“Each week we try and do something different….Whether that be in the schedule structure, training content or the way we present information to the players. In training, we create situations where we don’t tell the players the purpose of the game as we want them to work it out for themselves and very quickly adapt
Read MoreRecent appointments and interviews have highlighted the importance of transition periods in Australian rugby union environments. Former Wallaby James Holbeck has signed on as a career and pathways manager with an eye to helping current and former Australian rugby players with their transition into life after rugby and GR&G Podcast with NSW Waratahs Elite Youth Development Manager, Pat McCutcheon looked at the importance of talent ID alongside young player personal and professional development. While these are extremely pleasing developments in recognising the importance of player welfare and acknowledging the stresses involved in entering and exiting the professional atmospheres, my passions and practices revolve around focusing on player well-being when in the relevant rugby programs and how we as coaches and mentors can facilitate these players to gain perceived personal success, both on and off the pitch.
On his appointment, Holbeck will now work closely with Rugby Australia, the Classic Wallabies and the Rugby Union Players’ Association (RUPA). His qualifications and personal insight into what current footballers are going through will be hugely beneficial. Holbeck knows as well as anyone how difficult life can be when a professional sporting career comes to a screeching halt. Holbeck said:
“I had no confidence post-rugby that I’d be able to do anything of note; My first job was a commentating gig at the World Cup in 2003 and then my next job was working at an IGA as a weekend manager on the Gold Coast. That’s sort of the fall from grace that a lot of players have.
From that perspective, it is about trying to get players a bit more prepared, which is easier said than done because players want to put it off until next year. That’s what we all did.
All players would say they didn’t make the most of the Players’ Association and the connections you have while you’re playing; I haven’t met a player that hasn’t said that over the last 10 years. We want to get senior players as mentors. For the current Wallabies, we want to look at some sort of structure for them to be working towards life after rugby.”
NSW Waratahs Elite Youth Development Manager, Pat McCutcheon discussed recently discussed the importance of player and personal development on young players entering the GenBlue system:
“One thing that I always say and I always will say is that we want to develop the player to be more than just a rugby player. We want them to be strong, physically good and technically good, but we want to develop them as human beings.
Helping with simple things, such as how to deal with stress and anxiety, how to deal with losses, how to analyse games (while assisting players to) set themselves up for post career development as well, because when you’re 30-35 and had a pretty good career and you are retiring you’ve got the rest of your life in front of you. If we can give these young men more tools and more education, and a more holistic approach I know the byproduct of that will be better rugby players.
In regards to Talent ID, There’s obviously a physical element when it comes to doing that talent identification for those young players coming through the ranks; I think that the first things we look at our behavioural characteristics. We want to pick good blokes. We want to pick good people, and that essentially gives a whole element of coachability. If you’ve got people who can listen and are responsive, they’re selfless in their action with really good character, I think that’s far more important than skill development. You start talking about the mental side of things, leadership and life after rugby. There is so much more emphasis on that at the moment.”
I believe we as coaches need to assist players in building and maintaining positive mindsets while creating fulfilling experiences through interactions on and off the field. How can we do so? Ideas such as encouraging players to be "present" through sports specific mindfulness tactics, being aware and encouraging their individual visions, both short and long term, to support their aspirations and find ways they can effectively and purposefully achieve their goals can be some adopted tactics yet the importance of coach-athlete relationships right through their playing careers shall ensure a holistic entry and exit from rugby union.
Good coach-athlete relationships can assist in offering the emotional support and perceived efficacy in sport to assist prolonged athlete involvement, retention and engagement, which can be enhanced by understanding of what players’ value and why. Previous research by Gould’s found ideas for coaches such as cultivating personal involvement with players, offering two way communication, utilising player input and understanding player’s feelings (Gould, Tuffey, Udry, & Loehr, 1996) could strengthen these areas for player support. Cresswell and Eklund (2006) also found ideas such as enjoyable challenges within rugby, open and free communication with coaches and management alongside few or flexible responsibilities outside sport allowed and encouraged player engagement, reduced burnout or dropout and ease the exit anxiety which Holbeck shall be looking at. Coaches and administration staff alike should take note from qualitative investigations which found attributions to burnout symptoms included transitions between competitions or stages in season, which added emotional and mental stress akin to areas mentioned by Holbeck; pressure to comply and perform in elite environments and negative development environments, all areas which could factor and enable greater control for players and coaches alike.
