a randomized trial. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(2),
272-275.
Pineau, T. R., Glass, C. R., Kaufman, K. A. & Bernal, D. R. (2014). Self-and team-efficacy
beliefs of rowers and their relation to mindfulness and flow. Journal of Clinical Sport
Psychology, 8(2), 142-158.
Ravizza, K. & Osborne, T. (1991). Nebraska's 3 R's: One-play-at-a-time preperformance
routine for collegiate football. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 256-265.
Rees, T., Haslam, S. A., Coffee, P. & Lavallee, D. (2015). A Social Identity Approach to
Sport Psychology: Principles, Practice, and Prospects. Sports Medicine, 45(8), 1083-
1096.
Richards, J. M. & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion Regulation and Memory: The Cognitive Costs
of Keeping One's Cool. Journal of Personality, 79(3), 410-424.
Richert, A. J. (2006). Narrative psychology and psychotherapy integration. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 16, 84–110.
Robazza, C. & Bortoli, L. (2007). Perceived impact of anger and anxiety on sporting
performance in rugby players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(6), 875-896.
Robazza, C., Pellizzari, M. & Hanin, Y. (2004). Emotion self-regulation and athletic
performance: An application of the IZOF model. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5,
379–404.
Rogerson, L. J. & Hrycaiko, D. W. (2002). Enhancing competitive performance of ice hockey
goaltenders using centering and self-talk. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(1), 14-
26.
Rolls, E. T. (2013). Emotion and decision-making explained. Oxford University Press.
Ross-Stewart, L., Short, S. E. & Kelling, M. (2014). Characteristics Affecting How College
Basketball Coaches Advise Their Athletes to Use Imagery. International Journal of
Ruiz, M. C. & Hanin, Y. L. (2011). Perceived impact of anger on performance of skilled
karate athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 242-249.
Short, S. E., Smiley, M. & Ross-Stewart, L. (2005). The relationship between efficacy beliefs
and imagery use in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 19(4), 380-394.
Simpson, J. A., Collins, A., Tran, S. & Hayden, K.C. (2007). Attachment and the experiences
and expression of emotions in romantic relationships. A developmental perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (2), 355-367
Smith, A., Ntoumanis, N. & Duda, J. (2010). An investigation of coach behaviors, goal
motives, and implementation intentions as predictors of well-being in sport. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 22(1), 17-33.
Smits, D. J. & De Boeck, P. (2007). From anger to verbal aggression: Inhibition at different
levels. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 47–57.
Smits, D. J., De Boeck, P. & Vansteelandt, K. (2004). The inhibition of verbally aggressive
behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 18, 537–555.
Smits, D. J. & Kuppens, P. (2005). The relations between anger, coping with anger, and
aggression, and the BIS/BAS system. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 783–
793.
Spielberger, C. D. (1999). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, J. S. & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The
State-Trait Anger Scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in
personality assessment. London: Wiley.
Stirling, A. (2013). Understanding the use of emotionally abusive coaching
practices. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 8(4), 625-640.
Stirling, A. E. & Kerr, G. A. (2013). The perceived effects of elite athletes' experiences of
emotional abuse in the coach–athlete relationship. International journal of sport and
exercise psychology, 11(1), 87-100.
Sullivan, P., Paquette, K. J., Holt, N. L. & Bloom, G. A. (2012). The Relation of Coaching
Context and Coach Education to Coaching Efficacy and Perceived Leadership Behaviors
in Youth Sport. The Sport Psychologist, 26, 122-134.
Tamir, M. (2009). What do people want to feel and why? Pleasure and utility in emotion
regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 101-105.
Tamminen, K. A. & Crocker, P. R. (2013). “I control my own emotions for the sake of the
team”: Emotional self-regulation and interpersonal emotion regulation among female
high-performance curlers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(5), 737-747.
Thelwell, R. C., Lane, A. M., Weston, N. J. & Greenlees, I. A. (2008). Examining
relationships between emotional intelligence and coaching efficacy. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(2), 224-235.
Thelwell, R. C., Weston, N. J., Greenlees, I. A. & Hutchings, N. V. (2008a). Stressors in elite
sport: A coach perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(9), 905-918.
Thelwell, R. C., Weston, N. J., Greenlees, I. A. & Hutchings, N. V. (2008b). A qualitative
exploration of psychological-skills use in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 38-53.
Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A. & Chroni, S. (2008). Self-talk: It works, but how?
Development and preliminary validation of the functions of self-talk
questionnaire. Measurement in Physical education and exercise Science, 12(1), 10-30.
Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: mood linkage and subjective
performance in professional sport teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 848.
Uphill, M. A., Lane, A. M. & Jones, M. V. (2012). Emotion Regulation Questionnaire for use
with athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(6), 761-770.
Wagstaff, C. (2014). Emotion regulation and sport performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 36(4), 401-412.
Wagstaff, C. R. D., Hanton, S. & Fletcher, D (2013). Developing emotion. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 14(4), 476-487
Williams, S. E. & Cumming, J. (2012). Challenge vs. threat: Investigating the effect of using
imagery to manipulate stress appraisal of a dart throwing task. Sport & Exercise
Psychology Review, 8(1), 4-21.
Woodcock, C., Cumming, J., Duda, J. L. & Sharp, L (2012). Working within an Individual
Zone of Optimal Functioning (IZOF) framework: Consultant practice and athlete
reflections on refining emotion. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 291-302.
Woodman, T. & Davis, P.A. (2008). The role of repression in the incidence of ironic errors.
The Sport Psychologist, 22,183-196.
Woodman, T., Davis, P.A., Hardy, L., Callow, N., Glasscock, I. & Yuill-Proctor, J. (2009).
Emotions and sport performance: An exploration of happiness, hope and anger. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 169-188.
Woodman, T. & Hardy, L. (2001). Stress and anxiety. In R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, &
C.M. Janelle (Eds.), The Handbook of Sport Psychology. New York: Wiley.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

University in the United Kingdom. His research focuses on emotions, personality and
interpersonal relationships in sport, exercise and health.
Dr Louise Davis is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sport, Exercise and

Rehabilitation at Northumbria University in the United Kingdom. Her research and teaching
interests focus on the social psychology of coaching with particular interest in exploring
interpersonal relationships, emotions in coaching, mentoring, and leadership as well as the
role of individual differences.
Chapter 16
THE USE OF SELF-TALK IN THE ORGANIZATION OF

A LESSON IN SPORT, PHYSICAL EDUCATION
AND EXERCISE SETTINGS
Nikos Zourbanos1,*, Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis1,

Athanasios Kolovelonis1, Alexander T. Latinjak2
and Yannis Theodorakis1
1
University of Thessaly, Greece
2
Universitat de Girona, Catalonia, Spain
ABSTRACT
Self-talk strategies involve the use of cue words aiming at facilitating learning and
enhancing performance through the activation of appropriate responses. Extensive
research of the effectiveness of self-talk strategies has been documented in sport literature
including meta-analyses, reviews, book chapters, and experimental research.
Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos, Latinjak, & Theodorakis (2014) recommended the use of
what they call the IMPACT (Identify, Match, Practice, Ascertain, Create, Train) approach
for the application of self-talk strategies in sport. In light of these considerations, the
central aim of this chapter is to: (a) provide an understanding of the IMPACT; and (b)
present specific training/lesson plans that include the self-talk strategy not only in sport
but also in physical education and exercise settings. The chapter begins with a definition
of self-talk and a brief literature review of the latest findings for the effectiveness of self-
talk in sport, physical education, and exercise. Finally, issues and suggestions pertaining
to the implementation of effective self-talk interventions are offered.
Keywords: Self-talk, education, coaching, intervention
*
Corresponding Author address: Email:nzourba@pe.uth.gr.
308 Nikos Zourbanos, Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis, Athanasios Kolovelonis et al.
INTRODUCTION
Hardy and Zourbanos (in press) described self-talk as statements, phrases or cue words
that are addressed to the self which might be said automatically or very strategically, either
out loud or silently, phrased positively or negatively, having an instructional or motivational
purpose, an element of interpretation, and incorporating some of the same grammatical
features associated with every day speech. The self-talk strategy has been receiving
increasing research attention the last 20 years. Recently, a meta-analysis (Hatzigeorgiadis,
Zourbanos, Galanis, & Theodorakis, 2011) identified an effect size of 0.48 addressing the
effectiveness of self-talk for learning and performance enhancement. At the beginning, the
self-talk literature focused on the investigation of the effects of positive and negative self-talk
on performance (for more details see, Van Raalte, 2010) and the last 15 years on the
comparison of instructional and motivational self-talk under different situations and different
tasks, testing the task-demand oriented matching hypothesis (for more details see,
Theodorakis, Hatzigeorgiadis, & Zourbanos, 2012; Theodorakis, Weinberg, Natsis, Douma,
& Kazakas, 2000). However, reviewing the current self-talk literature, it seems that self-talk
interventions on performance in sport, physical education and exercise settings are sparse
(Hatzigeorgiadis, Galanis, Zourbanos, & Theodorakis, 2014). Hatzigeorgiadis, Zourbanos,
Latinjak, and Theodorakis (2014) recommended the use of what they called the IMPACT
self-talk (Identify, Match, Practice, Ascertain, Create, Train) approach for the application of
self-talk interventions in sport. Thus, the purpose of the present chapter is to describe, to
develop, and implement, based on IMPACT principles, self-talk plans in sport, physical
education, and exercise settings. Finally, applied guidelines to coaches, physical education
teachers, and personal trainers will be provided.
Instructional and Motivation Self-Talk Cue-Words
As stated above, the more contemporary conceptualization of the different types of self-
talk is the distinction between instructional and motivational self-talk. This distinction has
mainly focused on the comparison of instructional and motivational self-talk with different
tasks trying to investigate which self-talk cues should be more appropriate for specific tasks.
The matching hypothesis assumes, that for tasks requiring fine motor control (e.g., dart
throwing, golf putting) instructional self-talk should be more effective than motivational self-
talk, since instructional self-talk increases the execution of the desired movement pattern
through proper attentional focus. Whereas for tasks requiring strength or endurance (e.g.,
weight lifting, marathon running), motivational self-talk should be more effective than
instructional self-talk as motivational self-talk increases endurance and strength through the
optimal shaping of arousal and positive mood. But what do instructional and motivational
self-talk mean? Instructional self-talk refers to statements or cue-words, that the athlete repeat
to himself/herself, which relate to attentional focus (e.g., focus on the ball), technical
information (e.g., bend your knees), and tactical choices (e.g., always hit the ball on the right
side of the pitch), whereas motivational self-talk refers to statements or cue-words, that the
athlete repeat to himself/herself, which relate to confidence building (e.g., I am the best),
effort input (e.g., try harder) and positive moods (e.g., stay relaxed). Overall, despite the
The Use of Self-Talk in the Organization of a Lesson in Sport … 309
differences identified in the literature based on the matching hypothesis (for review see Hardy
& Zourbanos, in press), the assumptions of the matching hypothesis have received reasonable
support. The self-talk plans, which will be described below, use mainly instructional and
motivational cue-words to enhance learning and task performance.
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SELF-TALK PLAN IN SPORT

Description of IMPACT
In sport literature, research has examined the effects of different self-talk interventions on
task performance using different samples ranging from pre-test post-test to one-week or
multi-week designs. Hatzigeorgiadis et al. (2014) in an attempt to develop guidelines for
effective self-talk plans introduced the IMPACT. In this acronym, each letter represents a
step. In each step, specific directions are given to the coach or athlete in order to implement
the self-talk plan. Specifically, they suggested that in step 1(I) and step 2(M), the coach
together with the athlete should Identify what they want to achieve during training and Match
the appropriate self-talk cues (e.g., instructional or motivational) to athletes’ needs and motor
demands of the task. In this phase the coach should give a short lecture of what self-talk is
and how facilitates performance. Furthermore, it should be made clear that different self-talk
cues activate appropriate functions and produce different results. This means for example,
that by using a motivational self-talk cue such as “strong” would be more effective in
increasing physical effort, rather than using an instructional self-talk such as “focus” which
would be more appropriate for concentration enhancement. In step 3(P) the athlete should
Practice with consistency different motivational, instructional, or kinesthetic self-talk cues. In
this step a list of brief cue words should be developed. In step 4(A) should Ascertain which
cues work best. In step 5(C) they should Create the self-talk plan that matches better with the
motor demands of the drill and in step 6(T) should Train as much as he or she can.
Self-Talk Intervention in Sport
The self-talk plan presented describes how self-talk can be used to enhance athletes’
learning and performance in tennis. First, the aims of the intervention and the expected
learning outcomes are presented. Next, the settings of applying the intervention (including
task, materials, and drills used) and the framework for its design are described. The detailed
description of the intervention follows below.
Aims of the Self-Talk Plan
The aim of the specific self-talk plan is to teach athletes: (a) the forehand drive and (b)
how to use the self-talk technique to enhance learning and performance. In particular, after
the end of the intervention athletes will be able to execute correctly the forehand drive (i.e.,
preparation phase, swing, and follow-through).
Settings and Equipment
The intervention consists of a 45-minute tennis lesson designed for 14 years old athletes,
who are beginners in tennis. Regular tennis facilities and equipment are required (e.g., tennis
court, racquet, and balls).
Design of the Self-Talk Plan
The design of the intervention was based on the IMPACT process (Hatzigeorgiadis et al.,
2014). On the first day, after the regular training, the coach identified the aims of the self-talk
intervention together with the athlete. The coach will inform the athlete that the self-talk
strategy will improve his/her technique and performance. Taking into consideration the
matching hypothesis the coach will explain what self-talk is and more specifically which type
of self-talk (instructional and motivational) would match best to forehand-drive and together
with the athlete will chose cue-words for each phase of the execution of forehand drive.
The second day of the intervention, the athlete will apply all cue-words during five
repetitions of each phase of forehand drive. Once the training will finish, the coach and the
athlete will discuss about the cue-words, and which self-talk cues worked best for the athlete,
in terms of simplicity and effects on performance. Finally, the third day of the intervention,
the athlete will apply the chosen cue-word in each phase, and together with the coach will
design a self-talk plan for the complete motion of the forehand drive. Once they will design
the plan, the coach will highlight the strength and weaknesses of their plan, suggested
possible improvements and advanced hypothetical difficulties they might encounter in the
future.
Description of the Self-Talk Plan
Teaching the Forehand Drive

Athletes are provided with short oral instructions regarding the basic phases (preparation,
swing, and follow-through) of the forehand-drive and some information regarding the grip
that will be used. Then, the coach models each of the phases and simultaneously repeats their
basic elements.
First Practice Phase (Identify)

For the next five minutes, athletes practice each of the phases. Athletes are asked to focus
during their practice on two basic elements of each phase (i.e., phase 2: swing: up and then
down loop with the racket head, early contact) and the coach provides them with feedback
regarding their performance in these two elements for each phase. The feedback includes
affirmative responses for the correct technique, positive enhancement and reminders
regarding the proper execution of the phase. After this first practice phase teacher introduces
students to self-talk technique.
Teaching Self-Talk (Match and Practice)

Students are instructed how to use the instructional self-talk during their practice in
forehand drive. First, the coach explains shortly what self-talk is and how it can help athletes
in training but also in competition. Next, the teacher presents the two cue-words that students
should use during phase 1: preparation of the forehand drive (i.e., “step” and “grip”). Athletes
are instructed to repeat these words during practice (i.e., just before the execution of the
motion) to remind themselves the correct performance of the two basic elements of the
preparation phase. Then, the coach models the use of self-talk during the preparation phase.
Here, it has to be noticed that the same procedure has to be done for the other 2 phases of the
forehand, the 2nd phase: swing, and the 3rd phase: follow-through.
Second Practice Phase (Ascertain)

Athletes practice the preparation phase for 10 minutes using the selected key words. First,
they are asked to focus on quick crossover (shuffle step) and to use the key word “step” to
remind themselves this motion. Next, they are asked to focus on the grip and to use the key
word “grip.” Finally, athletes practice the preparation phase focusing in both these basic
elements and using the combination of the key words (i.e., “step” - “grip”). During practice
athletes are prompted to use self-talk. Moreover, the teacher provides students with feedback
regarding both forehand performance and the use of self-talk (e.g., “Great! You hold correctly
the grip. The use of key word “grip” help you to improve your skill”).
Third Practice Phase (Create and Train)

In the third practice phase (6-8 minutes), athletes practice the 1st phase of forehand
focusing on improving their accuracy of catching the ball. To practice footwork, start with
one-bounce catch. One athlete tosses to another athlete 10 balls so that they bounce to the
right and left side of the other athlete. The athlete has to take a crossover step, move quickly,
and catch the ball with one hand (the dominant hand) before it bounces a second time. They
are instructed to use the key word “ball” to help themselves to focus on the ball and observe
the coach to model a one-bounce catch using this key word. Then, they practice using self-
talk to improve their accuracy in catching the ball.
Modified Forehand Short Game

Students play for 10 minutes a modified forehand short game (i.e., play a 10-point game
against a partner using only forehands. Any ball hit hard or that bounces outside the service
court is out of play). In particular, the players will be advised to put the ball into play with
soft forehand drives. Furthermore, will be advised to use cue words such “quick” to recover
quickly as there will not be much time to fully swing the racket back or “corner” to place the
ball in the corners of the service courts.
Stretching
During the cool down/stretching period the coach asks some questions regarding the self-
talk strategy. Examples of reflection questions regarding self-talk are the following: a) what is
self-talk? b) did self-talk help you to learn the chest pass? c) how did self-talk help you?
Final Notes
Other examples for tennis are provided below (see Table 1). Finally, in Table 2, complete
the following form (where applicable). Ask the coach(es) you work with, to do the same and
discuss.
Table 1. The use of self-talk for performance enhancement in tennis
Performance Aspect Example Target Example Trigger (cue-words)

Technique To stay low ‘knees,’ ‘low’
Strategy Serve and volley ‘hit and run,’ ‘net’
Concentration Not to think forward ‘watch the ball,’ ‘focus’
Motivation To keep/enhance motivation ‘keep on,’ ‘getting there’
Confidence To reinforce oneself for a good ball ‘YES,’ ‘great’
Arousal control To remain calm ‘calm,’ ‘control’
Table 2. Complete the following form in collaboration with your coach. SPORT …
Performance Aspect Example Target Example Trigger

Technique
Strategy
Concentration
Motivation
Confidence
Arousal control
Other (specify)
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SELF-TALK PLAN IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Self-Talk Research in Physical Education
Self-talk research in physical education settings is generally limited (e.g., Zourbanos,

2013). In an early study, Anderson, Vogel, and Albrecht (1999) found that third grade
students who practiced overhand throw using instructional self-talk improved their
performance more than students who were taught with a traditional strategy (including
demonstration, skill instruction and feedback) and students who were taught with a
demonstration only strategy. Kolovelonis, Goudas, & Dermitzaki (2011) examined the effects
of instructional and motivational self-talk on fifth and sixth grade students’ performance in a
basketball chest pass and in a modified push-ups test. They found that students who used self-
talk surpassed those who did not. Instructional and motivational self-talk were equally
effective regarding performance in a basketball chest pass test, but motivational self-talk was
more effective compared to instructional self-talk in a modified push-ups test. Recently,
Zourbanos, Hatzigeorgiadis, Bardas, and Theodorakis (2013b) examined the effects of
instructional and motivational self-talk on the overarm throw with the nondominant arm
(novel task) and on the overarm throw with the nondominant arm (learned task) in handball.
They found that students who used either the instructional or the motivational self-talk
surpassed control group students. However, the use of instructional self-talk was more
beneficial at the early stages of learning the novel task compared to motivational self-talk.
Thus, the demands of the task and students level of learning should be considered when
physical educators select the most appropriate types of self-talk. Moreover, Kolovelonis,
Goudas, and Dermitzaki (2012) examined the combined effects of goal setting and
instructional self-talk on students’ dart-throwing performance. They found that elementary
students who combined self-talk with goal setting outperformed students who used only goal
setting and control group students. In another study, Zourbanos, Hatzigeorgiadis, Bardas, and
Theodorakis (2013a) examined the effects of a self-talk training program on elementary
students’ performance in a soccer shooting task. They found that students who used
instructional self-talk outperformed control group students.
Self-Talk Intervention in Physical Education
The self-talk intervention presented next describes how self-talk can be used to enhance
students’ learning and performance in physical education settings. First, the aims of the
intervention and the expected learning outcomes are presented. Next, the settings of applying
the intervention (including task, materials and drills used) and the framework for its design
are described. The detailed description of the intervention follows.
The aim of the self-talk plan is to teach students: (a) the basketball chest pass and (b) how
to use the self-talk technique to enhance their learning and performance. In particular, after
the end of the intervention students will be able to execute correctly two basic elements of the
basketball chest pass (i.e., to stretch their elbows and to step forward during the pass), to
perform chest pass accurately, and to use self-talk to enhance their learning and performance.
Settings and Equipment
The intervention consists of a 45-minute physical education lesson designed for fifth
grade students who are beginners in basketball. Regular school sport facilities and equipments
are required (e.g., an open basketball court and size 5 basketballs). Students practice the chest
pass in pairs. Moreover, passing against a wall can be used.
The design of the intervention including the structure of the practice, the implementation
of self-talk, and the selection of the appropriate key words, is based on the IMPACT process
(Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2014) and the self-regulated learning model of teaching sport skills
(Goudas, Kolovelonis, & Dermitzaki, 2013). In particular, students’ practice in chest pass is
expanded in three consecutive phases. The first phase includes modeling and practice with
feedback. The second phase includes practice with process goals (i.e., stretch elbows and step
forward) and the use of instructional self-talk, which is the most appropriate form of self-talk
to help students achieve these goals. In particular, the key words “step” and “stretch” are
selected (Identify and Match) to help students’ focus on stepping forward and stretching their
elbows during chest pass, respectively. The third phase includes practice with performance
goal (i.e., chest pass accuracy) and use of self-talk (Practice). In this phase, emphasis is given
in the accuracy of the chest pass. Thus, the key word “target” is selected to help students
focus their attention on the target of the pass (Ascertain, Create and Train).
Introduction and Warm-Up

Students are informed about the aims of the lesson and then they warm up (using
dribbling back and forth) and stretch their muscles for 4 minutes.
Teaching the Chest Pass

Students are provided with short oral instructions regarding the basic elements of the
chest pass. Then, the teacher models the chest pass and simultaneously repeats its basic
elements.
First Practice Phase (Identify)

For the next five minutes, students practice the chest pass in pairs. Students are asked to
focus during their practice on the two basic elements of the chest pass (i.e., to stretch their
elbows and to step forward during the pass) and their teacher provides them with feedback
regarding their performance in these two elements. The feedback includes affirmative
responses for the correct performance, positive enhancement and reminders regarding the
proper execution of the skill. After this first practice phase teacher introduce students to self-
talk technique.
Teaching Self-Talk (Match and Practice)

Students are instructed how to use the instructional self-talk during their practice in chest
pass. First, the teacher explains shortly what self-talk is and how it can help students during
their practice. Next, the teacher presents the two key-words that students should use during
practice (i.e., “stretch” and “step”). Students are instructed to repeat these words during
practice (i.e., just before the execution of the motion) to remind themselves the correct
performance of the two basic elements of the chest pass. Then, the teacher models the use of
self-talk during chest pass.
Second Practice Phase (Ascertain)

Students practice the chest pass for 10 minutes using the selected key words. First, they
are asked to focus on stepping forward during chest pass and to use the key word “step” to
remind themselves this motion. Next, they are asked to focus on stretching their elbows
during chest pass and to use the key word “stretch.” Finally, students practice the chest pass
focusing in both basic chest pass elements and using the combination of the key words (i.e.,
“step” - “stretch”). During practice students are prompted to use self-talk. Moreover, the
teacher provides students with feedback regarding both chest pass performance and the use of
self-talk and attributes the improvements in performance in self-talk use (e.g., “Great! You
step forward during chest pass. The use of key word “step” help you to improve your skill”).
Third Practice Phase (Create and Train)

In the third practice phase (6-8 minutes), students practice chest pass focusing on
improving their accuracy. They are passing against a wall trying to hit a 30-cm circle fitted in
a 1.20 m height. They are instructed to use the key word “target” to help themselves to focus
on the target and observe teacher to model a chest pass using this key word. Then, they
practice using self-talk to improve their accuracy in chest pass.
Modified Basketball Game

Students play for 10 minutes a modified basketball game (i.e., 3 x 3). In particular, only
chest passes are used, dribbling is not allowed. Defense on the player with the ball is allowed
from distance more than one meter. Moreover, in each offence a different student should
make the shot.
Closure
In the last three minutes of the intervention students are stretching their muscles and
teacher asks them reflection questions about what they have learned during the lesson.
Examples of reflection questions regarding self-talk are the following: a) what is self-talk? b)
did self-talk help you to learn the chest pass? c) how did self-talk help you? d) where else
self-talk can be used? Can you give me an example?
Final Notes
This intervention can be adopted for teaching other sport skills too. Moreover, in the case
of more complex skills the intervention can be expanded in more than one lesson. Finally, it
has to be noticed that the duration of the self-talk plans mainly depend on the aims of the
plan, the number of athletes, the number of tasks, and the duration of the training session.
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SELF-TALK PLAN IN

THE EXERCISE SETTINGS
Hardy and Zourbanos (in press) stressed the necessity to develop self-talk plans in
exercise settings, which may influence exercisers’ motivation or the lack of it. However, it is
surprising how little attention has been given to self-talk in exercise settings (for more details
see Hardy & Zourbanos, in press). While the sporting experience can serve as a guideline
(e.g., Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2014) the application of a self-talk plan in recreational exercisers
can differ from that of athletes. What follows now, is a self-talk intervention used in exercise
settings and more specifically in the gym aimed at improving technique in unfamiliar tasks,
and performance in previously learned tasks. In line with the previous example, first, the
purposes of the intervention and the expected outcomes are presented. What follows is a
description of the context, in which the intervention was applied, and the necessary steps for
its design and implementation.
The purpose of this intervention is two folded. Regarding the recreational exerciser, the
use of strategic self-talk is aimed at improving his/her technique in the squat task (i.e., lifting
a bar in a standing position) and his/her performance in a bench press task (i.e., lifting a bar
with the back resting on a bench). Specifically, in the former task, the exerciser learns to keep
his/her back straight when lifting the bar, and in the latter, he manages to lift more weight
under the same circumstance than before, and without increasing physical exhaustion.
Regarding the fitness instructor, the purpose is to teach him/her how to use self-talk in
exercise settings in a broad variety of tasks.
Settings
The intervention will be applied across three workout sessions in three consecutive days.
The first day, once the regular session of the exerciser is finished, the intervention is designed
together with the instructor and the exerciser. The second day, the intervention is first applied
and the cue-words are reviewed. The third day, the modified cue-words are applied and the
fitness instructor designs a new self-talk plan for a third task.
Each day, the exerciser performs five repetitions of both tasks, which are imbedded in a
wider workout schedule. The squat task is something new in the exerciser’s schedule, as it has
only been applied three times previous to the intervention, whereas the bench press task has
been on his/her schedule for over five month.
The design of the intervention including the structure of the practice, the implementation
of self-talk, and the selection of the appropriate key words, are based on the IMPACT process
(Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2014). On the first day, after the regular workout, the fitness instructor
identifies the aims of the intervention together with the exerciser. The instructor notices to the
exerciser that the self-talk strategy will improve his/her technique, not only to enhance
performance but, most importantly, to prevent injuries. Taking into consideration the
matching hypothesis (for review see, Hardy & Zourbanos in press; Theodorakis et al., 2012),
the fitness instructor explains which type of self-talk (instructional and motivational) will
match best to each task and together with the exerciser will chose two cue-words for each
task.
The second day of the intervention, the exerciser applies all cue-words during the five
repetitions of the two-targeted tasks. Once the workout has finished, the instructor and the
exerciser discuss about the cue-words, and which have shown to workout best for the
exerciser, in terms of simplicity and effects on performance. Finally, the third day of the
intervention, the exerciser applies the chosen cue-word in each task, and the instructor design
together with the athlete, a self-talk plan for a third task. Once they have designed the plan,
the fitness instructor highlights the strength and weaknesses of their plan, suggests possible
improvements and advanced hypothetical difficulties they might encounter in the future.
Day 1: Evaluation and Design (Identify and Match)

Once the workout on day 1 has finished, the exerciser and the fitness instructor meet for a
brief discussion about the workout session. They agree on the squad and bench press tasks as
targets for the self-talk intervention. The squad task requires technical refinement from the
exerciser, and hence an instructional strategy is chosen. Specifically, the exerciser and
instructor chose two possible cue-words: “back” and “straight.” In regard to the bench press
task, the purpose of the intervention is to liberate additional power and to overcome fatigue.
Hence, a motivational strategy is chosen. Specifically, the instructor and the exerciser agree
upon two cue-words: “strong” and “push.”
Day 2: Practice Different Self-Talk Cues and Decide Which Work Best (Practice and
Ascertain)
On the second day of the intervention, the exerciser uses all four cue-words. First, he/she
performs the squad task and later the bench-press task. Before each task, the fitness instructor
reminds the exerciser about his/her cue-words. Additionally, the exerciser is told to say out
loud or internally the words. Moreover, the exerciser is told to use the natural breathing out,
when he/she lifts the weight to say the words. Hence, the self-talk will not disrupt the
breathing. During the five repetitions the exerciser changes from one cue-word to the other,
and after the workout session, he/she is asked about the difficulty and perceived effects of
each one. Finally, both the exerciser and the instructor chose “straight,” for the squad task,
and “push,” for the bench press task.
Day 3: Design a New Self-Talk Plan (Create and Train)

The third day of the intervention the exerciser uses his/her cue-words in the squad and
bench press task. Moreover, the instructor and the exerciser meet after the session to discuss
the application of the intervention in a third task. They reviewed together the proposal and
offer a series of suggestions and hints in regard to the intervention.
CONCLUSION
Hatzigeorgiadis et al. (2011) addressed the effectiveness of self-talk for facilitating
learning and enhancing performance. However, although in sport settings, research on the
application of the self-talk strategy has proven its effectiveness (e.g., Hatzigeorgiadis et al.,
2014) in other areas such as physical education and exercise settings is underdeveloped
(Hardy & Zourbanos, in press). The application of the self-talk strategy is not the easiest thing
to do. Thus, coaches, physical education teachers, and fitness instructors need to take into
consideration the IMPACT process for developing self-talk plan and some additional basic
rules. Firstly, the coach or the physical education teacher must identify together with the
athlete or student what they want to achieve with the use of self-talk. Then, the matching
principles should be taken into consideration (the best possible self-talk cue for the specific
situation or task). Regarding cue-words, the cue-words have to be short and simple.
Moreover, some cue-words should be used during task execution, but others might be used
before if they refer to general concentration or procedures. Lastly, cue-words should be
extensively practiced. Furthermore, some cue-words might need revision after some time,
either because the athlete/student/exerciser will get used to repeating the words without
paying attention to their content, or because his/her needs will change over time and a new
purpose of the intervention will be necessary. Coaches should also remember that the use of
instructional self-talk when teaching new skills to students is preferable. During competition
motivational self-talk could be more beneficial than instructional self-talk. Furthermore, the
use of self-talk for relaxation and concentration (e.g., calm, see the ball), when there is time to
execute a task (for example penalty in football or service in tennis), is preferable.
Finally, coaches, fitness instructors, and physical education teachers should persuade
their athletes, exercisers, and students that self-talk will work only if they believe in it and if
they will take control over their cue-words, which in turn will influence their performance
and learning. Most importantly, make a self-talk plan together with them, combining self-talk
cues depending on each individual’s needs.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPLIED PRACTICE

 Identify which aspects of performance or technique you want to achieve.
 Match self-talk to individuals’ needs.
 Practice different cue-words (e.g., motivational, instructional, and combination of
both).
 Ascertain which type of self-talk works best for individual’s needs.
 Create specific self-talk plans taking into consideration all the above.
 Train self-talk plans as much as you can during training but also during competition.
KEY RESEARCH POINTS

 Develop self-talk plans in physical education settings for different age groups.
 Develop self-talk plans in exercise settings for the improvement of healthy behaviors.
 Develop self-talk plans for the development of life skills.
 Develop self-talk plans using different combinations of self-talk cues.
REFERENCES
Anderson, A., Vogel, P., & Albrecht, R. (1999). The effect of instructional self-talk on the
overhand throw. Physical Educator, 56, 215-221.
Goudas, M., Kolovelonis, A., & Dermitzaki, I. (2013). Implementation of self-regulation
interventions in physical education and sports contexts. In Bembenutty, H., Cleary, T., &
Kitsantas, A. (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A
tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 383-415). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Hardy, J., & Zourbanos, N. (in press). Self-talk in sport. In R. Shinke, K. McGannon, & B.
Smith. (Eds.).The Routledge International Handbook of Sport Psychology. Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Galanis, V., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2014) A Self-talk
Intervention for Competitive Sport Performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology.
26(1), 82-95, DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2013.790095
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Galanis, E., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). Self-talk and
sports performance: A meta-analysis. Perspectives οn Psychological Science, 6, 348-356.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Latinjak, A., & Theodorakis, Y. (2014). Self-talk. In A.
Papaioannou & D. Hackfort: Routledge to Sport and Exercise Psychology. Global
Perspectives and Fundamental Concepts, (pp. 372-385). London. Taylor & Francis.
Kolovelonis, A.,Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2011). The effects of instructional and
motivational self-talk on students’ motor task performance in physical education.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 153-158.
Kolovelonis, A.,Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2012).The effects of self-talk and goal setting
on self-regulation of learning a new motor skill in physical education.International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,10, 221-235.
Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Zourbanos, N. (2012). Cognitions: Self-talk and
Performance. In S. Murphy (Ed.), Oxford handbook of sport and performance
psychology. Part two: Individual psychological processes in performance (pp. 191-212).
New York. Oxford University Press.
Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, I., & Kazakas, P. (2000). The effects of
motivational versus instructional self-talk on improving motor performance. The Sport
Psychologist, 14, 253-272.
Van Raalte, J. L. (2010). Self-talk. In S. Hanrahan & M. B. Andersen (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of applied sport psychology (pp. 510-517). New York: Routledge.
Zourbanos, N. (2013). The use of instructional and motivational self-talk in setting up a
physical education lesson. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(8),
54-58, DOI: 10.1080/07303084.2013.827555
Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Bardas, D., &Theodorakis, Y. (2013a). The effects of a
self-talk intervention on elementary students’ motor task performance. Early Child
Development and Care, 183, 924-930.
Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Bardas, D., &Theodorakis, Y. (2013b). The effects of
self-talk on dominant and non-dominant arm performance on a handball task in primary
physical education students. The Sport Psychologist, 27, 171-176.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Nikos Zourbanos is assistant professor in the Department of Physical Education and
Sport Science at the University of Thessaly, Greece. He has published more than 50 articles
in Greek and international journals and serves as a referee in established sport psychology
journals. His research focuses on psychological techniques and motivation in sport and PE.
Dr Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis is associate professor in the Department of Physical

Education and Sport Science at the University of Thessaly, Greece. His research involves
issues within the sport psychology domain and in particular cognitive processes, self-talk,
anxiety and coping, as well as issues related to motivation and morality.
Dr Athanasios Kolovelonis is a physical education teacher in primary school and has a

Phd from University of Thessaly (2011). He has published one book chapter and 27 papers in
national and international journals. His research focuses on life skills, motivation and self-
regulated learning in physical education.
Dr Alexander T. Latinjak completed his PhD at the Autonomous University of

Barcelona. Currently, he is a fulltime professor at the School for Health and Sport Sciences
(EUSES) in Girona (Catalonia-Spain), where he manages the Physical Activity and Sport
Research Group (PHAS-Research) and collaborates with the Research Institute for Physical
Education and Sports (CEEF).
Dr Yannis Theodorakis is professor of Sport Psychology in the Department of Physical

Education and Sport Science at the University of Thessaly, Greece. He was vice rector at the
University of Thessaly, elected member in Managing Council of FEPSAC (1999-2003), head
of his department and president of the Greek Society of Sport Psychology. He has published
more than 160 articles in Greek and international journals, in the areas of sport and exercise
psychology.
Chapter 17
CONSIDERING THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL

DIFFERENCES ASSOCIATED WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS WHEN COACHING ELITE SENIOR
MALE BASKETBALL PLAYERS
Joško Sindik*
Institute for Anthropological Research, Croatia
ABSTRACT
The present chapter describes the role of psychological characteristics and perceived
group cohesion for basketball coaches. Thus, the chapter presents the findings of a study
aiming to determine the differences in selected psychological characteristics and
perceived group cohesion in top senior male basketball players, in relation to several
independent variables: their position in the team, total situational efficacy, age, playing
experience and the time spent on the court within the single game and the number of
games played within the whole championship season. The sample of 74 basketball
players is comprised of players from nine men's senior basketball teams that played in A-
1 Croatian men's basketball league championship. The results show that there are no
significant multivariate effects among different groups of players in the set of
psychological characteristics according to their: position in the team (point/shooting
guards and forwards/centers); total situational efficacy (worse and better); interaction
between the position in the team and the total situational efficacy; minutes spent on the
court during the game (more and less); playing experience (more and less). However,
significant multivariate effects are found in extreme estimations on the Likert scales of
psychological measuring instruments for the position in team, basketball experience and
the interaction between age and basketball experience. Identification of differences in
psychological characteristics of basketball players could enable coaches to select players
with the optimal psychological profiles of top-level basketball players. On the other hand,
the insight into differences in psychological characteristics of all players in a certain
basketball team could help coaches to define the most suitable players’ roles in the team,
in specific game situations.
*
Corresponding author: Email: josko.sindik@inantro.hr.
322 Joško Sindik
Keywords: Basketball, cohesion, coach, hardiness, perfectionism, response style
INTRODUCTION
The importance of coaches considering individual differences amongst athletes is central
to successful performance outcomes. Mental toughness, perfectionism, emotional intelligence
and hardiness are individual differences that reflect an athlete’s personality, and these
characteristics are very often discussed while predicting athletes’ performance in certain sport
(Laborde, Breuer-Weißborn & Dosseville, 2013). Regarding individual differences in sports,
there is debate about their flexibility to be modified: are they genetically determined (at the
level of individual differences), or does some way to change them exist (Laborde et al.,
2013)? However, coaches are encouraged to treat each athlete independently, individualising
training and establishing a specific relationship with each athlete (Laborde et al., 2013). How
a coach’s individualization of athletes is integrated into the training in team sport is as much a
science as an art. For each coach working with a specific team under unique circumstances
determined by the type of sport, gender of the athletes, country, level of sport excellence, etc.
there are a range of challenges requiring individualized attention in order to reach peak
performance (Laborde et al., 2013).
Identification of differences in psychological characteristics of basketball players could
enable the coach to select the players with the best psychological profiles of top-level
basketball players. Although to some extent the profiling of athletes for selection has
diminished in sport psychology practice, the awareness of individual differences in
psychological characteristics of all players in a certain basketball team would help coaches to
apply the most suitable methodological approach for team members (during training or
competition). Thus, the focus of this chpater is the individual differences among basketball
players relating to their psychological characteristics, whith the aim of providing
considerations for coachin practice.
Importance of the Coach
A coach is a crucial person in an athlete’s sports career development (Chelladurai, 1990;

