Confusing Nice with Emotional Regulation and Psychological Goals: Part 1

A problem that exists in sport coaching is the misconstrued understanding of the term autonomy. Coaches have long been known to strive for success, and propitiate themselves by justifying their methods as motivation. In contrast, a growing amount of literature reflects an increased need for athlete development in a manner that shows respect for the developmental phase the athlete is currently in along with an appreciation and respect for the future phases of development the athlete will move towards. The model that is currently being applied to sport is entitled the Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD) model (Canadian Sport for Life (CS4L), 2014). Emerging from this model is the encouragement and education of coaches and administrators to understand physical, psychological, emotional, and social development. At the same time, paralleling this model is the desire for higher performing athletes, often at the expense of the participation in sport. Cote and Gilbert (2009) address this further by acknowledging general chronological ages at which decisions should be examined as to whether an athlete desires a continued recreational path or one in pursuit of higher performance. These sporting levels are directed at the discretion of coaches. Regardless, these authors suggest that developmental characteristics known as the 4 C’s (Competence, Confidence, Connection, & Character) remain at the forefront of any coaches’ goals regardless of the level of sporting participation.

Still, as a result of potential incongruence, attrition occurs and often-talented athletes leave sport before they are developmentally able to cope with the increased demands. This means coaches are left with what they perceive as the most motivated and committed. But what they are often left with is those who were capable of surviving whatever rigorously applied and potentially inappropriate process coaches assign to the athlete. These processes may or may not be at a phase of development where the rigor is appropriate for the athlete in the first place. At the heart of this concept lies autonomy. Coaches demonstrate and respect autonomy for themselves. This is evidenced by the fact that coaches operate as the gatekeeper for athlete contact in sport. On the other hand, coaches appreciate the freedom to choose what to believe and what to ignore: This demonstration of autonomous behavior is not often afforded those who participate under the guise of the professional coach. Hence, the cliché: “Do as I say, not as I do” can be applied here. What is this an issue?

Why would a sport psychologist care about increasing the autonomy in sport and the differentiation between this term and independence? Coaches are viewed as the trusted handlers for the execution of all things performance related. They hold the key to tactical and technical knowledge that brings out the highest chance for success (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003), or competence, in a young athlete. In fact, Cote and Gilbert (2009) acknowledge that coaches are viewed as being in a position to make a significant contribution to the psychological characteristics of athletes such as self-esteem and perceived competence. Further, coaches wield a great deal of power and thus, younger athletes may position themselves to receive accolades and social support from these positive adults (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Lastly, coaches believe a great deal in the work they do. Many are volunteers whose athletic careers in sport may have taken them down a path toward success as well and as such, feel capable of walking the path with neophyte performers who share their passion. However, coaches are not often privy to the knowledge of how autonomy works. In fact, even at the highest levels of sport, this concept is still misconstrued as independence, a characteristic often associated with the “country-club” (Martens, 2012), or laissez-faire (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003) coaching style.

However, incorrectly assuming independence and autonomy as one in the same leads coaches to shy away from the latter, and as such an understanding for the very characteristic they most value in their profession. Asking coaches at all levels if they enjoy having someone looking over their shoulder at all times and giving feedback whenever they feel is appropriate will result in coach laughter and a dismissive stance. No one enjoys this experience. Yet, this is often a perceived role of a coach: Stand and evaluate, offer supportive or non-supportive behavioral observations, and suggest that an athlete must work harder or demonstrate greater effort. Yet, without so much as a method of approach in their back-pocket in order to resolve these issues, they extinguish the hopes and passions these young athletes desire to share with the very person criticizing them; the coach. Coaches often assign success to the steps that they take and assign failures to the lack of steps the athlete has taken. Having an external attributional style keeps the coaching ego safe from what might be the greatest gap in the coach’s toolbox of approaches. And yet, coaches rationalize the very tool they feel entitled to (autonomy) by reducing the sense of athlete autonomy through controlling behaviors and statements, using various “coaching styles” (often self-prescription through years of post-modern ‘picking’ from characteristic pools of highly successful coaches). By no means is it suggested that coaches should not develop their own style. What is being suggested is that sometimes, hypocritically, the nature of the very thing the coach enjoys most (autonomy) is the same feature that is most likely to motivate the very people they work with. If this motivational tactic is done in a calculated and educated manner, and differentiated from independence, the above-mentioned behavioral observations made by coaches (lazy, out of shape, head-case, etc.) may become less of an issue. If these issues are resolved, then would the athlete not emerge a better prepared and more self-motivated individual? This is what is being sought with this research question.

Picture: www.si.com