So, from previous research and current adopted ideas, what does good coach-athlete relationships look like? The challenge of successful coaching is acknowledging social interactive dilemmas within individual and team goal setting and development, offering suitable scenarios and choices with all members’ involvement and collaboratively dealing with matters as opposed to eradicating them. Past research by Mageau and Vallerand regards the “actions of coaches as (possibly) the most critical motivational influences within sport setting”. Coaching should be recognised as an educational dynamic relationship, where the coach can satisfy player’s goals and development but both sides have an investment of will capital, where human initiative and intentionality are both dedicated to show commitment towards goals and relationships.
The main aspects of influential and successful coach-athlete relationships revolve around ideals such as mutual trust, respect, support, cooperation, communication and understanding of each other and impact of each other within the relationship. Both performance enhancement and physiological well-being is deeply ingrained within the coach-athlete relationship. Coaches need to acknowledge and recognise the effects of positive, interdependent relationships, which are dynamic and interlinked with cognition, feelings and behaviours to achieve common recognised goals (Jowett, 2007). Therefore, a coach’s ability to acknowledge and develop positive interpersonal connections, driven by interpersonal skills and united sense of purpose and achievement, can offer solid base for positive group climate. As in PYD (positive youth development) models, a coach should look to offer opportunities to continually develop strengths, improve performance and increase positive emotional states.
Coaches should assist players to identify problems as opposed to solving them, offering ideas and assistance for how to think and act as opposed to offering solutions, ideas which have been touched on by both Holbeck and McCutcheon. As Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi’s research addressed, creative people are driven by discovery and creation of problems as opposed to superior skills or ability. Therefore, coaches within HP rugby programs could adopt ideas from Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), where this theory has the coach standing as a recognised more capable other to the athlete with their requirement being to engage in contextual collaborative and learning relationship with athletes to ensure optimal psychological functioning for maximal sporting performance. Zone of proximal development (ZPD) as defined by Vygotsky, is an area I believe would be successfully applicable to PYD promotion and specialising athletes in team sports such as rugby union and offer life building skills for when exiting the sport.This theory encourages players to ask questions and adopt sub routines; therefore, the players are taking over the structure of tasks and practice while acquiring performance or transfer of performance. This again allows coaches to act as mentors, supporting players to develop meta cognitive skills where the athletes are aware of and take responsibility of appropriate practices and thinking strategies. This supports the ideas of learning being a series of episodes; scaffolding, where players identify and build knowledge, another key point identified by Pat McCutcheon in regards to developing the players as "better blokes".
Another stage for developing "better blokes" or structure for them to be working towards life after rugby is considering or thinking about adopted knowledge, where players can work independently to analyse developed ideas and skills with last stage being evaluating learning. Through this adopted approach, they could identify applicable monitoring, review and learning processes such as self or peer review or socio-constructivist theory, where learning occurs in social groups through ongoing interactions between relevant people. This method positions coaches as mentors where they shift from knowledge expert for athlete as in early stages of development to learning manager or facilitator (Carnell and Lodge, 2002), offering constructive feedback for the player to investigate further.
These studied theories could be supported by Entwistle and Smith’s research (2002); this allows an athlete to explore personal understanding of subject or sport in question, assisted with relevant, timely and challenging feedback from coach or mentor. These theories promote the ideas of both learner/athlete and educator/coach to act, reflect, evaluate, plan and experiment prior to acting and starting the cycle over again. These processes offer both players and coaches security to adopt and test skills in preparation for competitive environment, understanding that all involved parties can reflect and plan new strategies if required. As opposed to a coach led or directive approach, it offers players autonomy to internally understand sport expectations and how they may offer new solutions or scenarios to develop mastery approach or elite status.