Gummerson, 1992). Relatedly, the estimation of athlete’s self-confidence (performed by the
coach) is the best predictor of athlete’s performance in the competitions (Solomon, 2001).
The role of the coach is mainly defined as strengthening the athletes’ physical and
psychological skills (Lorimer & Jowett, 2010). Coaches provide athletes direction in their
sport development, knowledge, experience, expertise, physical, technical and psychological
preparation (Lorimer & Jowett, 2009; 2010). Both for the athletes and their coaches,
maintaining high levels of motivation is emphasized as being imperative in their sport
development (Hardy, Jones & Gould, 1996). The coaching job is difficult to describe and
evaluate because of quite different and complex situations in which they work (Woods,
2007). Coaches are leaders of people engaged in sport participation, with a task of helping
athletes enjoy sport and achieve best performances (Kello, 2011). Thirteen key dimensions
for leadership behavior of coaches have been identified: coaching; effective communication;
Considering the Role of Individual Differences Associated with Psychological … 323
encouraging teamwork; establishing high standards and getting results; effective delegation;
rewarding performance; developing and releasing employees; building consensus; supporting
reasonable risk-taking; forecast thinking; improving the organization; managing diversity;
and overall effectiveness (Duygulu & Çıraklar, 2009). However, Kello (2011) revealed that
coaches did not have a clear picture of what effective coaching is. Their major keywords used
to describe effective coaching were: balance; focus; communication; good planning; and
structure. Coaches also consider an athlete’s personality characteristics are important to
appreaicate and can influence their work (Kello, 2011).
Coach-athlete relationships could be defined as an interconnection of emotions, thoughts
and behaviors (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2003). Mutual appreciation and respect between the
coach and athlete is both dynamic and complex, with requests to discover and fulfill needs of
both the coach and athlete (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003). Effective coach-athlete relationships
are necessary for a successful coaching outcome (Lafrenière, Jowett, Vallerand &
Carbonneau, 2011), while this relationship is influenced by numerous factors: planning and
designing the coaching engagement; building and maintaining rapport; establishing and
maintaining trust; and building credibility (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Rezania & Lingham,
2009).
The coach-athlete relationship influences the entire sports experience, quality of training,
and competition performance (Poczwardowski, Barott & Henschen, 2002). The process of
training consists of two components: skill improvement (knowledge transfer) and the
development of a relationship between the coach and athletes with the positive influence on
athletes’ psychological growth and the development of self-efficacy (Jowett & Cockerill,
2003). For coaches, particularly important characteristics for coach-athlete relationship
quality are: coach’s personality traits; emotional control; expertise/competency;
innovativeness; communication skills; leadership style; motivational structure; gender, etc.
(Reimer & Toon, 2001). For athletes, coach-athlete relationship quality is influenced by: their
personality traits; sporting discipline; age; gender; and competition quality level (Taylor &
Wilson, 2005).
To develop a measure of coach-athlete relationship quality, Jowett and Meek (2000) used
qualitative case studies and relevant literature to generate items for an instrument that
measures affective, cognitive and behavioral aspects of the coach–athlete relationship. The
coach–athlete relationship is multi-dimensional in nature (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004), having
three aspects: coaches’ and athletes’ Closeness (emotions); Commitment (cognitions); and
Complementarity (behaviors). For example, a dualistic model of passion can be useful in
explaining and improving coach-athlete’s behavior. Harmonious passion for coaching
positively predicts autonomy-supportive behaviors toward their athletes, while obsessive
passion for coaching positively predicts controlling behaviors (Lafrenière et al., 2011).
Autonomy-supportive behaviors predict high quality coach-athlete relationships as perceived
by athletes. Autonomy-supportive behaviors positively predict athletes’ general happiness
(Lafrenière et al., 2011).
Rezania and Gurney (2014) indicate the influence of coaching practices on the student-
athletes’ role behavior and performance, with the reflection on their commitment to the
coach. Coaching practices have an impact on student-athletes’ commitment to the coach,
while the commitment to the coach impacts student-athlete role behavior and performance.
This finding has the important implications for a better understanding of the determinants of
coaches’ and athletes’ performance (Rezania & Gurney, 2014).
324 Joško Sindik
Unsuccessful and successful coaches will interpret and use the same of set of information
generated by measures of players’ personality characteristics differently; the unsuccessful
basketball coaches will be slower to learn and grasp ideas than the successful group
(Dallman, 1972). However, specific personality differences exist between different types of
sports and they can be influenced by gender, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, and/or past
sports experience. Males and females may perceive emotions and experience activities
differently (Lewinsohn et al., 1998). Athletes engaged in different sports require sport
specific coaching styles. For example, in a study comparing alternative and traditional sport
groups, the alternative sport athletes were more reserved, self-sufficient, and sensation
seeking than traditional athletes (Rhea & Martin, 2010). Alternative sport athletes may need
to be coached, conditioned, and rehabilitated differently than traditional sport athletes (Rhea
& Martin, 2010). In the study conducted by Perez Ramirez (2002), successful coaches are
competent persons with the ability to direct their behaviour to personal and professional
success; they were all top-level athletes, with high achievement motivation, transparent
leadership style, and developed social skills. They are giving feedbacks; they are good
listeners and care about safety of athletes, showing interest about athletes’ problems. They are
also altruistic, empathic, have clear goals in their work, and rarely show aggressive behaviour
(more often they are peace-makers; Perez Ramirez, 2002).
However, the central focus of the present chapter is the information about psychological
characteristics of basketball players in the processes of training and during basketball game,
which could be used by basketball coaches. Thus, the results of the research about differences
in chosen psychological characteristics of top basketball players, in relation to several
independent variables, are presented.
Perceived Group Cohesion
First, the role of the group cohesion is described, which is closely linked with the coach’s
role in basketball team. Perceived group cohesion describes the team aspects of a player, the
quality and the emphasis on certain aspects of team relationships. Especially for basketball as
a complex team game, the team aspect implies the individual’s ability to contribute to his/her
team-mates play by performing effectively and achieving competitive results. The quality of a
basketball team is often determined by the ability of a team to incorporate the individual
performance quality of each player on a court (Trninić, 2008). The play concept comprises
strategy and tactics, through team-playing. Important characteristics for an individual as a
team-player are: tactical discipline, tactical responsibility, cooperation (Trninić, 2008). The
concept of social structures describes both sets of relations between (social) positions and
interactive relations between people. Micro-level is primarily focused on individuals and their
interactions. Macro-level is focused on the social structure, social processes and their
interrelationships. In spite of the fact that some of the features of micro structures are
associated with macro structures, there are qualitative differences in kind between macro and
micro structures (Potter, 2003). The micro social structure of one group of individuals
(players) that can exist within the team can strongly influence the final score in team sports.
Team (group) cohesion is an important characteristic of a group, because a large number of
factors are contributing to its appearance, while the cohesion has a large influence on the
functioning of the group (Rot, 1983).
The analysis of the associations between perceived team cohesion and the results in sport
competitions indicate a high level of significantly positive correlations between team
cohesion and success (ranging from 0.55 to 0.67) at top U.S. university basketball and
football teams (Carron, Bray & Eys, 2002). Carron et al. (2002) have studied the relationship
between two types of cohesion (related to task and social cohesion) and team success. Both
group cohesion aspects for both sports (basketball and football) were highly correlated with
team success: the most successful teams showed the highest results in both aspects of group
cohesion. One aspect of perceived group cohesion, group integration regarding task was more
highly linked with team success for basketball players, comparing with football players
(Carron et al., 2002). When the relationship between cohesion, perceived group efficacy and
achievement was analyzed in professional basketball teams in preliminary competition,
significant positive correlations between perceived group efficacy and three subscales of
perceived team cohesion were found: group integration with respect to task, group social
integration, and attractiveness of group task for an individual (Heuze et al., 2006). However,
the best predictor for perceived group efficacy was group integration related to the task. On
the other hand, the best predictor of group integration related to the task was perceived group
efficacy (Heuze et al., 2006). Cohesion that is ‘too high’ in team sports can sometimes be a
significant disadvantage: the co-existence of negative effects of both aspects of group
cohesion, both on group and individual level can appear (Hardy, Eys & Carron, 2005).
A second potential avenue of research that could prove fruitful is to examine the `how' of
the cohesion-success relationship. Paskevich (1995), for example, found some support for the
conclusion that collective efficacy is a mediator in the relationship between cohesion and
team performance outcome. Greater team cohesion contributes to greater collective efficacy,
which, in turn, contributes to enhanced team performance.
On the basis of this short overview, it can be carefully concluded that perceived group
cohesion (in general) more often shows positive correlation with actual (real) and perceived
success in sports (as well as in many other areas of human activity). However, the nature of
this correlation is not so simple.
Psychological Characteristics and Basketball
In relation to the game characteristics, there is great complexity within the sport of
basketball; a wide range of specific characteristics are prerequisites for high-level
performance: morphological (e.g., height); functional capacities (physical fitness); and motor
(basic abilities, skills and knowledge). However, in the specification/equation for success in
basketball, personality is one of the major determinants of top performance (Cox, 2005).
Consequently, diagnostics of psychological characteristics of players are essential, both for
the selection process and for the targeted process of training of selected players. In the studies
(e.g., Dallman, 1972; Catina, Swalgin, Knjaz & Fosnes, 2005; Sindik, 2011) about the
relation of basketball performance and personality characteristics of basketball players, two
main types of performance evaluation models are used: subjective and objective. Among
different types of the personality models, two models are also used: personality type and
personality trait models. Namely, some personality models attempt to describe the personality
in its totality, while the others are focused only on some aspects of the personality (Trninić,
Kardum & Mlačić, 2010). A hypothetical structure of six categories of mostly psychological
326 Joško Sindik
and social variables was constructed, among 17 specific personality characteristics of elite
athletes in team sports games (Trninić et al., 2010). These six categories are: locus of control;
specific competence; motivation; successful reactions in situation of high competitive
pressure; coordinated teamwork; and successful solutions of game situations (Trninić et al.,
2010). In the present study two specific psychological characteristics are chosen as the
representatives of particular personality traits: hardiness and perfectionism. These
characteristics have been also chosen as relevant personality characteristics within the large
project on development of psychological talent in Olympic champions in the USA (Gould,
Dieffenbach & Moffet, 2001). Five-Factor Model (FFM) represents five broad domains or
subscales of personality that are used to describe human personality as a whole (Macdonald,
Bore & Munro, 2008). Perceived group cohesion has been chosen as an indicator of group
(team) functioning.
Hardiness
In their comperehensive review, Fletcher and Sarkar (2013) conclude that most of the
defintions of psychological resilience are based around two core concepts: adversity and
positive adaptation. The resilience is required in the response to different adversities, ranging
from ongoing daily hassles to major life events and positive adaptation must be conceptually
appropriate to certain adversity and the stringency of criteria used. The resilience could be
considered as a trait or as a process, but always in the interactive influence of psychological
characteristics within the context of the stress process (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). These
authors emphasized that future theories about the resilience have to take into account the
multiple demands that individuals encounter. Such demands are linked with meta-cognitive
and meta-emotive processes that affect the resilience-stress relationship, while the conceptual
distinction should be done between the resilience and coping (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013). In
this study, the concept of hardiness has been used to explain different abilities to cope with
stress (Kobasa, 1979).
The construct of hardiness consists of three elements: commitment, control and challenge
(Maddi & Hess, 1992). Commitment is a belief that an individual is capable of reaching a
goal, even when the level of stress is high. Control is the ability to feel influential, being also
capable to successfully act in various (especially stressful) life situations. Challenge is the
belief that change is normal in life, while foreseeing changes represents an interesting
stimulus in development. Hardiness is a commonly used construct for interpretation of top
athletes' characteristics in stressful situations. Professional rugby players playing in the
strongest leagues indicate importance of training both aspects of mental strength (hardiness
and mental toughness; Golby & Sheard, 2004). Top athletes with top results in hardiness
showed desirable characteristics of athletes: they are less concerned about the sport result and
proactively interpret the competitive anxiety (Hanton et al., 2003). Individuals with higher
hardiness showed better success in basketball, while the hardiness aspects significantly
positively correlated with performance indicators in basketball (Maddi & Hess, 1992).
Overall, we can say that the correlation between hardiness and performance in different
sports, as well as in basketball, is consistently positive.
Perfectionism
Perfectionism, mostly studied as stable personality characteristic, represents tendency to

reach very high standards. Its main feature is “high performance standards” (Hewitt & Flett,
1991; Dunn, Causgrove Dunn & Syrotnik, 2002). Perfectionism can be defined as a network
of cognitions, including expectations and interpretations of events and evaluation of self and
others characterized by taking stands with a series of unrealistic standards, rigid and
inflexible, that equal self-evaluation with success (Hewitt & Flett, 1991). Perfectionism is
considered to be positive when an individual feels satisfied in his/her aspiration for
perfectionism, but recognizing and accepting his/her own limitations. Perfectionism becomes
negative when the expectations are unrealistic, resulting with constant dissatisfaction with the
performance (Ivanov & Penezić, 2004). Perfectionism is often associated with many
psychopathological attributes: depression, feeding disorders (Ivanov & Penezić, 2004); social
phobia/anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders (Martin & Brawley, 1999); feelings of
loss and anxiety, guilt, delaying tasks, suicidal ideas and low self-esteem.
In sports, perfectionism is correlated with problems of success in sport competition, traits
of anxiety and burnout (Haase & Prapavessis, 2004). The most frequently used measuring
instruments were: Burns Perfectionism Scale (Burns, 1980), Frost Multi-dimensional
Perfectionism Scale (Frost, Marten, Lahart & Rosenblate, 1990), Frost & Hewitt Multi-
dimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt, Flett, Turnbull-Donovan & Mikail, 1991), Positive
and Negative Perfectionism Scale (Calhoun & Accocella, 1990). Unconditional self-
acceptance has a partial influence on the correlation between the two subscales of
perfectionism and burnout of top junior football players (Hill, Hall, Appleton & Kozub,
2008). Frost and Hewitt’s Multi-dimensional Perfectionism Scale; MPS operationally defines
perfectionism as a general personality concept, which has an influence on different aspects of
life. Other authors presume that perfectionism tendencies can have an influence only in some
aspects of life, such as in specific sports situations (Dunn et al., 2005). The latent structure of
Hewitt’s MPS, applied on the sample of athletes, showed four subscales of perfectionism in
sport situations: personal standards, anxiety over mistakes, parents' criticism, and coach’s
criticism (Anshel & Eom, 2003), while one version is adapted to American football (Dunn et
al., 2002). In applying the Sport Multi-dimensional Perfectionism Scale (SMPS) (Dunn et al.,
2002), a positive correlation was found between multi-dimensional perfectionism and goal
orientation in sports (Dunn et al., 2006). Four factors of multi-dimensional perfectionism
were confirmed: personal standards, anxiety over mistakes, perceived pressure from parents
and perceived pressure from coach (Dunn et al., 2006). Two of these four aspects of
perfectionism showed a significant correlation with competitive anxiety (Martinent &
Ferrand, 2007). Thus, it could be assumed that perfectionism in not universal for all
lifesituations: it can be expressed only in particular sports situations (e.g., before shooting for
three points or free throws), while specific aspects of perfectionism could more strongly occur
only in specific types of sports (e.g., only in individual sports, but not in team ones).
328 Joško Sindik
Five-Factor Model
The Five-Factor Model (FFM) is based on the taxonomic aspect: it presumes that the
personality can be divided into a smaller number of fundamental constructs (Macdonald et al.,
2008). Following FFM, personality can be described by means of five factors: extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and intellect (Pervin & John, 1997),
which represent personality in the highest degree of abstraction. Each of these subscales
includes a large number of distinct specific characteristics. Extraversion describes the amount
and intensity of social interaction, activity level, the need for external stimulation and the
feature of joy (Trninić et al., 2008). Agreeableness describes quality of interpersonal
orientation towards the others, in thoughts, emotions and actions. Conscientiousness describes
task-oriented and goal-oriented behavior and socially required impulse control. Neuroticism
(emotional stability) identifies persons who tend to feel negative emotions (anxiety,
bitterness, sorrow), who suffer from unrealistic ideas, excessive yearning and urges and have
or suffer from maladaptive stress-coping strategies. Intellect (Openness to experience)
describes proactive seeking and appreciation of experience for its own sake, tolerance for the
unknown and exploration of the unfamiliar (Pervin & John, 1997). Several research studies
demonstrated that extraversion and emotional stability from FFM are congruent to
extraversion and neuroticism from the Eysenck’s model (Mlačić & Knezović, 1997). IPIP
FFM measure (50-item) in a sample of 1,727 college students generally support the
invariance of the factor structure across (gender and ethnic) groups (Ehrhart et al., 2008)
Bias and Response Style as the Additional Source of Information about

Athletes
The issues of bias and response style need not to be necessarily related to the intrinsic
properties of an assessment instrument per se (Van der Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). The bias can
reflect the characteristics of the participants from each cultural group (in fact, from each
particular sample that is examined in a certain study; Sindik, 2012). The statements regarding
bias are linked with the use of an instrument within the framework of particular applications
of cross-cultural comparisons. There are three primary sources (types) of bias: construct bias,
method bias and item bias (Van der Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). Method bias describes three
specific aspects of the methodological strategies, used in testing the equivalence across the
cultural groups (Van Herk, Poortinga & Verhallen, 2004). Sample bias is linked with the
comparability of samples on phenomena which can have different meaning in different
cultural environments. Instrument bias refers to the differential responses, given by
comparative groups, to the structured format of the assessment instrument. It has two aspects:
stimulus familiarity (the type of stimulus response, like on a Likert scale) may be unfamiliar
to certain cultural groups.
The second aspect of the instrument bias, patterns of response, are related to two
phenomenons: response style and response set. Response style can be observed in consistent
selecting one of the two extreme scale points (high, low), independently of the item content.
Response set is obvious in selecting scale points in a way as to support favorable impression
of oneself (e.g., social desirable responses) (Hui & Triandis, 1989; Marin, Gamba & Marin
1992). Administration bias describes the difference in the conditions for administration of an
instrument to the participants of the comparative groups (Van der Vijver & Tanzer, 2004).
However, in their research only specific type of response style was examined: the specific
aspect of instrument bias (response set), the tendency that participants use only neutral
responses on the Likert scale, whenever it is possible (Van der Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). For
example, the analysis of neutral responses on the Likert scale showed that psychology
students used significantly more neutral responses, as compared with the students of social
work, geodesy and civil engineering (Sindik, 2006). The concept of the “scale” which is used
in this research is based on the analogy with “Cannot Say” (or “?” validity scale) in MMPI
(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory). The description of the meaning of “Cannot
Say” is the fact that the respondent actually does not provide the clear answer on a number of
items (Gordon, 2011). In the MMPI manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2011), it is
recommended that any test with 30 or more unanswered questions has to be declared invalid.
However, contrary to the “?” validity scale, Sindik (2006) proposed to define a number of
used extreme estimations on Likert scales as a special score on any measuring instrument that
uses Likert scale. Using more extreme estimations on Likert scales can be carefully
interpreted as valid responses. On the other hand, using more extreme estimations can reflect
decisive responses or ability to take a risk (in the sense of taking responsibility for the team)
(Sindik & Adžija, 2012).
OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES

The main objective of the present study was to determine the differences amongst players
in selected psychological characteristics and perceived group cohesion. Additionally
examined was the number of used extreme Likert scale estimations in certain measuring
instruments in relation to several independent variables: the position they held within the
team (guards versus forwards/ centers), total situational efficacy (better versus worse), age
(younger versus older), basketball experience (more versus less), duration of playing in the
game (more or less) and in the whole championship season (more and less). The insight into
these differences can establish a profile of an entire team, as well as provide additional
information about the performance of individual players. The characteristics of this particular
basketball competition (i.e., championship) in general can be partially reflected in differences
among teams in chosen characteristics. Potential interactions between chosen independent
variables in differentiating situational efficiency of the players, can offer additional
explanations about the differences in performance amongst teams and belonging players in a
specific basketball competition. The detection of differences in the psychological
characteristics and perceived group cohesion in relation to the abovementioned independent
variables (and their interactions) can allow coaches to correct undesirable deviations from
‘ideal’ performances of players. As a result of the increased insight into individual differences
amongst players, the coach should be able to adjust their coaching style (general approach,
specific methods and practical exercises) to the individual player and improve deficient
aspects of perceived group cohesion in team, or remove focus from previously perceived
problems to more prominent ones.
330 Joško Sindik
METHODS
Participants
An intentional sample of participants consisted of top senior Croatian basketball players,

that were playing in nine men’s senior teams in A-1 Croatian Men Basketball League in the
2006/2007 championship: «Cedevita», «Svjetlost», «Borik», «Kvarner» ,«Dubrava»,
«Dubrovnik», «Alkar», «Šibenik» and «Osijek». The final sample of participants (74
basketball players) was selected from the initial sample of 107 players. In the final sample,
basketball players were differentiated according to their position in their team. Conditions for
selecting the players in the final sample was the number of minutes played (minimum ten
minutes per game), and the number of games played (minimum eight games). These criteria
were derived from the total time of a single game and the total time played in the
championship. Each team played 16 games throughout the championship and 8 games (which
is half the games played) was chosen to be the lower limit for inclusion of the participants
into the sample. On the other hand, the total single game playing time is 40 minutes and one
quarter (which is ten minutes) was chosen to be the lower limit for inclusion into the sample.
We have estimated that both limits can ensure the reliability of the results obtained in this
study: namely, quarter of the game is quite a long period that the player is able to play with
reliable performance (in other words, the final result of the game is not always known when
the player enters the game). Similarly, on the championship level, the position of the team is
not certain in most games in which a player is playing. Guards were compared (N1 = 47;
point guard and shooting guard) with forwards/centers (N2 = 27; small forward, power
forward and centers). All the other categories (dichotomized independent variables) have the
same number of participants, split by median (age, basketball experience, minutes playing in
game, games played). The age range of participants (in the final sample) was large (17-40),
with average age of M = 23.94 and SD = 4.89. The range of basketball experience was large
(2-204) months, with the average of M = 34.93 and SD = 40.56). The range of minutes
playing in game (time spent on the court) was large (52-579), with the average of M = 314.14
and SD = 115.15. The range in the variable number of games played was also large, (8-16),
with the average of M = 14.04 and SD = 2.19.
Variables
Short Hardiness Scale (SHS). A shortened version of Bartone Dispositional Resilience

Scale (DRS) was used, named Short Hardiness Scale (SHS; Dunn et al., 2002). SHS consists
of 15 items, based on self-evaluation of the level of «hardiness». The respondents estimate
their own behavior on Likert 4-point scale, ranged from strongly disagree (0) to strongly
agree (3). Five items of the scale refer to the commitment subscale, 5 to control and 5 to
challenge. The results are defined as a sum of estimations for items from each of the
subscales. In eleven items, higher estimation means higher emphasis on individual subscales
of hardiness, while the remaining four items are recoded. In previous research SHS indicated
very satisfactory metric characteristics (Hanton, Evans & Neil, 2003). Intercorrelations
between hardiness subscales obtained by Maddi & Hess (1992) were positive and statistically
significant, ranging from 0.37 to 0.69. A translated and adapted SHS was applied in Croatia:
Hudek-Knežević and Kardum (2009) used SHS on 822 subjects from average population and
found the reliability α=0.69 (whole questionnaire). In this study, the Croatian version of SHS
Hudek-Knežević and Kardum (2009) was used. Besides the subscale of commitment (α
=0.45), the remaining two subscales of the SHS had a low but satisfactory reliability: control
(α =0.52) and challenge (α =0.68), while the reliability of the whole questionnaire was α
=0.74). Thus, the results obtained for the subscale of commitment should be considered with
a caution. All three factors explained 46% of total variance in scale (Sindik & Adžija, 2012).
Sports Multi-dimensional Perfectionism Scale (multi-dimensional perfectionism). To
measure perfectionism, two instruments were used: Sports Multi-dimensional Perfectionism
Scale (Dunn et al., 2002) and Burns Perfectionism Scale (Burns, 1980). Sports Multi-
dimensional Perfectionism Scale (SMPS) was constructed for athletes in team sports (Dunn et
al., 2002). SMPS has 30 items, with four subscales: personal standards (contains 7 items),
anxiety over mistakes (8 items), perceived pressure from parents (9 items) and perceived
pressure from coach (6 items). Participants were also asked to rate their behavior on Likert 5-
point scale, from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The results are defined as a sum
of estimations for items from each of the subscales (higher scores mean higher
multidimensional perfectionism). In previous research, SMPS showed rather satisfactory
metric characteristics (Dunn et al., 2005). Cronbach’s alpha-coefficients for all scales in the
questionnaire indicate high level of internal consistency reliability, ranging from 0.76 to 0.89
(Dunn et al., 2005). However, the factor structure of subscales in SMPS might significantly
vary, depending of the type of sport and on specific samples of athletes. Thus, it is important
to point out that the content of items in the questionnaire which is used in this research is
adjusted particularly for basketball, similarly to the way it was done for American football
(Dunn et al., 2002). In this research, it was revealed that all subscales of this translated
instrument have a low but satisfactory reliability: personal standards (α = 0.62), anxiety over
mistakes (α = 0.77), perceived pressure from parents (α = 0.61), and perceived pressure from
coach (α = 0.68), while the reliability of the entire questionnaire was α =0.87. All four factors
explained 43% of total variance in SMPS (Sindik & Adžija, 2012).
Burns Perfectionism Scale (unidimensional perfectionism). Contrary to SHS and SMPS,
the Burns Perfectionism Scale (BPS) is already adapted to the Croatian population (Ivanov &
Penezić, 2004). BPS contains 10 items to which the subjects respond on Likert 5-point scale.
In the version of scale adapted to Croatian populations, instead of estimations ranging from
+2 to -2, estimations from 5 to 1 were used with the same meanings. The overall score is
defined as a sum of estimations of the items on the Likert scale (higher estimations means
higher perfectionism). Hewitt and colleagues (1990) found reliability of Burns scale internal
consistency type of 0.70. In their earlier research, Hewitt et al. (1989) found that test-retest
coefficient was 0.63 after two months, and Burns (1980), after a six-week interval 0.78. Frost
et al. (1990) on the sample of students revealed Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82. Applied to the
sample of student population in Croatia (Ivanov & Penezić, 2004), the reliability of the scale
internal consistency type was 0.62. In other research, also applied on the sample of Croatian
students, the reliability type internal consistency was 0.73 reliability test-retest type after two
weeks was 0.74, while the correlation between total score on the Multi-dimensional
Perfectionism Scale and BPS was 0.85 (Ivanov et al., 1998). The correlations between SHS
and all three subscales of Multi-dimensional perfectionism in this study were somewhat lower
but still significant: the lowest was for the subscale of socially desirable perfectionism (0.39),
332 Joško Sindik
while for the subscale perfectionism oriented to the others this correlation was 0.40.
Correlation between SHS and the subscale of self-oriented perfectionism was 0.57. These
results support the opinion that SHS measures primarily self-oriented perfectionism (Ivanov
et al., 1998). In the present study, the reliability of the unique factor of SHS was α =0.69,
while the amount of variance explained was very low (26%).
Group Environment Questionnaire (perceived group cohesion). Perceived group
cohesion in the team was measured applying Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ;
Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). This 18-items questionnaire is based on self-
evaluation, covering four aspects (subscales) of group cohesion are evaluated: attractiveness
of group task for an individual (AGTI; contains 4 items), social attractiveness of a group to an
individual (SAGI; contains 5 items), group integration over task (GIT; contains 5 items),
group social integration (GSI; contains 4 items). The participants evaluate the level of their
agreement with the content of items pertaining to various aspects of group functioning, on
Likert 9-point scale, with extreme estimations from «strongly disagree» (1), to «strongly
agree» (9). The scores in GEQ are defined as a sum of estimations on items that define certain
subscale. The questionnaire showed an acceptable level of reliability type internal
consistency, indicated by the values of Cronbach’s alpha-coefficients, ranged from 0.68 to
0.75 for different scales (Carron et al., 1985). In two other research studies, internal
consistency coefficients were AGTI (0.61), SAGI (0.72), GIT (0.72), and GSI (0.76) (Carron
et al., 2002) and AGTI (0.64), SAGI (0.75), GIT (0.70) and GSI (0.76) (Carron et al., 2003).
According to data available, GEQ was not previously used in Croatia. In this research, all
subscales of the measuring instrument showed a low but satisfactory reliability, with
Cronbach’s alpha-coefficients for the subscales of the questionnaire as follows: AGTI (0.55),
SAGI (0.66), GIT (0.68), and GSI (0.68), while the overall reliability of the questionnaire was
0.86. All four factors explained 58% of total variance in GEQ (Sindik & Adžija, 2012).
International Personality Item Pool 50 (IPIP50). This instrument is a shorter version of a
Goldberg IPIP100 cross-cultural Big-Five questionnaire (Goldberg, 2001, in Goldberg et al.,
2005). This form of the 50-item version of the Big-Five questionnaire consists of 10 items for
each of the Big-Five personality factors (subscales): Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A),
Conscientiousness (C), Emotional Stability (ES), and Intellect (I). IPIP50 items were
administered with a 5-point, Likert type scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very
accurate), same as in the original instrument (Goldberg, 1999), showing high reliability type
internal consistency for each of the subscales. The IPIP50 items were translated into Croatian
by Mlačić (Mlačić & Goldberg, 2007) and applied to the samples of Croatian students.
Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficients indicate high reliability: for Extraversion, Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient was α = 0.88, for Agreeableness α = 0.81, for Conscientiousness α = 0.82, for
Emotional Stability α = 0.90 and for Intellect it was α = 0.78. The structure of the IPIP50,
applied in three different adult samples, showed similar 5-factor solution, with only minor
discrepancies (Gow et al., 2005). Croatian version of both the 100-item and the 50-item
versions of the IPIP Big-Five markers, applied in large Croatian samples of research
participants showed clear 5-factor orthogonal structures (Mlačić & Goldberg, 2007). Internal
consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) in this research were somewhat lower, but still
satisfactory, ranging from 0.56 to 0.73 (Extraversion α = 0.56, Agreeableness α = 0.73,
Conscientiousness α=0.71, Emotional Stability α = 0.65, Intellect α = 0.68). All five factors
explained 46% of total variance (Sindik, 2011).
Extreme Estimations Scale (EES). For each measuring instrument (for all items of each
instrument), five more scores were defined as the measurement of response bias (or decisive
responses). These scores were defined as the frequency (number) of used extreme estimations
on the items expressed in Likert scales (the highest and the lowest together).
The data about independent variables in research (players’ positions, age, total situational
efficacy, basketball experience, period of playing in the game and period of playing in the
entire championship season) are collected and transformed (mainly dichotomizing variables at
the median) from previous studies that are using the same data (Sindik, 2011; Sindik & Jukić,
2011; Sindik & Adžija, 2012). Variable that describes overall successfulness of basketball
performance (total situational efficacy) in the players in the sample of this research was
100.51 ± 64.94 (M ± SD), with a range from -1.41 to 287.68. It was defined by formula:
XDLK= XP1 + (2 x XP2) + (3 x XP3) + XSO + XSN + XA + XOL– (0.5 x XN1) – XN2
– XN3 – XIL – XOP.
XDLK-total situational efficacy; XP1- successful one-point shots; XP2- successful two-
point shots; XP3- successful three-point shots; XSO- defensive rebounds; XSN- offensive
rebounds; XA-assists; XOL- steals; XN1- missed one-point shots; XN2- missed two-point
shots; XN3- missed three-point shots – XIL- turnovers; XOP- personal fouls.
Statistical Analyses
Statistical analysis of data was performed using the statistical program IBM SPSS 20.0.
Descriptive statistics were calculated for all the collected data. To determine construct
validity of the measuring instruments used in this study, the quasi-confirmatory factor
analysis was used (Principal Axis with Varimax rotation, using Guttman-Kaiser’s criteria of
factor extraction, with a fixed number of factors that correspond to the number of subscales
expected for each instrument). For all instruments, only minor deviations from original
subscales (represented by factors), were found. Total scores in subscales were calculated
according to original subscales of the instruments, using simple linear combination method
(sum of estimations for each subscale). To estimate the differences between the groups of
players in all subscales of psychological characteristics and perceived group cohesion,
multivariate analysis of the variance (MANOVA) was used. Several independent variables
were put in MANOVA: players’ positions in the team (guards compared with
forwards/centers), total situational efficacy (better and worse), age (younger and older),
basketball experience (more and less), period of playing in the game (more or less) and period
of playing in entire championship season (more and less). Dependent variables were
represented with the scores in all subscales of psychological characteristics and perceived
group cohesion, as well as with the frequencies of used extreme estimations on the Likert’s
scales in five measuring instruments: SHS, SMPS, BPS, GEQ and IPIP50. To ensure that
each sub-sample has more than 30 participants, as a basic pre-condition for application
parametrical statistical methods, two variables only were analyzed simultaneously, in order to
find possible interactions among them e.g., the difference in psychological features is found,
with respect to the interaction between the position in the team and the total situational
efficacy. When significant interactions were found, the file was split by both variables and
334 Joško Sindik
MANOVAs were conducted with the other variable and only the significant findings were
reported. Whenever Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance was significant at the p < .01
level, nonparametric statistics (Kruskal-Wallis) were used to confirm the effects obtained via
the MANOVAs. The file was split by the significant variable and Kruskal-Wallis was used to
confirm the effects on the other variable. In all cases, the Kruskal-Wallis tests confirmed the
findings of the MANOVAs. In those cases, the results of the MANOVAs only were reported.
In cases where statistical significance was found in one test but not in the other, the results
were not reported.
RESULTS
Descriptive characteristics for subscales of all measuring instruments are shown (Table
1): perfectionism, hardiness, and perceived group cohesion. Out of all the hardiness subscales,
the subscales Commitment and Control show the highest means (and slightly deviate from the
Gauss’ distribution). Out of all the multi-dimensional perfectionism subscales, the subscale
Personal standards shows the highest average mean. Out of all the subscales of perceived
group cohesion in basketball players, the subscale Group social integration shows the highest
average mean. Out of all the subscales of Big Five personality traits, the subscales of
Conscientiousness and Agreeableness show the highest means.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for all subscales of all measuring instruments
Std. Kolmogorov-
Variable Mean Significance
Deviation Smirnov Z
Commitment 2.41 0.32 1.43 <.05
Control 2.21 0.38 1.41 <.05
Challenge 1.48 0.68 0.78 <.10
Burns Perfectionism Scale 3.32 0.61 0.82 >.20
Personal standards 3.16 0.77 0.79 >.20
Anxiety over mistakes 2.36 0.76 0.87 >.20
Perceived pressure from 1.83 0.57 1.25 <.10
parents
Perceived pressure from coach 2.59 0.77 0.90 >.20
Attractiveness of the group for 6.61 1.87 0.93 >.20
an individual - social
Attractiveness of the group task 6.72 1.44 1.01 >.20
for an individual
Group social integration 7.12 1.57 1.25 <.10
Group integration over task 6.47 1.53 0.80 >.20
Extraversion 33.05 4.51 0.80 >.20
Emotional stability 33.76 5.15 0.62 >.20
Intellect 34.93 4.68 0.80 >.20
Conscientiousness 37.14 5.36 0.78 >.20
Agreeableness 37.12 4.97 0.79 >.20
Extreme estimations in MSSP 15.28 6.03 0.57 >.20
Std. Kolmogorov-
Variable Mean Significance
Deviation Smirnov Z
Extreme estimations in SHS 6.34 2.89 0.98 >.20
Extreme estimations in BSP 4.74 2.28 1.13 >.10
Extreme estimations in IPIP50 11.26 9.02 1.33 >.05
Extreme estimations in GEQ 6.82 4.47 0.77 >.20
Table 2. Multivariate Effects for Psychological Characteristics and

Perceived Team Cohesion (Manova)
Pillai’s Error
Variable(s) F-test df
Trace df
Total situational efficacy .275 1.202 17 54
Position in team .271 1.183 17 54
Total situational efficacy * Position in team .213 0.857 17 54
Age .285 1.031 17 44
Basketball experience .382 1.599 17 44
Minutes playing in game .317 1.202 17 44
Games played .157 0.481 17 44
Age * Basketball experience .383 1.605 17 44
Age * Minutes playing in game .202 0.654 17 44
Basketball experience * Minutes playing in game .289 0.951 17 44
Age * Basketball experience * Minutes playing in game .192 0.614 17 44
Age * Games played .269 0.951 17 44
Basketball experience * Games played .242 0.827 17 44
Age * Basketball experience * Games played .331 1.279 17 44
Minutes playing in game* Games played .243 0.833 17 44
Age * Minutes playing in game* Games played .121 0.355 17 44
Legend: all F-test were statistically non-significant
Significant multivariate effects were not found in any of the tests for the set of
psychological characteristics and perceived group cohesion (Table 2).
Among univariate effects for the set of psychological characteristics and perceived group
cohesion (Table 3), a few statistically significant differences have been found. First, for
independent variable Age, significant effects were found in the variable related to
multidimensional perfectionism in sport, for the subscale Perceived pressure from parents
(older players had higher average scores). For independent variable Basketball experience,
significant univariate effects were found in variables linked with hardiness, for subscales
Challenge (more experienced players had higher scores) and Commitment (less experienced
players had higher scores). In the subscale Conscientiousness, the subscale from Big Five
personality traits model), less experienced players had higher scores. For the Interaction
between the Age and Basketball playing experience, two significant univariate differences
were found, in variables connected with perceived group cohesion, for subscales
Attractiveness of the group for an individual – social and Group integration over task, where
younger players that are less experienced have higher scores than more experienced older
336 Joško Sindik
players. Younger players that are less experienced have lower scores in the Anxiety over
mistakes (the subscale of multidimensional perfectionism). Players that spent less Time on
the court in the game (period of playing in the game or Minutes playing in game, in Table 2)
have higher scores in the Anxiety over mistakes, comparing with those who spent more time
on the court. For the Interaction between the Basketball playing experience and Time on the
court in the game, one significant univariate difference was found, in the variable of
perceived group cohesion, for the subscale Attractiveness of the group for an individual –
social, where the highest average score was found at less experienced players that play less
time on the court in game. For the Interaction between the Basketball experience and
number of Games played in the championship (Games played, in Table 2), the highest
average score is found in less experienced players that play fewer games, in the subscale
Conscientiousness (from Big Five personality traits model). Finally, for the Interaction
between the Time on the court in the game and number of Games played in the
championship, the Anxiety over mistakes (the subscale of multidimensional perfectionism)
has the highest average score in players who spent less time on the court during one game and
play fewer games in entire championship.
Table 3. Significant Univariate Effects for Psychological Characteristics

and Perceived Team Cohesion
Dependent Variable df Df F-test Age Means 

error Std.Dev.
Perceived pressure from 1 36 4..689 Younger 15.574.69
parents * Older 17.375.38
Dependent Variable df Df F-test Basketball experience Means 
error Std.Dev.
Challenge 1 36 7.861 Less 7.483.45
** More 8.832.89
Commitment 1 36 4.506 Less 12.311.73
* More 11.601.19
Conscientiousness 1 36 4.336 Less 37.845.48
* More 35.764.94
Dependent Variable df Df F-test Minutes playing in Means 
error game Std.Dev.
Anxiety over mistakes 1 36 9.085 Less 17.586.77
** More 16.154.94
Dependent Variable df Df F-test Age * Basketball Means 
error experience Std.Dev.
Attractiveness of the group 1 36 9.961 Younger - Less 35.367.74
for an individual - social ** Older - More 30.757.71
Anxiety over mistakes 1 36 7.285 Younger - More 24.336.62
** Older - More 16.624.41
Group integration over task 1 36 5.179 Younger - Less 34.126.79
* Younger - More 29.008.89
Attractiveness of the group 1 36 4.895 Less – Less 32.504.98
for an individual - social * More - More 28.206.23
Dependent Variable df Df F-test Basketball experience * Means 

error Games played Std.Dev.
Conscientiousness 1 36 4.389 Less – More 39.463.86
* More - More 33.145.05
Dependent Variable df Df F-test Minutes playing * Means 
error Games played Std.Dev.
Anxiety over mistakes 1 36 5.195 Less – More 16.724.31
* Less – Less 26.500.71
Legend: ** significant at p < .01 level; * significant at p < .05 level
Table 4. Multivariate Effects for the Extreme Estimations on the Subscales of

Psychological Measuring Instruments (Manova)
Pillai’s Error
Variables(s) F-test df
Trace df
Total situational efficacy .049 0.674 5 66
Position in team .161 2.542* 5 66
Total situational efficacy * Position in team .043 0.594 5 66
Age .044 0.518 5 56
Basketball experience .223 3.212* 5 56
Minutes playing in game .082 0.999 5 56
Games played .029 0.337 5 56
Age * Basketball experience .175 2.374* 5 56
Age * Minutes playing in game .059 0.703 5 56
Basketball experience * Minutes playing in game .108 1.361 5 56
Age * Basketball experience * Minutes playing in game .033 0.380 5 56
Age * Games played .013 0.147 5 56
Basketball experience * Games played .099 1.231 5 56
Age * Basketball experience * Games played .079 0.956 5 56
Minutes playing in game* Games played .052 0.611 5 56
Age * Minutes playing in game* Games played .035 0.402 5 56
Significant multivariate effects were found in three tests for the set of psychological
characteristics and perceived group cohesion (Table 4). Significant effects were found for the
Position in the team, Basketball playing experience and in the Interaction between the Age
and Basketball playing experience.
Among univariate effects for the set of number of extreme estimations on the scales of
psychological characteristics and perceived group cohesion (Table 5), three statistically
significant differences have been found. First, for independent variable Position in the team,
significant effects were found in the number of extreme estimations on the questionnaire
IPIP50 (Big Five personality traits): the guards (as opposed to forwards and centers) use
statistically significant more extreme estimations on Likert’s scales on the IPIP50 instrument.
For the independent variable Basketball playing experience, statistically significant effects
were found in the number of extreme estimations on the questionnaire BSP (unidimensional
perfectionism), where less experienced players used statistically significant more extreme
338 Joško Sindik
estimations on Likert’s scales on the BSP instrument. Finally, for Interaction of independent
variables Age and Basketball playing experience, statistically significant effects were found
in the number of extreme estimations on the questionnaire GEQ (perceived group cohesion),
where older and more experienced players used statistically significant more extreme
estimations on Likert’s scales of the instrument, as compared with older but less experienced
players.
DISCUSSION
The basketball players, classified by six independent variables (according to their
position within the team, total situational efficacy, time spent on the court in a game and the
playing experience, players’ age and the number of games played), cannot be simply
differentiated by significant multivariate effects, by the set of psychological characteristics
and perceived group cohesion. On the other hand, differentiating basketball players by the set
of extreme estimations on the scales of instruments for measuring selected psychological
characteristics and perceived group cohesion resulted in statistically significant multivariate
effects for the independent variables Position in the team, Basketball playing experience and
in the Interaction between the Age and Basketball playing experience. Thus, statistically
significant univariate effects in the set of psychological characteristics and perceived group
cohesion (especially in the situation with the absence of significant multivariate effects) have
to be discussed with caution. Namely, the large number of independent and dependent
variables, with the consequent number of significance tests, increase the possibility of Type I
error. On the other hand, the differences in a number of extreme estimations on Likert-type
scales are much more valid, because only five variables this type were tested.
Considering significant univariate effects in the entire set of psychological characteristics
and perceived group cohesion, it can be assumed that younger and less experienced players
try to be the most responsible as possible (conscientiousness, commitment), simultaneously
taking less risk while playing (challenge). Anxiety over mistakes (an aspect of
multidimensional perfectionism) is higher in players who spent less time on the court in the
game. A reasonable cause for this result could be a wish that these players prove their (high)
value as players. However, some significant differences are hardly explainable (higher scores
for perceived pressure from parents in older players). Significant interactions among
independent variables give an insight into the complexity of the relationship between
psychological characteristics of basketball players and their performance, as well as other
important variables, such as those analyzed in this research. Younger and less experienced
players tend to be more socially oriented (in two aspects of perceived group cohesion:
attractiveness of the group for an individual – social and group integration over task), but less
anxious over mistakes (aspect of multidimensional perfectionism). In line with the
abovementioned explanation, younger players probably have to fight for a status in a team:
they know that their “obligation” is to take a risk, trying to prove their value. This explanation
is supported by finding that less experienced players, who play fewer games in championship,
became more anxious over mistakes.
Table 5. Significant Univariate Effects for the Extreme Estimations on the Scales of All
Psychological Measuring Instruments
Df
Dependent Variable df F-test Position in team Means  Std.Dev.
error
Extreme Estimations
Extreme estimations 1 70 7.010** Guards 13.239.58
in IPIP50 Forwards/centers 7.816.82
Other Variables
Dependent Variable df Df F-test Basketball experience Means  Std.Dev.
error
Extreme estimations 1 70 6.016* Less 5.202.25
in BSP More 3.421.76
Dependent Variable df Df F-test Age * Basketball Means  Std.Dev.
error experience
Extreme estimations 1 70 6.666* Old-More 9.314.28
in GEQ Old-Less 4.952.25
Much more valid considerations and belonging arguments could be given for revealed
significant multivariate and univariate effects in the number of extreme estimations on the
scales of the questionnaires. In fact, a number of extreme estimations on Likert’s scales can
indicate at least two issues (Sindik & Adžija, 2012): 1) general or specific trend for taking a
risk (the analogy of risking in questionnaires can follow the trend of risking in some life
situations); 2) validity of the responses in (already mentioned the analogy with “?” scale in
MMPI (Gordon, 2011); more extreme estimations used in questionnaires in this context
means more valid results for certain subsamples of subjects (Sindik, 2006). More extreme
estimations on Likert’s scales of the instruments found for the position in team in guards,
comparing with forwards/centers, can be explained as a trend for taking more risks (guards
have more shootings for three points, shootings for two points from longer distance, etc.).
Similar explanation can be given for statistically significant more extreme estimations on
Likert’s scales of the instruments used at less experienced players and younger but more
experienced players. However, the fact that the number of used extreme estimations on Likert
scale of any measuring instrument simultaneously could interfere with the real level of certain
psychological characteristic, cannot be neglected. Namely, the number of extreme estimations
is not a precisely differentiated measure: all extreme estimations are summarized in the final
score, regardless of the fact whether the extreme estimations are the lowest or the highest
values on Likert scales. However, it is important to notice that rating scale scores did not
match differences in actual behavior between countries (van Herk et al., 2004): thus, the
inference about described meaning explained as “trend to accept responsibility in taking risk”
must be taken with caution. This finding, however, emphasizes the fact that ignoring national
differences in response styles may lead to invalid inferences in cross-cultural research (van
Herk et al., 2004).
The results obtained from this research could nevertheless have a scientific and practical
value, especially as the direction for the systematic approach of the basketball team coach.
Namely, the information obtained about the psychological characteristics of the team
members, as well as about the team cohesion, could provide a platform for modeling
individualized approaches of the coach to each team member. From the scientific point of
340 Joško Sindik
view, the present study offers, to our knowledge, the first application of the Group
Environment Questionnaire and Sports Multi-dimensional Perfectionism Scale in Croatia.
Additionally, the evaluation of an intentional sample of top Croatian basketball players is
strength of the study. That said, as the present study found no (strong) statistically significant
multivariate effects in selected psychological characteristics and perceived group cohesion
between groups of basketball players in relation to several independent variables; it could be
assumed that considering inclusion of additional psychological variables might be desirable.
In particular, top basketball players (who have undergone several years of training and
multiple selections) may be very similar in numerous psychological characteristics important
for success in basketball, as well as in their social beliefs (perceived group cohesion) (Sindik,
2011). The results from previous research support such findings; specifically, athletes from a
specific sport very often differ from athletes from other sports in type and personality profile.
It is difficult to distinguish between players of different skill levels based solely on
personality variables although top athletes can be distinguished from athletes of lower
competition levels, based on personality variables (Munroe-Chandler, 2005). As it was found
for hardiness and mental toughness (Maddi & Hess, 1992; Munroe-Chandler, 2005; Nicholls
et al., 2009), the level of competition (as well as age, gender, sport type and sport experience)
is probably the most important factor that can differentiate players in basketball. The
realization that the players do not differ in the chosen psychological characteristics and
perceived team cohesion for different independent variables, could be the guidance for a more
qualified and modified coach working with the individuals showing most difference in those
characteristics. In other words, identification of desirable personal characteristics (i.e., group
functioning) can be useful for a correction or compensation of one personal characteristic
with another. Basketball players with «unsatisfactory» psychological characteristics could
need a different methodical approach (individualized work) and eventually specific
psychological preparations for the sports competition. Such approaches could be based on
various exercises to: improve stability of quality performance of individual players,
projective-educational conversations, and increase (perceived) team cohesion.
The shortcomings of this research may be, first of all, the process of data collecting,
which was not carried out under standardized conditions (the research was carried out
simultaneously in nine different Croatian cities, in different circumstances). Potentially the
most important influence on the results obtained is the principle of selection of the sample of
subjects. Namely, the sample of subjects in the research included players from A-1 league,
but not the players from the four most successful Croatian teams («Cibona», «Zadar»,
«Zagreb» and «Split»), when research was conducted. Such a strategy of sampling reduces
the variance in psychological characteristics and perceived group cohesion, which could
influence the lack of differences among players with different positions in the team.
Specificity of particular championship (A-1 league Croatian Senior Basketball Championship
2006/2007) could have significant influence on the results, too. The championship has proven
to be uncertain from the very beginning, due to the dominance of two teams («Cedevita» and
«Svjetlost»), and the practical impossibility of the relegation from the league of even the least
successful team («Dubrava»). The presumed lack of uncertainty could be reflected primarily
on the level of quality of sport performance in individual players (which could be followed by
changeable motivation), but also in self-reports, expressed in psychological questionnaires
(measuring instruments; Sindik, 2011).
Potential reasons for the shortcomings in results could provide reasonable directions for
future research. At first, other (different) psychological measuring instruments for measuring
different personality characteristics and related constructs could be chosen, probably better
adapted for the specific features of basketball. For example, positive illusion is directly
(positively) related to actual success in basketball (Catina et al., 2005), as well as
evolutionary important traits necessary for survival, such as emotional affect constructs:
optimism and motivation (Church et al., 2009). Namely, domains of perfectionism can be
differentiated in a wide range of life situations. Specifically, the prevalence in different
domains of perfectionism in college students were: work (58%), bodily hygiene (54%),
studies (43%), physical appearance (40%), social relationships (38%), presentation of
documents (37%), spelling (36%) and dress (33%; Stoeber & Stoeber, 2009).
The other improvement could be done using different types of measuring psychological
characteristics, except self-report measures: e.g., estimations of these characteristics by their
coaches, or parents, or teammates. Additionally, qualitative methodology could be used
instead of quantitative (Munroe-Chandler, 2005), which could help in the overview of other
differences in psychological characteristics and perceived group cohesion, for example, in
relation to the position of the basketball player in the team. Future research might attempt to
somewhat increase the number of subjects (try to test injured and players absent for other
reasons), or including players from the four most successful Croatian teams. However, we can
change the system of the evaluation of the successfulness of the performance in basketball
players (Dežman et al., 2001; Trninić et al., 2002). Including the most successful Croatian
teams in the research, or players with different levels of sport quality (players who play in
first and second league, and regional league teams, as well), could provide better insight in
differences among basketball players, according to psychological characteristics and
perceived group cohesion.
RESEARCH CONCLUSION
The results revealed that there are no significant multivariate effects in selected
psychological characteristics and perceived group cohesion between different groups of
players according to their: position in the team (point/ shooting guards and forwards/centers);
total situational efficacy (worse and better); interaction between the position in the team and
the total situational efficacy; minutes spent on the court in a game (more and less); playing
experience (more and less). However, significant multivariate effects are found in the number
of extreme estimations on the Likert scales of psychological measuring instruments for the
position in team, basketball experience and the interaction between age and basketball
experience. Thus, the differences among basketball players are more obvious in response
style than in measured psychological constructs. Moreover, specific differences in
psychological characteristics and perceived group cohesion, as well as in their interactions
indicate many moderator effects. Thus, one of possible improvements of this study could be
directed to assuming non-linear relationships between data in sport and exercise psychology.
Thus, introducing quantile regression analysis (Q-regression) as an alternative to linear
regression could overcome some of the shortcomings of linear regression analysis in studies
where non-linear relationships could be expected (Ivarsson & Johnson, 2014).
342 Joško Sindik
However, research findings provide information for coaches in which direction they have
to consider changing or modifying their training methods, instructions, or general strategies of
their work with the members of a certain basketball team. Therefore, while the general insight
in one’s personality (in Big Five-personality traits questionnaire and the response style as
well), can be helpful in a coach’s general individual approach, the insight into players’
hardiness, perfectionism and perceived team cohesion can help the coach in planning more
specific actions.
COACHING AND STUDIED CONCEPTS – INSIGHTS

