The coach-athlete partnership
THE Society’s ‘Year of Relationships’ is a piece of good fortune for
researchers and practitioners like me, providing a unique opportunity
to showcase an exciting and expanding field within psychology. In a
sport context there are many personal relationships (e.g. coach–parent,
athlete–athlete, athlete–partner) that can impact on performance, but
the coach–athlete relationship is considered to be particularly crucial
(Jowett & Cockerill, 2002; Lyle, 1999).
The coach–athlete relationship is not an add-on to, or by-product of, the coaching process, nor is it based on the athlete’s performance, age or gender – instead it is the foundation of coaching. The coach and the athlete intentionally develop a relationship, which is characterised by a growing appreciation and respect for each other as individuals. Overall, the coach–athlete relationship is embedded in the dynamic and complex coaching process and provides the means by which coaches’ and athletes’ needs are expressed and fulfilled (Jowett & Cockerill, 2002). It is
at the heart of achievement and the mastery of personal qualities such as leadership, determination, confidence and self-reliance.
This article aims to offer a perspective on the coach–athlete relationship and show how sport psychology can contribute to the study of relationships whilst learning from, and building on, the work of scholars in social and relationship psychology.
The significance of the coach–athlete relationship
The significance of the coach–athlete partnership has been
acknowledged by a number of official sport organisations. For example,
Sports Coach UK (formerly the National Coaching Foundation) in several
publications (e.g. Working with Children, 1998; Protecting Children,
1998) has described the coach–athlete relationship
in terms such as, commitment, cooperation, communication, bonds, respect, friendship, power, dependence, dislike and distrust. Moreover, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (A Sporting Future for All, 2000) referred to the coach–athlete partnership, and the coaches’ mentoring and supportive roles, as prominent issues
of coach education. Finally, UK Sport in a recent strategic document (The UK Vision of Coaching) stated: ‘By 2012 the practice of coaching in the UK will be elevated to
a profession acknowledged as central to the development of sport and the fulfilment of individual potential’ (p.5).
It is perhaps surprising then that, historically, coaching has been preoccupied with merely enhancing athletes’ physical, technical and strategical skills (Miller & Kerr, 2002). Now that the coach–athlete relationship is recognised as the foundation of coaching and a major force in promoting the development of athletes’ physical and psychosocial skills, coaches’ ability to create perfect working partnerships with their athletes becomes paramount. The question is ‘What makes the ideal coach–athlete relationship?’
Effective versus ineffective relationships
Effective coach–athlete relationships are holistic in that the
emphasis is placed on positive growth and development (i.e. ‘to be the
best you can be’) as an athlete/coach and as a person. Effective
relationships include basic ingredients such as empathic understanding,
honesty, support, liking, acceptance, responsiveness, friendliness,
cooperation, caring, respect and positive regard (e.g. Jowett &
Cockerill, 2003; Jowett & Meek, 2000). In contrast, ineffective
relationships are undermined
by lack of interest and emotion, remoteness, even antagonism, deceit, exploitation and physical or sexual abuse (e.g. Balague, 1999; Brackenridge, 2001; Jowett, 2003).
Successful versus unsuccessful relationships
The nature of sports coaching implies an achievement situation,
where the performance of both coach and athlete is evaluated. Thus,
people are often inclined to evaluate a given coach–athlete
relationship as either successful or unsuccessful. Successful
relationships are those that have unambiguously reached
a level of normative performance success (e.g. a World championship gold medal).
A taxonomy that allows us to view successful versus unsuccessful and effective versus ineffective relationships together is an interesting one (Jowett, in press). An unsuccessful yet effective coach–athlete relationship will invariably have some positive outcomes for the athlete (and the coach) in terms of psychological health and well-being – but obviously not performance-related ones. Although successful relationships are desirable, without their being effective they run a risk of breaching ethical and professional issues that are associated with codes of conduct formulated to protect coaches and athletes.
Carl R. Rogers explained that a helping relationship involves an
ability or desire to understand the other person’s meaning and
feelings, an interest without being overly emotionally involved, and a
strong and growing mutual liking, trust and respect between the two
people. Helping relationships are optimally effective relationships, in
that they facilitate self-actualisation (i.e. ‘to be the best you can
be’). According to Rogers (1967), helping relationships are not
exclusive to client–counsellor but include other types of relationships
such as teacher–pupil and parent–child.
The task of a coach in developing optimally effective relationships that the athlete can use for growth, change and personal development is a challenging one, because it is a measure of the growth they have achieved in themselves. This implies
a responsibility on the part of the coach in that they must continually strive to develop their own potentials. Ultimately, optimally effective coach–athlete relationship is reflected in the maturity and growth of both coaches and athletes.