Part of the importance and difficulty of good coach-player relationships is the perceived passion towards the sport. Both parties having harmonious passion, defined as “autonomous internalization that leads individuals to choose to engage in the activity that they like” (Vallerand et al., 2003), towards rugby should be positive for all dimensions for coach-athlete relations and result in understanding of importance of sport yet not over whelming in each other’s identity. An equally or unequally obsessive passion towards the sport can show positive signs for direct commitment to the player-coach relationship yet shall result in externally regulated motivations taking control, with player or coach being more controlled by outcomes which are regulated or recognised by others than those within relationship. High quality coach-athlete relationships, which are optimised by harmonious passion, result in higher subjective well-being within player (Lafrenière, 2008), an area which is critical for player retention and development of self-determined motivations and mastery mindset.
My current research of personal strivings amongst age grade elite players such as players found in McCutcheon's GenBlue offers a potential framework to strengthen these coach-athlete relationships in future. Robert Emmons, creator of Personal Strivings assessment, found pursuit of strivings offered basic needs, similar to Self Determination Theroy, investigated by Deci and Ryan amongst others. Strivings offer safety and control (akin to autonomy), social belongingness (akin to relatedness) and self-esteem and competence (Emmons, 1999). Possession of and progression towards intrinsically important goals “instantiate needs of autonomy, competence and well being” (Emmons, 1999), which closely tied to player well-being.
Emmons and Diener (1986) researched the positive effect related to presence and attainment of important goals in everyday life, echoing Emmons belief of progressing toward meaningful life goals is a prerequisite for subjective well-being (Emmons, 1986). Sheldon and Kasser (1995) suggested personal strivings serve as “motivational organising principles that lend coherence and continuity to day to day goal pursuits”. Strivings explore the link between motivational aspects of personality and environment as defined ideographically, therefore being important components why individuals would spend time in certain situations while avoiding others (Emmons, 1991); as investigated, goal attainment is related to well-being over time whereas commitment regarded as unrelated (Emmons, 1999).
Therefore on the information provided and past research, I feel Holbeck and McCutcheon could place a greater empathsis on coach-athlete relationships while in RA programs, including addressing the social and mental sides of coaching, assisting players build intrinsic motivations within and away from the game and ensuring Rugby AUS has emotionally satisfied players entering and exiting into life after rugby. On this note, keep an eye out for my new mentoring program staring soon for athletes of all ages, offering ideas and collaborative solutions for strengthening mental skills required for elite programs and professional environments.
This week, I was really fortuante to spend time with Wade Gilbert as part of a discussion group at University of QLD. Canadian coaching guru Wade Gilbert is in this country as a guest of Cricket Australia; as well as speaking to CA’s coaches and leaders, Gilbert has spent time in recent days with NRL clubs Melbourne, South Sydney, Cronulla and North Queensland. He has also visited AFL clubs Collingwood, North Melbourne, Richmond and the Brisbane Lions.
Having previously met Gilbet at ICCE Conference in Liverpool (an admittedly nerve wracking experience as he chaired my research presentation!!), I was keen to spend some time with him while on Australian shores. Gilbert, currently Professor at Fresno State University in California, started by discussing where he was from and his journey to where he is now, outlining how fortunate what he has been doing being in "the right place at the right time". He has worked within academic research circles with such people such as Jean Cote, Pierre Trudel and Cliff Mallett and worked alongside legendary coaches such as Coach Wooden among others, gathering a wealth of knowledge along the way. He has recently been involved in creating the USOC Quality Coaching Framework, which provides an overarching set of principles that is designed to inform how to coach most effectively. The USOC QCF is a evidence-based resource that establishes a common language and principles of quality coaching for all those working in Team USA coaching contexts. He highlighted the running joke of how a Canadian has been used to make US Coaches better but no one can dispute his reputation in coaching circles.