AND DIRECTIONS
In the context of coaching, the research evidence indicates that hardiness leads to
enhanced performance, leadership, morale, stamina, and health under stress (Maddi, 2002).
Thus, hardiness training (HardiTraining) may be useful as an addition to current training
procedures in sports, similar to results in other different demanding fields, such as sports or
army (Maddi, 2007). Hardiness training is likely to be helpful also in other training programs,
with a purpose of increasing the level of one’s performance, both leadership and conduct
skills, and health status, under stressful circumstances. For example, military personnel
undergoing HardiTraining are increasing the levels of courage and motivation to do the hard
work of transformational coping. Also, they are able to make more socially supportive
interactions, to do more effective self-care (Maddi, 2007). HardiTraining has an influence on
the motivation and ability of coping with stress in basketball players, enhancing their sport
performance, too (Maddi & Hess, 1992). A second application of hardiness training is helping
in rehabilitation. HardiTraining has been found to be effective with military personnel that
have experienced and survived catastrophic physical and mental injuries; their courage,
motivation, and skills to decrease the likelihood of posttraumatic stress and depression
disorders have been found to be positively supported (Maddi, 2007). In sports, negative major
life events predict sport injury while hardiness moderates this relationship (Wadey, 2009).
When a form of Hardi Training was used, positive effects were found for hardiness and the
use of coping strategies (Wadey, 2009). Findings revealed that the pre-injury intervention
increased non-injured athletes’ awareness of how to improve their practice when coping with
negative major life events. On the other hand, the post-injury intervention improved the
practice of injured athletes, facilitating their recovery (Wadey, 2009). Post-injury intervention
based on HardiTraining assumptions can be led by the coach to enhance effective self-care of
an athlete.
That said, coaching is a challenging profession that requires the coaches to reconcile the
often contrary goals of developing winning athletic programme and providing positive
personal and academic experiences for their athletes (Bawa, 2010). The pressure to win, an
attempt to satisfy the expectation of the people and ever present interpersonal demands, can
lead to stress and render coaches susceptible to burnout (Bawa, 2010). Therefore, the
information about the personality of the coaches should serve to improve their own hardiness,
provided by themselves or by sport psychologists.
The importance of the construct of perceived group cohesion could be best considered
through the coach–athlete relationship. The antecedents of group cohesion can be classified
into four categories: leadership, situational, personal and team factors (Brawley, 1990). Thus,
a significant relationship exists between leader behaviors and team cohesion: coaches who
were rated highest in training and instruction (by their athletes in teams) and who gave
positive feedbacks, had teams with higher task and social cohesion (Murray, 2006). The
consequences of group cohesion can be divided in two categories: individual and group
outcomes (Brawley, 1990). These were theoretical presumptions for the constructing of the
measuring instrument GEQ (Carron et al., 1985). The perceived group cohesion is a complex
construct; it has to be carefully considered in the relationship to many group related factors:
group size (Widmeyer et al., 1992), group performance (Williams & Widmeyer, 1991), sport
interaction level (Matheson et al., 1997), and coaching behavior (Westre & Weiss, 1991).
The perception of coaching staff cohesion may influence team cohesion, but also the
relationships among coaches and their athletes (Zakrajsek et al., 2007). Instead of the focus
on investigating athletes’ perceptions and behaviors as moderators of team cohesion, the
research of the coaching staff, as a team within the team, may be similarly important in
improving team cohesion and coach-athletes relationships. Athletes are likely to behave in a
way that has been modeled to them by the coaching staff, where the coaching staff cohesion
should be considered as a moderating variable in team cohesion, too (Bandura, 1977; Martin,
2002). Thus, an analysis of the behaviors of the coaching staff, with incorporating coaching
staff cohesion exercises in coaching training programs, can improve the coaching efficacy,
too (Sullivan & Kent, 2003). Potential discrepancies in athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of
cohesion could be beneficial to initiate communication with coaches about their team’s
perceptions of the coaching staff’s cohesion.
The insight into important behaviors which can be influenced by coaches, could improve
team functioning and performance (Zakrajsek et al., 2007). In the context of the main issue of
this chapter, perceived team cohesion is a particularly relevant feature for coach’s work. For
example, a positively cohesive team environment is related with certain coach leadership
styles, mainly with democratic, supportive leadership style (Gardner et al. 1996; Shields et al.,
1997; Westre & Weiss, 1991). However, coach-athlete relationships are more important in
explaining task-oriented and social-oriented cohesion than coach leadership features alone
(Jowett & Chaundy, 2004). The relationship between perceived cohesion among coaches
(coaching staff), perceived cohesion among team members, athlete’s perception of coaching
staff cohesion, as well as with perceived group (team) efficacy were studied, in coactive and
interactive sport teams (Zakrajsek et al., 2007). In general, the type of perceived cohesion
oriented to the task is much more important for the team than social cohesion, while coaching
staff cohesion may have an indirect relationship with performance. Coaches’ perceptions of
coaching staff cohesion were higher than athletes’ perceptions of coaching staff cohesion,
suggesting a discrepancy between coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions about this issue
(Zakrajsek et al., 2007).
It has been proposed that coaches’ knowledge about perfectionism is poor, so they may
have difficulty in reflecting about their coaching strategies in relation to working with
perfectionistic athletes (Kello, 2011). In the context of coaching, it is important to
differentiate two main dimensions of perfectionism: perfectionistic strivings and
perfectionistic concerns (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Perfectionistic strivings describe those
aspects of perfectionism associated with striving for perfection and setting exceedingly high
standards of performance. The perfectionistic concerns describe the aspects associated with
concerns over making mistakes, fear of negative evaluation by others, and feelings of
344 Joško Sindik
discrepancy between one’s expectations and performance (Stoeber et al., 2007; Stoeber,
2012). These concerns show strong and consistent positive associations with negative
characteristics, processes, and outcomes (e.g., maladaptive coping, negative affect and
neuroticism) and indicators of psychological maladjustment and mental disorder, such as
depression (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Perfectionistic strivings are positively associated with
performance and predict higher performance beyond people’s general aptitude and previous
performance level. These strivings show positive associations with positive characteristics,
processes, and outcomes (e.g., positive affect conscientiousness and adaptive coping) and
indicators of subjective well-being and good psychological adjustment, such as satisfaction
with life (Stoeber, 2012; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). The review of systematically documented,
categorized, and quantitatively analyzed 201 correlations from 31 studies on perfectionism in
athletes, show that perfectionistic strivings among athletes are predominantly adaptive,
occasionally neutral, and rarely maladaptive. But this trend is only apparent when the
negative influence of perfectionistic concerns is controlled (by calculating partial correlations;
Gotwals et al., 2012).
Perfectionism has also been found to influence the emotion regulation strategies used by
coaches (Hill & Davis, 2014). The subtypes of perfectionism in coaches provide a greater
understanding and insight into patterns of emotion regulation (Hill & Davis, 2014). Pure
personal standards perfectionism in coaches (high standards/low concerns) was associated
with the highest capacity for emotion regulation and highest control of anger (directed
inwards and outwards). On the other hand, pure evaluative concerns perfectionism (low
standards/high concerns) is associated with the lowest capacity for emotion regulation and
lowest anger control (inwards and outwards; Hill & Davis, 2014).
Guided self-help (possibly led by sport psychologist and with a support of coaches) could
help the players to reduce negative aspects of perfectionism, but also depression symptoms
and anxiety (Pleva & Wade, 2006). In Pleva and Wade’s study, improvement was noticed in
the aspects of perfectionism: concern over mistakes, doubts about actions and organization,
while the improvement in personal standards, parental expectations and parental criticism was
not statistically significant (Pleva & Wade, 2006). The research about the emotion regulation
process is similarly important in sport, when the participants are athletes, but these
characteristics are similarly important for the coaches (Lane et al., 2012). Effective emotion
regulation is important for coaches in order to establish successful relationships and
collaboration, mainly with athletes and other coaches (Jowett & Nezlek, 2012). Styles of
emotion regulation in coaches may be reflected in the behavior of the athletes and their
attempts to manage their own emotions, as well as their emotional experiences and sport
performance (Davis & Jowett, 2010). Thus, work on improving effective emotion regulation
in both coaches and the athletes, is extremely important for the coach–athlete relationship.
At the end, it has to be highlighted that besides the personality characteristics and sport
skills of the athletes and their coaches, the key concept that must be considered when
improving the training process and sport performance has to be the nature of the coach –
athlete relationship. Thus, the main efforts have to be done in the direction of the
improvement of measuring instruments that measure affective, cognitive and behavioral
aspects of the coach–athlete relationship (such as Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire
CART–Q; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004), as well as the methods to improve the quality of
collaboration between coaches and athletes, adjusted to each individual’s particularities. Of
course, it is not an easy task, but considering individual characteristics of the coaches and the
athletes together with their aspects of group functioning (e.g., group cohesion) are
unavoidable steps in these efforts.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
 Considering individual differences amongst athletes will influence coaching practice
and outcomes.
 The personality of coaches will also influence group functioning.
 Dimensions of perfectionism, hardiness, and the Big-Five model underlie basketball
players’ personalities and can influence the coaching process.
 Group dynamics and the coach–athlete relationship are important features within the
coaching process; considering psychological characteristics can enhance coaching
outcomes and athletes’ performance.
REFERENCES
Anshel, M. H. & Eom, H. J. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of perfectionism in sport.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 255-271.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bawa, H. S. (2010). Personality hardiness, burnout and sport competition anxiety among
athletics and wrestling coaches. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(1), i57-i58.
Brawley, L. R. (1990). Group Cohesion: Status, Problems, and Future Directions.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 355-379.
Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist's script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 13, 34- 52.
Calhoun, J. F. & Accocella, J. R. (1990). Psychology of adjustment and human relationships.
New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R. & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 119-126.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., Eys, M. A., Bray, S., Dorsch, K., Estabrooks, T., Hall, C. R.,
Hardy, J., Hausenblas, H., Madison, R., Paskevich, D., Patterson, M. M., Prapavessis, H.,
Spink, K. S. & Terry, P. C. (2003). Do individual perceptions of group cohesion reflect
shared beliefs? Small group research, 34(4), 468-496.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N. & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument
to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport
Catina, P., Swalgin, K., Knjaz, D. & Fosnes, O. (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of positive
illusions and sport performance levels in American, Croatian, and Norwegian basketball
players. Collegium Antropologicum, 29(2), 453-458.
Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Reyes, J. A. & Jensen, S. M. (1999). The structure of affect in
a non-western culture: evidence for cross-cultural comparability. Journal of Personality,
67(3), 505-534.
346 Joško Sindik
Cox, R. H. (2005). Sport Psychology. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap. [in Croatian]

Dallman, G. W. (1972). Analysis of the differences between selected personality traits of
successful and unsuccessfull coaches in football, wrestling, and basketball. (Master
thesis). Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin.
Davis, L. & Jowett, S. (2010). Investigating the interpersonal dynamics between coaches and
athletes based on fundamental principles of attachment theory. Journal of Clinical Sport
Dežman, B., Trninić, S. & Dizdar, D. (2001) Expert Model of Decision-making System for
Efficient Orientation of Basketball Players to Positions and Roles in the Game: Empirical
Verification. Collegium Antropologicum, 25(1), 141-152.
Dunn, J. G. H., Causgrove Dunn, J. & Syrotnik, D. G. (2002). Relationship between
multidimensional perfectionism and goal orientations in sport. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 24, 376–395.
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K. & Causgrove Dunn, J. (2005). An examination of the domain
specificity of perfectionism among intercollegiate student-athletes. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1439–1448.
Dunn, J. G. H., Gotwals, J. K., Causgrove Dunn, J. & Syrotnik, D. G. (2006). Examining the
relationship between perfectionism and trait anger in competitive sport. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4, 7–24.
Duygulu, E. & Çıraklar, D. (2009). Effects of Leadership Roles on Team Effectiveness. Ege
Academic Review, 9 (2), 389-400.
Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch S. C., Ehrhart, M. G. & Kilian B. (2008). A test of the factor structure
equivalence of the 50-item IPIP Five-factor model measure across gender and ethnic
groups. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 507-516.
Fletcher, D. & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of
definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist, 18(1), 12-23.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C. & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The subscales of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.
Gardner, D. E., Shields, D. L., Bredemeier, B. J. & Bostrom, A. (1996). The relationship
between perceived coaching behaviors and team cohesion among baseball and softball
players. Sport Psychologist, 10, 367-381.
Golby, J. & Sheard, M. (2004). Mental toughness and hardiness at different levels of rugby
league. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 933–942.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring
the lower-level facets of several Five-Factor models. In: Marveled, I, Deary, I. J., de
Fruyt, F. & Ostendorf, F., (eds). Personality psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C. & Cloninger, C. R.
(2005). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain
personality measures. Journal of Personnel Research, 40, 84–96.
Gordon, R. M. (2011). Definitions of MMPI/MMPI-2 scales: Scales of Validity and Bias.
Retrieved May 12. 2012. from: http://www.mmpi-info.com/mmpi-2/mmpidict1.html.
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K. & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and their
development in Olympic champions. Journal of applied sport psychology, 14(3), 172-
204.
Gotwals, J. K., Stoeber, J., Dunn, J. G. H. & Stoll, O. (2012). Are Perfectionistic Strivings in
Sport Adaptive? A Systematic Review of Confirmatory, Contradictory, and Mixed
Evidence. Canadian Psychology, 53(4), 263–279.
Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A. & Deary, I. J. (2005). Goldberg’s ‘IPIP’ Big-Five
factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality
and Individual Differences, 39(2), 317-329.
Gummerson, T. (1992). Sports coaching and teaching. London: A & C Black.
Haase, A. M. & Prapavessis, H. (2004). Assessing the factor structure and composition of the
Positive and Negative Perfectionism Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
1725-1740.
Hanton, S., Evans, L. & Neil, R. (2003). Hardiness and the competitive trait anxiety response.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16, 167-184.
Hardy, L., Jones, G. & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparations for
sport: theory and practice of elite performers. London, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hardy, J., Eys, M. A. & Carron, A. V. (2005). Exploring the potential disadvantages from
high team cohesion. Small Group Research, 36, 166-176.
Hewitt, P. L. & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts:
conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456-470.
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W. & Mikail, S. F. (1991). The
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: Reliability, validity, and psychometric properties
in psychiatric samples. Psychological Assessment, 3, 464–468.
Hewitt P. L., Mittelstaedt, W. M. & Flett, G. L. (1990). Self-oriented perfectionism and
generalized performance importance in depression. Individual Psychology, 46, 67-73.
Hewitt, P. L., Mittelstaedt, W. M. & Wollert, R. (1989). Validation of a measure of
perfectionism. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 133-144.
Heuzé, J. P., Raimbault, N. & Fontayne, P. (2006). Relationships between cohesion,
collective efficacy, and performance in professional basketball. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 24, 59-68.
Hill, A. P., Hall, H. K., Appleton, P. R. & Kozub, S. A. (2008). Perfectionism and burnout in
junior elite soccer players: The mediating influence of unconditional self-acceptance.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 630 – 644.
Hill, A. P. & Davis, P. A. (2014). Perfectionism and emotion regulation in coaches: A test of
the 2 × 2 model of dispositional perfectionism. Motivation and Emotion, 38(5), 715-726.
Hudek-Knežević, J. & Kardum, I. (2009). Five-factor Personality Dimensions and 3 Health-
related Personality Constructs as Predictors of Health. Croatian Medical Journal, 50(4),
394–402.
Hui, C. H. & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme
response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(3), 296-309.
Ivanov, L. & Penezić, Z. (2004). Burns Perfectionism Scale. In: A. Proroković, K. Lacković-
Grgin, V. Ćubela, Z. Penezić (ed.) Collection of Psychological Scales and Questionnaires
2, pp. 13-18. Zadar: Faculty of Philosophy. [in Croatian]
Ivanov, L., Penezić, Z. & Gregov, Lj. (1998). Usamljenost i samoefikasnost u relaciji s nekim
osobnim značajkama, Radovi - Razdio FPSP, 37(14), 53-66. [in Croatian]
Ivarsson, A. & Johnson, U. (2014). Are all predicted relationships linear by nature? A note
about quantile regression in sport and exercise psychology. Athletic Insight, 6(2), 115.
348 Joško Sindik
Jowett, S. & Chaundy, V. (2004). An investigation into the impact of coach leadership and
coach-athlete relationship on group cohesion. Group Dynamics, 8, 302-311.
Jowett, S. & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete–coach
relationship. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 4(4), 313–331.
Jowett, S. & Meek, G. (2000). Coach – athlete relationships in married couples: An
exploratory content analysis. Sport Psychologist, 14, 157-175.
Jowett, S. & Nezlek, J. B. (2012). Relationship interdependence and satisfaction with
important outcomes in coach–athlete dyads. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 29, 287–301.
Jowett, S. & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). The Greek Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (Gr
CART-Q), Scale Construction and Validation. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
34(2), 101–124.
Jowett, S. & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-
Q), development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports, (4), 245-257.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: an inquiry into hardiness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1-11.
Kello, E. (2011). Coaches’ perspective on athletes’ personality characteristics in the context
of effective coaching. (Master’s Dissertation). Halmstad: Halmstad University.
Laborde, S., Breuer-Weißborn, J. & Dosseville, F. (2013). Personality-Trait-Like Individual
Differences in Athletes. In C. Mohiyeddini (Ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Sports
and Exercise. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers Inc.
Lafrenière, M.- A. K., Jowett, S., Vallerand, R. J. & Carbonneau, N. (2011). Passion for
coaching and the quality of the coach–athlete relationship: The mediating role of
coaching behaviors. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 12(2), 144–152.
Lane, A. M., Beedie, C., Jones, M. V., Uphill, M. & Devonport, T. (2012). The BASES
expert statement on emotion regulation in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 1189–
1195.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Gotlib, I. H., Lewisohn, M., Seeley, J. R. & Allen, N. B. (1998). Gender
Differences in Anxiety Disorders and Anxiety Symptoms in Adolescents. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 107, 109-117.
Lorimer, R. & Jowett, S. (2009). Empathic accuracy in coach-athlete dyads who participate in
team and individual sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 152–158.
Lorimer, R. & Jowett, S. (2010). Feedback of information in the empathic accuracy of sport
coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 12–17.
Macdonald, C., Bore, M. & Munro, D. (2008). Values in action scale and the Big 5: An
empirical indication of structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 787–799.
Maddi, S. R. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of theorizing, research, and
practice. Consulting Psychology Journal, 54, 173-185.
Maddi, S. R. (2007). Relevance of Hardiness Assessment and Training to the Military
Context. Military Psychology, 19(1), 61–70.
Maddi, S. R. & Hess, M. J. (1992). Personality hardiness and success in basketball.
International journal of sports psychology, 23, 360-368.
Mageau, G. A. & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of Sports Science, 21(11), 883–904.
Marìn, G., Gamba, R. J. & Marìn, B. V. (1992). Extreme response style and acquiescence
among Hispanics. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(4), 498-509.
Martin, K. A. (2002). Development and validation of the coaching staff cohesion scale.
Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 6, 23-42.
Martin, K. A. & Brawley, L. R. (1999). Is the Self-Handicapping Scale reliable in non-
academic achievement domains? Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 901–911.
Martinent, G. & Ferrand, C. (2007). Cluster analysis of precompetitive anxiety: relationship
with perfectionism and trait anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(7), 1676-
1686.
Matheson, H., Mathes, S. & Murray, M. (1997). The effect of winning and losing on female
interactive and coactive team cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(3), 284-299.
Mlačić, B. & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). An analysis of a cross-cultural personality inventory:
The IPIP Big-Five factor markers in Croatia. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 168-
177.
Mlačić, B. & Knezović, Z. (1997). Struktura i relacije Big Five markera i Eysenckova
upitnika ličnosti. Društvena istraživanja, 27(1), 1–21. [in Croatian]
Munroe-Chandler, K. J. (2005). A discussion on qualitative research in physical activity.
Athletic Insight, 7 (1), Available from: http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol7Iss1/
QualitativeResearch.htm
Murray, N. P. (2006). The Differential Effect of Team Cohesion and Leadership Behavior in
High School Sports. Individual Differences Research, 4(4), 216-225.
Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C.J., Levy, A. R. & Backhouse, S. H. (2009). Mental toughness
in sport: Achievement level, gender, age, experience, and sport type differences.
Personality & Individual Differences, 47, 73-75.
Paskevich, D. M. (1995). Conceptual and measurement factors of collective efficacy in its
relationship to cohesion and performance outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo.
Perez Ramirez, M. del C. (2002). Estudio cualitativo sobre entrenadores de alto rendimento
deportivo. Revista de Psicologia del Deporte, 11(1), 9–33.
Pervin, A. L. & John, P. O. (1997). Personality: Theory and research. 7th ed. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Pleva, J. & Wade, T. D. (2006). Guided self-help versus pure self-help for perfectionism: A
randomised controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 849-861.
Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J. E. & Henschen, K. P. (2002). The athlete and coach: their
relationship and its meaning. Results of an interpretative study. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 33, 116–140.
Potter, G. (2003). Sui generis micro social structures: The heuristic example of poker.
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28(2), 171-202.
Rhea, D. J. & Martin, S. (2010). Personality Trait Differences of Traditional Sport Athletes,
Bullriders, and Other Alternative Sport Athletes. International Journal of Sports Science
& Coaching, 5(1), 75-85.
Reimer, H. A. & Toon, K. (2001). Leadership and satisfaction in tennis: Examination of
congruence, gender and ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(3), 243-
256.
350 Joško Sindik
Rezania, D., Gurney, R. (2014). Building successful student-athlete coach relationships:

examining coaching practices and commitment to the coach. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 383.
Available from: http://www.springerplus.com/ content/3/1/383
Rezania, D. & Lingham, T. (2009). Coaching IT project teams: a design toolkit. International
Journal of Project Management, 2(4), 577–590.
Rot, N. (1983). Group Psychology. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva. [in
Serbian]
Shields, D. L., Gardner, D. E., Bredemeier, B. J. & Bostrom, A. (1997). The relationship
between leadership behaviors and group cohesion in team sports. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary & Applied, 131, 196-210.
Sindik, J. (2006). Rezultati istraživanja ovise o ponašanju uzoraka ispitanika kod odgovaranja
na upitnike. Školski vjesnik, 55(1-2), 119-127. [in Croatian]
Sindik, J. (2011). Differences between top senior basketball players from different team
positions in Big Five personality traits. Acta Kinesiologica, 5(2), 31-35.
Sindik, J., (2012). Data Analysis Strategies for Reducing the Influence of the Bias in Cross-
Cultural Research. Collegium Antropologicum, 36(1), 31-37.
Sindik, J. & Adžija, M. (2012). Situation efficacy of basketball players and number of
extreme evaluations on a Likert scale. Homo sporticus, 14(1), 27-32.
Sindik, J. & Jukić, I. (2011). Differences in Situation Efficacy Indicators at the Elite
Basketball Players that Play on Different Positions in the Team. Collegium
Antropologicum, 35(4), 1095-1104.
Solomon, G. B. (2001). Performance and personality impression cues as predictors of athletic
performance. An extension of expectancy theory. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 32(1), 88–100.
Stoeber, J. (2012). Perfectionism and performance. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), Oxford handbook
of sport and performance psychology (pp. 294-306). New York: Oxford University Press.
Stoeber, J. & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence,
challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295-319.
Stoeber, J., Otto, K., Pescheck, E., Becker, C. & Stoll, O. (2007). Perfectionism and
competitive anxiety in athletes: Differentiating striving for perfection and negative
reactions to imperfection. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 959-969.
Stoeber, J. & Stoeber, F. S. (2009). Domains of perfectionism: Prevalence and relationships
with perfectionism, gender, age, and satisfaction with life. Personality and Individual
Differences, 46, 530-535.
Sullivan, P. J. & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in
intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 1-11.
Taylor, J. & Wilson, G. (2005). Applying sport psychology. Four perspectives. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Tellegen, A. & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2-Restructured Form) Technical Manual - Corrected Reprinting).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Trninić S. (2008). Recognizing, evaluating and encouraging the elite basketball players.
Zagreb: Croatian Basketball Federation, ACBC – Association of Croatian Basketball
Coaches, IBA – International Basketball Academy. [in Croatian]
Trninić, V., Barančić, M. & Nazor, M. (2008). The Five-Factor model of personality and
aggressiveness in prisoners and athletes. Kinesiology, 402,170-181.
Trninić, S., Dizdar, D. & Dežman, B. (2002). Pragmatic validity of the combined model of
expert system for assessment and analysis of the actual quality overall structure of
basketball players. Collegium Antropologicum, 26(1), 199-210.
Trninić, S., Kardum, I. & Mlačić, B. (2010). Hypothetical Model of Specific Characteristics
of Elite Athletes in Team Sports Games. Društvena istraživanja, 19 463-485. [in
Croatian]
Van de Vijver, F., Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment:
an overview. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, 54, 119–135.
Van Herk, H., Poortinga, Y. H. & Verhallen, T. M. M. (2004). Response styles in rating
scales: Evidence of method bias in data from 6 EU countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 35(3), 346-360.
Wadey, R. G. (2009). An examination of hardiness throughout the sport injury process.
Doctoral dissertation. Cardiff: Cardiff School of Sport, University of Wales Institute.
Westre, K. R. & Weiss, M. R. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors
and group cohesion in high school football teams. Sport Psychologist, 5, 41-54.
Widmeyer, W. N., Brawiey, L. R. & Carron, A. V. (1992). The effects of group size in sport.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(2), 177-190.
Williams, J. M. & Widmeyer, W. N. (1991). The cohesion-performance outcome relationship
in a coacting sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 364-371.
Woods, R. B. (2007). Social issues in sport. Champaign. IL: Human Kinetics.
Zakrajsek, R. A., Abildso, C. G., Hurst, J. G. & Watson, J. C. (2007). The relationships
among coaches' and athletes' perceptions of coaching staff cohesion, team cohesion, and
performance. Athletic Insight, 19 (3). Available from: http://www.athleticinsight.com/
Vol9Iss3/ CoachingStaffCohesion.html
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr Joško Sindik is Senior Scientific Associate and Assistant Professor. His main field of
expertise is sport psychology (MS in psychology and PhD in kinesiology, at the University of
Zagreb). He undertakes interdisciplinary anthropological projects, including psychological
and sport constructs in cross-cultural research. He teaches courses mainly from the fields of
research methodology, statistics and health psychology.
Chapter 18
MANAGERIAL COACHING: A PRACTICAL WAY TO

APPLY LEADERSHIP THEORY?
Julia Milner1 and Grace McCarthy2,*

1
Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China
2
University of Wollongong, Australia
ABSTRACT
Transformational leadership is one of the most researched leadership theories, but
sometimes misunderstood by managers who believe that to be a transformational leader
requires them to be charismatic and in some way extraordinary. Similarly, some
sportspeople and sports coaches may be truly transformational in their achievements and
yet not receive the same recognition as their more flamboyant colleagues. In this chapter,
several similarities are identified between managerial coaching and transformational
leadership. Some differences were also identified. Where there are similarities, it is
argued that adopting coaching practices can help managers to put transformational
leadership into practice and gain the associated benefits, whether in business or sporting
organizations.
Keywords: Leadership, managerial coaching, transformational leadership, sports coaching
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, we compare one of the most frequently discussed leadership models,
transformational leadership, with managerial coaching to analyse whether the coaching lens
can provide insights into the practical applications of leadership. The world of business has
long accepted that it can learn a lot about motivation and team work from the world of sport.
While sport is becoming a big business and business techniques are used in the management
and marketing of sports clubs, sports coaches themselves have an approach to coaching that
*
Corresponding author: Email: gracemc@uow.edu.au.
354 Julia Milner and Grace McCarthy
differs in some respects to the rapidly evolving practices of managers coaching their teams in
the workplace. This paper highlights the links between managerial coaching and
transformational leadership, and notes similarities and differences with coaching in a sporting
context.
Many managers now coach their own employees, using skills such as active listening,
questioning and feedback to support their team members’ efforts to generate their own
solutions and meet organizational objectives. Hence managerial coaching can be seen as a key
element of leadership practice. Although much has been written about leadership theory, little
practical guidance is given to managers on how to translate theory into practice. The purpose
of this chapter is to explore the argument that managerial coaching offers an effective way to
apply leadership theory in practice.
Transformational leadership is the leadership style that – at first glance – seems most
similar to managerial coaching, and indeed the transformational leadership concept explicitly
includes ‘coaching’ within ‘Individualized consideration’. Grant (2007) previously noted
some similarities between coaching and the four dimensions of transformational leadership,
namely: “acting as an exemplary role model, engaging and motivating others, facilitating
creative thinking and innovation, acting as coach and mentor to help others attain goals” (p.
257). This chapter will explore the comparison in more depth, analysing the similarities and
differences between the transformational leadership concept and the managerial coaching
approach, and identifying practical applications for the aspects which these approaches have
in common.
MANAGERIAL COACHING
Different forms of coaching have been identified in the literature, such as executive, life
or career coaching (Cox). Coaching in organizations can take different forms, offered either
by external coaches, who may be executive or team coaches, or internal coaches (who may be
employees from the HR department or other employees who coach co-workers who are not
their direct reports) (Grant, Passmore, Cavanagh & Parker, 2010). Coaching in organizations
may also be provided by managers to their individual direct reports and their teams. This form
of coaching is described as managerial coaching (Ellinger, Beattie & Hamlin, 2010) or as
‘workplace coaching’ (Grant, 2010). Managerial coaching can take place informally or in
formal coaching sessions (Grant et al., 2010; Turner & McCarthy, 2015)
Although not specifically labelled as ‘managerial coaching’, the practice has been
identified in the early 1980s by Böning and Fritschle (2005), who talk about development-
oriented leading by managers. Leadership theories such as transformational leadership
referred to the term ‘coaching’ decades ago (Bass, 1990). However, although managerial
coaching is not a ‘new’ concept (Ellinger et al., 2010), it has certainly become more
widespread within the workplace in recent years (Grant, 2010), particularly in North America,
United Kingdom and Australia, but also in Latin America and Europe (Moral & Abbott,
2009) as well as in Asia (Chia, 2010). Managers appear to be adopting a coaching approach
on a regular basis: In a recent study of managerial coaching in Australia with general
managers and HR managers, McCarthy and Ahrens (2012) found that the majority of
participants coached employees daily or more than once a week.
Managerial Coaching: A Practical Way to Apply Leadership Theory? 355
Several skills and behaviors are associated with the coaching manager. Based on
practitioner literature, Ellinger, Beattie and Hamlin (2014, p. 260) compiled a list of skills and
behaviors a coaching manager should display, including listening, analytical skills,
interviewing, questioning, observation skills, feedback, setting and communicating
expectations, and establishing an environment in which coaching can take place. Sports
coaches are often known for their skills in observation, analysis, for setting clear expectations
and providing feedback, but not often for their listening skills and not always for creating a
supportive environment. The transition from player to coach or manager can be as difficult
for a sportsperson as the transition from a technical expert to a general manager in an
organization (Jenkins, 2010, McCarthy, 2014).
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Burns (1978) and Bass and Avolio (1985; 1989; 1990; 2000) are linked with introducing
and developing the transformational leadership concept. The dimensions of transformational
leaders are idealised influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and
individualised consideration (Bass, 1990; Bass & Riggio, 2006). These dimensions will be
further explained in the next section comparing transformational leadership and managerial
coaching. Bass and Riggio (2006) note that transformational leadership can be participative or
directive. For example, participative individualised consideration is illustrated as “What can
we do as a group to give each other the necessary support to develop our capabilities?” while
directive is illustrated by “I will provide the support you need in your efforts to develop
yourself in the job” (p. 12). The dimensions of transformational leadership can be measured
using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Bass and Riggio
(2006) summarise research validating the model. In a meta-analysis of 117 independent
studies, Wang, Oh, Courtright and Colbert (2011) confirmed that transformational leadership
was positively related to follower performance (in regard to individual, team and
organization). Although this demonstrates the benefits of a transformational leadership style,
it is less clear how managers can adopt such a style. We know from Conger and Benjamin
(1999) that managers can learn how to be a transformational leader, e.g., via training
programs where participants take the MLQ questionnaire and receive feedback, followed by
skills training (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Kirkbride, 2006). However, Bass and Riggio (2006)
themselves state that more insight into training for transformational leadership is required. In
this context, this chapter will analyse the extent to which coaching matches the
transformational leadership model. If there is a close match, then if managers learn to coach,
they will simultaneously learn how to deploy transformational leadership.
COMPARISON OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND

MANAGERIAL COACHING
This section compares key dimensions of the transformational leadership model
described in Bass (1990, p. 22) as well as a more recent publication by Bass and Riggio
(2006, pp. 6-7) with literature on coaching and managerial coaching.
First Dimension of Transformational Leadership: Charisma
The first dimension of the transformational leadership model is called Charisma or

‘idealised influence’. Key elements are: interactional nature, role model (admired by
followers), trusted and respected, extraordinary capabilities, willingness to take risks,
consistency, high ethical standards, vision and mission (Bass, 1990, p. 22; Bass & Riggio,
2006, p. 6).
Whilst managerial coaches may be admired for their leadership style, the emphasis of
coaching is on collaboration and partnering, enhancing the performance of the coachee and
less about extraordinary capabilities of the leader (SAI, 2011). Furthermore the first
dimension mentions ‘willing to take risks’. A coaching manager may foster a climate in
which employees are willing to take ownership and innovate, which requires some tolerance
of risk, however risk taking is not, per se, a core element of the coaching approach.
Despite these differences, there are also several common elements between managerial
coaching and the transformational leadership dimension of charisma, viz. trust, respect and
high ethical standards; consistency; vision and mission. These will be discussed next.
Trust, Respect and High Ethical Standards

Gaining trust is included in the first dimension of transformational leadership and trust is
also one of the critical success factors of the coaching relationship, both in business (Ely et
al., 2010; Ladyshewsky, 2010) and in sports (Jones, 2001). Trust needs not only to be initially
established, but also needs to continuously be proven and thus can deepen over time (Trzaska,
2011). In coaching, trust is also linked to confidentiality. Key issues around confidentiality
are discussed at an early stage in agreeing a coaching engagement (Brockbank and McGill,
2006). Although managers may not engage in formal coaching sessions, but rather use an
informal approach, including coaching skills in their daily leadership repertoire, so called
“corridor” coaching (Turner & McCarthy, 2015, p. 2), they should nevertheless comply with
high ethical standards, as advocated by professional coaching bodies such as the International
Coaching Federation (ICF). It is especially important that the level of confidentiality between
manager (coach) and employee (coachee) is agreed upon, as the manager is in a position of
power in relation to the employee. For coaching to be effective, the employee needs to know
they can be honest and safe (McCarthy & Milner, 2013).
Consistency
The transformational leadership concept emphasises consistency. For the managerial
coach, consistency is important; however a balance between consistency and flexibility is also
needed. Managers may need to apply a situational leadership style, switching between several
roles in a conversation, for example mentoring, training, coaching, or more directive styles,
depending on the context. Thus some situations might call for a more directive approach e.g.,
in emergency situations. Similarly in an important football game, coaches may be far more
directive in their feedback from the dugout, than in training sessions where they may
encourage players to hone their skills. However, more empirical research is needed to
determine in which situations a non-directive coaching style works best.
Providing Vision and Mission

‘Providing vision and sense of mission’ is specifically listed in the first dimension of
transformational leadership and is applied within the coaching context through visioning and
scenario planning and further specified through goal setting. Coaching managers have regular
goal setting meetings in order to share and communicate the organization’s vision, enabling
employees contribute by identifying ways to achieve the vision and organizational goals.
Nigel Edwards, captain of the winning European Ryder Cup team in 2011, encouraged each
of his team members to do his best, rather than to focus on the overall abstract goal of
winning the cup (McCarthy, 2012). In their study of Australian managers, McCarthy and
Ahrens (2012) reported that goal setting was one of the key coaching behaviors with 77.8% of
the participating managers using it. Some managers also mentioned using specific goal setting
tools, such as GROW (Goal, Reality, Options, Way forward) or SMART goals (Specific,
Measurable, Attractive, Realistic, and Time-bound). However, goal setting was mentioned
less frequently than active listening, questioning and feedback. McCarthy and Ahrens (2012)
explain this lower finding with the probability of coachees being limited by the goals of the
organization. In other words, the question that arises here is whose vision and goals are being
discussed and how collaborative the goal setting process really is. Employees needing to meet
Key Performance Indicators cannot necessarily choose or change these goals. However,
coaching managers support their employees to find their own way to achieve goals, thus
giving responsibility and ownership to employees.
Second Dimension of Transformational Leadership: Inspiration
The second dimension of transformational leadership is focused around clear and simple
communication and providing inspiration and commitment (Bass, 1990; Bass & Riggio,
2006). Specifically, a transformational leader motivates and inspires, displays enthusiasm and
optimism, involves followers to envision attractive future states, clearly communicates
expectations that followers want to meet and demonstrates commitment to goals and the
shared vision (Bass & Riggio, 2006, pp. 6-7). Nigel Edwards (McCarthy, 2012) clearly
inspired his team to win the Ryder cup, constantly reminding them: “Every shot you hit this
week must be taken with the attitude of a winner” (p. 90).
‘Uses symbols to focus efforts’ is named in the second dimensions of the
transformational leadership concept (Bass, 1990, p. 22) but is not necessarily something that a
coaching manager would do. However, there are many other similarities between the second
dimension of transformational leadership and managerial coaching, which can be summarised
as: committing to goals and a shared vision; involvement and communication of expectation
and goals; motivation, optimism and enthusiasm.
Goals and Vision