Studying the coach–athlete relationship
Sport and exercise psychology research has largely studied the
interpersonal dynamics between coaches and athletes from a leadership
approach. Since the late 1970s, the multidimensional model
(Chelladurai, 1993) and the mediational model (Smoll & Smith, 1989)
of coach leadership have been the main frameworks for studying
the behaviours, actions and styles coaches employ in their coaching. Emphasis is placed on how behaviours are perceived by the athletes and the coaches themselves, and their relative impact on outcomes such as satisfaction, self-esteem, and performance. This approach may be limited especially if one considers coach leadership as a function that can be shared (‘a coach cannot do it alone’) (see Jowett & Chaundy, 2004). Ultimately, a focus on what one person does to another may not accurately reflect what goes on between coaches and their athletes.
To fill this gap, over the last five years a relationship approach has resulted in the development of several conceptual models (e.g. Jowett & Cockerill, 2002; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Poczwardowski et al., 2002; Wylleman, 2000). Although this shift opens up an exciting direction to the study of coach–athlete interpersonal dynamics, the emphasis of the majority of the proposed models is still on exploring coaches and athletes’ interpersonal behaviours. Whilst there is little to argue against this investigative approach, there may be a risk of neglecting other important non-behavioural components of relationships (Vergeer, 2000), such as thoughts and feelings. This is where the conceptual models of the 3 Cs and Co-orientation come in (see box, p.413).
A series of recent research studies has demonstrated that high scores along the
3 Cs dimensions are associated with higher levels of satisfaction with performance and personal treatment (Jowett & Don Carolis, 2003), higher levels of team cohesion (Jowett & Chaundy, 2004), higher levels of harmonious passion toward the activity – as opposed to obsessive passion (Olympiou et al., 2004), and lower levels of role ambiguity in team sports (Olympiou et al., 2005).
Co-orientation has recently been quantitatively examined in a study I conducted with David Clark-Carter (2005). The study examined empathic understanding (or accuracy) and assumed similarity in coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions about their athletic relationship. A total of 121 coach–athlete dyads completed self-report measures of their direct-perspective and meta-perspective for closeness, commitment,
and complementarity. We found that athletes were more understanding or accurate in identifying the specific content of their coaches’ feelings in terms of closeness. It was proposed that due to athletes’ role in the relationship as the more vulnerable in terms of expert knowledge, power, and authority, athletes’ higher levels of empathic understanding in terms of closeness cause them to feel more in control, comfortable and confident. Another finding revealed that athletes from moderately developed relationships displayed higher levels of empathic understanding in terms of commitment and complementarity. Perhaps athletes in the earlier stages of their relationship are motivated to observe their coaches closely in an attempt to build their common ground. Finally, female athletes displayed higher levels of assumed similarity in terms of commitment. Perhaps female athletes may choose to display greater levels of assumed similarity in an effort to affirm, support or indeed enhance their mental presentations of self (i.e. that they are worthy of their coaches’ attention).
Conflict and communication
The measurement of the 3 Cs and Co-orientation allows us to
relationally analyse coach–athlete dyads and to identify problem areas
(e.g. Jowett & Cockerill, 2002). Different dimensions of
Co-orientation can play an important diagnostic role in identifying
ineffective or dysfunctional coach–athlete relationships by uncovering
the dyad’s points of disagreement, misunderstanding or dissimilarity
across the 3 Cs. For instance, research has shown that athletes and
coaches need to ‘get on’ with one another (e.g. Jowett & Meek,
2000); however, getting along is difficult if coaches fail to
accurately understand the athlete’s intentions or feelings.
Given that we are not all mindreaders, conflict in the relationship is inevitable (e.g. Greenleaf et al., 2001; Scanlan et al., 1991). Various elements can lead to conflict – for example, lack of commitment (including compromises and sacrifices), lack of a balanced approach of connectedness and autonomy, and riskier and closer self-disclosure in the absence of trust (Jowett, 2003).
A series of qualitative case studies that we have conducted over the last five years (e.g. Jowett & Cockerill, 2003) shows that communication is an important unifying relational component. Communication promotes the development of shared knowledge and understanding about various issues (e.g. goals, beliefs, opinions, values) and forms the basis for initiating, maintaining, and terminating the coach–athlete relationship. Particularly in youth sport, communication that evolves around spontaneous dialogues of daily activities related to school and training has been shown to form the basis for developing trust in the coach (Timson-Katchis & Jowett, 2004). Thus, coaches that create opportunities for talk and disclosure related to the athletes’ daily activities are more likely to develop trustworthy coach–athlete relationships.
Mapping out the future
In our Relationship Laboratory at Loughborough University, we are
conducting a series of prospective and longitudinal studies that tap
into motivational perspectives, conflict, relationship styles, social
networks, interpersonal perceptions and transitional issues of
interpersonal relationships in sport. We hope to develop an
evidence-based approach to practice of sports coaching and coaching
education. Ultimately, the generated knowledge and understanding will
help coaches create a certain type of relationship that athletes can
use toward becoming independent, self-reliant, disciplined and
successful athletes and persons.