Gilbert started to discuss further areas he considers of growing importance within coaching, one of them being coach wellness and ability to perform. He discussed how he has seen an increase in importance of coach's health and wellbeing with increased pressure to perform, increasing turnover of coaches and staff and good coaching practices being overlooked for result driven industry. He echoed Coach Wooden's saying of "never mistake activity for achievement", expressing how busy coaches made themselves appear and focusing on the results or the product over the process, an area I have discussed previously towards coaches adopting a growth mindset. He talked about the coach's ability to perform in different moments, preparing to win training sessions, meetings and matches with the correct mindset and how increasingly important mindfulness tactics such as active breathing, imagery and meditation are to catch and create energy for people to learn.
Highlighting the number of coaches within NBA this year taking a medical leave of absence, he highlighted another area of importance and which I have previously addressed of coach burnout. Coach like athlete burnout results from “chronically frustrated or unfulfilled basic physiological needs” (Cresswell, 2006) and “denotes a negative emotional reaction to sport participation” (Gustafsson, Kenttä, Hassmén, & Lundqvist, 2007). Coaches recognising themselves as performers should again increase awareness towards well-being to portray the clear purpose and passion towards their program, understanding your players and offering what is required in meeting their needs. Coaches need to have the physical and mental capacity to create environments and atmospheres where all involved are testing and pushing by training to improve themselves as opposed to training to prove themselves.
Cliff Mallett, Steven Rynne and Gilbert discusses amongst the group high performing and serial successful coaches. The highlighted areas such as continually striving to improve and continue learning, never happy or satisfied and always looking to improve the process while adopting transformational leadership styles. Gilbert highlighted areas I have recently discussed looking how coaching success stems around the competence, confidence, connection and character developed with the athlete as a result of the coach-player relations yet coach adopted transformational leadership styles would result in positive intrinsic motivations and increased athlete effort. Wade addressed that you "aren't selling your program; meet them at their needs and better understand through connection".
Addressing discussed area of relationship, I reminded myself of a couple of Coach Wooden quotes to add context to the discussion:
“The most powerful leadership tool you have is your own personal example”
”It’s the little details that are vital; little things make big things happen”
Gilbert again discussed with the group regarding coaching being navigating moments and this included defining and recognising moments of leadership. Offering an example used from time with Melbourne Storm, when asking players what does leadership look like to them and asking for examples or moments in action on and away from the field each day, he ensured examples offered where really highlighted and applauded when offered.
Gibert touched on other apsects discussed in his Australian trip with coaches including developing leadership groups, team communication and athlete readiness, all part of your coaching domain. I have previously heard Gilbert refer to coaches as "environmental engineers" suggesting creating an atmosphere where coaches both continue to learn and encourage learning. Gilbert strengthened this statement by saying how learning aids meaning and context while being intrinsically motivating to learn. He reiterated the saying "becoming is better than being" which enforces the belief of the great that you never "become" a great coach or achieve mastery in playing; you focus on the importance of the individual and relationships and focus on how and why to keep getting better.
Thanks to Cliff Mallett and Steven Rynne of UQ for hosting the forum and Darren Holder of Cricket Australia for incorporating as part of Wade Gilbert's trip to Australia.
I was really fortunate to attend ICCE Global Coaches House this week, for which the core purpose of this is to provide a networking and learning opportunity for sport coaches from around the globe whom are in Gold Coast for the Commonwealth Games. Attendees included “Next generation” coaches preparing to be future Commonwealth, Olympic and Paralympic coaches, coaches working with athletes on the high performance development pathway who wish to learn from this pinnacle of sport achievement, Commonwealth coaches once their events are complete, Coach Developers, who work to embed coaching cultures, improve coaching systems and practice in business and sport, and/or Representatives of sport and coaching organisations.
The focus early in the week was "coaches as learners" and how great coaches never stopped learning. It was awesome to have Graham Henry offer his experiences and knowledge as opening keynote surrounding this area. He described how adversity, perceived and recorded failures (through win-loss ratios) inspired him to self analyse and continue learning. He addressed when he took charge of Wales Rugby Union national side, he had around 25 years experience of coaching. However, after unsuccessful B&I Lions tour, he had lost the support and morale of dressing room and the players within; only then did he realise "the game was about the players, not the coach" and promised to never let this happen again through self reflection and learning new tricks.