The second dimension includes ‘demonstrates commitment to goals and shared vision’;
hence the emphasis in the transformational leadership model is on the leader’s commitment
to goals. Whilst it makes sense for a coaching manager to demonstrate commitment to goals,
the commitment of the employee to goals is equally important if the goals are to be
successfully achieved. A coaching approach typically focuses more on the coachee’s goal and
the coachee’s context (SAI, 2011), thus the coachee’s commitment to goals is of interest.
However, in managerial coaching, this is different, as the coachee is not always able to
choose the goal (McCarthy & Ahrens, 2012). Managers nevertheless should try to gain the
team member’s commitment, e.g., by listening and being open to new ideas, and by making it
feasible to execute goals by providing the appropriate support structure and work
environment. In this context, Garvey, Stokes, and Megginson (2009) remind us that there is
also a potential ‘dark side’ to goals, for example, where goals are selected which are not
helpful to the coachee.
Involvement and Communication of Expectations and Goals

Involving staff can increase engagement, in other words, if someone is part of developing
a solution, it is more likely that this person also will want to execute the task. The goal setting
process itself can also be used to communicate expectations to followers, to ensure that
employees want to follow them and are also involved in the process, aspects which are pointed
out in the second dimension of the transformational leadership model. A coaching approach
can thus be used to increase commitment to organizational strategies and increase the
likelihood of the strategies being implemented. On a practical level, GROUP (Goal, Reality,
Options, Understand others and Perform) group coaching can be implemented, where the
manager and the employee or team set goals in a collaborative way (Brown & Grant, 2010).
To ‘involve followers to envision attractive future states’ as stated in the second
dimension, the managerial coach can also use different coaching approaches such as forms of
the miracle questions adapted from the solution-focused approach (de Shazer, 1988), e.g.,
“Let’s imagine we have already achieved our desired future state, what would we be doing,
thinking etc.,”, or ‘if we had the perfect solution, what would it look like?’.
Furthermore, in order to communicate clear expectations on a continuous basis, a
feedback and feedforward approach might be useful. This way the coach regularly
communicates expectations and if needed, approaches can be adapted. As pointed out earlier,
feedback is a skill frequently associated with managerial coaching (Ellinger et al., 2014;
McCarthy & Ahrens, 2012). Whereas feedback focuses more on past performance
(McDowall, 2008), feedforward provides ideas on how to enhance one’s performance for the
future (Goldsmith, 2010). Both can assist with identifying one’s ‘blind spots’, something that
other people notice but of which the person him/herself is not aware (Luft & Ingham, 1950).
It has been argued that feedback would be very valuable in helping football players make a
successful transition to a managerial role (Jenkins, 2010). Whilst often given in yearly
performance appraisals, feedback ideally happens on an ongoing basis. However, negative
associations in regard to feedback can exist, with feedback sometimes given and/or received
in a negative way. A coaching approach provides a constructive way of giving feedback
which limits negative responses.
Motivation, Optimism and Enthusiasm

By involving employees and communicating expectations as outlined above, it is likely
that employees will become more motivated, because an increase in ownership and
involvement leads to enhanced employee engagement, adding meaning and challenge to an
employee’s work. Nigel Edwards made a point of reminding his team that they were
representing their country and that they were of the same calibre as the players who had gone
before them (McCarthy, 2012), thus imbuing both meaning and self-belief in the players. The
term ‘optimism’ as referred to in the second dimension of transformational leadership is also

found in the positive psychology approach in coaching. Using a positive psychology approach
in managerial coaching not only adds to the coachee focusing on positive aspects but also
leads to the manager being perceived as optimistic.
Third Dimension of Transformational Leadership:

Intellectual Stimulation
Looking at the third dimension of the transformational leadership concept, intellectual

stimulation, several parallels with managerial coaching can be drawn, such as ‘encouraging
innovation, creativity, new approaches’, ‘including followers in problem solving and solution
finding process’ and ‘not criticizing ideas if they differ from leader’s ideas’(Bass & Riggio,
2006, p. 7). These aspects are categorised below as ‘inclusive solution finding processes’ and
‘encouragement of new approaches and different ideas’.
Inclusive Solution Finding Processes

The third dimension of the transformational leadership concept includes followers in
problem solving and solution finding (Bass & Riggio, 2006) and is also described in an
earlier version of Bass (1990, p. 22) as ‘promoting intelligence, rationality and careful
problem solving’. This problem solving and idea generating approach is also found in
coaching. Coaching managers assist coachees to produce their own answers instead of
managers giving their employees the answer (Ellinger & Bostrom, 1999). In order to include
employees in the solution finding process, managers can delegate and give ownership to the
coachee (Ellinger & Bostrom, 1999). This approach may be new and possibly challenging for
managers used to directing people and also challenging for employees used to being given
answers. However ultimately both managers and employees can benefit from employees
coming up with solutions because employees often have a more detailed understanding of the
problem and will have to live with the solution, while managers will benefit from having
more time to think strategically (McCarthy, 2014).
An inclusive solution-finding process however does not have to mean that the coaching
manager has no input into the process. Some coaches are more directive than others and some
coaching approaches are more directive than others. For example, when using a solution-
focused approach, the coach tries to help the client focus on solutions rather than problems
(Cavanagh & Grant, 2010), which could be seen as directing the client in a certain (solution-
orientated) direction, whereas a person-centred approach implies a principled non-directive
attitude (Grant, 2004).
Encouragement of New Approaches and Different Ideas

Just as transformational leaders encourage new approaches and different ideas, so too do
coaching managers. Allowing mistakes to happen and learning from them is important in the
context of a coaching culture (Wilson, 2011) so that employees are not discouraged from
attempting to be innovative or creative. In addition, there seems to be a link between the
organization’s culture and the likelihood of managers displaying coaching behaviors
(McCarthy, 2014). An emphasis on short-term goals by organizations can decrease the
likelihood of manager exhibiting coaching behaviors (Pousa & Mathieu, 2010). Thus this
connection stresses the importance of a supportive environment which is further highlighted
in the fourth dimension discussed next.
Fourth Dimension of Transformational Leadership:

Individualised Consideration
In regard to the fourth dimension, a transformational leader: acts as coach or mentor,

creates new learning opportunities and a supportive climate, listens effectively, ensures two-
way communication, recognises and demonstrates acceptance of different individual needs,
personalised interactions, delegation of tasks to develop follower (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 7).
In an earlier version, advising is also listed (Bass, 1990, p. 22).
This fourth dimension shows the most parallels with a managerial coaching approach.
Probably the most striking is that ‘coaching’ is specifically named in the fourth dimension
and other elements in this dimension could also be classified as coaching skills, such as
effective listening. The following elements will be highlighted here: Supportive environment
and learning opportunities; personalised interactions and consideration of individual needs;
two way communication, listening and questioning; delegation.
Supportive Environment and Learning Opportunities

The fourth dimension includes ‘creating new learning opportunities and supportive
climate’ as one element of transformational leadership. A supportive environment is also
crucial for a coaching approach to be successful. On a micro level, the direct surrounding of
the coachee needs to allow for a coaching approach to unfold. The manager needs to ensure
that coachees can execute their tasks with a coaching ‘spirit’ in mind. If formal or informal
coaching happens, the manager needs to allow the employee learning opportunities. In this
context, a trusting environment and ownership are important. On a meta level, coaching
managers also need to be supported by their organization through resources such as the
opportunity for peer exchange. In other words, a coaching friendly culture (Hunt &
Weintraub, 2011; Megginson & Clutterbuck, 2006) can be beneficial for both the coach and
the coachee. A coaching culture includes appropriate training opportunities for managers
(Clutterbuck & Megginson, 2005). Whilst managers are increasingly expected to coach their
employees (Tonhäuser, 2010), not all organizations provide the necessary training. In a study
of managers in Australia, many of the participants were self-taught, learned their skills from a
peer or their own manager or only took part in short training programs (Milner & McCarthy,
2014). If coaching training is to go beyond the basic skills, then training programs with a
longer duration are needed (Ladyshewsky, 2010). Furthermore, Grant (2010) found that
managers needed to be supported for at least 6 months after being trained in coaching, to
ensure that they apply coaching in the workplace. As there are distinctive characteristics of
managerial coaching, it is important that coaching training and support should be specific to
managerial coaching, rather than generic coaching skills offered to any coach, whether life
coaches or executive coaches or any other variation.
Personalised Interactions and Consideration of Individual Needs

‘Recognizing and demonstrating acceptance of different individual needs’ as well as
‘personalized interactions’ are also named in the fourth dimension of transformational
leadership. Whilst coaches may have approaches, tools or techniques they prefer and
regularly use, coaching, per se, is a personalised interaction, i.e., coaches check what works
best for a particular coachee and in a particular situation. This is very much in line with the
personalised interactions highlighted in the transformational leadership approach. Coaching
works for many people, but it is not a one size fits all approach. Whilst individual coaching is
one option, team coaching is also an increasingly popular way for managers to coach their
employees (McCarthy & Ahrens, 2012). Through a team coaching approach, managers coach
several team members at the same time. However, managers need to ensure that individual
needs are still met when using a group coaching approach, hence appropriate knowledge of
group dynamics is important in this context (Thornton, 2010).
Two Way Communication and Listening

The fourth dimension also refers to ‘listening effectively’ and ‘two-way communication’.
Coaching is a form of two-way communication which includes effective listening and
questioning techniques. Active listening and questioning were the coaching behaviors most
often mentioned by managers who applied a coaching approach in their organization in an
Australian study of 580 coaching managers (McCarthy & Ahrens, 2012). The opposite would
be a pure telling approach, where instructions are only communicated one way.
Questioning techniques are fundamental to coaching (Wilson, 2007) with questioning
identified as one of the important skills within managerial coaching (Ellinger et al., 2014).
Open questions are used frequently in coaching, as they are less leading than closed questions
and hence encourage coachees to think for themselves (Wilson, 2007). Questions can be used
for many purposes such as encouraging options, challenging self-limiting beliefs, and
establishing the employee’s level of commitment to an agreed goal or change. It would be
interesting to evaluate the impact if sports coaches and managers were to ask their players for
ideas more often and to listen more to what the players have to say. Perhaps one of the
differences is that the sports coach is positioned as an expert telling people what to do and
how to do it, whereas the managerial coach recognises the expertise of employees and aims to
help them generate their own solutions. It would require a shift in mind-set for both sports
coach and player, if the coach and player were to establish a more collaborative partnership of
this kind.
Coaching managers in business also need to make more time to listen. Using active
listening skills helps develop empathy (Tyler, 2011). Different types of listening are identified
in the literature (Hawkins & Smith, 2006; Wilson, 2007; Woodcock, 2010). For example,
Wilson (2007, pp. 20-21) describes five levels of listening, namely ‘waiting for our turn to
speak’, ‘giving our own experience’, ‘giving advice’, ‘listening and asking for more’ and
finally, ‘intuitive listening’. Managers could implement a transformational leadership
approach more easily if they were aware of and practised coaching their employees. This
underscores the need for training managers in coaching skills as argued earlier.
Delegation
‘Delegation of tasks to develop follower’ is listed in the fourth dimension of the
transformational leadership concept, and is also included in managerial coaching. Although
time needs to be invested initially to implement a coaching approach, delegation means that,
in the long-term, time can be saved for both manager and employee, as employees can
implement tasks without constantly referring to their manager. Delegation should not be
implemented to overload employees, but rather to give employees more room to take
ownership, to provide opportunities for growth, and potentially to generate better solutions,
due to employees’ better knowledge of the details of the situation. Delegation is thus linked
with creativity and problem-solving as discussed above.
DISCUSSION
From the above, it can be seen that the greatest degree of overlap between managerial
coaching and transformational leadership lie in the third and fourth dimensions, intellectual
stimulation and individualised consideration. There is also some overlap between managerial
coaching and the first and second dimension of transformational leadership, charisma and
inspiration, although Mühlberger and Traut-Mattausch (2015) exclude charisma or idealised
influence from their study of coaching and transactional leadership in groups and pairs,
holding that a coach should not seek to influence clients.
We do see some differences between managerial coaching and idealised leadership, the
first dimension of transformational leadership, especially in regard to extraordinary
capabilities, admiration and risk taking. For example, charisma is not commonly a hallmark
of a coaching leader. However, this is not to say that managerial coaches cannot have
charisma. Maybe a coaching manager could be better described as an ‘everyday leader’. Both
coaching and individualised leadership share an emphasis on providing vision, building trust,
respect and having high ethical standards. ‘Uses symbols to focus efforts’ as listed in the
second dimension of transformational leadership, Inspiration, is not something a managerial
coach would necessarily do. The similarities between inspiration and managerial coaching are
in the shared belief that commitment to goals and shared vision should involve both parties,
that involvement and communication of expectations can be executed in a collaborative way,
and that optimism and enthusiasm should be displayed in order to motivate followers.
All aspects of intellectual stimulation, the third dimension of the transformational
leadership concept, are related. In order to encourage innovation, creativity and new
approaches, it is necessary to include employees in solution finding processes. It is also
important not to criticise ideas which differ from the leader’s ideas as this behavior would
prevent innovative ideas from flourishing. ‘Inclusive solution finding processes’ are also part
of the managerial coaching approach, thus we see similarities between the two concepts.
Besides including ‘coaching’ explicitly in the fourth dimension of transformational
leadership, several other aspects can be directly linked to coaching: Two-way-communication
including listening and questioning which are basic coaching skills. By applying a coaching
approach, consideration of individual needs can be met, e.g., using questioning techniques to
help employees find their own answers. In addition, ‘delegation’ for development reasons
applies to managerial coaching as well, based on promoting ownership and empowerment of
the employee. For all these elements to be implemented successfully, a supportive

environment – or in other words, a coaching culture – is essential.
Figure 1 illustrates the overlap between managerial coaching and transformational
leadership.
Figure 1 clearly shows the extensive overlap between managerial coaching and
transformational leadership. As Bass and Riggio (2006) point out, transformational leadership
can be either participative or directive. Managerial coaching is more in line with the
participative form of transformational leadership as it emphasises two-way communication
and involving employees in decision-making. One of the principles of coaching is
collaboration or partnership between coach and coachee (ICF; SAI, 2011). The similarities
between managerial coaching and transformational leadership are particularly evident in the
participative version of transformational leadership.
trust &respect
ethics
goals & vision
everyday
leader motivation & optimism
extraordinary
capabilities
involvement & clear
expectations
admiration and risk taking
encourage innovation
Managerial coach Transformational
Coaching Leadership
delegate
inclusive & diverse opinions
supportive climate uses symbols to focus efforts
two-way-communication
personalized
interactions
Figure 1. Managerial Coaching and Transformational Leadership.
CONCLUSION
The benefits of a transformational leadership approach have been extolled for decades.
However managers have not always been shown how to implement the theory. As shown in
this chapter, there is a great deal of overlap between managerial coaching and
transformational leadership. Therefore we argue that a managerial coaching approach can

assist managers to turn leadership theory into practice by using coaching tools and techniques.
While some managerial coaching skills are equally applicable in the sporting context, others
such as listening to players would require a shift in the sporting coach’s traditionally directive
style. Managers will benefit from training in coaching, less perhaps in specific techniques,
and more in understanding the situations in which they might apply different approaches.
Rather than rely on varying individual approaches, business and sporting organizations could
develop a shared understanding of coaching in their context and implement strategies to help
managers develop and sustain coaching behaviors. The benefits of transformational
leadership will then be realised.

The aim of this chapter is to give practical recommendations for how to put
transformational leadership theory into practice. The similarities between comparing
managerial coaching and the dimensions of transformational leadership imply that a coaching
approach offers a way to apply many aspects of transformational leadership in practice.
Our recommendations for applied practice are:
 Develop trust and share the vision

 Bring people with us
 Involve our team members
 Value each individual
Each recommendation is further described below.
Develop Trust and Share the Vision
As described in the first dimension of Idealised influence, a vision should be developed

and shared. Goal setting and coaching tools such as GROW or SMART goals help to
concretise the vision and involving employees in how to execute goals. Furthermore, the
coaching literature highlights the need for correct timing, communicating a switch in roles, as
well as building a trusting relationship through establishing boundaries and levels of
confidentiality. Similarly trust is vital in the sporting context, as a shared vision can only be
developed with an individual player or a whole team, once trust in place.
The second dimension of Inspiration is about bringing people with us on the journey. The
managerial coaching approach shows us how to develop commitment to goals and shared
vision in a two-way process. Coaching tools and approaches such as a solution-focused
approach, and the application of feedback and feedforward illustrate how to put involvement
and communication of expectations into practice in a collaborative way. Giving ownership to
employees increases motivation levels. By using a positive psychology coaching approach,
optimism and enthusiasm can be displayed and generated. Sports coaches also aim to inspire
their players with a strong belief in their ability to succeed.
Involve our Team Members
Ways to apply Intellectual Stimulation, the third dimension of transformational

leadership can be identified in managerial coaching by including employees in the solution
finding process via delegating and giving ownership to them, the employees. Furthermore, the
managerial coaching approach emphasises the need to create a coaching culture, where
people are encouraged to try new things, and when mistakes are made, people learn from
them rather than be punished for them. The longevity of football managers in the UK might
change dramatically if both clubs and fans allowed time for manager and players to learn
from mistakes.
Value Each Individual
Practical tips on how to coach, e.g., through active listening and implementing a two-
way-communication can help managers to apply individualised consideration, the fourth
dimension of transformational leadership, which enables managers to develop a strong
relationship with each employee, where employees feel listened to and valued. Individualised
consideration varies considerably among sports coaches and managers. Roy Keane, for
example, did not see making players happy as part of his role as manager of Sunderland,
whereas Bobby Robson, manager of the England squad and of Ipswich Town was known for
his kindness and generosity (Jenkins, 2010).
REFERENCES
Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1985). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond.
Working paper. State University of New York, School of Management. Binghamton.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes,
leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and
transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(3),
509-527.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and
beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21-27.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (2nd ed.).
Redwood City: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership
Böning, U. & Fritschle, B. (2005). Coaching furs Business. Was Coachs, Personaler und
Manager über Coaching wissen müssen. Bonn: Manager Seminare.
Brockbank, A. & McGill, I. (2006). Facilitating reflective learning through mentoring and
coaching. London: Kogan Page.
Brown, S. W. & Grant, A. M. (2010). From GROW to GROUP: theoretical issues and a
practical model for group coaching in organizations Coaching: An International Journal
of Theory, Research and Practice, 3(1), 30-45.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cavanagh, M. J. & Grant, A. M. (2010). The Solution-focused Approach to Coaching. In E.
Cox, T. Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The Complete Handbook of Coaching (pp.
54-67). Sage: London.
Clutterbuck, D. & Megginson, D. (2005). Making Coaching Work, Creating a Coaching
Culture. London: CIPD.
Cox, E., Bachkirova, T. & Clutterbuck, D. (Eds.). (2010). The Complete Handbook of
Coaching. London: Sage.
de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York, NY: Norton
& Co.
Ellinger, A. D., Beattie, R. S. & Hamlin, R. G. (2010). The 'manager as coach'. In E. Cox, T.
Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The Complete Handbook of Coaching (pp. 257-
270). London: Sage.
Ellinger, A. D., Beattie, R. S. & Hamlin, R. G. (2014). The manager as coach. In E. Cox, T.
Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The Complete Handbook of Coaching (2nd ed., pp.
257-270). London: Sage.
Ellinger, A. D. & Bostrom, R. P. (1999). Managerial coaching behaviors in learning
organizations. Journal of Management Development, 18(9), 752-771. doi:
10.1108/02621719910300810.
Ely, K., Boyce, L. A., Nelson, J. K., Zaccaro, S. J., Hernez-Broome, G. & Whyman, W.
(2010). Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework. The
Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 585-599.
Garvey, B., Stokes, P. & Megginson, D. (2009). Coaching and Mentoring: Theory and
Practice. London: Sage.
Goldsmith, M. (2010). Leadership coaching with feedforward. In J. Passmore (Ed.),
Leadership coaching: Working with leaders to develop elite performance (pp. 177-187).
London: Kogan Page.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Enhancing coaching skills and emotional intelligence through training.
Industrial & Commercial Training, 39(5), 257-266.
Grant, A. M. (2010). It Takes Time: A Stages of Change Perspective on the Adoption of
Workplace Coaching Skills. Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 61-77.
Grant, A. M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M. J. & Parker, H. M. (2010). The State of Play in
Coaching Today: A Comprehensive Review of the Field. International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25, 125-167.
Grant, B. (2004). The imperative of ethical justification in psychotherapy: The special case of
client-centered therapy. Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies, 3, 152-165.
Hawkins, P. & Smith, N. (2006). Coaching, Mentoring & Organizational Consultancy:
Supervision and Development Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Hunt, J. & Weintraub, J. (2011). The coaching manager (2nd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
ICF. International Coach Federation. Retrieved 13/7/2012, from www.icf.org.
Kirkbride, P. (2006). Developing transformational leaders: the full range leadership model in
action. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1), 23-32.
Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2010). The manager as coach as a driver of organizational development.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 292-306.
Luft, J. & Ingham, H. (1950). The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal
awareness. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group
development UCLA, Los Angeles.
McCarthy, G. (2012). Building self-efficacy in teams – practical examples from the 2011
Walker Cup. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 7(Dec.), 89-91.
McCarthy, G. (2014). Coaching and mentoring for business. London: Sage.
McCarthy, G. & Ahrens, J. (2012). How and Why Do Managers Use Coaching Skills? Paper
presented at the 15th Annual Irish Academy of Management Conference, National
University of Ireland Maynooth.
McDowall, A. (2008). Using feedback in coaching. In J. Passmore (Ed.), Psychometrics in
coaching: using psychological and psychometric tools for development (pp. 26-44).
London: Kogan Page.
Megginson, D. & Clutterbuck, D. (2006). Creating a coaching culture. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 38(5), 232-237.
Milner, J. & McCarthy, G. (2014). Training for the Leader as Coach in the Australian
context. Paper presented at the Reshaping Management for Impact, 28th Anzam
Conference, University of Technology Sydney: Unpublished Conference paper.
Mühlberger, M. D. & Traut-Mattausch, E. (2015). Leading to Effectiveness: Comparing
Dyadic Coaching and Group Coaching. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(2),
198-230.
Pousa, C. & Mathieu, A. (2010). Sales managers' motivation to coach salespeople: An
exploration using expectancy theory. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching
and Mentoring, 8(1), 34-50.
SAI. (2011). Coaching in Organizations Handbook (Vol. HB332-2011): SAI Global.
Thornton, C. (2010). Group and Team Coaching: The Essential Guide. London and New
York: Routledge.
Tonhäuser, C. (2010). Implementierung von Coaching als Instrument der
Personalentwicklung in deutschen Großunternehmen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang
Verlag.
Trzaska, E. (2011). Die Bedeutung von Vertrauen im internen Coaching The importance of
trust in internal coaching. Organizationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching, 18(2), 129-
144. doi: 10.1007/s11613-011-0234-0.
Turner, C. & McCarthy, G. (2015). Coachable Moments: Identifying Factors that Influence
Managers to take Advantage of Coachable Moments in Day-to-Day Management.
International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 13(1), 1-14.
Tyler, J. A. (2011). Reclaiming rare listening as a means of organizational re-enchantment.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(1), 143-157.
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H. & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational Leadership
and Performance Across Criteria and Levels: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of
Research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270.
Wilson, C. (2007). Best Practice in Performance Coaching: A Handbook for Leaders,
Coaches, HR Professionals and Organizations. London and Philadelphia: Kogan Page.
Wilson, C. (2011). Developing a Coaching Culture. Industrial & Commercial Training,
43(7), 407-414.
Woodcock, C. (2010). The listening guide for coaching: exploring qualitative, relational,
voice-centred, evidence based methodology for coaches. Coaching: An International
Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 3(2), 144-154.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Julia Milner is an Associate Professor in Organisational Psychology at Xi’an
Jiaotong-Liverpool University, China. Her current research projects are in the area of
coaching – particularly leadership coaching. Julia also has extensive experience as a business
coach and management consultant, working with consultancies and international companies
in Australia and Europe.
Dr Grace McCarthy is an Associate Professor and has published extensively on coaching

including a book Coaching and Mentoring for Business (Sage 2014). She has received an
Australian Government Award for University Teaching which cited her coaching approach.
Grace is the Associate Dean (Education) in the Faculty of Business at the University of
Wollongong.
Chapter 19
HOW NEW ZEALAND RUGBY STAYS AT THE TOP:

CONSIDERATIONS FOR COACHES
Peter Russell1,*, Edmond Otis2 and Roberta Cox2

1
International Rugby Academy of New Zealand
2
Eastern Institute of Technology, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
An experienced, internationally successful rugby coach, and a mental skills
performance coach, provide conceptual insight into the competitive and developmental
principles that are at the foundation of New Zealand rugby. The key to long and short-
term group competitive success, in both sporting and non-sporting environments, is
cultural adherence to universally shared principles. Several core principles for success are
used throughout the business and sporting world. Terminology, key principles, and
emphasis may vary across clubs, boardrooms and hemispheres, but the concept remains
the same regardless of where you are or what game you want to win. The “core
principles” model creates a flexible, synergistic game plan for individual and teams that
are driven to succeed. Throughout the world, New Zealand trained, developed, or
influenced rugby coaches use six core principles to develop championship teams. As with
other sports, the goal in rugby is to put points on the board and the main principles come
down to developing a system that helps teams consistently keep possession of the ball,
maintain forward momentum and play at the right end of the playing field. To enhance
the likelihood of this outcome, coaches use six core principles to build a methodology
ensuring that the positional criteria of the team is defined and constructed to maximize
quality across each positional discipline. We will discuss why such a simple working
template is at the core of one of the world’s most successful sports team, producing some
of the most skilled and talented rugby players in rugby.
Keywords: Development, core principles, cognitive acceleration, positional task efficiencies,

competitive environments, elite athletes, coaching psychology, peak performance
*
Corresponding author: Email: peterrussell1410@gmail.com.
370 Peter Russell, Edmond Otis and Roberta Cox
INTRODUCTION
The Rugby Union of New Zealand is internationally recognized as a production line for
the world’s top players, coaches, and development programs. With a national population of
just four and a half million people, New Zealand rugby continually, and consistently, leads
much larger rivals, such as South Africa, Australia, England, and France, in technical ability,
player quality and resilience, game strategies, wins, and international championships. In 2015,
21 of New Zealand’s top players made the list of the top 100 players in the world, with the
top four positions being held by “Kiwis” (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/
article.cfm?c_id =4& objectid=11412322).
In this chapter, we discuss the unique training model that New Zealand rugby has
developed, and uses successfully, in one manifestation or another, at all levels of play. This
model emphasizes the importance of a synergistic relationship between physical, cognitive,
emotional, social and behavioral factors, in the pursuit of consistent performance, competitive
flexibility, and successful outcomes. Although the rugby athletic environment is unique,
clearly, there are parallels in approach, philosophy, and application that are relevant to a
myriad of sporting and non-sporting competitive environments.
We will address how the New Zealand training system integrates the development of core
skills, technical and tactical efficiencies, self-awareness, culture, and resilience. Six core
principles are seen as critical to group and individual decision-making, and are believed to
contribute to a strong self-belief as well as mental and physical growth. A fundamental aspect
of this model is the selection and development of athletes through an academy or apprentice
system that seeks to develop, not stifle, players’ innate skills (Connaughton and Hanton,
2009).
FROM THE WOMB

Rugby lives deep in the heart of New Zealand’s national culture and psyche. It is a Kiwi
tradition. From fans to players, young to old, and from the smallest primary school to the
largest stadium, the love of rugby is ingrained early in the culture of all potential players.
With such a small population to draw from, there is also the awareness that everything must
be done to nurture and develop all potential talent. “Small Blacks to All Blacks” is a phrase
commonly used in New Zealand to encourage participation from all Kiwi kids
(www.smallblacks.com).
Current players, many of whom have long associations with the oldest established rugby
clubs in New Zealand, have been educated and groomed in the mythos of the game, at the
most grassroots level, from childhood. “Many clubs, schools, parents and teachers are heavily
involved in making the game available to all children. It is the duty of The New Zealand
Rugby Union to support, resource and encourage all who do so” (www.nzrugby.co.nz). So
you see, it’s “in the blood.”
How New Zealand Rugby Stays at the Top: Considerations for Coaches 371
LEARNING TO PLAY “THE PROFESSIONAL GAME”

In 1995, following the first fully integrated Rugby World Cup in South Africa, New
Zealand international rugby took the plunge and turned professional. Although rugby was
well behind football, baseball, basketball, American football and other multi-national sports
in terms of organization and infrastructure, the need was there, and for the first time, the New
Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) agreed on the principles of a contract that allowed New
Zealand rugby players to participate in the game at a completely professional level
(www.nzrugby.co.nz).
Amateur rugby players, the only type that existed at the time, handed in their trade tools,
shearing combs, shirts and ties, and embraced the virtually unknown concept of a professional
rugby union in New Zealand. Twenty years on, New Zealand has two RWC titles and the
International Rugby Board (IRB) ranking of first for the past seven years. The game of Rugby
Union and the New Zealand “All Blacks” brand is global, and they are recognized as the most
consistently successful major sport organization in the world (www.worldrugby.org/
rankings).
CREATING THE ELITE LEVEL - A SHARED FOUNDATION

A high performance sport environment exists to produce the best possible athlete, and to
accelerate that athlete’s learning and physical up-take as quickly as possible. The short-term
goal in any elite sport environment is to win the next contest, the next game, and the next
season. The long-term goal, and perhaps the true litmus test of a “system” that works, is to
create real and statistical dominance within a competitive environment, game after game,
season after season, over a long period of time.
Creating an environment that both nurtures and challenges talented athletes, at each stage
of their development, is key to achieving this outcome. In the early stages of planning an elite
athlete’s career, it is vitally important to set well-defined and achievable short-term goals
(Spackman, 2009). To set these goals, integrated performance plans are the method of choice.
Athletes differ greatly, and one athlete’s physical and psychological development will
always progress at a different pace and on a different trajectory from another’s. Although
every performance plan needs to be uniquely tailored to an individual athlete, the goals and
principles of each team member’s performance plan also need to dovetail in a way that
creates an overall team outcome (Gorman and Farrow, 2009).
Athletes more readily achieve individually identified targets through the involvement of
coaching and mentoring practitioners: strength and conditioning staff, mental skill trainers,
and nutritionists. The relationships that develop between junior and senior team members also
play an important role in individual development. Additionally, the athlete’s training time
frame must prepare them to be in the best physical and mental state at the end of their
development program, in readiness for a professional career.
For athletes to maintain constant growth and to eventually succeed long term, it is vital
for each developmental discipline to be monitored and modified by a qualified professional
provider or trainer. This type of monitoring is called “Periodization”, a high performance and
elite program that evaluates developmental milestones before next levels of attainment can
begin (Bompa & Haff, 2009).
Equally important, is a training program for the experienced, older, elite athlete. After
years of completing practice after practice, and competing season after season, work ethic and
pride aside, it is understandable that following the same program repeatedly may negatively
affect motivation and the desire to achieve more. Research in performance longevity has
found that when experienced athletes are consistently challenged in new and relevant ways,
and are invested in the value that their presence and experience contributes to the game, an
optimal level of performance can be maintained over a longer period of time (Ericsson,
Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993).
HOW DID NZ RUGBY BUILD THEIR FOUNDATION? THE SIX CORE

PRINCIPLES OF THE RUGBY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Taking concepts originally from football high performance training; after much
discussion, comparison, debate, and most importantly, a natural evolution of thinking, NZ
rugby introduced a program that was designed to systemically take talented Kiwi players
from one level of ability and performance, to the next. The goal was to develop players that
had been identified because of their potential, into players that could perform consistently at
the highest level of international competition.
The New Zealand approach is intended to develop three key characteristics; technical
excellence, physical superiority, and personalities that are suited for effective team
membership. These focus areas reinforce each other, and as importantly, can be easily
understood, discussed, and compared between and among both coaches and players - creating
a shared reference point and consciousness.
Critically important, is that these principles are the same for pee-wee to professional. In
this way, skill set, strengths, weaknesses, success and growth can be tracked and referenced,
by athlete and coach, throughout a career - using the same constructs and measurements.
The Six Core Principles that coordinate a NZ rugby player and coach goal setting are:
1. Technical - Performing key individual tasks in specific positions.

2. Tactical - Understanding when and where to perform a role within a unit or team
environment; quickly adapting to strategic changes in competition.
3. Physical - Maximizing physical ability; meeting and exceeding the physiological
requirements of each playing position.
4. Nutritional - Ensuring that energy levels are well balanced during training, playing
and recovery.
5. Mental - Having the strong mental attitude and deep mental skills required to
achieve agreed upon intense competitive goals.
6. Leadership/holistic (Mana) - Understanding the self and appreciating the critical
contribution that each player brings to the group.
Coaches and athletes use performance plans collaboratively to create a common

understanding and expectation of agreed goals and targets. Implementation of a performance
plan is very straightforward. Players use a form to self report their abilities in each of the core
principle areas. The coach, or academy manager, then works with the athlete to establish
mutually agreed upon programme attainment goals. A programme review is usually
conducted in three to six month blocks to assess progress in all six categories of the athlete’s
performance plan.
Athletes initially grade themselves with what they perceive to be their own strengths or
weaknesses. During face-to-face meetings with coaches, two to three key points that need
work are noted, along with a plan of how the athlete intends to improve in those areas. This
informal method of promoting self-awareness is the basis of establishing a fluid and
productive construct of independence and interdependence, individual autonomy and group
responsibility.
Identifying and developing these strengths requires in-depth thought and integration on
the part of player and coach. Each key element has a specific task to accomplish. For players,
growth in each of these six areas, and an appreciation of the fluid relationship of the six
principles, are acknowledged to be key fundamentals for the aspirations of future professional
rugby players and their coaches. All levels of this program have a pronounced holistic
approach to individual development. At one end, perhaps due to the small population of
available elite players, coaches and clubs consciously seek to build tactical and technical
efficiencies without stifling the athlete’s innate skills, which need to be groomed and nurtured
throughout their careers. In New Zealand sport, this concept is codified as Athlete Centered
Coaching by SportNZ, New Zealand’s national governing body for sport
(www.sportnz.org.nz).
At the other end, New Zealand Rugby acknowledges a moral responsibility to develop
players mentally, physically and holistically for life on, and off, the field. Implementing this
type of programme requires that clubs assume the responsibility of assisting athletes to
manage their lives effectively in the pursuit of sporting excellence. The goal is to minimize
sport-life barriers that adversely impact upon performance and leave many athletes adrift after
they move on from the game.
To ensure that life skills are developed alongside rugby skills, all players affiliated with
provincial clubs are required to undertake meaningful employment or study during their
involvement with their high performance programs. “From 2010 - 2012 the player’s
respective provincial unions began assuming mentoring and coaching roles around the
balance of rugby - non-rugby life issues from the NZRU” (www.nzrpa.co.nz/personal/
development/programme/97.1)
PRINCIPLES 1 AND 2: TECHNICAL ABILITY AND

TACTICAL APPLICATION
It’s Simple - Practice Makes Perfect
Principles 1 and 2 focus on developing the multitude of physical and cognitive positional
talents essential for performing in the various roles. These principles emphasize an intense,
individual, repetitive, and detailed focus on raw technical skills that include: passing, catching
and tackling, (see Table 1). Tactical efficiencies (TE) develop sophisticated athletic
awareness around the when, where, and how, of using skills in a team and competitive
environment. TE are understood to be equally as important as the technical skills. Of course,
emphasis varies from athlete to athlete based on position, experience, skill set, and
disposition.
The conscious merging of highly specific and focused technical skill knowledge, with the
complimentary development of global game understanding, creates players that are skilled,
versatile, flexible and resilient. Although separate, it is the synergy that exists between
technical and tactical attributes that creates the desired outcome.
Tactical Attack Awareness Principles
By referencing experiences from past games, both coaches and players apply the same
analysis processes to Technical and Tactical challenges and goals. Each player is responsible
for identifying areas of opportunity and applying them to their individual game strategy and
team integration. This cognitive exercise, combined with intense technical skill, develops a
high level of task-function-outcome integration. Table 2 illustrates a basic tactical analysis via
visual data of an opposition team. Athletes compile their opinions based on the table and
present to the coaches for vetting prior to a main team meeting.
Table 1. Overview of Technical Task Efficiencies (Score the try concept)

touch line. Dominant
Square, body height

Accurate pass while
Square drive, body
High Ball Receipt

Push defender to
Contact Support
Ball to Contact
staying square
(AFL concept)
Tackle
inline.
tackle
Pass
SKILL
ASSESSMENT
1. Alignment - Move Move forward Communicate Site ball,

shoulders, hips forward - two hands to ball carrier communicate - My
remain square after pass on ball ball
2. Communicate Adjust feet Left shoulder, Distance Head focused on
to passer to chase left leg close from carrier ball
attacker (knee to to be
groin) effective
3. Reach catch Site target Right Low body Time run into ball
early - hands shoulder, position, head and collision area -
up, fingers right leg close up looking Head focused on
spread (knee to ball
groin)
4. On receipt - Hands up - Spine in line, Communicate Slow feet, power
load ball to hip elbows in staying square - go down or step up. Hands up
tight stay up. above chest in
Confident cradle position.
talk Head focus on ball
(Score the try concept)

touch line. Dominant
Square, body height

Accurate pass while
Square drive, body
High Ball Receipt.