The progress of such research can be facilitated if policy makers (including national governing bodies in sport) consider investing in relationship research so that important sporting issues of national concern are further explored and addressed. The field of interpersonal relationships in sport was described as an ‘uncharted territory’ not that long ago (Wylleman, 2000), however, the progress since then is extraordinary. The very nature of sport has provided sport psychology researchers a valuable naturalistic laboratory to study alongside the coach–athlete relationship, athlete–parent and peer relations. Thus, paraphrasing Berscheid’s (1999) assertion, I would like to think that it is not long before we start evidencing the greening of a science of relationships in sport settings.
- Sophia Jowett is in the School of Sport and Exercise at Loughborough University. E-mail: [email protected].
Balague, G. (1999). Understanding identity, value and meaning when
working with elite athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 89–98.
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266.
Brackenbridge C. (2001). Spoilsports: Understanding and preventing sexual exploitation in sport. New York: Routledge.
Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey & L.K. Tennant (Eds.) Handbook on research on sport psychology (pp. 647–671). New York: Macmillan.
Greenleaf, C., Gould, D. & Dieffenbach, K. (2001). Factors influencing Olympic performance: Interviews with Atlanta and Nagano US Olympians. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 154–184.
Jowett, S. (2002). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire and dyad maps manual (Research Monograph No. 1). Stoke-on-Trent: Staffordshire University, School of Health.
Jowett, S. (2003). When the honeymoon is over: A case study of a coach–athlete relationship in crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 444–460.
Jowett, S. (in press-a). Empathic understanding in the coach–athlete relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.) Social psychology in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jowett, S. (in press-b). Interpersonal and structural features of Greek coach–athlete dyads performing in individual sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology.
Jowett, S. & Chaundy, V. (2004). An investigation into the impact of coach leadership and coach–athlete relationship on group cohesion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 8, 302–311.
Jowett, S. & Clark-Carter, D. (2005). Perceptions of empathic accuracy and assumed similarity in the coach–athlete relationship. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Jowett, S. & Cockerill, I.M. (2002). Incompatibility in the coach–athlete relationship. In I.M. Cockerill (Ed.) Solutions in sport psychology (pp.16–31). London: Thomson Learning.
Jowett, S. & Cockerill, I.M. (2003). Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete–
coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313–331.
Jowett, S. & Don Carolis, G. (2003, July). The coach–athlete relationship and perceived satisfaction in team sports. In R. Stelter (Ed.) XIth European Congress of Sport Psychology proceedings (pp.83–84). Copenhagen: Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultets.
Jowett, S. & Meek, G.A (2000). The coach–athlete relationship in married couples: An exploratory content analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 157–175.
Jowett, S. & Ntoumanis, N. (in press). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART–Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports.
Jowett, S., Paull, G. & Pensgaard, A.M. (in press). Coach–athlete relationship. In J. Taylor & G. S. Wilson (Eds.) Applying sport psychology: Four perspectives. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Laing, R.D., Phillipson, H. & Lee, A.R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a method of research. New York: Harper & Row.
Lyle, J. (1999). Coaching philosophy and coaching behaviour. In N.Cross & J.Lyle (Eds.) The coaching process: Principles and practice for sport (pp. 25–46). Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman.
Mageau, G.A. & Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883–904.
Miller, P.S. & Kerr, G.A. (2002). Conceptualising excellence: Past, present, and future. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 140–153.
Olympiou, A., Jowett, S. & Duda, J.L. (2004, December). Motivational climates and the coach–athlete relationship as predictors of athletes’ perceptions of passion for sport. Symposium on understanding and predicting well being indicators in physical activity contexts. The1st International Conference on Quality of Life and Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Olympiou, A., Jowett, S. & Duda, J.L. (2005, March). Psychological needs as mediators of social contexts and role ambiguity. Symposium on interpersonal relationships in sport and exercise. Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, Manchester.
Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J.E. & Peregoy J.J. (2002). The athlete and coach: Their relationships and its meaning – Methodological concerns and research process. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 98–115.
Rogers, C.R. (1967). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. London: Constable.
Scanlan, T.K., Stein, G.L. & Ravizza, K. (1991). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: III. Sources of stress. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 103–120.
Smoll, F.L. & Smith, R.E. (1989). Leadership behaviours in sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522–1551.
Timson-Katchis, M. & Jowett, S. (2004). Social networks in the sport context:The influences of parents on the coach–athlete relationship. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vergeer, I. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: From nomology to idiography. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 578–583.
Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: Uncharted territory in sport psychology research. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 555–572.
Discuss and debate
Is the gender of the coach and the athlete a determinant of the quality and content of the relationship established?
How is the coach–athlete relationship likely to change over time?
How appropriate or necessary is it to study the coach–athlete relationship via the application of relationship theories and models developed to examine relational behaviour in romantic, married and other types of relationships?
Write to our Letters page on [email protected] or contribute to the forum at www.thepsychologist.org.uk.
BPS Members can discuss this article
Already a member? Or Create an account
Not a member? Find out about becoming a member or subscriber