He started to dig deeper into the ideas of what creates and keeps good people and good teams. His points were initially raised by Peter Conde (AIS Director) whom spoke before Henry and said:
“In order to win gold medals, you don’t just need gold medal athletes, you also need gold medal coaches and gold medal support staff around them. ”
Henry used an example from an observation by Sir Clive Woodward where England's support staff were double of Graham's in their 2002 Six Nations loss. Woodward said at the after dinner function "You don't expect your 4 lads to beat our 8!!"; he replied that he believed he did but led him to realise that he needed greater expertise through more people around him whom also have the passion to do the job. After long periods of self reflection and professional setbacks, he found himself involved in NZ Rugby and eventually in All Blacks head coach role after 2003 World Cup. However, it was 2004 Tri-Nations defeats and culture issues which really led to changes within All Blacks values and goals. Driven by leadership group of players and supported by coaches and other individuals such as Sir Brian James Lochore and Gilbert Enoka, they re-addressed the goals of the national team, looked at building culture within the group and coaches acted as a resource for the players whom were feeling disenchantment and pressure when in the jersey.
I have talked previously around one of the areas of research surrounding this application before being Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). This theory has the coach standing as a recognised more capable other to the athlete with their requirement being to engage in contextual collaborative and learning relationship with athletes to ensure optimal psychological functioning for maximal sporting performance. The coach or more capable other plays a significant role in transitioning athlete from other’s assistance to self-assistance through ideas such as leading questions or prompting higher cognitive thoughts to assist independent problem solving and improved performance in next similar situation. Having three stages in shifting from assistance by others, transition stage and assistance to self, this supports the theory that “development appears twice”. This theory believes development firstly occurs inter-psychological between peers or playing group for this context, prior to occurring intra-psychological, where we internally process and develop.
I have believed this Vygotskian approach to team based learning would be strongly advantageous in a rugby union atmosphere. A collaborative exploration into the technical and tactical sides of the sport offer the support required for elite players whilst allowing coaches to unobtrusively redesign coaching environment based on player’s learning styles, acknowledging various philosophies, outlooks and player identities. This method may less impact team cultures and social dynamics as approach is physically and emotionally safe for involved athletes whom have control over their learning methods with all tasks being meaningful and understood. Ideas within sessions to build a sense of ZPD include open games and skills exploration akin to ideas in TGfU, aimed at discovery of new techniques and problems solving strategies along with improved coach communication such as open ended coach questioning and honest feedback to allow players to discover solutions. However, feedback and advice to players from coaches should never be “negative judgements of performance because levels of confidence, motivation and enthusiasm shall not be boosted by negative one to one conversations” (Bullock and Wikeley, 2004).
Henry talked regarding AB's desire to become the GOAT (Greatest of all time), not just within rugby union yet most successful team across all sports. He mentioned how they adopted solutions focused mentality (similar to growth mindset) while player driven goals were around the process over results, discussing ideas such as quick daily reviews of what they should keep doing, stop doing and start doing. He mentioned:
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast....the better we are connected, the better we play”
Summarising, he listed the main areas targeted to gain continuous improvement and learning were:
These ideas were supported in Dr Masa Ito (Nippon Sports University) & John Bales (ICCE) workshop where they discussed the leading trends in teaching and learning for the future were project based learning, life long learning (mediated or unmediated) and student centred learning by placing pedagogies that place individual needs at the heart of learning. Like outlined by Sir Graham, I believe continued learning requires self motivation within a supportive environment, observation of and understanding yourself and targeted audience, creative thinking and innovative methods in ever changing environments and settings.
“Authenticity is a collection of choices that we have to make every day. It's about the choice to show up and be real. The choice to be honest. The choice to let our true selves be seen.”