Push defender to
Contact Support.
Ball to Contact.
staying square
(AFL concept)
Tackle.
inline.
tackle
Pass.
SKILL
ASSESSMENT
5. Power hand to Left Low driving Low body Lead leg power
back of ball shoulder, body height height - head kick into reverted
left leg up, hands, pad - power plant
close arms up foot driving off
ground
6. Guide hand Right Score try as Left shoulder, Body remaining
mid ball shoulder, going to left leg step square
position right leg ground over close to
close target (hips to
ball or head
going over
ball)
7. Hands up, Head up Two hands on Right Ball into cradle of
fingers to lock in on ball - ball shoulder, arms, securing
target (at thigh under chest right leg step catch
chest) (hidden) over close to
target (hips to
ball or head
going over
ball)
8. Follow Punch arms Ball ripped to Strong Remaining square
through - and wrap ankles for contact on into defender,
arms straight strong threat, low landing balanced
presentation drive, clean on ground
out threat
10. Alignment to Lock Wrists Quick to feet Stay balanced
next pass – GBITG* on feet
11. Reach catch Quick to If ball
early, hands feet - available as
up, fingers GBITG* threat not
spread committed
react to
picture.
Source: International Rugby Academy of New Zealand, (IRANZ) 2015.
Note: Rugby terminologies differ from player, coach, team and country, but basic principles remain the
same. *GBITG, Get Back In The Game.
DELIBERATE PRACTICE AND PRACTICE SPECIFICITY - IT’S THE

LITTLE THINGS THAT BITE YOU
Key elements to effectively developing technical and tactical refinement are related to the
nature of the practice and the individual’s focus. Depending on the extent and intensity to
which the practice resembles the game, through experience, these elements generally transfer
from practice to game conditions (Magill & Anderson, 2007).
Table 2. Example of player tactical task focus objectives
Phase Play Opportunities. What phase plays we can run i.e., a strike then forwards with same way
attack, possible backs strike back down short side or same way where ever we see space.
Mismatches/Missed Tackles. Find where the 1-3 jerseys are in the defense line also their game
statistical information.
Breakdown Opportunities. What they do at the breakdown? When we have the ball, then what we must
do to keep it.
Counter Attack Opportunities. Where the space is on counter attack, see and play to the pictures we
see.
Exit/Kick Opportunities. Run kick options on exits, also general kicking opportunities.
Restart Opportunities. Where’s space on restart for re-gather, or their kick return /exit.
Source: Russell, 2015
The main Technical and Tactical task efficiencies training question:

How does this activity or drill relate to the game?
Example variables –
 Blocked repetition or grids with different skill stations on a rotational format
 Pressured environments
 Full team contact game based on game scenarios
 Variable practice or repetition
Developing optimal task efficiencies in a sport is not confined to one type of practice.
Practice Variability = Cognitive Learning: Intensity and Deliberateness
A few training recommendations that are known to enhance the synthesis of Technical
and Tactical skill development:
1. When initially designing training programs for the purpose of skill attainment, vary
the training environments. Variables include weather conditions, night training,
different training venues and possibly training against senior or more experienced
athletes. Attempt to provide a “real game” environment and “real game” pressures in
practice. Taking athletes outside their comfort zones in a non-pressured environment
encourages growth and promotes the ability to practice unproven skills or strategies.
Without fear of repercussions, the errors that occur in this type of practice
environment broaden the cognitive process relative to a successful outcome
(Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993).
2. Withhold early coach instruction to encourage variability and intuitive decision
making. This allows a coach (and fellow team members) to identify the doers,
thinkers, creators, and leaders.
3. Resist teaching “preferred movement patterns”, avoid a slalom type running drill in
favour of evasion between live defenders in a mini game. This again stimulates a
combined Technical and Tactical learning process.
4. With a clear understanding of how various kinesthetic learning principles interact
within a training session, coaches become equipped to design and alter training
scenarios thus facilitating expertise that is directly transferrable to the competition
arena (Fleming, 2001). The question of whether this expertise was achieved by a
technical drill or a random training experience is irrelevant.
Accountability
When using the six core principles, the coach, mentors, and athletes, truly become
accountable to one another. This mutual accountability impacts each of the principles, both
independently and interdependently. For example, the cognitive learning cycles of deliberate,
variable, game based random training sessions, reinforce processes that are taken into account
pre-season. Time trials, strength and conditioning, nutrition and testing, technical and tactical
advancement of the athlete’s team position, leadership and personal impact are all considered
during the final player selection stages leading into competition.
TECHNICAL AND TACTICAL COACH DEVELOPMENT IN A CREATIVE

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT – IT’S NOT JUST THE PLAYERS
Appreciating and embracing “other sports” is a great idea for all coaches, and a necessity
in New Zealand. The insight gained from a diverse range of interactions and observations
concerning alternative coaching styles, motivation methods, tactics, training programs, and
theories, is invaluable. Despite its population of only 4.4 million people, New Zealand
athletes are among the highest ranked in the world today: Cricket, field hockey, rowing,
sailing, equestrian, softball, basketball, Rugby Union in 15 a-side and the shortened version
of the 7-aside game, the world free diving record holder and the world number one woman’s
golfer. A significant percentage of New Zealand’s sport success may be due to the national
tradition and philosophic inclination of its coaches to share knowledge and resources with
each other.
Sport New Zealand, the country’s national governing body of sport, describes itself, as
the “guardian of our country’s world-leading sporting system, from grassroots to elite sport”
(Sport NZ Group Strategic Plan, 2015-20 p1). In the recently launched strategic plan it states,
“It has delivered four key points, with one being to continuously drive high performance
outcomes and to deliver on the world stage of sport” (www.sportnz.org.nz/strategicplan
/2015).
New Zealand’s National Sporting Organizations (NSO) provides avenues for learning to
occur, starting at the grassroots and continuing up to national and international environments.
Coaches continually share their knowledge through open or invitational seminars, focusing on
how they achieved, or plan to achieve, their moments of glory.
Table 3. Targeted Norms. Since rugby union is labeled as an intermittent game, rugby coaches and trainers now prefer the Yo-Yo
endurance test (Bangsbo, 1994). It is seen as the ideal method of testing the endurance levels of players. Previous testing indicators such
as the 3km time trial and the Beep Test, where found to be non-conclusive for today’s modern game,
as are based on aerobic performance
All Strength, Speed and Yo-Yo results are graded specifically to the individuals playing position. Comparisons to normative results collated from New Zealand
Super Rugby Union franchises and Provincial Union academies.
Weighted
Body Weight Bench Squats 10m 20m 30m Yo-Yo
Chins
(Kgs) (Kgs) (Kgs) (second) (second) (second) (level)
(load+BW=1RM)
Rugby
Rugby
Rugby
Rugby
Rugby
Rugby
Rugby
Rugby
Super
Super
Super
Super
Super
Super
Super
Super
Player
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Position
Prop 116 118 134 148 161 181 139 151 1.81 1.78 3.15 3.12 4.45 4.49 16.4 17.1
Hooker 103 108 130 147 172 175 140 149 1.76 1.74 3.03 3.07 4.22 4.36 17.3 17.5
Lock 107 115 122 132 151 137 138 151 1.73 1.75 3.00 3.07 4.19 4.40 17.3 17.4
L/Fwd 100 106 120 135 152 146 137 149 1.72 1.70 2.99 2.95 4.16 4.16 17.7 18.2
Halfback 84 93 99 128 133 144 117 138 1.68 1.67 2.90 2.90 4.06 4.08 18.2 18.6
Fly Half 85 90 107 122 138 139 116 132 1.71 1.66 2.96 2.88 4.16 4.03 19.1 19.2
Midfield 90 98 109 136 149 153 122 143 1.74 1.63 2.98 2.83 4.14 3.97 18.2 18.2
Outside 89 96 111 132 147 154 126 142 1.66 1.62 2.88 2.80 4.00 3.99 18.1 18.1
Backs
Source: International Rugby Academy of New Zealand, (IRANZ), 2015.
PRINCIPLES 3 AND 4: PHYSICAL CONDITIONING AND NUTRITION

“It’s All About the Base” or “A Game for All Shapes and Sizes”
Coaches and players understand the importance of developing the raw physical potential
that allows Technical and Tactical skills to develop, and provides the physical foundation
where Mental Skills, Leadership and a Holistic integration of the six principles have the best
chance of making an impact. Table 3 highlights the levels of peak conditioning required to
perform at the elite level.
Table 4. Aviva premiership club competition diverse

coach resource allocation
NZRU (ITM) National Provincial

NZRU (SXV) Super rugby ERU (Aviva) Premiership
Competition.
franchise team Club Typical team
Typical team management
management structure management structure
structure
Head Coach Head Coach Direct of Rugby (DoR)
(forward or back) (forward or back)
Assistant Coach Assistant Coach Head Coach
(forward or coach) (forward or back) (forward or back)
Head Strength & Conditioning Assistant Coach Assistant Coach
(forward or back) (forward or back)
Assistant Strength & Conditioning Assistant Coach Scrum Coach
(technical assistant)
Team Analyst Head Strength & Skills Coach (s) or
Conditioning specific skill coach
Team Doctor Assistant Strength & Defense Coach
(part time contract) Conditioning
Team Physiotherapist Team Doctor Head Analyst
(part time contract) (part time contract)
Academy Manager Team Physiotherapist Assistant Analyst
(part time contract)
Academy Strength and Conditioning Team Analyst Head Strength & Conditioning
Team Manager Assistant Analyst Assistant (s) Strength &
Conditioning
Team logistics manager Team Manager Head of Medical (Doctor)
Player Development Manager Team logistics manager Head Physiotherapist
High Performance Manager Assistant Physiotherapist (s)
Player Development Team Manager
Manager
Assistant Manager
Masseur or deep tissue
therapist
Player Development Manager
Source: NZRU, National provincial championship and English Rugby Union (ERU). Many are
involved in the collaborative development of Rugby. The New Zealand rugby high performance plan
facilitates coaching seminars at many levels. They are conducted and delivered by a variety of leading
edge specialists from within New Zealand and cross code specialists from around the world (Russell,
2015).
New Zealand Rugby Performance Conditioning
The professional game of rugby has evolved since its conception in 1996 into today’s
high speed, high impact contest. New Zealand rugby culture develops players from a young
age who internalize the responsibility of creating the physical potential necessary to produce
optimal mental and physical performance, repeatedly, under stress, and for long periods of
time. Coaches and players integrate and embrace this culture of humility towards
conditioning and fitness in a way that reduces the “suffering” that we often see in other
athletes and team cultures. Table 4 provides an example of the number of the supporting staff
required to grow and maintain the athletes.
As with other sports, players invest hours into both generic and individualized strength
and fitness training sessions; this, in combination with testing and retesting, ensures that they
are on target during training and at their peak during competition. Table 3 illustrates some of
the “targeted norms” for testing from elite academy (Ad) to Super Rugby level (Super Rugby),
within the successful New Zealand rugby system.
PERFORMANCE NUTRITION “FUELING THE FIRE”

Optimal performance is only likely if all six principles have the same 100% disciplined
application across the board. Nutrition fuels both mind and body, and is understood by
players of all levels of experience to be critical to success, growth, resilience and consistency.
All athletes, especially those involved in a contact sport such as rugby union, require
sound nutritional balance for growth, performance and recovery. It is vitally important that
nutritional education is provided, and that good practices and disciplines are maintained.
Performance nutritionists are understood to be as important to outcome as are strength and
conditioning trainers, and tactical, technical, and mental skills coaches.
PRINCIPLES 5 AND 6: MENTAL SKILLS AND LEADERSHIP/HOLISTIC

PRESENCE (MANA)
How We Go about Becoming Who We Need to Be
When considering principles 5 and 6 we can take a moment to appreciate that the strength
of the New Zealand model may have less to do with the uniqueness of its six specific
concepts, as it does with the synergistic, 360 degree integration of their application to stated
goals - at all levels of play, and across all aspects of development.
All modern competitive athletes, sports, and sporting organizations, including New
Zealand Rugby, have come to embrace the reality that an athlete’s mental and emotional state
are as significant to performance and competitive outcome as is physical training. In much the
same way that physical skills can be enhanced through concentrated work and training, so too
can crucial mental skills.
Numerous mental skills and traits are broadly identified as key to improved athletic
performance. For example, Jack Lesyk, of the Ohio Center for Sport Psychology (OCSP)
identifies “The Nine Mental Skills of Successful Athletes” (Lesyk, 2005) i.e., maintaining a
positive attitude, maintaining a high level of self-motivation, setting high/realistic goals,
dealing effectively with people, using positive self-talk, creating and using positive mental
imagery, managing anxiety, managing emotions, and maintaining concentration. Lesyk also
explains how a developmental staircase can lead an athlete from one strength to another.
Social, behavioural, cognitive, and emotional factors all influence individual and group
mind-set, thereby effecting competitive sports outcomes. It could be argued, that all coaches
and leaders strive to manipulate and control these factors in order to assist athletes, teams,
employees, and soldiers, to attain consistently successful outcomes, see figure 1.
These four factors are simple to identify, but without the proper investment of attention,
culture, acceptance, momentum, and follow through, are difficult to influence consistently
and in a positive direction. We know that what an athlete thinks will affect performance; what
an athlete feels will affect performance; what an athlete does will affect performance, and
how an athlete interacts with others will affect performance.
New Zealand rugby’s use of six core principles in high performance training seems to
have developed, in part, from a fusion of New Zealand’s collective rugby consciousness, a
need to do much with little, and as a natural extension of New Zealand’s blended culture;
creating an excellent environment in which to maximize the interactive effect of these four
factors. For example; the way one development program leads on to another, while building
on consistent constructs; the way players and coaches formally and informally process
information collaboratively; the way in which younger players are matched with older players
as mentors; the way in which on-field and off-field quality of life issues are integrated and
seen as a fundamentally important team responsibility; and the way in which all players are
expected to practice personal leadership through actions, service, work ethic, and role
modeling; all blend to create the synergistic competition environment that exists at present.
Source is anonymous.
Figure1. Factors that can be influenced to affect performance.

CONCLUSION
Creating a competitive environment that produces consistent sporting excellence on the
world stage is the result of a subtle combination of interrelated factors. For New Zealand, a
requirement for success is a well-orchestrated, broad-based, leap of faith that refuses to allow
its participants to become mentally and emotionally humbled by the realities of geographic
location or limited resources.
Additionally, creating a strong competitive environment requires a refusal to be caught
up in the stagnation that often develops from hard-earned success. In any sport, raising the
banner of tradition, and following an approach of “we have always done it this way”,
eventually leaves the best teams and athletes chasing the pack and living on past glories -
unless, of course, the tradition you embrace is one of Innovation and Adaptability.
By both necessity and cultural proclivity, innovation and adaptability have always been
key to New Zealand’s application of the six principles. More importantly, innovation and
adaptability are encouraged in coaches as well as individual players, and are applied across all
positional requirements. For example, individual athletes, while being constantly monitored
by a professional mentor, trainer or coach, are encouraged to think for themselves, and look
for ways to alter and improve the performance plan, or techniques within a singular principle,
by engaging in meaningful review.
In the midst of all that happens on the field, players that view themselves as self-reliant
and inventive meet their positional responsibilities more consistently and creatively than
those that do not, despite the level of adversity they face.
The core principles, as we have seen them applied within New Zealand rugby union,
provide an array of guidelines, fundamentals, and core functional requirements that, in a
sense, create a useful conceptual paradox. It allows athletes and coaches to become
predominantly independent, even as the team becomes more functionally interdependent.
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COACHING

 Be true to your coaching philosophy.
 Adjust your trainings to be competitive but structured to the cognitive level of your
athletes.
 Ensure that your trainings are mindful not mindless. That your athletes are
continuously stimulated after the completion of each session.
 Diversify and be innovative to challenge the game and your athletes.
 Continuous feedback or feed forward provides an environment of learning and rapid
cognitive growth. Positive affirmations backed up through a visual medium escalates
athlete belief.
 The team culture develops the team.
REFERENCES
Bangsbo, J. (1994). Fitness Training in Football: A Scientific Approach. August Krogh
Institute: Copenhagen University.
Bompa, T. O. & Haff, G. G. (2009). Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training.
Human Kinetics Publishers.
Connaughton, D. & Hanton, S. (2009). Mental Toughness in Sport: Conceptual and Practical
Issues. Advances in Applied Sport Psychology: A Review, 317-346.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T. & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in
the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological review, 100(3), 363.
Fleming, Neil, D. (2001). Teaching and Learning Styles: VARK Strategies. Christchurch:
New Zealand.
Gorman, A. & Farrow, D. (2009). Perceptual Training Using Explicit and Implicit
Instructional Techniques: Does it Benefit Skilled Performers? International Journal of
Sports Science and Coaching, 4(2), 193-208.
International Rugby Academy of New Zealand, IRANZ. (2015). Resource data and
information from specific athlete testing.
Lesyk, J. J. (2005). A School Psychologist's Self-Study Guide to Sport Psychology. Journal
of Applied School Psychology, 21(2), 169-185.
Magill, R. A. & Anderson, D. (2007). Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and
Applications (Vol. 11). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Russell, Peter, C (2015). Personal resources and tables.
Spackman, K. (2009). The Winner's Bible: Rewire Your Brain for Permanent Change.
Greenleaf Book Group.
WEB REFERENCES
www.allblacks.com
www.internationalrugbyacademy.com
www.nzherald.co.nz
www.nzrpa.co.nz
www.nzrugby.com
www.smallblacks.com
www.sportnz.org.nz
www.worldrugby.org
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Peter Russell is a Professional Rugby Union Coach and the current Head Resource and
Coach Facilitator at the International Rugby Academy of New Zealand (IRANZ). He has
international experience as the Head Coach of the Newcastle Falcons in the English Rugby
Premiership as well as serving as Head Coach with the Hawkes Bay Magpies. He has also
worked as an Assistant Coach with Highlanders of Dunedin, New Zealand in the Super
Rugby Competition.
Edmond Otis, BA, MS is a Senior Lecturer in Sport and Health Science and Masters of
Health Science at the Eastern Institute of Technology in New Zealand since 2008. From
1981-2006 a Senior Lecturer in Athletics and Physical Education, Humanities, and Director
of Martial Arts at the University of California, Riverside. He consults with teams, individual
athletes and organizations, with a focus on Mental Skills and Peak Performance.
Roberta Cox, BA, MA, PhD is a Lecturer, researcher and author. Her research focuses
upon aggression, personality, dominance and reproductive success. She has been lecturer at
the Eastern Institute of Technology in New Zealand since 2011.
Chapter 20
SPORT PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONALS AS TRUSTED

ADVISORS IN HIGH PERFORMANCE ENVIRONMENTS
Larry Lauer1*, Andy Driska2 and Ian Cowburn3

1
United States Tennis Association Player Development, US
2
Michigan State University, US
3
Saginaw Valley State University, US
ABSTRACT
Coaching at its essence is helping athletes unlock their potential by understanding
how to maximize their own performance (Gallwey, 2008; Whitmore, 2009). In a high
performance team environment it can be a daunting task for a coach to not only manage
individual players but also the team as a whole. Thus, many coaches rely on assistant
coaches, advisors, and support staff to help them coach the players. More frequently,
sport psychology consultants are being positioned to support the coaching staff. This
chapter describes best practices for consultants working with coaches in a high
performance environment and as a member of a performance team. Relying on
experiences with NCAA Division 1 and Professional coaches, the role of the trusted
advisor is explored. The mindset shift from working as a service-provider of mental skills
training to a trusted advisor and member of the performance team is described, along
with a caveat for sport psychology consultants to consider how they frame their role
when they work with the coaching staff as well as the greater organization. A comparison
of approaches to resolving common team problems, along with a detailed scenario
explaining the process of problem-setting, will help the consultant to understand key
differences between a service-provider role and trusted advisor role. The specific skills
needed to serve in a trusted advisor role are described, along with the GROW model of
questioning (Whitmore, 2009). Given that the process of gaining entry and developing
trust has been described in the consulting literature, this chapter concludes by adding
nuance about building rapport with key team stakeholders, and understanding how they
fit within the political power structure of a high performance team. From there, the coach
advisor is well-positioned to develop plans for achievement, shape the motivational
climate, help align player recruitment with the philosophy of the team, position players in
*
Corresponding author: Email: larry.lauer@usta.com.
386 Larry Lauer, Andy Driska and Ian Cowburn
roles where they can succeed, and create team cohesion. This chapter will detail the
experiences of the authors in collaborating with coaches and also navigating conflicts of
interest in consulting relationships. Ultimately, the need and the importance of having
coach advisors that understand the psychosocial dynamics in high performance team
sport and their link to a scientific base of knowledge is emphasized.
Keywords: Coaching, consulting, sport psychology, reflective practice, role framing
INTRODUCTION
Professional, elite amateur and other high performance team sports occur in extremely
pressurized and complex environments. Head coaches are given a great deal of power and
responsibility for the purpose of directing their teams to success. To achieve success high
performance coaches fulfill a number of roles to meet the demands of their environment
(Rynne, Mallet & Tinning, 2006). Much of their effort is directed toward their staff and
players’ needs. At any moment a coach could be focusing on recruiting, personnel decisions,
travel and training schedules (and the overall periodization of training), game planning,
attempting to communicate clear messages to the team, talking with the media, preparing
their coaching staff, and so forth. The high performance coaching role is complex, dynamic,
highly diversified, and demanding.
Coaching at its essence is helping athletes unlock their potential by understanding how to
maximize their own performance (Gallwey, 2008; Whitmore, 2009). Therefore, coaches are
inherently “givers” of time, expertise, and energy in a highly evaluative environment that
creates high stress but also has the potential for much reward. Coaching at this level can be a
daunting task to not only manage individual players, but also the team as a whole. To attain
success and manage the plethora of demands, coaches need the support of quality
professionals. Thus, many coaches rely on an extensive staff of assistant coaches, advisors,
and support staff to help coach and prepare the players. Some teams employ a special advisor
to help the coach. For example, Phil Jackson of the Chicago Bulls had Tex Winter and the
Chicago Blackhawks involve coaching great Scotty Bowman as an advisor to the team.
Many coaches will tell you they are only as good as the support team they surround
themselves with, including coaching staff, scouting personnel, and performance team (i.e., the
group of sport science staff that surround the coaching staff to prepare athletes for
competition). Enter the sport psychology consultant (SPC), with an opportunity to work in a
high performance team sport environment, working closely with the coaching staff as well as
collaborating with strength and conditioning, athletic training, medical personnel,
nutritionists, and performance and video analysts. There are different ways to approach this
role that create different processes and outcomes. Our purpose in writing this chapter is to
challenge the sport psychology consultant to reflect upon how he or she might do the work of
a consultant. We are not the first to assert the importance of understanding how to work
effectively within an organization (e.g., Brown, Gould & Foster, 2005; Perna et al., 1995), but
our hope is to start the conversation again within the frame of the trusted advisor. To do this,
we outline best practices for consulting with coaches in high performance environments,
including how consultants might role-frame differently by acting in an advising role, how
consultants might engage in problem-setting in that advising role, the skills necessary to
Sport Psychology Professionals As Trusted Advisors … 387
advise coaches, and the emergent process of working in a high-performance sport

organization.
Together, the authors of this chapter represent a wide range of consulting and coaching
experiences from high school, collegiate, junior national, national and professional levels, in a
number of different sports. Each believes in the trusted advisor approach and spends as much
or more time working with coaches as they do with athletes. The goal is to create a mastery
environment, such that the team system functions at its highest level, with each team member
able to communicate and execute their roles efficiently. Each of the authors initially found
their way to the role of trusted advisor through opportunities generated by trust (developed
over time) and a problem a coach needed solving. In the case of one author, the relationship
was forged rapidly in response to the coach’s stress resulting from the team’s
underperformance. In other cases, consulting relationships were formed more deliberately.
Nonetheless, in all three author’s experiences, embracing the trusted advisor role has helped
to deepen the level of involvement with the program.
SHIFTING MINDSETS FROM SERVICE PROVIDER

TO TRUSTED ADVISOR
Our experiences inform us that we can be trusted advisors to coaches, but we must
understand organizational philosophies and politics to effectively frame the SPC role. This
requires a mindset shift or a different role frame for the consultant. In our estimation,
consultant role frames have often been determined by way of the consultant’s professional
and educational preparation to become a sport psychology consultant or sport psychologist.
We wish to briefly examine these traditional role frames before describing the mindset shift
required to become a trusted advisor.
As the field of applied sport psychology has grown over the past few decades, several
models of practice have emerged. Although there is a need for an updated and clarified
taxonomy of service provision in applied sport psychology, we wish to use a simplified
system to describe two common models of practice: team consultants and individual
consultants. It is worth noting that many consultants blend aspects of both of these models of
service.
Team consultants work with an entire team, often functioning as a mental skills coach.
They often teach these lessons through facilitation of workshops during practice time, or in
other cases, they may be present during practices and games to help reinforce the lessons
from those workshops. Depending both on the training/competencies of the consultant and the
nature of the arrangement with the team, a team consultant may meet with athletes on a one-
on-one basis. Team consultants are generally hired by (and are therefore accountable to) a
coach or sport administrator.
Individual consultants primarily meet with their clients on a one-on-one basis, and they
are often contracted by the athlete (or the guardian of an athlete), or they may be contracted
by a larger agency (athletic department) to provide one-on-one services to athletes on an as-
needed basis. Individual consultants do not typically work with teams, at least at first, and
instead seek work through contracts with athletic departments, sports clubs, and through
referral networks. Frequently, the individual consulting approach is conducted by licensed
psychologists because of their mode of training and practice, but also because of the clinical
nature sometimes required by the individual athlete’s needs.
What both of these models have in common is that the athletes are the primary recipients
of the consultant’s service. Athletes, however, are only one segment of the sport context. The
implicit assumption that undergirds both of these models of service is that the psychological
problem (or need) that the consultant has been contracted to fix lies within the athlete, and
that inefficiencies do not exist anywhere else within the sport context. However, anyone who
has spent any amount of time with a team can confirm that inefficiencies and needs lie on all
sides of the sport context. Despite recent work delineating the organizational stressors facing
coaches and high performance teams (Fletcher & Hanton, 2003; Fletcher, Hanton &
Mellalieu, 2006; Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009; Wagstaff, Fletcher & Hanton, 2012), there is a
notable absence of a defined model of practice that is explicitly designed to serve the
coaching staff (either independently, or in addition to providing service for the team and
individual athletes).
Limitations Created by Defined Roles
The delineation of the roles assumed by team consultants and individual consultants is
largely an artifact of the way that these consultants have been educated and trained. Team
consultants often come from sport science or kinesiology backgrounds, and have been trained
by educators; thus their work often resembles the work of a sport coach. Individual
consultants often come from clinical or counseling psychology backgrounds, where they have
been trained using a counseling model; thus their work trends towards a one-on-one
counseling approach. The type of training that a consultant has received will often delimit the
employment options they seek. To sell their services, these consultants craft their ‘elevator
speeches’ to convince coaches and administrators that their services have value. Most
importantly, professionals must work within their professional competencies, which
appropriately limit their scope of practice.
The issue that often arises is that coaches and athletic administrators may not understand
(or value) the services that these individuals can provide, nor do they have a strong
understanding of the distinctions between different models of service.
Problems in athletic contexts are unique in nature; they are frequently messy and
interdisciplinary. Coaches are acutely aware of these problems, but they do not often define
their problems in the same way that a scientist or SPC might define them. Professionals
trained in academia often view the world in discrete domains, sometimes called “silos”
because phenomena are viewed from only one domain or discipline. On the other hand,
coaches learn in an integrated, contextualized manner (Cushion, Armour & Jones, 2003). For
example, a coach might feel that her athletes are showing signs of burnout or a lack of
motivation. What type of a SPC is best suited to fix this problem? And if the problem arises
from physical overtraining, should the coach consult a physiologist?
Coaches are looking for competent individuals who can help them fix their problems.
They are not looking to hire multiple consultants to fix every problem that arises. Yet, if a
consultant casts their role too narrowly, coaches and athletic administrators may perceive that
the consultant can only help with certain kinds of problems. While this keeps the consultant
working squarely within their bounds of professional competency, it may unnecessarily limit
the potential for work opportunities.
Consultants may be selling themselves short if they narrowly frame their business in
terms of working only as a team mental skills coach, or only as a one-on-one counselor. At
the same time, where can consultants look to be guided in a new model of service provision?
As we have previously noted, the industrial/organizational psychology literature and business
consulting publications are replete with examples of consulting models. We wish to advance a
particular model of consulting that we have developed in our careers, which is the role of the
trusted advisor. A trusted advisor may provide a specific service to a coach and team (such as
one-on-one services or team building activities), but may also serve in a role of advisor on
many questions that the coach faces. We believe that this type of relationship has value for
both the coaching staff (help with specific problems) and for the consultant (more consistent
business and integration in to organizational functioning).
Consultants Can Provide Different Levels of Service
At this point, a clear definition of the levels of service that a consultant may offer is
required. We pull from the definitions provided in the book The Trusted Advisor (Maister,
Green & Galford, 2000), which describe four levels of service that are based on an increasing
depth of relationship between consultant and client, and an increasing breadth of issues in
which the consultant is involved. A service provider is the first level; this is akin to a
consultant who is brought in to provide a one-off workshop or motivational talk. A preferred
provider of service is a consultant who the coach (or administrator) can easily request when
similar issues appear in the future. For instance, a consultant who provides three mental skills
training workshops to a team in an athletic department is brought in by another team to
provide a similar service. They might also be a person that the athletic administrator calls
when they have a question about sport psychology. The third level of service, a valuable
resource, is a consultant whose expertise is valued not only for their technical mastery of
sport psychology, but who is seen as a professional who can provide valued problem-solving
expertise in areas that are not necessarily their main area of technical expertise. For example,
a coach may ask a consultant about a specific athlete they are interested in recruiting, or may
consult about a broader strategy to plan for the team’s development and evolution. The
consultant is valued as a capable individual who can help with tough decisions, even if these
decisions might be out of the traditional area of service that is commonly delimited for a team
or individual consultant. The fourth level of service, the trusted advisor, involves a much
deeper relationship with the coach. The consultant is seen as a listening ear or counsel for the
coach, someone who can push the coach to make difficult decisions when needed.
How the Trusted Advisor Role Is Different
We should note that many consulting relationships never attain the level of trusted
advisor; however, during consulting practice it may be useful to work with the mindset that
this role may eventually develop. The mindset of a trusted advisor is to be helpful across
situations and the skillset that follows involves listening and questioning to help meet the
coach’s and program’s needs. The service-provider or preferred-provider mindset is to

provide a solution to specific problems, as they arise. The argument that we make for a
trusted advisor’s mindset stems from the fact that problems in the sport context are rarely
well-defined. The work of a trusted advisor is to help the coach to better define and delineate
these problems. Often, this work is akin to a needs-assessment. The needs-assessment may
generate work for the consultant that is in-line with the services they are accustomed to
providing (individual or team consulting), but there is also a good possibility that a needs-
assessment might not generate traditional consulting work. However, if the consultant has
demonstrated their value in other arenas, the consultant still has value to the program.
Breadth Trusted
of Issues
Valuable Advisor
Preferred Resource
Service Provider
Provider of Service
Depth of Relationship
Figure 1. The Evolution of a Coach-Advisor Relationship (adapted from Maister, Green, & Galford,
2000).
The trusted advisor role is both a status of relationship and a role-frame for a consultant
to embrace. The term role-frame stems from the concept of the reflective practitioner (Schön,
1983; 1987), and means much as it sounds -- it is the way in which a consultant frames the
role that they play in a consulting relationship. This role-frame would shape the way a
consultant does their work, but would also delimit the types of employment they would seek.
This is an important consideration to make. For instance, if a team or organization appears
interested in hiring a preferred provider (to give mental skills training or one-on-one
services), and the consultant does not get a sense that there will be much opportunity for
involvement beyond providing services, it may not be the ideal team with which to get
involved. We say this with the caveat that a one-off mental skills workshop might be an
audition for future work. For instance, it has been the first author’s experience that some
organizations have an informal tryout period. Organizations may give opportunities (e.g.,
presentations, one athlete with whom to consult) to assess your competence, ability to fit-in
and communicate effectively within the team, and to assess your motivation to help meet the
team mission.
We do suggest that a consultant, if they wish to attain the role of trusted advisor, consider
what they propose regarding how they would spend their hours with the program or
organization. For instance, a team consultant with a service-provider mindset might look to
spend as much time as possible with the team teaching and reinforcing mental skills.
Similarly, an individual consultant might look to see as many athletes one-on-one as possible.
A consultant who wishes to work in a trusted advisor role might spend some of those hours in
the staff meeting, watching video with the team, or meeting with individual coaches and
support team members, gaining a sense of their needs and understanding the true nature of the
problems facing the team (if the organization/coaches are comfortable with this greater
involvement). Again, we provide the caveat that gaining trust of the organization is generally
a gradual process, and the ability to be present in different situations may not come
immediately. The first time you walk in the door, most likely the coaches won’t have you in
their planning meeting, but over time as you show your worth, opportunities emerge
organically (and at times very spontaneously). For example, the first author experienced that
just by being in the training center for the day coaches would spontaneously strike up
conversations that would lead to some type of action. On one day in particular the head coach
asked the consultant to stay and watch team film so he could see how the team was preparing
for the game.
Of particular value to understanding the multiple-role relationship of a trusted advisor is
the work of Sandy Gordon (1990), which described his consultancy with the Western
Australian cricket team. Gordon’s work with individual players varied based on the nature of
their relationship. His work with players differed from his work with coaches. He gained a
greater sense of how the team functioned and created a working model of elite cricketer
development. He worked at all levels of the system. Cal Botterill (1990) presented a similar
“integrated” approach in his work with the Chicago Blackhawks where he worked at many
levels of the organization with many different stakeholders.
Different Role, Different Skills, and Different Interactions
Becoming a trusted advisor means learning to see problems in an interdisciplinary

fashion, developing knowledge to work on an interdisciplinary problem, and recognizing the
limits of your technical competency. At this stage, your primary focus is the betterment of the
team, not acquiring clients or gaining a foothold in the organization.
An important consideration is not to think of yourself as having all the answers; instead,
you are the person who asks questions. In fact, providing solutions immediately may thwart
and undermine the process of the coaching staff taking responsibility for the change
mechanism. Furthermore, this questioning and listening process is what helps the coaching
staff to better define their problem. In addition it is important to become more comfortable
working with interdisciplinary problems, without delimiting your competencies too quickly.
If you can only help with the “psych problems,” you may not provide enough value to the
coaching staff. Those who question whether or not a sport psychology consultant should
become involved in issues outside of professional competency of sport psychology might do
well to consider that these problems will be solved (or more likely not solved) by the coaches,
who in most cases have not attained any professional competencies or licensures other than
those afforded through minimal education requirements and their on-the-job training as a
coach. Moreover, the advisor trained in consulting or counseling players is working within his
or her competencies of facilitating an individual or group of individuals to change through
questioning.
This issue is not as simple as being able to only ask questions. Because we are advocating
that the consultant become more involved in solving interdisciplinary problems, this means
gaining greater competencies in sport science. We believe that the psychological

competencies have been overemphasized relative to sport competencies. Having a strong
understanding of skill development and motor learning is a valuable competency for a
consultant, as it is entirely possible that team problems could arise from a coach’s lack of skill
or inattention to this area.
In addition to developing a strong competency in the sport sciences and psychological
sciences, a second mindset shift is working as a member of a team. Because the goal is to help
the team meet its mission the consultant now is more interested in creating best solutions
versus trying to gain more clients or persuade the coaching staff or administration of their
importance. The sport psychology consultant now is working to help the team first instead of
being focused on providing mental skills training or therapy. Working as a performance team
with all support staff at the table, the goal is to find effective solutions, regardless of whether
they employ sport psychology techniques. For example, the greatest impact consultants may
have within an organization is to help the strength and conditioning and/or athletic training
staff to better communicate, motivate, and hold athletes’ responsible in the gym and training
room.
The third mindset shift embraces two tenets of reflective practice: role framing and
problem setting. Reflective practice draws upon the work of Donald Schön (1983, 1987), and
has been advocated extensively in the coach development literature (Gilbert & Trudel 2004).
Reflective practice principles guide our work and our professional development.
Role framing, the first tenet of reflective practice, is essential to the trusted advisor. To
role frame is to specifically define what the consultant’s primary mission of service is, given
the context. For instance, in a staff meeting, the consultant may frame their role as a detective,
asking questions and helping to sort out details into a meaningful picture that the coaching
staff can understand. The role frame may change if the consultant is working in a team
setting; here it could be the role frame of a teacher explaining the brain-body connection. Or
it might be the role-frame of a facilitator, attempting to draw out as much from the members
of the team about a specific issue (e.g., tough loss, lack of motivation) in order to clear the air
and promote resolution. These different role frames are important for the consultant to
identify and effectively move between, because there may be multiple role frames within one
consulting job.
With regards to the consultant’s role frame, an important consideration is the consultant’s
job title, because the title may serve as a de facto role frame that precedes the consultant’s
actual work, and may unnecessarily delimit the type of work the consultant is asked to
perform. For instance, consider the difference between a consultant and a sport psychology
consultant. A sport psychology consultant may have a great amount of knowledge on
psychological issues, as their title suggests, but that title may simultaneously limit them from
working on problems that are not seen as psychological problems. Given that most problems
in sport contexts are messy and interdisciplinary, the sport psychology consultant might be
left out of the loop on some significant problems if the head coach or manager perceives that
the problem at hand is “not a psych problem.” A consultant, on the other hand, even a
consultant whose primary background and training falls within sport psychology, does not
have a title that delimits what problems they could help with. Owing partially to a
purposefully vague title, a consultant will be consulted for their expertise as the coach deems
fit. If the coach values the consultant’s skill and previous service, and sees them as a capable
individual, they will be consulted for most problems.
Problem setting, a second tenet of reflective practice, is an important practice for the
trusted advisor to engage in, but it is also a habitual way of seeing the world. Problem setting
is the process of stepping back and taking in all of the details in a complicated problem,
understanding all of the actors and their needs, and beginning to hypothesize why these
problems occur. This is in opposition to providing a quick fix or a stock solution to a
perceived problem. We believe that this is one of the most important services that a consultant
can provide to a coach, both in terms of helping to create meaningful change in the program,
but also in terms of demonstrating economic value for the consultant’s services. Problem
setting might occur in a specially defined meeting, or it might happen during a phone call
after a particularly rough practice or game. A consultant must develop a mindset of
questioning, similar to that of a detective trying to discover all the pieces of the puzzle before
attempting to put them together. In later sections of this chapter, we will discuss the GROW
model of questioning (Whitmore, 2009), which we have found to be helpful in guiding our
communication with coaches and athletes.
Table 1 is intended to highlight the importance of exploring contextual factors that
underlie many of the problems that arise in the sport context. By way of comparison, in a
service provider’s mentality, you will always treat the symptoms; as a trusted advisor, you
will have the ability to be involved in the identification of the problem (and potentially treat)
the root causes of the problem. We should note here that although a trusted advisor might
help to identify the root cause of a problem, they might not have the professional skillset to
treat the root cause. However, it is more likely that the coach will support a solution if they
have been involved in the process of identifying the root cause of the problem, and will value
your service in helping to identify that problem, even if you are not the service provider
delivering the treatment for that problem.
Table 1. Examples showing the difference between how a service provider and trusted
advisor operate
Example Scenario Service Provider Trusted Advisor

General approach of consultant Look to apply established Explore the contextual factors
solutions, may not explore problem that might be causing the
in great detail problem
Team shows signs of burnout,  Psychoeducational approach,  What situations might be
lack of motivation explain burnout leading to burnout?
 Give inspirational talk about  Explore training volume,
burnout and motivation nutrition, sport- and life-
 Goal-setting sessions related stressors
 Motivational imagery
 1-on-1 meetings with players
showing signs of burnout
Team lacks cohesion or  Team-building exercises  Cliques
“chemistry”  Leader development exercises  Player selection (e.g.,
recruiting, cuts)
 Coach behaviors (e.g., playing
favorites)
Example Scenario Service Provider Trusted Advisor

Athletes struggle with  Psychoeducational approach,  Psychoeducational approach
performance-related anxiety explain relationship between for coaching staff
and poor energy management arousal, anxiety, and  What creates anxiety that can
issues performance be easily mitigated or
 1-on-1 meetings with athletes changed?
experiencing most pronounced  Preparation for anxiety-
issues causing moments (create
 Planning and preparing, routine simulations in practice)
formation
Poor communication amongst  Enhance communication skills  General problem vs. only
athletes, staff (role plays) occurring in specific
 1-on-1 meetings to enhance situations
communication skills  Arise from poor modeling by
coaches?
Ineffectiveness of coaching  Work with team or individual  Workplace efficiency
staff or coaching plan athletes to mitigate effects of assessment
poor coaching  Clarify team mission/vision
 Examine stress points in
training cycles, competitive
year
Scenario: A Team with Lack of Motivation to Improve
To set our position in context, we provide the following scenario -- an amalgam of

various situations we have been presented with in our work. A track coach approaches the
consultant with the following problem:
My team struggles with taking it to the next level in practice. We don’t practice like a
team that wants to improve. Some of my veteran athletes are looking pretty weary… maybe
they’re burned out. Some of the younger athletes don’t seem to be handling the increased
training volume very well. The team isn’t fighting each other, they get along okay, but
sometimes I think if they were more passionate they would fight each other a little bit… they
would push each other to get better every day. I don’t see that.
In our general experience, we have found that coaches are inherently good problem-
solvers, but they tend to do well solving problems that are clearly defined and immediately
pressing. Some coaches, without support, have a harder time stepping back and seeing the
roots of more complicated problems. We like to say they have “coach tunnel-vision,” because
of the dynamic and pressing nature of the job that often causes coaches to provide quick
answers. As a trusted advisor, you have an interesting opportunity to engage the coach in
problem setting, solution identification, and explore the context in greater detail, to see the
many different factors that contribute to the problem.
Given this situation, the trusted advisor would likely begin by exploring the factors that
lead to burnout. They would operate from theoretical knowledge of what burnout means,
using the athlete burnout model (Raedeke & Smith, 2001, 2004). They might also understand
the links between overtraining and burnout, and how physiological states can influence mood
states, and how mood states can influence cognitive states. They might also understand that
burnout and overtraining can be a highly individualized phenomenon, as individuals show
variance in their amount of coping resources and the degree of advanced coping strategies
that they can employ. The coach also spoke about a substandard level of motivation, or a lack
of passion amongst the athletes. The trusted advisor has a good working knowledge of
motivation theory, including self-determination theory and its sub-theories, but also
achievement goal theory and flow theory. All of these theories serve to generate questions
that the trusted advisor can ask the coach. To wit:
You mentioned burnout… is that something you see in all athletes, or is it just some? Is it
certain training groups (distance runners versus jumpers)? In certain age-levels (freshmen
versus upperclassmen)? Compared to last-year or previous seasons, were we experiencing
some burnout symptoms at this time of the season? Is there anything else going on that might
be taking their energy (exams, life stress)? Is there anyone doing exceptionally well
(counterexample)? What are you actually looking to see from the team (behavioral goals)?
Through this questioning process, the trusted advisor might find that the problem lies
within a specific training group (the distance runners), and that it is normal for this time of the
season (exceptional high training load based on a training cycle). It is creating a problem for
the team because the distance runners are the most influential athletes on the team, and it is
the group that the head coach spends the most time with, thus the coach admits he tends to
generalize the problems of his group to the rest of the team (i.e., if my training group is
burned-out, the rest of the team’s issues start to look more like burnout issues).
How would this diagnosis change the treatment provided by the trusted advisor to the
team? Some more questions need to follow:
How well are the athletes handling the training volume? Does anyone in particular need
an adjustment? If training volume is off the table, is there something that particular athletes
need to do differently in order to tolerate the increased workload (e.g., do freshmen need to
learn how to regulate their schedules better)?
These questions might yield a much more targeted solution. It turns out that the
upperclassmen leaders are not taking very good care of themselves because they have just
moved off-campus this year, and have forfeited their campus meal-plans because they are no
longer required to eat in the cafeteria. However, they don’t know how to cook, so their
nutrition has suffered measurably.
The problem, in the coach’s initial estimate, was an issue of burnout, complacency, and a
lack of motivation. Our final diagnosis suggests that the problem has a lot more to do with a
lack of proper nutrition. The solution might be more along the lines of asking the
upperclassmen to return to their campus meal plan to keep their nutrition balanced; we’ll
monitor the situation to see if the burnout symptoms persist.
This role does not depreciate the psychologist or mental coach. In this example, being an
expert of behavior change, the consultant could be involved in helping the runners to develop
better habits and building their motivation to stick with a nutrition plan. Environment
management and self-regulation (e.g., routine development) would be key aspects of the
consultant’s support. In addition, the consultant might work with a nutritionist to help
integrate a nutrition plan into the training plan and life schedules of the athletes.
SKILLSET OF A TRUSTED ADVISOR

Now we have established the importance of a shift in mindset, we must examine some of
the more significant skills that a trusted advisor should demonstrate in the role. Naturally, the
skills of a trusted advisor are the same as those needed to be an effective sport psychology
consultant. Therefore, this section of the chapter will briefly examine the skills of a trusted
advisor, and then focus on how you can use those skills in the role of advisor to a coach in a
high performance environment.
What Skills Are Required?
The skills required by a facilitator or trusted advisor can be grouped into four broad, but
interrelated categories, and each is described below. Reiterating the need to reframe one’s
role as a consultant, the approach to these skills is important. It is not just being able to
complete a skill, but it is doing so for the purpose of facilitating a coach’s thought process and
insight in creating a high performance team environment. Thus, the trusted advisor is
applying these skills to help the coaches understand the needs, problem set, identify solutions,
create action plans (including how they will be communicated), and commitment to plans
(how they will be monitored and reinforced).
Observation
Observation is a fundamental skill for the trusted advisor. The advisor must be present
and see first-hand the team in its competitive and training environments. The goal is to
recognize important patterns of behavior (especially communication), in the coaches, athletes,
and support team. How do coaches handle conflicts amongst themselves? With players? How
is critical feedback delivered? How are mistakes handled? Are successes celebrated? How is
competition integrated in to practice, and what importance is placed upon outperforming
teammates? How do athletes respond to coaching? What is the tempo of practice like? Are
there certain incidents, actions, or behaviors that occur that lead to positive or negative
outcomes for a team? Is there a pattern to these behaviors and outcomes? These and many
more observations are crucial to understanding the environment.
As an example to demonstrate how observation can be useful, a trusted advisor can get a
a read on the type of motivational climate a coach is creating, based on the answers to the
questions above (e.g., what is rewarded and how is it rewarded?), as well as recognizing
things such as task design, athlete grouping, and so forth as they relate to TARGET structures
(Epstein, 1989; Treasure & Roberts, 1995). The motivational climate set is important because
it can influence outcomes such as enjoyment (e.g., Atkins, Johnson, Force & Petrie, 2015),
persistence (e.g., Le Bars, Gernigon & Ninot, 2009), and team cohesion (e.g., Hodge, Henry
& Smith, 2014). Numerous studies have demonstrated that peers, parents, and particularly
coaches, are important social agents in creating motivational climates (Pensgaard & Roberts,
2002; Keegan, Harwood, Spray & Lavallee, 2014). Observation therefore, provides
consultants with an excellent opportunity to examine high performance environments.
Therefore, it is crucial for the trusted advisor to be able to take a step back during practice
and competition, and by being reflective and self-aware (see below), perceive with reduced
bias what is happening. The trusted advisor has the opportunity to look for potential areas for
improvement, to problem-set, and to discuss with coaches what he or she, cannot or does not
see, because they are involved in day-to-day minutiae of coaching.
As the relationship and work continues, action plans are executed. The trusted advisor
can monitor these plans and help the coaches to stay cognizant of the progress of the plans.
Communication
Communication in a team setting is the foundation of effective functioning (Carron &