― Brené Brown
Steve Waugh has come out and expressed his disappointment and frustrations towards the actions at the Cape Town test match last week and I believe we should take note on his comments, being a noble Australian and cricketing legend. Whilst being best known as an attacking and sometimes ruthlessly efficient captain, he was also appointed 2004 Australian of the Year for his philanthropic work, inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame in 2010, recognised as an Australian Living Treasure and awarded the Order of Australia making him as treasured in Australian shores as a jar of Vegemite!!
“The Australian Cricket team has always believed it could win in any situation against any opposition, by playing combative, skilful and fair cricket, driven by our pride in the fabled Baggy Green.
I have no doubt the current Australian team continues to believe in this mantra, however some have now failed our culture, making a serious error of judgement in the Cape Town Test Match.
In 2003, we modified the Spirit of Cricket document originally created by the M.C.C., to empower our players to set their own standards and commit to play the Australian way.
We must urgently revisit this document, re-bind our players to it and ensure the Spirit in which we play is safe-guarded for the future of the sport, and to continue to inspire the dreams of every young kid picking up a bat and ball and for every fan who lives and breathes the game.
A focused and balanced perspective is needed in the condemnation on those involved in this, with a clear and critical consideration to the social impact and mental health of all players.
I will support all positive action to ensure an outcome for the betterment of the game, regaining the trust and faith of every fan of cricket.”
Combining Waugh's comments with Brown's quote regarding authenticity, let's have a better look at the suggested reasoning behind the actions, looking at the leadership and coaching group in particular, plus the effects this may have going forward.
Current coach, Darren Lehmann was hailed as a saviour when he took over in 2013, but critics now accuse him of overseeing a toxic culture that has dented the reputation of the famed Baggy Green cap. After being appointed, Lehmann’s response when asked to list his top three priorities was telling: “Probably win, win, win, for a start,” he told reporters.
Cricket Australia (CA) had other ideas when it gave him the job. “Discipline, consistency of behaviour and accountability for performance are all key ingredients that need to improve,” chief executive James Sutherland said at the time; “And we see that the head coach is ultimately responsible for that.”
If part of Lehmann’s brief was to improve the Australian team’s behaviour, there is little doubt he has failed. Players were once considered role models for children, but the situation has become so bad that CA is setting up an independent review into the team’s conduct and culture.
Former Australian cricket coach Mickey Arthur, whom spent two years as coach of the national mens team and was sacked from the job in 2013 in a pre-Ashes bombshell claims:
“Despite generational change, independent reviews and too many behavioural spotfires to list, Cricket Australia and the national team had demonstrated no real willingness or desire to improve the culture within their organisation from season to season.
“A deterioration of standards that would culminate in an incident so bad, so ugly, that it would shame the leaders of the organisation into taking drastic action to change the culture, or risk alienating fans, sponsors, broadcasters and other stakeholders”
With all the difficulties, culture problems and behavioural issues outlined from past to current coaches, could they lead this emotionally evolving group or should they have taken a more authoritarian role? It is believed that it is beyond the capacity of any coach (or person in senior management or leadership roles in my opinion) to achieve full, predictable control over leadership and development processes. Therefore, coaches need to learn to cope with ambiguity and difficulty of their role, overcoming a sense of legitimacy or validation and the perceived expectations of others; how much would Lehmann give for greater insight into these tactics with his experienced leadership team?
The challenge of successful coaching is acknowledging social interactive dilemmas within individual and team goal setting and development, offering suitable scenarios and choices with all members’ involvement and collaboratively dealing with matters as opposed to eradicating them. Jones et all (2004) quotes coaching as “inherently fluid and multifaceted, militating against clean treatment, typified by pre-specification of a cumulative sequence of precise objectives and monitoring their achievement” (Jones et al, 2004). Other research noted expert coaches could be recognised as highly adaptive in nature and adopt flexible planning strategies, relative to the context offered, quoted by Cote as “coaching expertise requires flexible adaptation to constraints” (Cote et al, 1995). Therefore, these concepts should be adopted, explored and transferred for player learning and understanding, as Floden indicated this as an area needing worked on. He includes aspects needing addressed such as “how athletes perceive learning and how they learn foreign content” (Floden, 1989). Lehmann's tactics of "win, win, win" against Arthur's desire to desire to improve the culture within Cricket AUS' senior teams may have offered short term gains such as Ashes victories yet may have also dumped Cricket Australia's culture into the fire....