Hausenblas, 1998; Jones, Høigaard & Peters, 2014). The ability to send and receive
information effectively relies on skills such as active listening, and verbal and non-verbal
communications. The trusted advisor must use all types of communication skills with
proficiency to function at a high level. Being able to listen to a coach, accurately hear what is
said, and then being able to verbalize your own specialized knowledge is key in developing
relationships and moving teams forward.
Possibly the most important skill is the use of questions to help coaches through his or
her own thought process. Through active listening and questioning, a trusted advisor can help
a coach problem set and work through that problem utilizing the knowledge and experience
the coach has as an individual and as part of a coaching team. We suggest the GROW model
(Whitmore, 2009; example given on page 399) or Giges, Petitpas and Vernacchia (2004;
helping coaches with self-awareness) as examples of the questioning process.
Our advisor, Dr. Dan Gould at Michigan State University, compared his
facilitative/advising style to Peter Falk’s Columbo character, the bumbling detective who was
so disarming that he got people to spill their guts (i.e., divulge information that was personal
and/or incriminating). This is similar to the role we are suggesting, and in some ways,
thinking of yourself as playing a facilitator character may be useful! We recommend that you
read The Trusted Advisor (Maister et al., 1990) to gain a greater understanding of the
communication skills that must be made proficient to succeed in the role.
Empathy
The trusted advisor has the ability to put him or herself into the shoes of others and see
the world from that particular perspective. Empathy indicates basic affective and more
advanced cognitive components, which are the abilities to understand the emotions of another
person and the perspective of another person, respectively (Davis, 1983; Shamay-Tsoory,
Aharon-Peretz & Perry, 2008). Being able to understand a coach’s emotions, philosophies,
goals and rationales is crucial in understanding subsequent behaviors, and for framing
observations and communications. For example, observing, deconstructing, and advising after
an exchange between a coach and athlete (particularly a heated one), is much easier if you
understand the intentions of the coach (and athlete) beforehand. Of course, as a consultant
you can have empathy for the athlete or support team that perhaps the coach has to remain
more distant from. Thus by being able to place yourself in the position of the athletes allows
an advisor to help a coach discuss how specific actions may be received and interpreted by
individuals, subgroups, or the whole team.
One must remember to take the position of trying to understand the coach (or support
team/athlete) perspective. Only through understanding the coach perspective can you help the
coach understand how their particular philosophical view compares and contrasts with
alternative perspectives. Empathy may be particularly useful in understanding coach stress.
Stress is a continuous transaction whereby individuals develop relational meaning in the
continued appraisal of an environmental demand and the individual's response capability
(Fletcher et al., 2006). Empathy, is in part an ability to understand the relational meaning of
coach stress in order to better help the coach understand how to reduce the influence of, or
negate, stressors.
Self-Awareness
Understanding of one’s own thoughts, feelings, behaviors, needs, and wants through
reflective practice are the tenets of self-awareness and fundamental to the trusted advisor’s
abilities (Giges et al., 2004). Asking yourself the question about why you feel what you feel,
why you behave in certain ways, and what belief systems you have, aids in understanding any
personal bias and avoid acting unintentionally. Self-awareness is crucial in order to recognize
your own patterns of cognition and behavior, and how these might influence your relationship
with a coach (and others). Are there particular patterns of behavior you tend to follow? How
and why? For example, if you tend to return back to telling a coach rather than asking
questions, why does that happen? It may be related to your need to control the situation or to
feel like you are right for your own confidence. Additionally, embedded within self-
awareness, is an appreciation for your own professional and cultural competencies. Thus,
reflective practice, becoming more self-aware, and recognising your own tendencies, allows
you to begin to regulate behavior (Murphy & Tammen, 1998).
The trusted advisor must be aware of their own beliefs regarding competitive sport,
particularly in coaching philosophy, approaches, and team climates. It is also particularly
important to be aware when their own ideals for the team may be superseding those of the
coach. You must understand and stay in your role! The important question to ask yourself is,
“am I helping the coach come to their own conclusions, or am I guiding the coach to my
conclusion?” If it is the latter, you may need to adjust your approach.
How Do You Use the Skills of a Trusted Advisor?
The goal of using the skills of observation, communication, empathy, and self-awareness,
is to empower the coach and staff to reach appropriate decisions for the team. We like to think
of this as similar to teaching in the college setting or advising graduate students. Each
individual brings a unique set of experiences, knowledge, and skills to the table and that as
instructor or advisor you need to know when to let others lead the learning process. This is
particularly true when advising coaches, who have the benefit of many years of experience,
an in depth knowledge of their team, and specialized training for his or her sport. Attempting
to “upstage” or “grandstand” will not be perceived well and likely to lead to the consultant
never reaching the status of trusted advisor. What is more important is to use specialist
knowledge to ask the right questions to empower coaches and help them commit to correct
courses of action.
In practice it is important employ each of the aforementioned skills simultaneously and
continuously, but particularly empathy and communication. Communication without
empathy, without attempting to see the perspective of the other party, means you are focused
on your own agenda. It is easy to unintentionally slide into a telling communication style,
especially if you are used to a more traditional sport psychology consultancy roles where you
are teaching skills to others. This is where self-awareness becomes an important factor in the
process. Similarly, having high empathy but not being able to express one's thoughts or ask
appropriate questions is equally unhelpful for a coach. Coaches will appreciate someone who
understands their position, but if you are unable to bring specialist knowledge or important
observations to the conversation you are also not moving the coach forward. Finally, this type
of communication is also likely to prevent a coach facilitator from making the jump from
‘approved service provider’ to ‘trusted advisor’. Thus, you must have competence both in
how you relate to others, but also in performance and psychology.
As previously mentioned, one of the best ways to use these skills is to use questions. It is
an excellent way of empowering coaches by allowing them to work through a problem and
come to an appropriate solution, or at minimum, a best course of action. One model for
guiding questions as a facilitator is the GROW model (Whitmore, 2009). This model creates a
coach-centered approach to your discussion:
G – Goal – Questions here are asked to elicit the goals of the coach in relation to a
particular issue, situation, etc. What is the coach trying to achieve? Where does the
coach want to be? What team behaviors does he or she want from the team /
individual?
R – Reality – In working toward goals it is important to understand current realities, as
such questions from this section are to determine the reality of an issue or situation.
What is the current reality? What is happening? Why is that happening? Why is that
a problem? What things are going well? What obstacles exist?
O – Options – Once goals and reality are established, the options for moving forward are
crucial from the role of a trusted advisor. As a facilitator here you can help a coach
work through potential options. For example, what have you done in this situation
previously? What do other excellent coaches do? What are the potential benefits and
pitfalls of a specific approach? Here you also have the opportunity to use your
specialized knowledge in performance enhancement and climate to provide the coach
with alternatives, e.g., if a coach took the same approach with you, how would you
react?
W– Will – Questions designed to determine how the discussed options will be enacted
and a commitment to those options. It is with some regularity that consultants find
themselves working with a coach or athlete that has an idea of what they need to do
but no confirmed plan of how, thus the will questions determine the final plan and a
commitment. What will change in terms of coaching approach, coach behaviors,

coach communications, trusted advisor approach, etc.? Inherent in the will questions
is an evaluation piece, how will we know if we’re making progress in this area; what
metrics are important?
While the GROW model is depicted in a very specific order, in most circumstances it is
likely you will not be talking with a coach about goals to begin with. In our experience the
coach usually approaches with a problem or a desire to try something new. It is then up to
you, as the trusted advisor, to determine where you might begin with questions. If a coach
approaches with a problem, perhaps they are struggling for answers in trying to find team
performance, then you might start with reality questions. It is important to establish what the
actual problem may be, and some of the mechanisms behind it. It is only then that options for
dealing with a problem, goals that might demonstrate change, and how those changes will be
enacted can be discussed.
THE EMERGENT PROCESS OF WORKING IN AN ORGANIZATION

The essence of coaching is helping athletes unlock their potential by understanding how
to maximize their own performance (Gallwey, 2008; Whitmore, 2009). High performance
team environments can be daunting situations. The SPC using the approach of the trusted
advisor has the opportunity to not only maximize their utility to a sporting organization, but
also have the opportunity to work in a more in-depth and integrated fashion.
We believe this is an emergent process. A consultant can be placed immediately into a
performance team structure such as the one deployed by the USOC (which we believe is an
effective way to work with an organization), but the process of gaining trust is not automatic
or even simple. A process of interacting over time with a very clear intention to help the
coaching staff instead of trying to always have the answer is essential; the trusted advisor
must understand when he or she must provide his or her ideas to get the process moving. As
the consultant gains trust and the role shifts to the trusted advisor it becomes important to
move from providing answers to asking the head coach and coaching staff what they think are
answers to their questions. This should happen early in the relationship. This forms their
perceptions of how you work and how the process of working together should be, thus
influencing all future interactions.
The trusted advisor role requires that the consultant put aside his or her ego and be
patient. In many cases you will not receive recognition for the work you do. Again, your goal
is not personal accolades, but for the coaches to “own” the solutions. This is the most
effective way to create the change needed for success. Nonetheless, it has been the first
author’s experience that you will receive recognition by those in the organization that
understand your role and how it is being implemented.
Building trust is a long-term process and destroying it only takes a moment. Authors have
written about the process of gaining entry and trust (e.g., Ravizza, 1988; Fifer, Henschen,
Gould & Ravizza, 2008). Relative to this we believe several ideas are very important. First
and foremost, you must demonstrate value. You will not get fully in the inner circle if you
cannot provide value. Second, it is imperative that you understand who you work for (Perna,
Neyer, Murphy, Ogilvie & Murphy, 1995). This frames your role. If a general manager (GM)
or athletic director hires you to evaluate the coaching staff your role is quite different than
being hired by the head coach who wants your performance enhancement support. The
metrics of success and reporting lines are different. For instance, a consultant hired by the
GM who routinely communicates with the coaches, but fails to update the GM on their efforts
and progress will quickly lose the trust of upper management.
Communication was briefly mentioned earlier in this chapter. Addressing communication
in the context of reporting to upper management as well as coaches highlights how
communication will determine your effectiveness and longevity with the organization. To
navigate this real and inherent issue the consultant wanting to build trust must attain a clear
set of expectations regarding reporting lines and evaluation metrics with upper management
and the coaching staff. It is our advice to have both upper management and coaching staff in
the same room communicating because the solution to this dilemma is open and transparent
communication. Transparent communication can create the trust needed to succeed in a sport
organization. Working towards having the coaches and upper management communicate
about your process moves you out of the middle and helps them to own the process.
There is a very important qualifier to transparent communication, and it has nothing to do
with hidden agendas or “tricking” others. Instead, it is what our advisor preached to us,
“never surprise the boss.” If you have concerns and something important to communicate it is
best to discuss it with those that you report to, even if they are not going to be able to revise
it. Surprising a coach in front of his or her boss with controversial or critical information will
most likely destroy trust. Ultimately, through reflection, you must anticipate the consequences
of your actions in the given context. To do this successfully you must understand who you
report to and those that it affects.
At times the trusted advisor role can put you in a precarious position. For instance, it is
established that sport psychology consultants must protect the rights of the athletes.
Confidentiality becomes an area of conflict if we do not explain from the beginning how
confidentiality should work, and have an agreed upon approach to communicating work with
athletes. The same applies to working with coaches and what is communicated to upper
management. Again, having the athletes, coaches, and management communicating with one
another removes the consultant from the pitfalls of communicating too much or the wrong
things. This also has a secondary benefit; it is their team or organization and they must take
responsibility for its functioning. Therefore, it is best for the development of the team that
their members are communicating with one another the work that the consultant/advisor is
doing. This allows the consultant/advisor to communicate in generalities about the work that
is being done, but to not breach confidentiality.
If you are to be a trusted advisor your responsibility within the organization will be
enhanced. You are perceived as a more integral part of the team, more than an outside
consultant. In many ways it is comfortable to not be accountable for the team’s functioning.
However, as has been described in-depth, it is fulfilling to be in a trusted role. Be warned;
with this responsibility you must also be accountable.
With this increased responsibility the advisor will have the ability to affect the culture of
the team and the organization. You have a greater chance of making a large impact by
working with and through the coaching staff and players. It allows you the opportunity to
affect the motivational climate of the team. The excellent science that exists on mastery, task,
and caring climates (e.g., Smith, Smoll & Cumming, 2007; Le Bars et al., 2009; Eys, Jewitt,
Evans, Wolf, Bruner & Loughead, 2013) can be compared against your working environment.
Then, recommendations can be made to enhance mastery and task within the environment.
Through conducting a needs assessment, as was mentioned earlier, the consultant/advisor can
begin to affect the culture of the team. Furthermore, the trusted advisor will likely have more
of a voice regarding goal setting processes of the team and the opportunity to make sure they
are more aligned with research and theory.
In addition, the advisor can be more deeply involved in daily team functioning with
coaches and/or athletes. In a team setting the advisor can help to align individual goals with
team goals so that individual needs are not in conflict with the team goals. Also, work can be
done with coaches and players on daily engagement in practice incorporating good practices
such as the ‘catch them being good’ philosophy (DiCicco, Hacker & Salzberg, 2002) and
giving players a voice and choice to enhance their motivation (i.e., application of self-
determination theory; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Team functioning can be influenced in many other ways as well. The consultant/advisor
can discuss with coaches how to put players in roles that they can succeed, discuss the
importance of captaincy and leadership and how not only to select the appropriate leaders but
also engage in a process that empowers the followers to follow. Finally, the advisor becomes
more deeply involved in dealing with conflicts within the team often being placed in a
mediator position. Thus, the trusted advisor is supportive at many levels on a daily basis, not
as an independent contractor, but a member of the team who understands his or her role with
that context. In our opinion this greatly enhances the impact of a sport psychology consultant.
As mentioned earlier, with greater responsibility comes more accountability to the
performance of the team and organization. The trusted advisor will likely be more
accountable for the progress of players and coaches. Hence, it will be important that you
establish how the work you are doing can be implemented in a systematic, integrated fashion.
So, instead of working in a “silo” and void of feedback from coaches, players, or staff, the
advisor now communicates strategic and/or action plans and receives feedback on how to best
incorporate them in to the team functioning. For example, as SPC you can communicate
“mental game plans” for players and coaches that in very clear, simple language details how
the work you are doing with the athlete can be incorporated into training and competition.
Knowing this allows the coach to not only hold the athlete accountable, but also help prompt
their preparation and performance plans. In this way the coaching staff can provide you
feedback on the athlete’s progress towards mental performance goals.
Finally, the work of the SPC who is using the trusted advisor approach can be integrated
in to the developmental and periodization planning of the athletes’ training. Working
alongside the coaching staff, the advisor can optimally incorporate mental training plans into
the daily functioning of the team. In this way, the advisor can integrate systematic messages
that create culture change such as focusing on strengths and enhancing mental and emotional
recovery of the athletes. In the end, you are maximizing the impact you can have on a team
and organization. But, this only happens if they want it and you have appropriately assumed
the trusted advisor role.
CONCLUSION
It is our hope that this chapter has inspired young and veteran professionals alike, in the
greater field of performance enhancement, to examine their role frame and how they can
potentially maximize their impact. We, for sure, realize that becoming a trusted advisor is a
mindset, a skillset, and an ability to understand and work with others. Hence, the trusted
advisor knows that continually reflecting on his or her own performance and role is essential
to continued opportunities to impact others in a meaningful way. Be mindful that not all
organizations are looking for a trusted advisor, but that does not mean you should not
approach your work by always putting the client, in this case the coach, as the central focus of
your work. It is their team, their sport, their achievements. We aspire to help these coaches be
successful, and by doing so we achieve our own feelings of fulfillment and success.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPLIED PRACTICE

 Trusted advisors are members of performance teams that support coaches and
players. Thus, they work integrated within the system to support the coach in
achieving the team goals and missions, not in a silo separate from other members
of the team.
 Consider how you frame your role as a consultant, which should be based upon
your education, training, and professional competencies, but also be careful that
your job title does not frame your role too narrowly.
 The sport psychology consultant working as a trusted advisor helps the coach in
the process of problem-setting, rather than trying to provide quick solutions or
answers.
 Developing the skillset of questioning is difficult but imperative for a consultant
to move to the level of a trusted advisor.
 To become a trusted advisor, a consultant must not only develop knowledge of
the sport sciences and skills such as communication, self-awareness and
reflection, but create trust. The advisor must be able to understand whom he or
she reports to and create clear expectations regarding communication of work
with athletes and coaches. In this way the advisor respects organizational needs
to communicate while respecting the rights of its team members, and avoids
breaching confidentiality.
REFERENCES
Atkins, M. R., Johnson, D. M., Force, E. C. & Petrie, T. A. (2015). Peers, parents, and
coaches, oh my! The relation of the motivational climate to boys’ intention to continue
sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 170-180.
Botterill, C. (1990). Sport psychology and professional hockey. The Sport Psychologist, 4,
358-368.
Brown, C. H., Gould, D. & Foster, S. (2005). A framework for developing contextual
intelligence. The Sport Psychologist, 19(1), 51-62.
Carron, A. V. & Hausenblas, H. (1998). Group dynamics in sport. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information TechnologyCushion, C., Armour, K. & Jones, R. (2003). Coach education
and continuing professional development: Experience and learning to coach. Quest, 55,
215-230.
Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
DiCicco, T., Hacker, C. & Salzberg, C. (2002). Catch them being good: Everything you need
to know to successfully coach girls. New York, NY; Penguin Group.
Epstein, J. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In
C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.) Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3 (pp. 259-295).
New York: Academic Press.
Eys, M. A., Jewitt, E., Evans, M. B., Wolf, S., Bruner, M. W. & Loughead, T. M. (2013).
Coach-initiated motivational climate and cohesion in youth sport. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 84, 373-383.
Fifer, A., Henschen, K., Gould, D. & Ravizza, K. (2008). What works when working with
athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 356-377.
Fletcher, D., Hanton, S. & Mellalieu, S. D. (2006). An organizational stress review:
Conceptual and theoretical issues in competitive sport. In S. Hanton & S.D. Mellalieu
(Eds.), Literature Reviews in Sport Psychology (pp. 321-374). Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Science Publishers.
Fletcher, D. & Hanton, S. (2003). Sources of organizational stress in elite sports performers.
Fletcher, D. & Wagstaff, C. R. D. (2009). Organizational psychology in elite sport: its
emergence, application and future. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 427-434.
Gallwey, W. T. (2008). The inner game of tennis: The classic guide to the mental side of peak
performance. New York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Giges, B, Petitpas, A. J. & Vernacchia, R. A. (2004). Helping coaches meet their own needs:
Challenges for the sport psychology consultant. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 430-444.
Gilbert, W. D. & Trudel, P. (2004). Role of the coach: How model youth team sport coaches
frame their roles. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 21-43.
Gordon, S. (1990). A mental skills training program for the Western Australia State Cricket
Team. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 386-399.
Hodge, K., Henry, G. & Smith, W. (2014). A case study of excellence in elite sport:
Motivational climate in a world champion team. The Sport Psychologist, 28, 60-74.
Jones, G. W., Høigaard, R. & Peters, D. M. (2014). “Just going through the motions….”: A
qualitative exploration of athlete perceptions of social loafing in training and competition
contexts – implications for team sport coaches. International Journal of Sports Science
and Coaching, 9, 1067-1082.
Keegan, R. J., Harwood, C. G., Spray, C. M. & Lavallee, D. (2014). A qualitative
investigation of the motivational climate in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
15, 97-107.
Le Bars, H., Gernigon, C. & Ninot, G. (2009). Personal and contextual determinants of elite
young athletes' persistence or dropping out over time. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine
and Science in Sports, 19, 274-285.
Maister, D. H., Green, C.H. & Galford, R.M. (2000). The trusted advisor. New York, NY;
Free Press.
Murphy, S. M. & Tammen, V. (1998). In search of psychological skills. In J. L Duda (Ed.),
Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 195-209). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Pensgaard, A-M. & Roberts, G. C. (2002). Elite athletes’ experiences of the motivational
climate: The coach matters. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 12,
54–59.
Perna, F., Neyer, M., Murphy, S. M., Ogilvie, B. C. & Murphy, A. (1995). Consultations with
sport organizations: A cognitive-behavioral model. In Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology
interventions, pages 235-252. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Raedeke, T. D. & Smith, A. L. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an athlete
burnout measure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 281-306.
Raedeke, T. D. & Smith, A. L. (2004). Coping resources and athlete burnout: An examination
of stress mediated and moderation hypotheses. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
26, 525-541.
Ravizza, K. (1988). Gaining entry with athletic personnel for season-long consulting. The
Sport Psychologist, 2, 243-254.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Rynne, S. B., Mallet, C. & Tinning, R. (2006). High performance coaching: Institutes of sport
as sites for learning. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 1, 223-234.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L. & Cumming, S. P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate
intervention for coaches on young athletes’ sport performance anxiety. Journal of Sport
& Exericse Psychology, 29, 39-59.
Treasure, D. & Roberts, G. C. (1995). Applications of achievement goal theory to physical ,
education: Implications for enhancing motivation. Quest, 47, 475-489.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J. & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems for empathy: A
double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus
versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain, 132, 617-627.
Wagstaff, C. R. D., Fletcher, D. & Hanton, S. (2012). Positive organizational psychology in
sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(2), 87-103.
Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for performance: Growing human potential and purpose: The
principles and practices of coaching and leadership. London, UK; Nicholas Brealey
Publishing.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Larry Lauer is a consultant to professional, collegiate and junior national teams and
athletes. His current position is with the United States Tennis Association’s Player
Development program as the mental skills specialist. In this position Larry works with a team
of professionals that provide support to American players and coaches training at the national
tennis centers.
Dr Andy Driska has been a consultant for collegiate swimming and diving programs, and
spent ten years as a coach of swimming and water polo programs at the collegiate and high
school levels. In his current position, Andy is an assistant professor at Michigan State
University, where he coordinates the sport coaching and leadership program, and conducts
research on coach development and athlete psychosocial development through sport.
Dr Ian Cowburn has worked as a consultant with a number of high school and collegiate
teams from various sports, including swimming, tennis, association football, and gymnastics.
This work has involved more traditional sport psychology consulting roles as well as a trusted
advisor. Ian is currently an assistant professor at Saginaw Valley State University where his
teaching and research focuses on the psychosocial aspects of youth sport, particularly the
influence of parents and parent experiences.
Chapter 21
WHAT IS MISSING AND WHY IT IS MISSING

FROM COACH BURNOUT RESEARCH
Erik Lundkvist1,*, Henrik Gustafsson2 and Paul A. Davis3

1
Umeå University, Sweden
2
Karlstad University, Sweden
3
ABSTRACT
The topic of burnout in sports has been the focus of research attention for several
decades, although research has largely centered on the antecedents and consequences
associated with athlete burnout. Currently, a limited number of studies have examined
coach burnout and the implications it can have on the coaching process, social
interactions, and general wellbeing. The professionalization of coaching has promoted the
development of effective coaching yet it has also increased job demands and the potential
for work-family conflict. In this chapter we provide a brief introduction to the burnout
construct as well as a short review of the coach burnout research to date. Further,
suggestions are outlined for how the authors foresee that research in the area will evolve
in the future. Specifically, the use of theoretical frameworks that advance knowledge of
burnout and promote diverse lines of inquiry are forwarded. Additionally, the use of more
idiocratic quantitative designs with more frequent measurement across multiple time
points are proposed in an effort to advance knowledge of coach burnout. Finally, we offer
applied suggestions for burnout prevention and optimization of the wellbeing of coaches.
Keywords: Burnout, work-family conflict, stress management
INTRODUCTION
Coaches are often considered to play a pivotal role in sport; in many cases they are
identified as being largely responsible for the performance of athletes and teams. The
*
Corresponding author E-mail: erik.lundkvist@umu.se.
408 Erik Lundkvist, Henrik Gustafsson and Paul A. Davis
demands on coaches originate from a wide range of sources, including those that are central
to sport (e.g., athletes) as well as by association (e.g., media, sponsors, fans, the club/national
team; Lundkvist, Gustafsson, Hjälm & Hassmén, 2012). The pressure experienced by coaches
can develop into chronic stress and introduce the risk of manifesting burnout symptoms.
Despite the somewhat obvious importance of coaches in sport, and the documented stress and
pressure they experience, there appears to be a lack of momentum in coach burnout research
(Gustafsson, Hancock & Côté, 2014).
Across the 30 years that coach burnout have been studied, the progression and refinement
of research design and methodology have been sparse. Further, questions have started to
emerge regarding the importance of undertaking burnout studies on individuals that most
often have low levels of burnout or are difficult to interpret in relation to a clinical perspective
(Raedeke & Kenttä, 2012). In this chapter we aim to review the current understanding of
coach burnout, propose areas for future research and suggest methods for addressing the gaps
in the research literature.
With this aim we hope to advance understanding of the antecendents and outcomes of
coach burnout, as well as identify the potential lines of research inquiry that may help to
minimize the incidence of coach burnout and/or rehabilitate coaches suffering from burnout.
Coach burnout has not been researched extensively; therefore, in terms of research
publications, the study of coach burnout is in its infancy with a great deal of potential for
further research. Admittedly, the critique of studies that has been leveled at the investigation
of burnout to date (i.e., research design, clinical relevance, statistical methods) may raise
questions regarding the current level of understanding of the syndrome in coaches; however,
the importance of the implications of burnout are serious to those affected. That said, the
definition of the burnout construct may be one issue that has not been thoroughly discussed in
coach burnout research. The definition of burnout in coaches has not been agreed by
consensus, and using the defintion proposed by Maslach (Maslach & Jackson, 1981, Maslach,
Jackson & Leiter, 1996, Raedeke & Kenttä, 2012) may be problematic.
The empirical findings as well as the theoretical grounding of the definition and measures
of coach burnout need to be discussed and tested much more extensively (Kristensen, Borritz,
Villadsen & Christensen, 2005, Lundkvist, Stenling, Gustafsson & Hassmén, 2014, Shirom,
2005, Shirom & Melamed, 2006).
This chapter however, will not focus on the critiques associated with burnout research in
general (where several problematic issues have been identified regarding both research design
and conceptualization of the burnout construct). In response, we suggest further reading to
heighten awareness of the potential issues associated with temporal idiosyncracies as well as
the problems of making causal claims both in crossectional and longitudinal data (Antonakis,
Bendahan, Jacquart & Lalive, 2010, Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2009); further we highligt issues
that underly the undertaking of mediation analysis in crossectional data (Maxwell, Cole &
Mitchell, 2011). In a recent book chapter supporting our position, Raedeke & Kenttä (2012)
discuss the present state of coach burnout and pinpoint three major problems with coach
burnout research to date; namely, few studies use longitudinal data, minimal studies focus
upon full time coaches at the elite level, and the Maslach Burnout Inventory is a problematic
measure of burnout. In the current chapter we extend the work of Raedke and Kenttä and
propose research directions to develop the field of coach burnout. Our intended objectives are
to discuss the potential of coach burnout research, and identify lines of research inquiry that
will advance understanding of coach burnout.
What Is Missing and Why It Is Missing from Coach Burnout Research 409
We also put forward novel methodological considerations and potential research designs
that will facilitate the innovative study of coach burnout. In order to set the stage, we provide
a brief review of the burnout construct and the topics of research that have been published in
coach burnout studies thus far. We will then provide three areas for future research that we
propose will extend the understanding of coach burnout.
Specifically, the present chapter will: a) outline the work-family conflict concept in
relation to coach burnout; b) outline how to use the job demands/job resources model to fit
the coaching context using more intensive longitudinal single case designs to study
seasonality in sport; and c) identify the impact that performance outcomes may have on
coaches’ stress and/or exhaustion.
WHAT IS BURNOUT?
Burnout is a psychological concept that has received a great deal of attention both in
research and in the popular media since it was first defined in the middle of the 1970s
(Freudenberger, 1975, Maslach, 1976). Although the definition of burnout differs between
researchers, there is consensus that exhaustion is the most important aspect and the core
symptom (Kristensen et al., 2005, Schaufeli & Buunk, 2003, Shirom, 2005). Although
debated, the predominant definition of burnout portrays it as a multidimensional construct
containing two or three dimensions that cover symptoms of exhaustion, cynicism towards
recipients/students or ones’ job, and feelings of reduced working capacity (Maslach,
Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). Burnout has also been studied in the context of sport since the
early 1980s (Caccese & Mayerberg, 1984, Capel, Sisley & Desertrain, 1987, Feigley, 1984,
Fender, 1989). A definition very similar to the one from Maslach and colleagues’ (1981)
multidimensional definition, adapted to a sport context, has been used to date (Kelley & Gill,
1993, Raedeke, Arce, Seoane & De Francisco, 2013, Raedeke & Smith, 2004).
Burnout Definitions
One important episode in the development of burnout research was the introduction of
the first burnout measure. The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) was introduced in 1981 and
was developed by Christina Maslach and Susan E. Jackson (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).
Following its introduction, Maslach’s three-dimensional definition of burnout has been
dominant in burnout research since the early 1980s (Schaufeli & Buunk, 2003, Shirom &
Melamed, 2006). The MBI is therefore, the measure that other researchers have related to
theoretically, and all other measures that have been developed to some extent build upon
exhaustion as the core dimension of burnout (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998, Shirom, 2005).
The other two dimensions of burnout defined by Maslach are depersonalization/cynicism,
which is a maladaptive coping strategy for dealing with stress and exhaustion, and reduced
sense of accomplishment, which is aimed at feelings of not really having the ability to be as
productive at work as one used to be (Maslach et al., 2001).
Since the early 2000s, other definitions of burnout have been discussed and researched in
addition to the MBI. Pines and Aronson (1988) based their definition on three different
exhaustion dimensions relating to physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion; which are
suggested to be caused by long-term involvement in emotionally demanding tasks. Physical
exhaustion concerns feelings of tiredness, sleep problems, and continuous feelings of illness.
Emotional exhaustion concerns feelings of depression and hopelessness. The third dimension,
mental exhaustion, concerns feelings of being a failure, being worthless, and being a
disappointment to other people. Pines and Aronson also saw burnout as a concept for all
occupations, not only individuals working in the human services and similar occupational
settings. Further, they argued that burnout also can be caused by other contributing factors
than those found in working life; for example, relations (marriage) and political engagement
can contribute to burnout (Pines & Keinan, 2005). Pines also developed a Burnout Measure in
a short and a long version that addresses physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion (Malach-
Pines, 2005).
Another commonly used burnout definition comes from Shirom and Melamed. Their
definition contains three dimensions and is based on the idea that burnout should be separate
from other psychological concepts that previously overlapped conceptually with burnout
(Shirom & Melamed, 2006). Shirom and Melamed’s definition stems from one part of
Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources Theory (COR). COR builds on the idea that
humans have several resources they wish to maintain. One of these is our perception of
having the energy to work and do things in our spare time. To sustain this energy, we use
several coping strategies. However, when resources that are important to the individual are
lost and coping strategies are not fully functional, meaning that the demands the individual
feels are greater than his/her resources, then he/she has a heightened risk of becoming
emotionally, physically and cognitively exhausted. Research has shown that a lack of
resources in one area often spill over to a lack of other personal resources. Therefore, these
three burnout symptoms should be related (Melamed et al., 1999, Shirom & Melamed, 2006).
Shirom and Melamed’s conceptualization of burnout has also been used by other researchers
(e.g., Brotheridge & Lee, 2002, Wilk & Moynihan, 2005).
Based on COR, Shirom and Melamed developed the Shirom Melamed Burnout Measure
(SMBM). The SMBM is comprised of three subscales measuring emotional exhaustion,
physical fatigue, and cognitive weariness. Emotional exhaustion and physical fatigue are
often combined to form one subscale that covers both the mental and physical aspects of
exhaustion. Cognitive weariness relates to cognitive symptoms associated with exhaustion,
and the items measures decreases in cognitive functions that are interrelated to exhaustion and
intended to assess how the individual rates the cognitive functions of focus, complex
thinking, and concentration (Melamed et al., 1999, Shirom & Melamed, 2006).
COACH BURNOUT RESEARCH

The passion-driven nature of the job of coaching combined with incoherent work hours
means that the job is easy to take home; this combination may also result in long working
hours. The nature of the job of coaching requires expertise in several different areas, and
coaches need to be able to handle different types of stressors: everything from individual
athletes’ behaviors and skill levels, to demands from the media and superordinates (Frey,
2007, Kelley, Eklund & Ritter-Taylor, 1999, Lundkvist et al., 2012).
Demands do not necessarily come from media, however, but they also may come from
the board of the club, sports federations, or fans (Lundkvist et al., 2012). In times of
prosperity, these factors may be experienced as stressful and in times of adversity, negative
coping with stress may lead to depression and/or burnout. In addition to the demand to
produce results, the coach should be able to handle complicated administration and long trips.
Altogether, various stressors may collectively increase the risk of burnout (Kelley et al., 1999,
Lundkvist et al., 2012). Due to the cumulative stress that coaches are exposed to from
different sources, the study of burnout in a coaching context presents interesting challenges
and potential lines of inquiry.
Unfortunately, very little research has been performed in the area of coach burnout, and
even fewer studies have had interest in the areas that makes the coaching occupation special
in relation to burnout. Although coach burnout was studied before athlete burnout, only 20
peer-reviewed studies were published between 1984 and 2011. In comparison to athlete
burnout, the number of published studies was 75 during the same time period (Gustafsson,
Hancock & Côté, 2014). Since 2011, a small number of studies have been published on coach
burnout and a few have also used longitudinal approaches which is positive for advancing
knowledge.
Coach burnout studies can be categorized into six areas. The first area contains seven
studies that focused on demographic variables and/or incidence in certain groups or
comparisons of incidence in groups (e.g., gender, team vs. individual sports). The second area
contains two studies on the relationship between organizational issues and burnout. The third
area contains four studies on the associations between different behaviors and emotions and
burnout. The fourth area contains six studies that all take a more holistic perspective using
certain models that contain intrapersonal and/or situational variables to explain coach burnout
or have a clear theory of burnout in coaching. The fifth group contains one interview-based
article. The last group only contains one study focused on how to measure burnout. Out of the
articles that use statistical data analysis of self-report questionnaires, all except three use
cross-sectional designs. Only one study uses a longitudinal design with two measurement
points over the course of one year.
Demographic Variables and Incidence
Coach burnout studies focusing on demographics and prevalence have compared burnout
levels between coaches in different contexts or between male and female coaches. Coaching
experience and age have also been of interest in relation to burnout scores. Younger and/or
less experienced coaches have shown higher levels of burnout, which was explained by their
inability to cope with the pressure that comes with coaching (Gencay & Gencay, 2011,
Vealey, Udry, Zimmerman & Soliday, 1992). However, it is worth mentioning that there may
be a natural selection criteria influencing the studies since it is likely that coaches
experiencing difficulties in coping with the stressors associated with coaching may change
their occupation to a less stressful one (Lundkvist et al., 2012). Further, comparisons between
female coaches and male coaches have been made on self-reported burnout (Caccese &
Mayerberg, 1984, Kelley et al., 1999, Kelley & Gill, 1993, Kelley, 1994, Pastore & Judd,
1993, Vealey et al., 1992).
Some studies have focused on incidence in a certain group of coaches. Swedish elite
football coaches with fewer resources (second male league and female first league), less
organizational help, and were paid less seemed to have higher levels of exhaustion than the
coaches in the highest league (Hjälm, Kenttä, Hassmén & Gustafsson, 2007). A study
conducted in an American college context found that being a part-time coach can give relief
from the pressure of a coaching job and reduce perceptions of exhaustion (Raedeke, Granzyk
& Warren, 2000). It is possible that the pressure varies in different contexts depending on the
job. In the US, coaches often combine their coaching jobs with teaching jobs at the same
college/university, whereas in Sweden and Europe those who have more than one job often
work more hours than considered to be full time (37-40/week) and have long commutes
between jobs (Lundkvist et al., 2012).
Studies that involve sporting level or occupational conditions create results that can
facilitate understanding how different working conditions may influence burnout on a group
level. The contextual differences between working as a coach in Europe and in the US are
highlighted when comparing these studies.
Organizational Issues
During the first ten years of coach burnout research, studies highlighted the influence of
organizational issues within the work context. “Coaching issues” that stem from the coaching
job, like budget questions or relations between leaders, staff, and/or athletes, have previously
been associated with coach burnout; additionally problems that stem from training sessions
and other coach-related issues have shown similar associations with burnout (Kelley & Gill,
1993). Although this line of research presented some insight into the conditions and stressors
that are present in the coaching environment, the measure used combines a wide range of
variables (e.g., budget issues, relations to coaching staff, stressful training sessions) that make
it difficult to delineate coaches’ perceptions of the many parts of their job and their levels of
burnout. In European contexts there are indications that coaches in larger organizations with
larger coaching staff report lower burnout scores than do coaches working in smaller
organizations.
One possible explanation could be that coaches in larger organizations can focus their
time on coaching, whereas those working in smaller organizations also have to assume other
responsibilities that are not related to the coaching role. Therefore coaches in smaller
organizations may be exposed to a more stressful work situation, which may lead to higher
burnout scores (Hjälm et al., 2007, Lundkvist et al., 2012). These explanations are however
based on interview data and theoretical speculation; further research is needed to provide
support of earlier research findings. Coaches who perceive ambiguous roles and/or role
conflicts, where the coach is required to complete assignments that are not in his/her job
description, also have higher levels of burnout (Capel, Sisley & Desertrain, 1987).
Long workdays and high workload have also been associated with higher burnout scores
(Capel et al., 1987). Although these studies were undertaken with cross-sectional data and
possess other methodological flaws, they touch on issues that aim to identify the
organizational circumstances that could be unique when working as a coach.
This line of research could be even more interesting in a European context where it is
common for some paid coaches to work in environments where others work unpaid (or for
very little remuneration); under these circumstances there may be additional expectations of
the (paid) coaches to invest a large amount of time into their work that results in their wage
becoming very small in relation to the hours worked.
Team performance is another interesting variable that theoretically can influence the
stress and burnout for coaches because of the insecure employment conditions in some higher
level team sports. Winning percentage has been the measure used to study the success/results
of the season, but this measure has previously not been associated with coach burnout
(Kelley, 1994, Omotayo, 1991). However, performance-related problems are described to be
very central to some coaches with previous high scores on emotional exhaustion. One issue is
that team performance and its relation to stress is probably much more stressful in an elite
context. Further, to more accurately study the relationship between performance and burnout,
the variable of time needs to be considered. Specifically, the pressure to perform may be more
intense closer to the end of the season as the team’s expected results are influenced by
previous performance earlier in the season; also the anticipation of player and staff turnover
becomes more salient (Dietl, Franck & Lang, 2008) and requires consideration.
Behaviors and Emotions
Leadership style is one behavioral aspect that has been of particular interest. Results have
shown that both leadership styles labelled as “considering” and “initiating” were related to
lower levels of burnout, when burnout was conceptualized as a combined latent variable of
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced sense of accomplishment (Kelley et al.,
1999). Another study found that considerate coaches had higher scores on all burnout
dimensions than did initiating coaches (Dale & Weinberg, 1989).
Relations between several dispositional traits and burnout have also been studied.
Individuals’ ability to cope with the demands that go with the coaching role and their ability
to communicate and interact with athletes, coaching staff and boards of directors have been
shown to be important in relation to burnout; specifically, individuals that lack these
dispositional traits have higher levels of burnout (Kelley et al., 1999).
Further, anxiety and worry are variables that are related to coach burnout. Anxiety and
worry were interpreted as cognitive perceptions that, together with a decrease in confidence,
are crucial to the development of burnout (Vealey et al., 1992).
Some interest has been placed on the relations between burnout and perfectionism.
Perfectionism is a debated personality trait, where some researchers think there are adaptive
and maladaptive types of perfectionism and others believe that all types of perfectionism are
problematic (Flett & Hewitt, 2005). Coaches with maladaptive perfectionism – defined by
exaggerated concern over mistakes, need for approval, perceived peer pressure, and
rumination – have higher levels of burnout (Tashman, Tenenbaum & Eklund, 2010).
Another characteristic that has been studied in relation to coach burnout is hardiness.
Hardiness was defined as a person being committed instead of alienated in relation to his/her
work, family, self, and hobbies.
A person who scores high on hardiness also sees changes in life as challenges instead of
problems, and he/she also feels a direct control over outcomes in life. Two studies have found
that persons who score high on hardiness also have lower scores on burnout (Kelley et al.,
1999, Kelley, 1994).
Cognitive-Affective Model
One well-cited model for burnout in sports is the cognitive-affective model developed by
Smith (1986). It was originally developed for athletes, but has also been tested in coach
contexts (Kelley et al., 1999, Kelley & Gill, 1993, Kelley, 1994, Vealey et al., 1992).
According to the original model, burnout is a consequence of stress-induced load that can be
situational, motivational or due to personality. When an activity that once created satisfaction
has changed to be perceived as too stressful, a relevant option is to discontinue the activity.
The cognitive-affective model assumes that situational, cognitive, physiological, and
behavioral components of stress are related to burnout. The emphasis is on the cognitive
process of interpretation and evaluative thinking in terms of the ability to cope with the
challenges faced. The stress response triggers the individual to misjudge his/her ability to
solve the task, either due to low self-esteem or irrelevant incorrect beliefs about the
importance of meeting this challenge. One possible outcome of this process is burnout
(Smith, 1986). The cognitive affective model has served as a theoretical framework in several
coach burnout studies with samples from American college or university coaches. Smith’s
model has been tested in a series of cross-sectional studies on coach burnout, where the model
has served as a foundation on which to test different situational, cognitive, and behavioral
variables’ relationship to burnout (Kelley & Gill, 1993, Kelley, 1994, Kelley et al., 1999).
One problem with those studies is that the framework has been more explorative rather than
theoretical in nature, and the original theory underpinning the model has not been tested.
Furthermore, variables that have been found to fit the model have been tested cross-
sectionally, this makes it impossible to test the temporal (causational) relationships that have
been highlighted in the theory (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart & Lalive, 2010, Ployhart &
Vandenberg, 2009).
Commitment Theory
Commitment theory, built on the sport commitment model, identifies why a person wants
to resume their sport participation (Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons & Keeler, 1993).
Commitment theory has been used in research investigating the relationship between burnout
and motivational issues, as well as the connections between individuals’ motives to engage in
the coaching profession and burnout (Raedeke et al., 2000). A central idea underlying
commitment theory is that individuals may feel entrapped, "caught in the profession," and
that perceived entrapment increases the risk of burnout. One contributing factor to the
perception of entrapment, may be that elite coaches often possess a background of being a
players in the sport they now coach. Persons who, in their youth, are highly engaged in sports
often foresake academic studies for the benefit of practicing and competing in sports.
Alternatively, they have invested all of their time and training to reach the coaching
profession at the sacrifice of other activities/professional opportunities. Foresaking school and
investing excessive time in becoming a coach can result in an individual’s career prospects
being small outside of coaching due to a lack of educational resources. A third reason for
perceived entrapment may be the individual’s assessment that others close to him/her, (e.g.,
parents, coaches or teammates), expect him/her to persevere and ultimately become a coach.
Commitment theory has also been tested using longitudinal designs. With two
measurement points one year apart, a longitudinal cluster analysis was used to study whether
coaches who changed cluster had also changed their burnout scores.
The aim was to examine whether burnout was related to involvement in the profession
over time. The results showed that two-thirds were classified in the same profile after one
year, while one-third changed profile. In particular, the coaches whose interest in the
coaching profession decreased also showed reduced satisfaction, perceived the costs of
practicing as coaches to be higher, and reported increased levels of burnout. Those coaches
who instead had moved to a cluster indicating higher levels of engagement in their coaching
job reported decreased levels of burnout (Raedeke, 2004).
WHERE TO GO FROM HERE?

Coach burnout research to date has several problems that require attention in future
studies. In order to advance knowledge and enhance practice, future studies require the use of
more effective measures and research designs that offer findings that can be applied with
coaches. One major limitation is that a vast majority of the published studies on coach
burnout have used cross-sectional data. Due to the cross-sectional designs, we cannot study
what possible temporal effects the independent variables have for coaches’ levels of burnout.
This is very important since a great deal of statistical associations in cross sectional designs
disappear when they are tested longitudinally (Antonakis et al., 2010). Further, mediating
effects cannot be tested in cross sectional designs since time is the basic assumption that
mediation leans on (Maxwell et al., 2011).
Another relevant consideration and potential benefit of longitudinal data collections in
sports are the seasonal effects that (at least theoretically) may vary at different times of the
year. Due to the fluctuating demands that arise across the season (during both the competitive
season and the “off-season”), different work loads (and potential burnout) may be evident
across the phases of the season (e.g., pre-season, playoffs).
Apart from the issues identified as being associated with the burnout construct, there is a
great deal of potentially interesting research that can be undertaken in the coaching context.
That said, we believe that coach burnout research needs to be sensitive to the idiosyncracies
underlying the coaching environment and design studies that are able to account for a wide
range of conditions. Furthermore, the context of sport coaching offers unique conditions
under which to study more general psychology constructs such as personality (e.g.,
perfectionism), behavioral and/or emotional phenomena (e.g., interpersonal relationships,
anxiety). It may be likely that the findings from research undertaken within (and across)
coaching contexts will differ from psychology research in other performance domains.
However, last time we checked, coaches did not differ from the rest of the human species
(e.g., genetically); the opportunity to generalize findings or transfer knowledge across
domains is appealing.
Another challenge to coach burnout research that is inherent to studies within this
population is the difficulty in recruiting samples at a high/elite level. This challenge inhibits
the exploration of potentially interesting research questions that have been proposed.
This issue is compounded due to the statistical methods most often used in sport
psychology today being problematic (Ivarsson, Andersen, Stenling, Johansson & Lindwall,
2015). In consideration of the development of coach burnout research, we highlight two
directions in which studies can progress in order to advance knowledge and practice. The first
is the testing of theories and models that are used in other performance domains and
associated areas of burnout research; due to the contextual differences that are unique to
coach burnout, studies in this area may advance understanding both within sport and of the
models and theories being tested.
The second proposal is that single case designs are used more widely. This approach
would address recruitment challenges within elite level sport coaching, and provide the
opportunity to more accurately study different temporal effects with greater sensitivity (e.g.,
daily psychophysiological measures).
Work-Family Conflict in a Coach Context
Within recent years it is much more common for families to be comprised of dual-career
couples and single-parent households (Byron, 2005). Further, gender equality is slowly
starting to grow in the western world both normatively and empirically (Lewis and Giullari,
2005) which gives more women the opportunity to balance the distribution of males and
females working as coaches. European policies have changed to actively support fathers to
take more responsibilities in the home environment. Although the developments are different
between countries, there have been increasing numbers of fathers taking parental leave when
becoming parents in Germany and the Nordic countries (Geisler & Kreyenfeld, 2011, Haas &
Rostgaard, 2011). From a research perspective, this is very interesting from a wide range of
aspects and creates innovative research questions from a number of angles. The coaching
occupation very often takes place in evenings and weekends, often combined with extensive
travelling both in season and pre-season; as a result of this, time away from the family which
may be problematic for the spouse. Partners of coaches may have to take on more
responsibilities at home due to coaches being absent; also coaches may have to juggle
responsibilities in the family and other places with coaching. Another interesting aspect is
how growing responsibilities at home affect stress and risk for burnout and if those
responsibilities are perceived the same between genders.
In organizational research the possible problem of combining work and family is called
work-family conflict (work-family interference and work-life balance are very similar
concepts that in this text are called work-family conflicts) and have been researched for quite
some time (Geurts et al., 2005). Most often burnout has been one of the outcomes of interest
(Geurts, Rutte & Peeters, 1999) together with other health and productivity outcomes (Allen,
Herst, Bruck & Sutton, 2000, Lunau, Bambra, Eikemo, Van Der Wel & Dragano, 2014).
Research shows that there seems to be small relations between work-family conflicts and
exhaustion in a longitudinal study (Richter, Näswall, Lindfors & Sverke, 2015). Further,
Cross-sectional studies have also shown that there seems to be associations between
individuals that have demanding jobs and their perceptions of work-family conflicts. The
stress and work-family conflicts seem to have a spillover effect to spouses since they seem to
perceive more conflicts at home which makes them feel more exhausted (Bakker, Demerouti
& Dollard, 2008).
Using the work-family conflict construct in relation to coach burnout could be very
insightful and adapted in several different ways. This line of research could add knowledge
both to sport psychology and to the broader burnout research community as well. This could
be particularly impactful as job security becomes more uncertain in western societies and this
issues has been associated with work-family conflicts and exhaustion (Boswell,
Olson‐Buchanan and Harris, 2014). This is a particular issue as job insecurity in some sports
can be extreme; therefore this research may give new insights on the contextual relations
between work-family conflicts and burnout. Further, the coaching job itself is novel for study
from this point of view since it theoretically poses more possible problems that may create
stressful situations in both short and long time spans; studying this both from a coach’s and
from the significant others’ perspective could be insightful. Some research supports this idea
of multiple perspective data collection (Frey, 2007, Lundkvist et al., 2012), it would be
interesting to study to what degree coaches take responsibility in the family life and how the
spouse (male or female) agrees and/or accepts the situation.
We believe that these perspectives could add knowledge that is unique for this context
and therefore make a contribution to sport and other similar contexts. Research on equality in
families examining parental leave, shows that level of education for both mother and father,
job security and, salary seem to be aspects that influence equality in different directions
(Geisler & Kreyenfeld, 2011). Adding the conditions of the coach occupation where the
salaries can be high, job security is low and education level varies dramatically between
individuals, could offer greater insight in to this subject.
As mentioned earlier, the seasonal aspect may influence work-family conflict since the
time for family responsibilities may change during the competitive season and the off-season.
The seasonal effects of stress and burnout need to be considered both from the work-family
conflict perspective and from other theoretical frameworks.
Job Demands and Job Resources Model in Coach Burnout
There are other research paths that raise further questions for the study of coach burnout.
The specific conditions inherent to the coaching context could be used when research is
designed instead of using antecedents that say little about context specificity. For example,
when working as a coach there are several conditions that are specific to the coaching context.
The insecurity that surrounds the working role, in terms of the great risk of getting fired after
poor performance results, is not usual in other contexts (to the same extent).
Further, demands for good results are often very high, and in team sports the coach is
often the person who is replaced first. Further, coaches must be away from home for long
periods and have long work days that interfere with family duties (Lundkvist et al., 2012).
The direct stress related to matches and competition could theoretically influence stress that
may be related to sleep problems, which may, in turn, lead to exhaustion. Taking advantage
of the context specificity of sports could both lead to better research and present new ideas
about burnout that we know little about.
Burnout research in other professions has looked in much more detail at the work
environment as a potential risk factor for burnout (Bakker, Demerouti & Euwema, 2005,
Bakker, Demerouti & Verbeke, 2004, Schaufeli et al., 2009, Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Hence, there are theoretical models that would also fit the coaching context. The job demands
and job resources model (JD-R model) has been fruitful in burnout research and could be one
way to start exploring whether sport coaches perceive different demands or resources than do
people in other occupations, as well as how job demands and job resources may be related to
exhaustion. In the JD-R model, high perceived job demands are associated with increased
levels of burnout and high perceived job resources are associated with increased commitment
on the job and lower burnout scores (Bakker et al., 2004, Schaufeli & Buunk, 2003).
The JD-R model builds on the assumption that even though the tasks in occupations
differ, all occupations are based on both negative job demands and positive job resources. Job
demands are defined as the social, organizational, and psychosocial aspects of one’s work life
that require effort and/or skill and therefore may be perceived as social or psychosocial costs.
In the present study, and in line with the theory underlying the JD-R model, job demands are
defined as workload or emotional demands (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Job resources, on the
other hand, are the tools that a person perceives he/she has in the working role. Job resources
can be organizational resources that enable a person to achieve job-related goals or do the
tasks that come with the job description. Job resources can also be the support a person gets
from colleagues or superiors in doing these tasks. The JD-R model has not been used in a
coach setting before, and using it could further increase our knowledge about coach burnout
and how coaches perceive their work situation.
Adapting the JD-R model to an elite football context (or another team sport with lots of
different stressors from organizations and other areas) would be very enlightening and
provide opportunities to create interesting and relevant study designs. Due to the turnover in a
sport club being highly correlated with team performance (Dietl et al., 2008), turnover could
serve as a baseline measure of the demands of team performance. Resources could for
example be defined as how large the team of leaders and medicine staff that is available to the
coach and how many medical positions surround the team, the skill level of players, and other
organizational support. Looking at the JD-R model with the demands and resources that
surrounds the team in a longitudinal study, where stress is measured every month and
exhaustion at the end of the season, would test the JD-R model in a new way and reveal how
demands and resources, combined with team performance, controlling for performance
demands, affect short-term stress measured weekly and exhaustion measured at the end of the
season. As a result of the percentage of match wins not having previously shown any
associations with burnout (Kelley, 1994, Omotayo, 1991), looking at the JD-R and
performance longitudinally could be an interesting way to study JD-R model in a coach
context. All previous studies investigating the relation with performance have been cross-
sectional, which could be seen as a flaw. Another, greater flaw is that the percentage of won
matches may not give a good picture of team performance. Using turnover and organizational
resources as variables, as well as the JD-R model, may be a better way to study performance
issues.
Another variable that separates coaching from other jobs is that seasons have a clear start
and end, with theoretically higher pressure the closer to the end of the season one gets.
Therefore, a longitudinal study in which coaches are followed over two seasons or more
would be interesting using the JD-R model and the usual self-report measures as well. Having
several measurement points could show how the season affects perceived demands and
resources towards the end of the season and whether these perceptions have changed
compared to when the season started. Demands and resources differ a great deal across
organizations; therefore, a person-centered approach could be fruitful.
Person-centered methods would provide opportunities to study whether change in

organizations, or change of organizations, could alter perceived job demands and job
resources. This may help to further understand which types of organizations are associated
with reduced risk of stress and burnout.
Another interesting way to study the relations between burnout and the JD-R model in a
sport organization could be to conduct intervention studies. Based on what we know from
previous research both on coaches and in other contexts, behavioral and organizational
variables are two correlates with burnout. It could be interesting to carry out studies in which
one organization is exposed to an intervention based on act and mindfulness, from cognitive
behavioral therapy, to handle stressful events and another organization instead is restructured
in a way the research has shown promotes more perceived resources and less perceived
demands. Comparing the stress and exhaustion scores of all staff in a sport organization
would give an idea of what constitute the most effective way of reducing stress in sport
organizations.
Single Case Studies
In burnout studies, researchers often make a direct link between the study’s findings and
applied work, discussing how research can help solve problems for clinicians or
organizations. However, the coach burnout research with the exception of three studies
(Bentzen, Lemyre & Kenttä, 2015a, Kellmann, Altfeld & Mallett, 2015, Raedeke, 2004),
exclusively included studies with a cross-sectional design. Based on cross-sectional studies it
is difficult to draw conclusions that are helpful to professionals doing applied work. Cross-
sectional studies are also problematic both from the methodological and from the clinical
perspective, because cross-sectional data do not allow temporal relations to be determined
(Antonakis et al., 2010). Another problem with cross-sectional studies in psychology is that
correlations between constructs may be due to common method variance (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). Another problem in doing studies as suggested above,
can be that doing that intensive studies demand extensive resources from researchers
financially and time wise. An even larger problem might be that this kind of study design
demands a lot from those that are researched as well, making attrition rates problematic. One
solution for this can be the development of research designs that are idiographic but still rely
on statistical analysis (Barker, McCarthy, Jones & Moran, 2011).
Since burnout became a subject of research, studies in the area have relied heavily on
self-report questionnaires. Questionnaires are very often used in the kind of psychological
research that looks at burnout or other psychological health issues, although the problems
associated with this approach have been raised. For example, Baumeister, Vohs and Funder
(2007) stress that psychology should be the study of behavior, and when we use only self-
reports the behavior disappears, making it difficult to say what relevance self-report research
has to actual human behaviors. One example of alternatives to self-report questionnaires
could be to use one of the validated armbands that measure sleep and physical activity
(Reeve, Pumpa & Ball, 2013). As both sleep patterns and reductions in physical activity are
related to exhaustion and fatigue, these could be used as behavioral signs of exhaustion or
stress. Combining data of sleep patterns, physical activity and self-report questionnaires
during stressful times and/or over a whole season could help us learn more about how a
stressful environment affects stress and sleep patterns over a whole season or in more intense
periods.
However, longitudinal study designs, and study designs where “objective” behaviors are
measured may also be problematic. First, one problem in coach burnout research is to get
access coaches on elite level. To do longitudinal studies with that kind of sample would be
even more problematic. Studying the antecedents of exhaustion using more objective and
behavioral measures is also complicated and much more expensive than using self-report
questionnaires. However, using behavioral measures instead of, or in combination with self-
report questionnaires also gives new opportunities when it comes to research design. One
option is to use single case studies instead. Single case studies makes intervention studies and
studies with much larger amounts of time points realistic to perform (Barker et al., 2011).
Although single case designs have limitations when it comes to generalizability, the potential
depths of a single case design can be an advantage. The behaviorist Skinner was a true
believer of an idiographic perspective and argued that a smaller n provides a chance to study
fewer objects longer and more intensively (Skinner, 1966). The chance to get one or two elite
coaches that are willing to participate is much higher than to get 50 or 200. A single case
design also gives the researchers time to do a type of very intense data collections that might
be very hard to carry out with a larger sample. In intervention studies the sampling can be
more exact and you can carry out interventions on coaches that you know are suffering from
stress or burnout.
For example, different kinds of single case study designs with well-considered
measurement points distributed over a longer time span could provide interesting results. One
question that have been studied is the relation between team performance and burnout.
However, in cross-sectional studies no statistical associations have been found (Kelley, 1994,
Omotayo, 1991). However, qualitative studies have brought up that pressure of results is a
stressor for coaches (Bentzen, Lemyre & Kenttä, 2015b, Frey, 2007, Lundkvist et al., 2012)
and the ability to follow one or a couple of coaches much more intense could help answer this
question. Since sports are divided into seasons, one way to start could be to follow one or a
couple of coaches over an entire season, measuring self-reported stress, sleep quality,
physical activity, heart rate, and team performance every week before, during and after season
to study change over time and to examine the implications perceived stress and team
performance may have for sleep and behavior.
This is one idea that can be made with single case methodology. Testing interventions or
to use other frameworks are only limited by the imagination (and commitment) of the
researchers. Admittedly, generalizability is one problem with this kind of research; but this
makes replication of studies important (Barker et al., 2011).
CONCLUSION AND APPLIED SUGGESTIONS

In this chapter we have provided a brief introduction to the burnout concept and coach
burnout studies that have been done to date. We have also proposed a couple of research
directions that we think could advance coach burnout research to develop knowledge.
Another important remark that we use to provoke research in the area is the consideration
of why the burnout construct should be used at all.
As Raedeke and Kenttä (2012) discussed, burnout as it is conceptualized is a construct

where we have very little knowledge about what the results mean in real life. What we can be
pretty sure about is that the vast majority of coaches that have been researched in coach
burnout studies so far have not been close to the cut off associated with clinical burnout. One
alternative would see the start of research using measures that are clinically validated like the
Shirom Melamed Burnout Questionnaire (Lundgren-Nilsson, Jonsdottir, Pallant & Ahlborg,
2012).
When distilling knowledge of coach burnout into applied suggestions, we want to stress
that the research findings are difficult to interpret into recommendations for practice. First,
the majority of research has been undertaken with populations where the average scores of
burnout/exhaustion are generally low, which makes the results difficult to interpret in applied
settings. Second, as Raedeke and Kenttä (2012) discuss, transforming results from coach
burnout studies to applied settings is a challenge since MBI (and CBQ) are not measures that
are developed for clinical diagnoses. However, we do not want to argue that coaching is not a
stressful job, because it is. Researchers need to consider what their results mean in applied
settings much more seriously and also design studies that are directed towards those
problems.
Therefore, we want to argue that the take home message for coaches could be found in
stress management research. The findings from stress management research clearly show that
interventions based on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) are effective on reducing stress
symptoms (e.g., Blonk, Brenninkmeijer, Lagerveld & Houtman, 2006, Flaxman & Bond,
2010). Although there is limited research on burnout prevention, the findings indicate that
both traditional CBT interventions (e.g., Lagerveld, Blonk, Brenninkmeijer, Wijngaards-de
Meij & Schaufeli, 2012) and also recent studies based on the third wave of CBT, specifically
mindfulness based interventions (Goodman & Schorling, 2012), have shown the effectiveness
of reducing signs of burnout, especially exhaustion. Mindfulness can be defined as: “the
awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and
nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p.
145). Being able to stay in the present moment and not descend into rumination about the
future or the past can be an effective way to reduce stress and anxiety in elite coaches. CBT
and mindfulness based interventions could therefore be of great interest for coaches high in
stress. Future research should explore interventions for elite coaches to help them handle their
often unpredictable and stressful work situation.
Finally, and in line with our view on the practical applications, we want to suggest more
conscientiousness in the planning of studies that aim to study the stressful experiences in
being a coach. One can get the feeling that the burnout construct, in many cases, is used
because it is the most commonly used in sport psychological contexts when approaching
issues of psychological health issues and stress. We believe that greater deliberation regarding
the theoretical frameworks underpinning studies is required; research investigating health
issues associated with burnout could be undertaken using theories that better fit the focus of
the study rather than the burnout construct as a whole.
There may be occasions when it is more appropriate to use other measures related to
general health issues or directly study the core problem. As a result the study’s findings may
be more generalizable for larger populations, less theoretically problematic, and easier to
interpret as well as apply in practice.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
 The construct of burnout as it has been applied to research investigating coach
burnout is problematic.
 Multiple approaches to coach burnout research have highlighted the influence of a
range of variables including demographics, and organizational issues.
 Future research may be well served by considering work-family conflict, job
demands and job resources models and using single case studies.
 Stress management research suggests CBT and mindfulness may be useful for
addressing coach burnout.
REFERENCES
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with
work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278–308. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A
review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Dollard, M. F. (2008). How job demands affect partners’
experience of exhaustion: integrating work-family conflict and crossover theory. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 901–911. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.901
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job Resources Buffer the Impact of
Job Demands on Burnout, 10(2), 170–180. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources
model to predict burnout and performance. Spring, 43(1), 83–104. doi:10.1002/hrm.84
Barker, J., McCarthy, P., Jones, M., & Moran, A. (2011). Single-Case Research Methods in
Sport and Exercise Psychology. Oxon: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203861882
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the Science of Self-
Reports and Finger Movements: Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior? Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x
Bentzen, M., Lemyre, P.-N., & Kenttä, G. (2015a). Changes in Motivation and Burnout
Indices in High-Performance Coaches Over The Course of a Competitive Season.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, (July), 00–00. doi:10.1080/10413200.
2015.1053160
Bentzen, M., Lemyre, P.-N., & Kenttä, G. (2015b). The process of burnout among
professional sport coaches through the lens of self-determination theory: a qualitative
approach. Sports Coaching Review, (July 2015), 1–16. doi:10.1080/
21640629.2015.1035050
Blonk, R. W., Brenninkmeijer, V., Lagerveld, S. E., & Houtman, I. L. (2006). Return to
work: A comparison of two cognitive behavioural interventions in cases of work-related
psychological complaints among the self-employed. Work & Stress, 20(2), 129-144.
Boswell, W. R., Olson‐Buchanan, J. B., & Harris, T. B. (2014). I cannot afford to have a life:
employee adaptation to feelings of job insecurity. Personnel Psychology, 67(4), 887-915.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a Conservation of Resources Model of the
Dynamics of Emotional Labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 57–67.
Retrieved from http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/1076-8998.7.1.57
Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 169–198. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.009
Caccese, T. M., & Mayerberg, C. K. (1984). Gender Differences In Perceived Burnout Of
College Coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6(3), 279–288.
Capel, S. A., Sisley, B. L., & Desertrain, G. S. (1987). The Relationship of Role Conflict and
Role Ambiguity to Burnout in High School Basketball Coaches. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 9(2), 106–117.
Dietl, H. M., Franck, E., & Lang, M. (2008). Overinvestment in Team Sports Leagues: a
Contest Theory Model. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 55(3), 353–368.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9485.2008.00457.x
Feigley, D. S. (1984). Psychological burnout in high-level athletes. The Physician and Sports
Medicine, 12(10), 109–119.
Fender, K. (1989). Athlete Burnout: Potential for Research and Intervention Strategies. The
Sport Psychologist, 3(1), 63–71.
Flaxman, P. E., & Bond, F. W. (2010). Worksite stress management training: moderated
effects and clinical significance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(4), 347-
358.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2005). The Perils of Perfectionism in Sports and Exercise.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 14–18. doi:10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2005.00326.x
Freudenberger, H. (1975). The staff burn-out syndrome in alternative institutions.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 12(1), 73–82. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pst/12/1/73/
Frey, M. (2007). College Coaches ’ Experiences With Stress —“ Problem Solvers ” Have
Problems , Too. The Sport Psychologist, 21(1), 38–57.
Geisler, E., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2011). Against all odds: Fathers’ use of parental leave in
Germany. Journal of European Social Policy, 21(1), 88–99. doi:10.1177/
0958928710385732
Gencay, S., & Gencay, O. A. (2011). Burnout among judo coaches in Turkey. Journal of
Occupational Health, 53(5), 365–70. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/21778661
Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Dikkers, J. S. E., Van Hooff, M. L. M., &
Kinnunen, U. M. (2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective:
Development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work & Stress, 19(4),
319–339. doi:10.1080/02678370500410208
Geurts, S., Rutte, C., & Peeters, M. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of work-home
interference among medical residents. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 48(9), 1135–
48. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10220015
Goodman, M. J., & Schorling, J. B. (2012). A mindfulness course decreases burnout and
improves well-being among healthcare providers. The International Journal of
Psychiatry in Medicine, 43(2), 119-128.
Gustafsson, H., Hancock, D. J., & Côté, J. (2014). Describing citation structures in sport
burnout literature: A citation network analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(6),
620–626. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.001
Haas, L., & Rostgaard, T. (2011). Fathers’ rights to paid parental leave in the Nordic
countries: consequences for the gendered division of leave. Community, Work & Family,
14(2), 177–195. doi:10.1080/13668803.2011.571398
Hjälm, S., Kenttä, G., Hassmén, P., & Gustafsson, H. (2007). Burnout Among Elite Soccer
Coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30(4), 415–428.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
The American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–24. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2648906
Ivarsson, A., Andersen, M., Stenling, A., Johnsson, U., Lindwall, M. (2015). Things We Still
Haven’t Learned (So Far). Journal of sport and excersice psychology.
Kabat-Zinn J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 10, 144-156.
Kelley, 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.
Kelley, B. C., Eklund, R. C., & Ritter-Taylor, M. (1999). Stress and burnout among collegiate
tennis coaches. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21(2), 113–130.
Kelley, B. C., & Gill, D. L. (1993). An examination of personal-situational variables , stress
appraisal, and burnout in collegiate teachers-coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise &
Sport, 64(1), 94–102.
Kellmann, M., Altfeld, S., & Mallett, C. J. (2015). Recovery–stress imbalance in Australian
Football League coaches: A pilot longitudinal study. International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 1–10. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2015.1020662
Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). The Copenhagen
Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 19(3), 192–
207. doi:10.1080/02678370500297720
Lagerveld, S. E., Blonk, R. W., Brenninkmeijer, V., Wijngaards-de Meij, L., & Schaufeli, W.
B. (2012). Work-focused treatment of common mental disorders and return to work: a
comparative outcome study. Journal of occupational health psychology, 17(2), 220-234.
Lewis, J., & Giullari, S. (2005). The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: the
search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities
approach. Economy and Society, 34(1), 76–104. doi:10.1080/0308514042000329342
Lunau, T., Bambra, C., Eikemo, T. a., Van Der Wel, K. a., & Dragano, N. (2014). A
balancing act? Work-life balance, health and well-being in European welfare states.
European Journal of Public Health, 24(3), 422–427. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cku010
Lundgren-Nilsson, Å., Jonsdottir, I. H., Pallant, J., & Ahlborg, G. (2012). Internal construct
validity of the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Questionnaire (SMBQ). BMC Public Health,
12(1), 1–8. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-1
Lundkvist, E., Gustafsson, H., Hjälm, S., & Hassmén, P. (2012). An interpretative
phenomenological analysis of burnout and recovery in elite soccer coaches. Qualitative
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 4(3), 400–419. doi:10.1080/
2159676X.2012.693526
Lundkvist, E., Stenling, A., Gustafsson, H., & Hassmén, P. (2014). How to Measure Coach
Burnout: An Evaluation of Three Burnout Measures. Measurement in Physical Education
and Exercise Science, 18(3), 209–226. doi:10.1080/1091367X.2014.925455
Malach-Pines, A. (2005). The Burnout Measure, Short Version. International Journal of
Stress Management, 12(1), 78–88. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.78
Maslach, C. (1976). Burned-out. Human Behavior, 5(9), 16–22.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. . ., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual
(3:rd ed.). Paulo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113. doi:10.1002/job.4030020205
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Reviews
Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of
longitudinal mediation: Partial and Complete Mediation Under an Autoregressive Model.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 816–841. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.606716
Melamed, S., Ugarten, U., Shirom, a, Kahana, L., Lerman, Y., & Froom, P. (1999). Chronic
burnout, somatic arousal and elevated salivary cortisol levels. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 46(6), 591–8. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10454175
Omotayo, O. O. (1991). Frequency of burnout among selected soccer coaches in Nigeria.
Asian Journal of Physical Education, 14(1), 83–88.
Pastore, D. L., & Judd, M. R. (1993). Gender Differences in Burnout Among Coaches of
Women ’ s Athletic Teams at 2-Year Colleges. Analysis, 205–212.
Pines, A. M., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career Bumout: Causes and Cures. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Pines, A. M., & Keinan, G. (2005). Stress and burnout: The significant difference.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 625–635. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.009
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2009). Longitudinal Research: The Theory, Design, and
Analysis of Change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94–120. doi:10.1177/
0149206309352110
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
Raedeke, T. D. (2004). Coach Commitment and Burnout: A One-Year Follow-Up. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 16(4), 333–349. doi:10.1080/10413200490517995
Raedeke, T. D., Arce, C., Seoane, G., & De Francisco, C. (2013). The construct validity of
the Spanish version of the ABQ using a multi-trait/multi-method approach. Anales de
Psicología, 29(3), 693–700. Retrieved from http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S0212-
97282013000300008&script=sci_abstract
Raedeke, T. D., Granzyk, T. L., & Warren, A. (2000). Why Coaches Experience Burnout: A
Commitment Perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22(1), 85–105.
Raedeke, T. D., & Kenttä, G. (2012). Coach burnout. In P. Potrac, W. D. Gilbert, & J.
Denison (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Sport Coaching (pp. 424–435). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Raedeke, T. D., & Smith, A. L. (2004). Coping Resources and Athlete Burnout: An
Examination of Stress Mediated and Moderation Hypotheses. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 26(4), 525–541. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/

2005-00063-002
Reeve, M. D., Pumpa, K. L., & Ball, N. (2013). Accuracy of the SenseWear Armband Mini
and the BodyMedia FIT in resistance training. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport /
Sports Medicine Australia, 8–12. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2013.08.007
Richter, A., Näswall, K., Lindfors, P., & Sverke, M. (2015). Job insecurity and work-family
conflict in teachers in Sweden: Examining their relations with longitudinal cross-lagged
modeling. PsyCh Journal, 4(2), 98–111. doi:10.1002/pchj.88
Scanlan, T., Carpenter, P., Schmidt, G., Simons, J., & Keeler, B. (1993). An introduction to
the sport commitment model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15(1), 1–15.
Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:An+Introduction+to+t
he+Sport+Commitment+Model#0
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25(3), 293–315. doi:10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands
and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893–917. doi:10.1002/job.595
Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (2003). Burnout: An overview of 25 years of research and
theorizing. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of
work and health psychology (pp. 383–425). Chichester: Wiley.
Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The Burnout Companion to Study and Practice: A
Critical Analysis. Issues inOccupational Health Series (1:st edito.). Philadelphia: Taylor
& Francis. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.de/dp/0748406980
Shirom, A. (2005). Reflections on the study of burnout The views expressed in Work &
Stress commentaries are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of
any other person or organization, or of the journal. Work & Stress, 19(3), 263–270.
doi:10.1080/02678370500376649
Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006). A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout
measures in two groups of professionals. International Journal of Stress Management,
13(2), 176–200. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.13.2.176
Skinner, B. F. (1966). Operant Behavior. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant Behavior: Areas of
research and application (pp. 12–32). New York, NY: Appelton-Century-Crofts.
Tashman, L. S., Tenenbaum, G., & Eklund, R. (2010). The effect of perceived stress on the
relationship between perfectionism and burnout in coaches. Anxiety, Stress & Coping,
23(2), 195–212.
Vealey, R. S., Udry, E. M., Zimmerman, V., & Soliday, J. (1992). Intrapersonal and
situational predictors of coaching burnout. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
14(1), 40–58.
Wilk, S. L., & Moynihan, L. M. (2005). Display rule “regulators”: the relationship between
supervisors and worker emotional exhaustion. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5),
917–27. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.917
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Erik Lundkvist is a lecturer in the Department of Psychology at Umeå University. His
research mainly focuses on burnout, stress, sleep and arousal using accelerometers and stress
reducing interventions with physical activity. Additionally he examines coaching
interventions designed to create more motivational environments.
Dr Henrik Gustafsson is an Associate Professor at Karlstad University (Sweden). He has

written a number of articles about burnout in athletes and coaches. Other research interests
are the application of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in sport and psychosocial aspects of
youth sports. He is also working as sport psychology consultant for Olympic athletes and
coaches.

University in the United Kingdom. His research focuses on emotions, personality and
interpersonal relationships in sport, exercise and health.
INDEX
alertness, 116
A alters, 208
amalgam, 394
abstraction, 328
American Psychological Association, 67, 164, 165
abuse, 134, 135, 288, 305
anger, 6, 9, 11, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 299,
academic learning, 263, 264
303, 304, 305, 306, 344, 346
accelerometers, 427
ankles, 375
accommodation, 148
anterior cruciate, 203
accountability, 211, 228, 257, 377, 402
antisocial behavior, 116, 179
acquisition of knowledge, 5, 209
anxiety, 131, 204, 214, 224, 247, 275, 280, 286, 287,
acquisition phase, 258
288, 292, 293, 295, 296, 297, 300, 301, 303, 304,
action research, 173, 174, 178, 179, 259
306, 320, 326, 327, 328, 331, 344, 345, 347, 349,
activity level, 328
350, 381, 394, 405, 413, 415, 421
acts of aggression, 290
APA, 67, 282
adaptability, 382
applied positive psychology, 6, 267
adaptation(s), 40, 42, 45, 125, 257, 302, 326, 422
appraisals, 146, 358
adjustment, 210, 211, 214, 344, 345, 395
appreciative inquiry, 6, 267, 281
administrators, vii, 4, 42, 50, 65, 69, 89, 124, 125,
aptitude, 269, 344
126, 388
architect, 177
adolescent development, 164
armed forces, 11
adolescents, 135, 141, 150, 152, 164, 264
arousal, 116, 287, 296, 301, 303, 304, 308, 394, 425,
adult education, 49
427
adult learning, 40
Asia, 68, 354
adulthood, 5, 136, 157, 291, 303
aspiration, 327
adults, 131, 138, 162
assessment, 3, 31, 43, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64,
advancement, 2, 3, 19, 377
66, 67, 129, 131, 146, 149, 151, 160, 184, 188,
aesthetic, 28
189, 190, 196, 199, 269, 293, 305, 328, 347, 351,
affective experience, 289
390, 394, 402, 414, 424
affective reactions, 253
assessment tools, 269
affirming, 210
asset development, 138, 141, 148, 149
Africa, 370, 371
assets, 5, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143,
age, 6, 17, 87, 115, 128, 135, 141, 142, 144, 153,
144, 146, 147, 148, 150, 152, 157, 158, 159, 162
158, 159, 188, 234, 267, 318, 321, 323, 329, 330,
assimilation, 40
333, 338, 340, 341, 349, 350, 380, 395, 411
asthma, 264
aggression, 134, 290, 291, 304, 305
atmosphere, 28, 84
aggressiveness, 350
attachment, 9, 26, 31, 134, 169, 178, 291, 292, 293,
agility, 212
298, 299, 346
alcohol abuse, 134
attachment theory, 9, 292, 346
alcohol consumption, 134
attacker, 374
430 Index
attitudes, 9, 65, 79, 81, 131, 155, 157, 176 bounds, 389
attribution, 139 brain, 392
audition, 390 brainstorming, 75
Australasia, 37 breakdown, 376
authority, 42, 56, 186, 194, 205, 208 breathing, 228, 239, 245, 247, 296, 317
autonomy support, 5, 11, 119, 120, 133, 138, 139, building blocks, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162
140, 142, 155, 156, 157, 158, 178, 180, 183, 184, burn, 179, 254, 423
185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 196, burnout scores, 226, 411, 412, 415, 418
197, 198, 259, 262, 295
autonomy-supportive coaching, 142, 158, 167, 168,
172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 260 C
avoidance, 261, 293
cabinets, 38
awareness, 13, 16, 63, 64, 134, 144, 158, 159, 162,
cadences, 65
174, 219, 224, 227, 231, 232, 249, 253, 256, 291,
Canadian National Coaching Certification Program,
298, 322, 342, 367, 370, 373, 374, 397, 398, 399,
94
403, 408, 421
cancer, 207
candidates, 45, 67
B career development, 156, 322
career prospects, 414
bad day, 32, 215 caregivers, 141, 291
badminton, 27 CART, 344, 348
bandwidth, 346 case study(s), 13, 37, 48, 50, 86, 130, 173, 176, 177,
banking, 76 179, 260, 261, 262, 293, 323, 404, 420, 422
barriers, 43, 45, 232, 233, 239, 251, 256, 299, 373 categorization, 122
base, 8, 22, 36, 38, 45, 56, 60, 67, 119, 120, 165, causal attribution, 233, 249, 251
167, 168, 173, 179, 185, 260, 268, 386 causality, 169, 170, 173, 180
basic needs, 163, 259 causation, 178
basketball, 6, 7, 29, 47, 100, 112, 128, 130, 151, 156, CBC, 215
174, 211, 267, 271, 277, 278, 312, 313, 315, 321, certificate, 33, 49
322, 324, 325, 326, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 338, certification, 49, 71, 72
339, 341, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 350, 351, 371, changing environment, 218, 258
377 chaos, 128
behavioral aspects, 323, 344 character traits, 134
behavioral assessment, 131 charities, 11
behavioral manifestations, 200 Chicago, 49, 386, 391
behavioral sciences, 198 childhood, 264, 370
behaviorism, 39 children, 32, 75, 129, 131, 136, 139, 141, 146, 148,
Belgium, 198 150, 151, 152, 153, 157, 164, 169, 179, 184, 198,
belief systems, 44, 398 370
beneficial effect, 140 China, 47, 48, 50, 71, 90, 353, 368
benefits, 7, 26, 43, 53, 56, 65, 66, 76, 77, 124, 125, chunking, 277
136, 153, 173, 176, 194, 206, 209, 269, 277, 293, cities, 340
294, 295, 296, 297, 303, 353, 355, 363, 399 citizenship, 214
bias, 328, 333, 351, 397, 398 civil society, 152
Bible, 383 clarity, 16, 172, 204, 209, 214, 269
bilateral, 134 classes, 225
biography, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 73, 79, 85 classification, 282
Blacks, 370, 371 classroom, 62, 69, 78, 164, 264
blind spot, 358 clients, 199, 362, 387, 391, 392
blogs, 142 climate(s), vii, 1, 5, 27, 80, 119, 131, 151, 164, 167,
blood, 370 168, 169, 171, 173, 175, 177, 179, 198, 222, 228,
bonds, 292 258, 259, 271, 291, 295, 298, 301, 356, 360, 385,
boredom, 280 396, 397, 398, 399, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405
Index 431
clinical psychology, 130, 303 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349,
close relationships, 147 350, 351, 386, 393, 396, 404
cluster analysis, 415 collaboration, 55, 65, 286, 312, 344, 356, 363
clusters, 122 college students, 199, 328, 341
coach burnout, vii, 1, 8, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, colleges, 55
413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422 combined effect, 313
coach development, 44, 46, 47, 50, 53, 66, 69, 74, communication, 4, 5, 10, 66, 116, 143, 145, 146,
78, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 94, 106, 108, 109, 175, 147, 158, 203, 204, 205, 212, 227, 230, 261, 323,
178, 392, 406 343, 357, 358, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 393, 394,
coach educators, 4, 36, 39, 44, 45, 53, 54, 64, 65, 66 397, 399, 401, 403
coach learning, vii, 1, 3, 4, 20, 35, 36, 37, 39, 44, 46, communication skills, 143, 147, 323, 394, 397
49, 51, 72, 73, 81, 84, 92, 93, 95, 97, 105, 106, community(s), 4, 9, 10, 11, 28, 37, 47, 66, 73, 84, 86,
181 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 107, 108, 109, 135, 136,
coach’s community of practice, 93 150, 157, 163, 164, 179, 259, 417
coach-athlete interactions, 4, 5, 111, 112, 115, 116, communities of practice, 4, 9, 37, 47, 73, 86, 91, 92,
120, 122, 123, 126, 129, 132, 184, 185, 193, 291, 93, 107, 108, 109
297 community service, 157
coach-athlete relationship(s), 10, 16, 19, 26, 33, 105, compassion, 137, 147
111, 115, 128, 138, 147, 152, 168, 171, 177, 179, compensation, 340
199, 285, 286, 288, 289, 291, 292, 298, 302, 323, competitive advantage, 81
343, 348 competitive environments, 369, 370
coaching behaviors, vii, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 22, 114, competitive sport, 174, 187, 189, 194, 200, 209, 299,
116, 122, 130, 131, 136, 138, 162, 171, 172, 177, 346, 381, 398, 404
178, 184, 227, 288, 295, 298, 346, 348, 351, 357, competitors, 29
359, 361, 364, 366 complexity, 27, 30, 32, 39, 44, 49, 54, 66, 74, 80,
coaching context, 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 119, 125, 177, 291, 325, 338
20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 42, 46, 72, compliance, 142
78, 80, 93, 97, 172, 177, 178, 196, 215, 287, 291, composition, 5, 347
295, 357, 409, 411, 415, 417 comprehension, 60
coaching efficacy, 151, 229, 263, 296, 298, 305, 343 computer, 83, 117, 119, 120, 121
coaching knowledge, 9, 35, 36, 43, 47, 83, 92, 99, computer software, 83, 121
105, 162 concept map, 4, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 85, 86, 87,
coaching process, vii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 88
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, concept mapping, v, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 85,
32, 34, 38, 115, 116, 126, 268, 288, 345, 407 86, 88
coaching psychology, 2, 11, 282, 283, 369 conception(s), 38, 40, 42, 45, 46, 83, 174, 176, 177,
codes of conduct, 210 179, 350, 380
coding, 4, 111, 112, 113, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, conceptual model, 14, 302
122, 123, 124, 125, 129 conceptualization, 61, 65, 126, 308, 347, 408, 410
coercion, 23, 170, 173, 177, 295 concordance, 184, 200, 281
cognition, 34, 301, 398 conditioning, 19, 20, 170, 371, 377, 379, 380, 386,
cognitive acceleration, 369 392
cognitive function, 287, 410 conference, 188
cognitive level, 235, 382 confidentiality, 356, 364, 401, 403
cognitive perspective, 218, 220, 264 conflict, 5, 10, 25, 26, 27, 33, 46, 50, 123, 145, 147,
cognitive process, 20, 45, 211, 220, 320, 376, 414 206, 207, 212, 214, 215, 286, 292, 297, 401, 402,
cognitive psychology, 38 407, 409, 416, 417, 422, 423, 426
cognitive skills, 22, 36 conflict resolution, 145, 147
cognitive theory, 219, 260, 263 conformity, 189
cognitivism, 38, 39 confrontation, 294
cohesion, 7, 184, 198, 216, 227, 260, 286, 321, 322, congruence, 65, 223, 349
324, 325, 326, 329, 332, 333, 334, 335, 337, 338, conscientiousness, 328, 338, 344, 421
consciousness, 83, 372, 381
432 Index
consensus, 30, 46, 55, 67, 137, 143, 152, 323, 408,
409
D
consent, 189
dance, 225
constituents, 17, 71
dancers, 224, 225, 262
construct validity, 195, 333, 424, 425, 426
danger, 292
construction, 3, 50, 55, 76, 83, 87
data analysis, 188, 200, 411
constructivism, 39, 53, 55
data collection, 8, 188, 189, 415, 417, 420
constructivist learning, 54
database, 16
constructivist paradigm, 94
decision makers, 32
consulting, 8, 91, 151, 262, 282, 301, 348, 385, 386,
declarative knowledge, 21, 40
387, 389, 390, 391, 392, 405, 406, 425
deep learning, 45, 56
consumption, 134
defence, 278
content analysis, 348
deficiencies, 218
control group, 313
deficit, 135, 268
controlling coaching, 167
demonstrations, 43, 45, 222
controversial, 401
denial, 277
conversations, 21, 44, 46, 85, 231, 277, 280, 340,
Department of Agriculture, 164
391
dependent variable, 338
cooperation, 33, 55, 145, 147, 324
depersonalization, 234, 409, 413
coping strategies, 287, 292, 293, 328, 342, 395, 410
depression, 134, 184, 290, 302, 327, 342, 344, 347,
core principles, 7, 369, 370, 377, 381, 382
410, 411
correlation(s), 183, 189, 191, 192, 325, 326, 327,
depth, 13, 17, 30, 37, 42, 60, 66, 135, 174, 195, 230,
331, 344, 419
261, 354, 373, 389, 399, 400, 401
cortisol, 425
designers, 67, 83
cost, 125
destiny, 259
counsel, 389
detection, 329
counseling, 388, 391
development, v, 1, 11, 35, 47, 48, 71, 78, 88, 129,
counseling psychology, 388
131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158,
course content, 57, 64
160, 164, 165, 178, 179, 233, 263, 264, 281, 302,
covering, 332
305, 319, 349, 366, 367, 369, 372, 377, 379, 385,
creative process, 225, 262
405, 406, 423
creative thinking, 354
developmental milestones, 372
creativity, 56, 80, 87, 179, 359, 362
developmental psychology, 134, 135
crises, 153
dichotomy, 56
critical analysis, 31, 47, 88
diet, 171
critical thinking, 56, 83
dignity, 180
criticism, 138, 327, 344
dimensionality, 10, 281
Croatia, vii, 321, 331, 332, 340, 349
direct observation, 132
cross-cultural comparison, 328
directionality, 187, 193
cues, 205, 239, 241, 308, 309, 310, 318, 319, 350
directives, 209
cultural influence, 28
directors, 3, 86, 413
cultural transformation, 65
disability, 9, 37, 49, 120
culture, 27, 63, 64, 67, 85, 167, 177, 203, 281, 345,
disadvantaged youth, 25, 31, 158, 164
347, 359, 360, 363, 365, 367, 370, 380, 381, 382,
disappointment, 410
401, 402
disclosure, 293, 294, 295, 300, 302, 303
curricula, 67
discomfort, 276, 288, 291
curriculum, 31, 60, 67, 68, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160,
disorder, 294, 344
161, 162, 199, 231
disposition, 374
cycles, 18, 21, 42, 220, 260, 377, 394
dissatisfaction, 198, 327
cyclical process, 205, 220, 259
dissociation, 405
dissonance, 223
distress, 292
distribution, 59, 334, 416
Index 433
diversity, 30, 39, 323 engineering, 329