Sports coaches of elite athletes act as pedagogues and adopt comprehensive and holistic roles in the moral development of their athletes through their adopted and shared practices, languages and beliefs. Whom they are coaching shall also effect choices and reasons for processes adopted; as defined by Leach and Moon (1999), the pedagogic process is “when participants create, enact and experience together and separately”. This addresses areas including yet not exhaustive to knowledge and ways of knowing, rules of discourse, roles and relationships and values and expectations. If coaches are to develop knowledgeable athletes, capable of performing learned tasks when under pressure and not under direct instructions, I believe this shall require bidirectional transfer of knowledge or total ownership by athletes of their development, with support from the coaches as “more capable other”.
Having coaches adopt supporting roles, such as an orchestrating role, allows them to support their “leading actors” through methods such as offering practical guidance with limited control, focusing attention on aiding development through decision making for players and practices from observations, evaluations with positive and honest feedback whilst displaying understanding and care towards players. Kidman’s research (2001) addressed ideas such as coaches developing player’s complex skills and tactical knowledge through encouraging abstract thought processes by asking high order questions, which require athletes to apply, analyse and synthesise information. This style of leadership has the coach steering as opposed to controlling decisions and actions, encouraging player discovery through evolutionary planning and organising of tasks whilst keeping sight of overall objectives and showing empathy to get the best from the athletes.
Supporting the comments offered from Waugh, coaches should act as orchestrators whilst attempting to create a successful pedagogic setting which requires a coordination of activities to investigate, monitor and respond with honesty to players. This may require some transparency from coaches to offer rationale for processes. It may also require negotiation of processes with players to meet individual and collective performance measures of those being coached whilst matching evolving circumstances for learning and development against attempting keeping sight of overall objectives, something a clearly distraught Steve Smith could have tapped into on the fateful lunch on day three of the Third Test.
Wallace (2001) looked at shared leadership through “promoting cultural transformation for followers through articulating vision of desirable future state, empathising dialogue, team work and mutual support”. Therefore, coaches such as Lehmann shall look to incorporate a greater degree of follower power, gaining an overall system of collective relations between activities, agents and objectives. As defined by Gibb (1954), this form of leadership would be recognised as collaborative, “accomplishing group tasks with leadership as fluid (state) as opposed to fixed phenomenon”. This should enable intrinsically satisfying experiences for all involved, enable personal development through informal and incidental learning opportunities and increased levels of skill and knowledge retention due to increased input into leadership.
However, as indicated, this suggests that group or team consensuses may not be reached by team or informal leaders or contradictory or conflicting beliefs developing amongst players shall result in conflicting micro-politics with players selecting personal over collective interests (Hargreaves, 1994), such as reported by Smith v Warner. With these ideas in mind, coaches could acknowledge and support their team as a community of practice or local learning system to teach players within athletic environment socially appropriate cultures of practice, related to their sport. Within this, players can develop shared repertoire, where routines, tools, gestures and concepts become adopted and pat of standard practice by playing members, creating joint enterprise within teams through mutual engagement, therefore finding common goals and reasons for participation in groups. Therefore, a realistic conceptualisation of shared leadership in sports team scenarios would see coaches promoting shared leadership with benefits to all stakeholders but setting boundaries and taking ownership of decisions when disagreement between players arise. Therefore, could it be perceived that Lehmann while acquitted really failed the leadership group and players involved?
Issues surrounding the ideas of shared leadership appears to stem around coaches attempting to take the “lead role”. Actions such as controlling behaviours as opposed to self-rule for decisions in fear of becoming redundant, coincided with coach-athlete relationship not being treated as interactive or dynamic in nature could result in poor coach-athlete relations. The argument remains that the perceived democracy of athlete-supportive coaches only offers players an illusion of empowerment; the official focus and directions as determined through group or team goal setting originate with the person or people of most authority, which is inherently the coach. However, coaches forcing ideas and issues in forceful or authoritarian manner, alongside lack of information or honesty between all involved stakeholders shall result in absence in effort or damaged relationships.