DOI, 49, 50, 69, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 319 England, 9, 32, 282, 365, 366, 370
dominance, 340, 371 entrapment, 414
doping, 19 environmental conditions, 152
drawing, 45, 54, 186, 211, 254, 272 environmental factors, 286
dream, 272, 273, 274 epistemology, 22, 49
DRS, 330 equality, 416, 417, 424
drug abuse, 135 equilibrium, 6, 203, 208, 215
dynamic social networks, 4, 91, 94, 105 equipment, 25, 28, 125, 148, 310
dynamism, 186 ethical standards, 356, 362
ethics, 22
ethnic background, 324
E ethnic groups, 346
ethnographic study, 260
educational experience, 61, 63, 64
Europe, 277, 281, 346, 354, 368, 412
educational psychology, 2, 218
evidence, 10, 35, 36, 40, 42, 45, 46, 49, 55, 72, 84,
educational settings, 199
120, 134, 135, 137, 145, 146, 156, 158, 167, 168,
educators, vii, 4, 36, 39, 44, 45, 53, 54, 56, 57, 63,
169, 179, 185, 186, 187, 190, 195, 197, 218, 221,
64, 65, 66, 68, 130, 222, 313, 388
228, 232, 250, 271, 291, 293, 342, 345, 350, 368
elbows, 313, 314, 315, 374
evolution, 88, 117, 120, 130, 169, 372, 389
election, 42
examinations, 293
elementary students, 313, 319
execution, 194, 195, 223, 233, 235, 239, 240, 241,
elite athletes, 151, 198, 220, 305, 326, 369
245, 246, 248, 251, 256, 258, 259, 295, 297, 308,
emergency, 356
310, 311, 314, 318
emotion, 6, 10, 11, 20, 116, 127, 134, 180, 264, 285,
exercise(s), 6, 9, 11, 33, 73, 88, 141, 145, 154, 164,
287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297,
178, 197, 199, 200, 213, 215, 218, 222, 223, 227,
298, 300, 301, 302, 303, 305, 344, 347, 348
232, 233, 234, 244, 245, 247, 249, 260, 264, 275,
emotion regulation, 6, 10, 20, 134, 285, 286, 287,
295, 303, 305, 306, 307, 308, 315, 316, 318, 320,
288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297,
329, 340, 341, 343, 347, 374, 393, 405, 427
298, 300, 301, 302, 303, 305, 344, 347, 348
exercise participation, 303
emotional exhaustion, 234, 410, 413, 426
experimental design, 195
emotional experience, 286, 288, 292, 293, 294, 298,
expertise, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 23, 31, 32, 34, 36, 50, 64, 71,
302, 344
78, 84, 88, 125, 137, 139, 151, 158, 161, 164,
emotional intelligence, 2, 9, 229, 263, 296, 305, 322,
270, 299, 322, 323, 351, 361, 377, 386, 389, 392,
366
410
emotional reactions, 292, 297
explicit knowledge, 77, 86
emotional stability, 297, 328
exposure, 135, 137, 161
emotional state, 229, 246, 287, 296, 297, 298, 301,
external environment, 169
380
external validity, 195
emotional well-being, 184
extraction, 333
empathy, 10, 146, 147, 361, 398, 399, 404, 405
extraversion, 290, 328
empirical studies, 76
extrinsic motivation, 153, 170, 171, 178, 198, 199,
employability, 50
405
employees, 213, 216, 323, 354, 356, 357, 358, 359,
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 381
employment, 22, 172, 373, 388, 390, 413 F
empowerment, 20, 76, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 142,
260, 362 facial expression, 146, 147
encouragement, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 122, facilitator(s), 58, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68, 73, 81, 82, 83,
141, 144, 157, 221, 300, 359 84, 86, 106, 110, 199, 234, 249, 251, 257, 392,
endurance, 18, 308, 378 396, 397, 399
enemies, 72 factor analysis, 333
energy, 20, 169, 188, 248, 255, 259, 268, 269, 274, faith, 274, 382
372, 386, 394, 395, 410 families, 139, 416, 417
434 Index
family conflict, 407, 409, 416, 417, 422, 423, 426

family interactions, 148
G
family life, 144, 417
gender differences, 114
family members, 151
gender equality, 416, 424
far right, 207
General Motors, 55
fear, 63, 168, 178, 224, 301, 343, 376
generalizability, 156, 420
feelings, 5, 25, 26, 77, 120, 134, 138, 140, 143, 171,
Germany, 416, 423
172, 176, 184, 193, 209, 212, 218, 223, 224, 225,
globalization, 72
228, 232, 233, 234, 235, 242, 247, 248, 261, 279,
goal attainment, 5, 183, 187, 189, 190, 191, 193,
289, 290, 292, 293, 298, 327, 343, 398, 403, 409,
219, 221
410, 422
goal setting, 134, 141, 145, 230, 262, 264, 313, 319,
fidelity, 159, 160
357, 358, 372, 402
filter, 23, 24, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44
goal-related effort, 187
filters, 44
goal-setting, 137, 218, 219, 221, 229, 230, 233, 236,
financial, 28, 140, 141, 149
256, 264
financial resources, 28
google, 426
financial support, 140, 141
grades, 57, 61, 63
first dimension, 356, 357, 362, 364
grading, 63
fitness, 27, 31, 156, 251, 256, 316, 317, 318, 325,
graduate students, 398
380
graph, 252, 253
flaws, 412
grassroots, 370, 377
flexibility, 29, 142, 213, 237, 243, 257, 322, 356,
Greece, vii, 307, 320
370
grids, 123, 129, 376
fluctuations, 5
grounding, 408
fluid, 194, 373
group activities, 162
fMRI, 296
group dynamics, vii, 1, 5, 100, 203, 213, 260, 361
food, 200
group membership, 208
food intake, 200
group processes, 206
football, 6, 11, 31, 50, 90, 112, 130, 131, 138, 151,
group size, 343, 351
154, 156, 204, 271, 281, 304, 318, 325, 327, 331,
grouping, 277, 396
346, 351, 356, 358, 365, 371, 372, 383, 406, 412,
growth, 4, 25, 151, 157, 169, 170, 177, 282, 323,
418, 424
362, 370, 371, 372, 373, 376, 380, 382
force, 62, 211
GSI, 332
Ford, 4, 9, 112, 113, 115, 129, 150
guardian, 377, 387
formal coach education, 14, 36, 37, 39, 50, 69, 100,
guidance, 138, 140, 174, 225, 340, 354
103, 106
guidelines, 139, 142, 217, 237, 243, 308, 309, 382
formal education, 40, 43, 44
guilt, 170, 295, 327
formation, 75, 87, 146, 394
guilty, 177
formula, 175, 333
gymnastics, 406
foster youth, 137
gymnasts, 14, 198, 221, 264
foundations, 31, 38, 54, 67, 77, 150, 173, 260
framing, 42, 62, 392, 397
France, v, 5, 165, 370 H
franchise, 379
free will, 23, 25 happiness, 11, 292, 306, 323
freedom, 25, 80, 180 hardiness, 7, 322, 326, 330, 334, 335, 340, 342, 345,
Freud, 168 346, 348, 351, 413
friction, 208 harmony, 24, 222
funding, 28, 286 healing, 282
fusion, 381 health, 2, 11, 56, 134, 135, 140, 200, 218, 219, 264,
294, 303, 306, 342, 348, 351, 416, 419, 421, 424,
426, 427
health problems, 218
Index 435
health promotion, 11 immune function, 304

health psychology, 140, 303, 351, 424, 426 immune system, 294
health status, 342 immunodeficiency, 304
heart rate, 248, 420 improvements, 45, 142, 145, 146, 158, 159, 162,
height, 268, 315, 325, 374, 375 310, 315, 317, 341
high performance, 7, 9, 37, 47, 50, 73, 78, 88, 89, 90, impulses, 290
92, 94, 100, 101, 102, 108, 130, 168, 172, 173, in transition, 119
175, 177, 218, 265, 271, 272, 327, 371, 372, 373, inattention, 392
377, 379, 381, 385, 386, 388, 396, 397 incidence, 306, 408, 411, 412
high school, 8, 37, 48, 51, 114, 128, 130, 137, 138, increased workload, 256, 395
150, 151, 159, 163, 164, 178, 188, 230, 351, 387, independence, 141, 172, 373
406 independent variable, 321, 324, 329, 330, 333, 335,
higher education, 47, 48, 49, 55, 63, 66, 75, 88, 302 337, 338, 340, 415
hiring, 390 India, 283
Hispanics, 349 indirect effect, 171
historical overview, 180 individual character, 344
holistic model, 1, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, individual characteristics, 344
25, 27, 29, 30 individual development, 371, 373
homogeneity, 334 individual differences, 6, 7, 9, 54, 169, 286, 290,
honesty, 22, 144 295, 298, 306, 322, 329, 345, 404
hopelessness, 410 individual perception, 204, 345
hotel(s), 15, 256 individualization, 322
human, 9, 17, 25, 28, 29, 48, 85, 90, 129, 135, 151, induction, 50
163, 168, 169, 178, 218, 268, 279, 304, 325, 326, inefficiency, 268
345, 404, 405, 410, 415, 419 infancy, 116, 408
human activity, 325 infection, 304
human behavior, 9, 151, 178, 404, 419 inferences, 199, 220, 232, 233, 251, 254, 255, 339
human capital, 163 Informal knowledge networks, 93
human development, 135 information processing, 39, 287
human immunodeficiency virus, 304 infrastructure, 371
human motivation, 168, 169, 178 ingredients, 42, 213
human nature, 268 inhibition, 303, 304
human resources, 28, 29 initiation, 27, 141
humanism, 20 injure, 290
humanistic psychology, 31 injury(s), 6, 19, 24, 28, 29, 146, 198, 203, 204, 205,
hygiene, 341 209, 211, 212, 215, 216, 294, 302, 316, 342, 351
hypothesis, 233, 308, 310, 316 injury prevention, 198
insecurity, 417, 422, 426
institutional change, 271
I institutions, 56, 61, 423
instructional practice, 231
ideal(s), 2, 24, 63, 134, 137, 144, 209, 229, 287, 295,
instructional skills, 162
296, 298, 329, 378, 390, 398
integration, 6, 40, 44, 48, 53, 54, 76, 163, 170, 207,
identification, 23, 40, 198, 208, 269, 271, 340, 393,
209, 210, 217, 223, 282, 293, 304, 325, 332, 334,
394
335, 336, 338, 373, 374, 379, 380, 389
identity, 89, 136, 146, 171, 179, 210, 260, 269, 294,
intellect, 22, 328
300
intelligence, 2, 7, 9, 229, 263, 296, 305, 322, 359,
idiosyncratic, 4, 11, 14, 25, 30, 38, 39, 51, 70, 71,
366, 404
72, 84, 90, 287, 291
intentionality, 64
illusion, 60, 341
interaction process, 216
image(s), 18, 176, 247, 273
intercollegiate athletics, 350
imagery, 137, 219, 226, 229, 230, 239, 245, 247,
interdependence, 211, 291, 348, 373
296, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 381, 393
interest groups, 2
imagination, 420
436 Index
interference, 286, 295, 416, 423 leadership style, 323, 324, 343, 350, 354, 355, 356,
internal consistency, 189, 331, 332 413
internal processes, 136 learners, 7, 39, 45, 54, 61, 62, 64, 66, 77, 175, 221,
internalization, 40, 157, 170, 171, 180 222, 225, 226
internalizing, 160 learning activity, 73, 80
international competition, 294, 372 learning culture, 85
International Olympic Committee, 137, 152 learning disabilities, 263
interpersonal coaching styles, 184, 189, 196, 197, learning environment, 35, 39, 48, 55, 60, 61, 63, 73,
199 80, 84, 157, 158, 159, 161, 163, 174, 178
interpersonal conflict, 5, 297 learning organisations, 81
interpersonal interactions, 206, 207, 298 learning outcomes, 55, 309, 313
interpersonal relations, 11, 195, 198, 285, 289, 295, learning process(s), 3, 35, 42, 43, 46, 57, 61, 62, 71,
306, 415, 427 74, 80, 84, 160, 221, 222, 270, 377, 399
interpersonal relationships, 11, 198, 285, 289, 295, learning skills, 47, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62
306, 415, 427 learning society, 87
interpersonal styles, 168, 172, 177, 184, 185, 186, learning sources, 37, 38
193, 195, 196, 197, 200 learning styles, 57, 61
intimacy, 288 legend, 134
intimidation, 172 lens, 60, 155, 156, 353, 422
intrinsic motivation, 148, 153, 169, 170, 171, 173, lesions, 405
179, 180, 198, 199 lesson plan, 6, 161, 162, 307
introspection, 125 level of education, 417
investment, 21, 22, 84, 163, 381 liability insurance, 28
involvement, 4, 5, 17, 18, 19, 63, 134, 139, 150, 151, lifelong learning, 57, 61, 62, 79, 87
170, 172, 176, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, lifetime, 77, 79
190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 288, 357, ligament, 203
358, 362, 364, 371, 373, 387, 390, 391, 410, 415 light, 43, 63, 64, 74, 115, 119, 187, 224, 227, 228,
Ireland, 37, 47, 367 229, 232, 238, 287, 307
islands, 80 Likert scale, 321, 328, 329, 331, 333, 339, 341, 350
isolation, 22, 38, 55, 60, 278, 287 literacy, 57, 62
loci, 170
locus, 169, 170, 173, 180, 326
J logistics, 379
longevity, 365, 372, 401
job insecurity, 417, 422
longitudinal study, 86, 262, 293, 302, 416, 418, 420,
job satisfaction, 209
424
job training, 391
love, 139, 148, 277, 278, 370
jumping, 148
junior high school, 114
justification, 195, 196, 366 M
magnitude, 187, 190, 193, 194

K mainstream psychology, 292
Major League Baseball, 204
knees, 308, 312
majority, 54, 60, 123, 148, 156, 277, 354, 415, 421
knowledge concepts, 40
management, vii, 1, 2, 8, 19, 26, 35, 37, 42, 47, 62,
Knowledge Management, 77
74, 77, 78, 81, 83, 89, 95, 96, 104, 113, 115, 130,
134, 157, 181, 264, 268, 277, 280, 286, 293, 294,
L 295, 353, 368, 379, 394, 395, 401, 407, 421, 422,
423
landscape(s), 53, 60, 89, 185, 259 Managerial Coaching, vi, 353, 354, 355, 363
latency, 122 manipulation, 117, 299
Latin America, 354 MANOVA, 333
leadership development, 282 mapping, 71, 74, 75, 76, 78, 85, 86, 87, 88, 269
Index 437
marketing, 89, 353 modelling, 112, 115, 142, 144, 147

marriage, 410 models, vii, 2, 15, 16, 31, 35, 36, 37, 39, 136, 137,
married couples, 348 141, 160, 163, 187, 223, 232, 279, 287, 303, 310,
martial art, 28 311, 314, 325, 346, 353, 387, 388, 389, 411, 416,
masculinity, 28 417, 422
mass, 14, 55 moderates, 24, 342
materials, 54, 69, 73, 162, 309, 313 moderators, 343
mathematics, 56, 67, 69 modernity, 179
matrix, 192 modifications, 80, 83, 211, 213
matter, 85, 87, 246, 273, 274, 279 modules, 43, 49
MBI, 234, 409, 421 momentum, 84, 272, 369, 381, 408
measurement(s), 2, 8, 194, 200, 333, 349, 372, 405, mood states, 395
407, 411, 415, 418, 420, 425 Moon, 38, 40, 43, 44, 49, 71, 73, 75, 76, 81, 86, 88
media, 15, 19, 130, 134, 142, 386, 408, 409, 410, moral behavior, 119
411 moral reasoning, 134
median, 330, 333 morale, 342
mediation, 408, 415, 425 morality, 22, 320
medical, 16, 19, 55, 263, 386, 418, 423 motivation model, 199
medical care, 55 motor control, 287, 308
medicine, 121, 168, 265, 418 motor skills, 299
membership, 208, 210, 372 motor task, 301, 303, 319
memory, 85, 303 multidimensional, 131, 140, 152, 223, 331, 335, 338,
mental disorder, 344, 424 346, 404, 409
mental image, 381 multivariate analysis, 333
mental imagery, 381 muscles, 314, 315
mental skills, vii, 1, 6, 7, 119, 152, 229, 231, 270, music, 224, 248, 302
272, 296, 297, 301, 369, 372, 380, 385, 387, 389, mythology, 200
390, 392, 404, 406
mental state, 371
mental toughness, vii, 1, 6, 7, 10, 181, 267, 268, 271, N
272, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 326, 340
narratives, 37, 73, 77, 169
mentor, 28, 47, 72, 197, 207, 210, 232, 243, 354,
National Basketball Association, 212
360, 382
national culture, 370
mentor program, 197
National Health Service, 11
mentoring, 37, 148, 157, 162, 203, 214, 215, 306,
natural evolution, 372
356, 365, 367, 371, 373
natural selection, 411
mentorship, 207
negative coping, 411
messages, 119, 127, 144, 149, 386, 402
negative effects, 295, 325
meta-analysis, 68, 180, 199, 209, 308, 319, 355
negative emotions, 289, 292, 328
metacognition, 259
negative experiences, 136
metaphor, 61
negative outcomes, 134, 168, 275, 287, 396
meter, 28, 315
negative relation, 292
methodological pluralism, 124
neglect, 62, 291
methodology, 7, 122, 174, 200, 267, 268, 293, 341,
negotiating, 20
351, 368, 369, 408, 420
negotiation, 80
Microsoft, 76
network of practice, 93
microstructure, 32
networks, 4, 38, 58, 84, 91, 92, 94, 105, 106, 107,
military, 7, 342
108, 109, 140, 387
Minneapolis, 350
neuropsychology, 296
mission(s), 55, 156, 206, 356, 357, 390, 392, 394,
neutral, 119, 329, 344
403
New South Wales, 134
misunderstanding, 206
New Zealand, vi, vii, 7, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373,
model system, 68
375, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383
438 Index
Nigeria, 425 parent, 5, 10, 23, 133, 138, 140, 141, 145, 147, 148,
North America, 354 149, 154, 235, 298, 301, 324, 406, 416
Norway, 198 parental criticism, 344
nuisance, 207 parental involvement, 19, 199
nursing, 56 parental pressure, 224
nutrition, 377, 393, 395 parenting, 10, 139, 141, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154
parenting styles, 10, 149, 152, 153
parents, 3, 4, 19, 23, 42, 112, 127, 132, 133, 135,
O 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 148,
149, 150, 176, 184, 194, 198, 220, 239, 271, 327,
observable behavior, 271
331, 334, 335, 336, 338, 341, 370, 397, 403, 406,
observation, v, 111, 115, 117, 119, 130, 247, 396,
414, 416
397
participant observation, 15, 227
observed behavior, 113, 124
participants, 16, 42, 46, 49, 63, 64, 65, 72, 76, 84,
obsessive-compulsive disorder, 327
116, 123, 133, 135, 137, 139, 149, 156, 158, 159,
obstacles, 6, 65, 67, 144, 147, 203, 223, 224, 225,
160, 161, 162, 163, 168, 183, 188, 190, 224, 225,
226, 227, 229, 230, 399
226, 301, 328, 329, 330, 332, 333, 344, 354, 355,
occupational health, 424
360, 382
officials, 16, 29, 290
pathway(s), 4, 37, 71, 72, 152
on-the-job training, 391
peace, 223, 235, 245, 324
openness, 42, 144, 147
peak performance, 296, 322, 369, 404
operant conditioning, 170
Pearson correlations, 183
operations, 86
pedagogy, 34, 49, 50, 80, 168, 261
optimal performance, 265, 298
peer assessment, 58
optimism, 271, 341, 357, 358, 359, 362, 364
peer influence, 301
optimists, 299
peer relationship, 132, 134
optimization, 407
perceived control, 176
orchestration, 47
perceived outcome, 234
organizational development, 367
perfectionism, 7, 10, 239, 291, 299, 301, 322, 326,
organizational learning, 74, 80, 86
327, 331, 334, 335, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 344,
organizational socialization, 203, 205, 209, 214, 216
345, 346, 347, 349, 350, 413, 415, 426
organizational stress, 286, 293, 388, 404
performance appraisal, 146, 358
organize, 80, 113, 137, 145, 161, 217
performance indicator, 19, 326
outcome relationship, 351
performers, 153, 225, 226, 258, 280, 282, 303, 347,
overlap, 362, 363
404
oversight, 210
performing artists, 11
overtraining, 277, 388, 395
permission, 57
ownership, 55, 144, 257, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360,
permit, 78
362, 364, 365
personal communication, 175
ox, 354
personal development, 9, 132, 137, 149, 151, 164,
230
P personal goals, 171, 176, 189, 200, 221, 232, 240,
250, 254, 256, 259, 261
pain, 11, 226 personal identity, 210
pairing, 116 personal learning, 87
paradigm shift, 65, 67, 78, 85, 155, 159 personal life, 147
paradigms, 53, 55, 56, 65, 108 personal qualities, 231, 271
parallel, 55 personal relations, 286
Paralympic sport, 92, 100, 102 personal relationship, 286
paralysis, 287 personal responsibility, 139, 145, 149, 150
parasport, 4, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, personality, vii, 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 43, 123, 129, 130,
102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 110 168, 169, 179, 257, 282, 285, 286, 291, 298, 299,
305, 306, 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 328, 332, 334,
Index 439
335, 337, 340, 341, 342, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349, positive youth development, vii, 1, 4, 5, 9, 16, 47,
350, 413, 414, 415, 427 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 144, 149, 150, 151,
personality characteristics, 323, 324, 325, 341, 344, 152, 153, 155, 156, 158, 160, 163, 164, 165
348 positivism, 55
personality differences, 324 posttraumatic stress, 342
personality factors, 332 potential benefits, 297, 399
personality measures, 346 power relations, 42, 63
personality traits, 323, 326, 334, 335, 337, 342, 346, practical knowledge, 40
350 pragmatism, 15
personality type, 325 pregnancy, 135
personalized learning, 71, 73, 74 preparation, 18, 19, 20, 31, 32, 224, 225, 226, 233,
persuasion, 212 235, 237, 238, 239, 241, 244, 245, 250, 251, 254,
Perth, 283 256, 259, 287, 293, 294, 309, 310, 311, 322, 387,
pessimists, 299 402
pharmacotherapy, 67 preparedness, 213
phenomenology, 22 pretraining, 50
Philadelphia, 367, 426 prevention, 8, 135, 155, 198, 407, 421
phobia, 327 primacy, 27
physical activity, 11, 151, 153, 156, 164, 165, 180, primary caregivers, 141
200, 216, 349, 419, 420, 427 primary function, 24
physical aggression, 291 primary school, 320, 370
physical education, 6, 34, 47, 48, 69, 89, 130, 160, principles, 6, 7, 9, 15, 20, 21, 31, 44, 54, 65, 67, 69,
163, 165, 222, 261, 262, 307, 308, 312, 313, 318, 83, 89, 114, 132, 158, 159, 170, 179, 193, 258,
319, 320 267, 268, 270, 274, 279, 299, 308, 318, 346, 363,
physical environment, 17 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 375, 377, 379, 380, 381,
physical fitness, 31, 156, 325 382, 392, 405, 424
physical health, 135 prior knowledge, 75, 76, 83, 86
physical structure, 204 prisoners, 350
physiological arousal, 287, 303 probability, 357
physiological factors, 20 problem behavior(s), 156
pitch, 15, 18, 19, 29, 308 problem solving, 139, 294, 359
platform, 339 problem-solver, 394
playing, 20, 26, 28, 39, 42, 115, 188, 206, 209, 277, problem-solving, 145, 157, 362, 389
278, 321, 324, 326, 329, 330, 333, 335, 336, 337, procedural knowledge, 21, 40
338, 341, 369, 372, 378, 393, 397 professional development, 9, 31, 32, 35, 43, 47, 48,
pluralism, 124 49, 68, 82, 88, 100, 108, 174, 392, 404
policy, 50, 69, 168, 209, 259, 424 professionalism, 23, 30, 286
policy reform, 50, 69 professionalization, 168, 407
political power, 385 professionals, 8, 11, 22, 47, 62, 67, 86, 386, 388,
politics, 387 403, 405, 406, 419, 426
poor performance, 300, 417 program implementation, 81, 155
population, 226, 331, 370, 373, 377, 415 programming, 65, 165
positional task efficiencies, 369 project, 13, 15, 34, 260, 326, 350
positive attitudes, 157 proliferation, 125
positive behaviors, 123, 159 proposition, 76
positive correlation, 325, 327 prosocial behavior, 116
positive emotions, 254, 292, 300, 303 prosperity, 411
positive feedback, 116, 145, 169, 298, 343 protection, 288, 300
positive mood, 308 prototypes, 365
positive reinforcement, 66, 115, 116, 121, 127, 146 psychological development, 371
positive relationship, 138, 149 psychological health, 419, 421
psychological problems, 392
psychological processes, 200, 319
440 Index
psychological variables, 340 regression, 199, 341, 347

psychological well-being, 5, 135, 168, 200 regression analysis, 341
psychologist, 19, 49, 134, 300, 344, 387, 395 regulations, 29, 170, 171, 186, 199, 200
psychometric properties, 347 rehabilitation, 19, 24, 294, 342
psychopathology, 347 rehearsing, 225
psychosocial development, 133, 135, 137, 140, 149, reinforcement, 39, 40, 66, 115, 116, 121, 127, 146,
153, 154, 164, 406 170
psychosocial factors, 132 rejection, 46
psychotherapy, 304, 366 relational theory, 302
punctuated equilibrium, 208, 215 relationship quality, 292, 323
punishment, 115, 117, 122, 139, 170, 175, 176, 177 relaxation, 229, 230, 296, 302, 318
relevance, 39, 44, 64, 136, 140, 212, 219, 223, 274,
408, 419
Q reliability, 128, 189, 190, 192, 330, 331, 332
reliability values, 190
qualitative differences, 324
relief, 412
qualitative research, 30, 33, 50, 68, 168, 349
repair, 290
quality of life, 381
repetitions, 310, 316, 317
quarterback, 211
replication, 420
Queensland, 69, 167, 178, 179, 180, 181
repression, 306
questioning, 8, 45, 65, 219, 224, 225, 236, 280, 354,
reproduction, 31, 42
355, 357, 360, 361, 362, 385, 389, 391, 393, 395,
requirement(s), 3, 60, 71, 76, 82, 161, 162, 372, 382,
397, 403
391
questionnaire, 188, 227, 234, 292, 305, 331, 332,
researchers, vii, 16, 19, 30, 53, 56, 57, 62, 63, 65, 66,
337, 342, 345, 355, 423
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125,
136, 149, 155, 158, 160, 162, 177, 196, 204, 224,
R 229, 271, 409, 410, 413, 419, 420
resilience, 144, 147, 149, 150, 326, 346, 370, 380
race, 60, 148 resistance, 4, 27, 65, 67, 294, 426
radar, 276 resolution, 145, 147, 392
rating scale, 121, 129, 233, 237, 244, 251, 253, 339, resource allocation, 379
351 resources, 27, 28, 29, 30, 54, 64, 65, 66, 125, 135,
rationality, 359 140, 160, 184, 195, 197, 208, 211, 212, 228, 237,
reactions, 131, 144, 251, 253, 292, 297, 326, 350 243, 244, 257, 258, 261, 286, 287, 293, 295, 360,
reading, vii, 37, 61, 141, 408 377, 382, 383, 395, 405, 409, 410, 412, 414, 418,
real time, 117, 129 419, 422, 424, 426
reality, 38, 175, 200, 273, 380, 399, 400 response, 3, 26, 31, 123, 126, 127, 205, 211, 212,
reasoning, 44, 124, 126, 127, 134, 186, 277 230, 232, 233, 239, 247, 248, 255, 256, 258, 274,
recall, 15, 21, 32, 39, 45, 62, 111, 124, 130 289, 293, 296, 302, 303, 322, 326, 328, 329, 333,
reciprocity, 169 339, 341, 342, 347, 349, 387, 398, 408, 414
recognition, 72, 113, 115, 353, 400 response format, 347
recommendations, vii, 5, 6, 14, 36, 50, 54, 58, 60, response style, 322, 328, 339, 341, 342, 347, 349
62, 66, 88, 135, 149, 167, 194, 205, 210, 212, responsibility for learning, 56, 61, 222
217, 218, 257, 258, 364, 376, 402, 421, 422 rewards, 24, 138, 169, 170, 172, 177, 221
recovery, 20, 302, 342, 372, 380, 402, 424 rhetoric, 22, 42, 150
recreational, 78, 115, 156, 196, 226, 260, 315, 316 rights, 401, 403, 424
recruiting, 386, 389, 393, 415 risk(s), 22, 42, 46, 152, 156, 295, 296, 323, 329, 338,
referees, 29, 127 339, 356, 362, 408, 410, 411, 414, 416, 417, 419
reflective conversation, 21, 42, 44, 46, 107, 231 risk factors, 156
reflective practice, 13, 21, 22, 30, 31, 42, 44, 45, 49, risk taking, 323, 356, 362
174, 231, 232, 260, 261, 262, 263, 294, 301, 302, role conflict, 27, 215, 412
392, 393, 398 role relationship, 391
reform, 50, 69 romantic relationship, 304
Index 441
root(s), 2, 393, 394 self-monitoring, 125, 131, 217, 218, 219, 222, 223,
routines, 225, 276, 296, 299 230, 256, 259, 263
rowing, 20, 175, 180, 377 self-observation, 219, 233, 239, 247, 248, 249, 250,
rubrics, 57 254, 256
rugby, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 18, 25, 31, 32, 49, 128, 183, self-paced learning, 157, 161
188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 197, 199, 290, 303, 304, self-perceptions, 137, 147, 260, 296
326, 346, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 378, 379, 380, self-presentation, 200
381, 382 self-reflection, 145, 150, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223,
rules, 21, 28, 138, 139, 142, 157, 175, 210, 211, 318 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 236, 240, 249, 253, 256,
Russia, 153 257, 259
self-reports, 340, 419
self-talk, vii, 1, 6, 178, 223, 224, 229, 230, 231, 239,
S 245, 246, 247, 251, 261, 296, 297, 300, 304, 305,
307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316,
safe simulation, 40
317, 318, 319, 320, 381
safety, 161, 324
self-worth, 5, 146, 168, 170, 193
sarcasm, 114
seminars, 377, 379
scarcity, 65, 261
semi-structured interviews, 15, 226
scatter, 122
sensation(s), 223, 248, 324
scatter plot, 122
sensation seeking, 324
schema, 14
senses, 79
scholarship, 49, 54, 280
sensitivity, 4, 20, 21, 416
school, 8, 23, 34, 37, 48, 51, 68, 89, 114, 128, 130,
sequencing, 116, 161
131, 137, 138, 144, 145, 148, 150, 151, 152, 156,
service provider, 389, 393, 399
157, 159, 163, 164, 178, 188, 230, 260, 264, 279,
services, 132, 140, 387, 388, 389, 390, 393, 410
313, 320, 351, 370, 387, 406, 414
shame, 170, 295
school psychology, 131
shape, 3, 14, 16, 112, 115, 132, 158, 167, 175, 213,
science, 9, 10, 46, 75, 89, 129, 130, 152, 154, 179,
292, 385, 390
199, 200, 201, 231, 286, 299, 322, 386, 388, 392,
shelter, 156
401
shoot, 278
scope, 18, 64, 117, 205, 211, 388
shortage, 65
seasonality, 409
showing, 80, 171, 195, 230, 324, 332, 340, 388, 393
security, 140, 292, 417
sibling(s), 116, 145, 148
self esteem, 25
signs, 388, 393, 419, 421
self-assessment, 57, 58, 62
simulation(s), 40, 394
self-awareness, 64, 134, 159, 162, 174, 219, 224,
Singapore, 34
231, 232, 253, 256, 370, 373, 397, 398, 399, 403
skills training, 6, 7, 267, 268, 270, 272, 355, 385,
self-concordance model, 184, 187, 200
389, 390, 392, 404
self-confidence, 134, 140, 153, 157, 261, 300, 322
SMS, 199
self-control, 218, 219, 221, 229, 233, 239, 245, 247,
soccer, 9, 22, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 39, 47, 48, 51,
248, 254, 256, 262, 301
112, 115, 128, 129, 130, 131, 136, 140, 152, 153,
self-determination theory, vi, 8, 10, 25, 31, 33, 119,
158, 164, 186, 197, 215, 222, 259, 261, 262, 263,
138, 157, 163, 168, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, 197,
302, 303, 313, 347, 424, 425
198, 200, 395, 402, 422
social acceptance, 209
self-discovery, 85, 156, 157, 158, 224
social activities, 210
self-doubt, 224
social benefits, 153
self-efficacy, 9, 209, 212, 215, 219, 221, 222, 224,
social circle, 210
233, 244, 253, 256, 296, 297, 301, 323, 367
social comparison, 148, 159
self-employed, 23, 422
social conflicts, 145
self-enhancement, 131, 300
social consequences, 300
self-esteem, 9, 25, 128, 131, 134, 140, 146, 148, 269,
social context, 73, 80, 294, 347
290, 327, 414
social development, 153, 180
self-image, 176
social environment, 211
self-improvement, 159, 162
442 Index
social events, 138, 148 sports coaching, 32, 47, 48, 50, 51, 68, 109, 111,
social group, 170 130, 131, 150, 179, 181, 287, 302, 422
social hierarchy, 23, 211, 212 Sri Lanka, 283
social influence, 23 stability, 206, 297, 328, 334, 340
social integration, 325, 332, 334 stakeholders, 4, 17, 65, 66, 385, 391
social interaction(s), 8, 25, 58, 140, 205, 288, 328, state(s), 32, 42, 111, 122, 125, 129, 137, 204, 214,
407 218, 223, 229, 236, 246, 248, 287, 295, 296, 297,
social learning, 4 298, 301, 355, 357, 358, 371, 377, 380, 395, 408,
social learning systems, 4, 91, 92, 93, 98, 103, 104, 424
105, 106 statistics, 189, 192, 333, 334, 351
social network, 4 stimulation, 328, 355, 359, 362
social phenomena, 124 stimulus, 21, 39, 326, 328
social phobia, 327 stock, 8, 393
social psychology, 215, 301, 303, 306 storytelling, 89
social relations, 132, 210, 341 strategic management, 81
social relationships, 132, 341 strategic planning, 218, 219, 228, 238, 239, 251, 254,
social responsibility, 164 256
social sciences, 30 strategy use, 264
social situations, 79 strengths-based coaching, 6, 267, 268, 270, 271, 274,
social skills, 137, 138, 324 282
social structure, 324, 349 stress management, 293, 295, 407, 421, 423
social support, 131, 133, 136, 137, 140, 141, 149, stress response, 414
151, 152, 153, 209, 222, 228, 244, 292, 293 stressful events, 419
social support network, 140 stressors, 33, 262, 286, 293, 294, 301, 302, 303, 388,
socialization, 50, 141, 151, 170, 203, 205, 209, 213, 393, 398, 410, 411, 412, 418
214, 216 stretching, 311, 314, 315
socializing agent, 220 structural dimension, 140
society, 50, 72, 87, 136, 152 structuring, 39, 209, 210
sociology, 51, 86, 168 student motivation, 404
software, 33, 45, 75, 83, 121, 125, 130 subgroups, 398
solution, 147, 332, 358, 359, 362, 364, 365, 390, subjective experience, 23, 179
393, 394, 395, 399, 401, 419 subjective meanings, 15
South Africa, 370, 371 subjective well-being, 261, 344
South America, 277 substance abuse, 135
Spain, vii, 307, 320 substance use, 200
specialisation, 150 substitutions, 19, 29
specialists, 5, 19, 155, 156, 379 substrates, 301
specialization, 136 supervision, 8, 138, 183
species, 415 supervisor(s), 34, 162, 426
specific knowledge, 20, 230 support staff, vii, 7, 20, 149, 167, 286, 385, 386, 392
speculation, 412 suppression, 288, 289, 291, 292
speech, 25, 308 surveillance, 113, 114, 115
spelling, 341 survival, 341
spending, 243, 277 sustainability, 87
spin, 274 Sweden, vii, 407, 412, 426, 427
Sport Motivation Scale (SMS), 199 symbiosis, 262
sport organisation, 71, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 89, 106 sympathy, 184
sport organization(s), vii, 1, 4, 70, 73, 86, 90, 91, 98, symptoms, 8, 227, 290, 296, 303, 344, 393, 395, 408,
100, 103, 106, 163, 288, 289, 371, 387, 401, 405, 409, 410, 421
419 syndrome, 408, 423
sport psychologists, vii, 267, 268, 272, 342 synthesis, 23, 24, 376
sporting heroes, 134
Index 443
trait anxiety, 347, 349

T traits, 134, 169, 323, 326, 327, 334, 336, 337, 341,
342, 346, 350, 380, 413
tactics, 24, 29, 205, 209, 210, 213, 215, 255, 277,
trajectory, 37, 122, 205, 371
324, 377
transformation, 43, 65, 170, 171
talent, 9, 19, 51, 80, 129, 137, 150, 268, 326, 370
Transformational Leadership, 355, 356, 357, 359,
target, 116, 120, 121, 123, 124, 127, 237, 314, 315,
360, 363, 367
374, 375, 380
transformative learning, 43, 49
target behavior, 120, 121
transition period, 196
task demands, 225
translation, 168, 176
task performance, 262, 309, 319
transmission, 206, 214
taxonomy, 23, 387
transparency, 195
teachers, 32, 47, 55, 58, 69, 70, 160, 163, 174, 175,
transport, 140, 148
176, 180, 184, 199, 274, 308, 318, 370, 424, 426
treatment, 297, 393, 395, 424
teacher-student relationship, 68
trial, 40, 264, 304, 349, 378
team members, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212,
triggers, 414
213, 216, 227, 277, 322, 339, 343, 354, 357, 361,
Turkey, 423
364, 371, 372, 376, 391, 403
turnover, 209, 213, 413, 418
team sports, 18, 24, 32, 198, 299, 324, 325, 326, 331,
twins, 212
350, 386, 413, 417
Type I error, 338
techniques, 28, 33, 68, 114, 115, 116, 125, 138, 139,
219, 229, 240, 245, 251, 254, 257, 271, 296, 320,
353, 361, 362, 364, 382, 392 U
technological advances, 125
technology, 4, 45, 72, 79, 125, 126, 128, 230 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 164
telephone, 138, 234, 257 undergraduate education, 67
tempo, 396 unions, 373
tension(s), 25, 26, 210, 212 unique features, 223
testing, 186, 187, 194, 308, 328, 377, 378, 380, 383, unwanted thoughts, 298
416
thematic analysis, 91, 96, 107
theoretical assumptions, 280 V
theoretical eclecticism, 39
therapist, 379 valence, 141
therapy, 282, 366, 392, 419 validation, 30, 57, 119, 131, 178, 186, 196, 263, 281,
think critically, 13, 66 305, 347, 348, 349, 405, 423
third dimension, 61, 359, 362, 365, 410 valuation, 34
thoughts, 5, 60, 77, 140, 143, 147, 171, 172, 176, variables, 2, 7, 16, 17, 44, 114, 119, 123, 132, 176,
218, 223, 225, 228, 232, 233, 234, 235, 242, 245, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 195, 210, 234, 285, 290,
246, 247, 248, 249, 254, 293, 298, 323, 328, 398, 321, 324, 326, 329, 330, 333, 335, 338, 340, 376,
399 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 418, 419, 422, 424
threats, 292 variations, 30, 187
throws, 327 variety of domains, 295
tics, 14 vein, 36, 44
time constraints, 60 venue, 229
time frame, 5, 195, 196, 197, 203, 234, 371 verbal persuasion, 212
time pressure, 18, 28 video, 45, 111, 121, 130
tissue, 379 violence, 31
top-down, 59, 63 virus infection, 304
trade, 371 vision, 4, 66, 67, 206, 272, 302, 356, 357, 362, 364,
traditional practices, 28 365, 394
traditions, 17, 270, 279 visual attention, 301
training programs, 71, 78, 80, 114, 342, 343, 355, volleyball, 198, 227, 260, 262
360, 376, 377 Vygotsky, 42, 45, 50
444 Index
working hours, 410

W workload, 228, 243, 256, 395, 412, 418
workplace, 2, 8, 72, 80, 81, 209, 210, 268, 282, 354,
Wales, 134, 351
360
walking, 248
worry, 246, 291, 413
water, 245, 254, 406
wrestling, 345, 346
watershed, 184, 193, 195
writing tasks, 294
weakness, 176, 270, 279
wealth, 115, 124, 126
welfare state, 424 Y
Western Australia, 267, 283, 391, 404
western culture, 345 youth sport, 4, 5, 9, 10, 19, 20, 32, 47, 48, 50, 87, 88,
Wisconsin, 346 108, 112, 113, 114, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133,
work environment, 80, 256, 358, 417 135, 136, 137, 138, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155,
work ethic, 275, 372, 381 156, 157, 163, 164, 186, 261, 303, 404, 406, 427
workers, 354
work-family conflict, 407, 409, 416, 417, 422, 423,
426 Z
working conditions, 81, 412
Zimbabwe, 283

The Psychology of Effective Coaching

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Psychology of Effective Coaching

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPORTS AND ATHLETICS PREPARATION, PERFORMANCE, AND PSYCHOLOGY

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EFFECTIVE

Additional books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

Additional e-books in this series can be found on Nova’s website

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EFFECTIVE

NOTICE TO THE READER

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN:  (eBook)

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York

Chapter 10 Challenging Coaching Orthodoxy:

The Psychology of Effective Coaching and Management is a valuable resource for

CURRENT PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL

Keywords: Coaching, psychology, management, education

construction of a roadmap to being an effective coach or manager is elusive if not misguided.

The consistent application of integrated professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal

Burkett, B. (2013). Coaching athletes with a disability. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, J. Denison.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

A HOLISTIC MODEL OF THE COACHING PROCESS:

Edward Thomas Hall1*, Shirley Gray2, John Kelly2,

Keywords: Coach process, coaching practice, coaching context, holistic model

DEVELOPING A HOLISTIC MODEL

DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS

OVERVIEW OF THE HOLISTIC MODEL

Figure 1. The holistic model of the coaching process.

SETTINGS OF THE COACHING PROCESS

THE COACH: PERSONAL FACTORS

ASSOCIATES: SOCIAL FACTORS

COACHING CONTEXT: CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

Gilbert, W. D. (2007). Modelling the complexity of the coaching process: a commentary.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Shirley Gray is a Lecturer in Physical Education at the University of Edinburgh, UK.

Dr Amanda Martindale is a Lecturer in Sport and Performance Psychology at the

EFFECTIVE COACH LEARNING AND PROCESSES

Anna Stodter1,* and Christopher J. Cushion2

Keywords: Coach learning, professional development, coaching knowledge, learning

Coaches’ Learning: A Complex Blend

The Processes of Coach Learning

A Contemporary Theory of Coaches’ Learning

Summarizing the Process of Learning

Enhancing Meaningful Learning

This could be achieved through a number of avenues. Firstly, reflection should be

EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

 Effective learning cannot be ‘one-size-fits-all’; it needs to be personalized to

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Chris Cushion is a Reader in Sport Coaching at Loughborough University where he

Kyle Paquette* and Pierre Trudel

Keywords: Coach development, coach educators, constructivism, learning, paradigms

PART 1: A LOOK AT THE LC LITERATURE

Weimer and Blumberg: Learner-Centered Teaching

Being student-centered implies a focus on student needs. It is an orientation that gives

Table 1. The components of learner-centered teaching

Dimensions of LCT Components

The Responsibility a) Responsibility for learning

Dimensions of LCT Coach Education Critiques (C) and Example References

PART 2: FIVE DIMENSIONS OF LCT FRAMEWORK

The Role of the Instructor

The instructor’s role is central to Blumberg’s (2009) conceptualization of LCT, as noted

The Responsibility for Learning

The Purposes and Processes of Assessment

Compared to traditional programs that have tended to put a strong emphasis on

The Balance of Power

PART 3: CONSIDERATIONS FOR LEADING LC COACH EDUCATION

Overcoming Obstacles and Resistance

Shifting paradigms, as discussed above, involves a complex process of questioning the

ISBN: (eBook)