Autocratic styles, being prescriptive in nature with unidirectional transmission of information results in athletes or players feeling undervalued due to lack of opportunity to voice ideas and experiences with coach and other athletes. Therefore, this disengages players and reduces chances to collaboratively learn and resourcefully develop decision making, problem solving and creative skills. Cognitive development is a social, historical and cultural process, where higher mental functions such as problem solving, planning and communication, are developed through interaction and collaboration as opposed to direct instruction. Direct instruction results in slightly extended form of recitation as opposed to genuine cognitive development. Coaches should recognise and acknowledge that there should be a “dynamic power relationship between the athlete and coach for effective education (and development) to occur” (Jones et al; 2004). I believe coaches can only call upon influence in expert or legitimate power, having no control over social domains of players. Therefore, coaches whom try to “lead” through controlling the education process have a reliance on expert or specialist knowledge, which in turn enhances or negatively reinforces legitimate power. But for #sandpapergate, where would have been the happy medium before the "walkie talkie" questions came too late?
Coaches attempting to control every situation creates an understandable strain on responsibility and accountability; therefore, under a “backstage” leadership style of mentorship or athlete led learning, the coach is required and called upon for detailed observation and analysis whilst offering little direct leadership. Offering player or athlete autonomy “positively corresponds to a number of desirable (player) outcomes” (Gagne et al, 2003); these include task perseverance through developed intrinsic motivation and physiological well-being. Coaches can still have impact through supporting athletes through suitable use of expert power. They can offer meaningful rationale for completing tasks, offer support for choices made and empathy and acknowledgement as part of feedback, as explored by Mageau and Vallerand (2003).
One of the areas of research surrounding this applicable to individual and team sports is Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). This theory has the coach standing as a recognised more capable other to the athlete with their requirement being to engage in contextual collaborative and learning relationship with athletes to ensure optimal psychological functioning for maximal sporting performance. The coach or more capable other plays a significant role in transitioning athlete from other’s assistance to self-assistance through ideas such as leading questions or prompting higher cognitive thoughts to assist independent problem solving and improved performance in next similar situation. Having three stages in shifting from assistance by others, transition stage and assistance to self, this supports the theory that “development appears twice”. This theory believes development firstly occurs interpsychological between peers or playing group for this context, prior to occurring intrapsychological, where we internally process and develop.
As previously mentioned, we recognise coaching as acknowledging social interactive dilemmas within individual and team goal setting and development, offering suitable scenarios and choices with all members’ involvement and collaborative dealing with matters as opposed to eradicating them. Lemert (1997) discussed that coaches “define themselves and their role by their perception of what it means to be a coach with the influence of occupational socialisation and subculture, which provide a sense of others expectations”. However, it is believed coaches whom relationships with players respect their knowledge or expertise in athletic or sports based contexts, cultivate learning without exercising legitimate power and do not influence social aspects or relations can lead to new shared understandings with their athletes. Jones and Standage discuss the ideas that “empowering athletes by transferring decision making to them is gathering momentum” yet I believe within high performance sport, we need to speed this up for concepts including higher levels of player retention, greater satisfaction at all skill and development levels whilst being committed to develop better people when offering scenarios to create better players as a wider community of practice.
However, indications from this scenario would be Lehmann may have allowed player based leadership get away from his core values; I believe a shift in player autonomy to allow self-rule in their actions, offering greater consideration and allowance for their decisions shall make the shift by coaches from “being an authority as opposed to in authority” (Bergman Drewe, 2000). This shall in turn gain closer, more impactful relationships with their players whilst creating player volitional control and self-determined and intrinsically driven actions for expertise in their sport, something this leadership group and coach Lehmann may never get another chance of doing in the grandest of stages.
