Content uploaded by Justine B. Allen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Justine B. Allen on Feb 03, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
1
This article has been accepted for publication in the International Sports Coaching
2
Journal © 2016. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
3
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
4
5
Citation:
6
Ritchie, D. & Allen, J.B. (2015). ‘Let them get on with it’: Coaches’ perceptions of their
7
roles and coaching practices during Olympic and Paralympic Games. International
8
Sports Coaching Journal, 2, 108-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/iscj.2014-0092
9
10
11
12
‘Let them get on with it’: Coaches’ perceptions of their roles and coaching
13
practices during Olympic and Paralympic Games
14
15
Darren Ritchie
16
Scottish Athletics
17
Justine Allen
18
University of Stirling
19
20
21
22
23
Address correspondence to:
24
Justine Allen, Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA,
25
UK. Email: justine.allen@stir.ac.uk
26
27
28
29
30
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
2
‘Let them get on with it’: Coaches’ perceptions of their roles and coaching
1
practices during Olympic and Paralympic Games
2
3
Abstract
4
How coaches prepare and perform is critical for athletes’ performances (Gould, Guinan,
5
Greenleaf & Chung, 2002), however, little is known about coaches’ roles and coaching
6
practices during major competitions such as the Olympic or Paralympic Games. To assist
7
coaches in their efforts to improve athletes’ performances in competition environments,
8
greater understanding is needed about the coaching process during major competitions
9
and how coaches prepare and perform. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was
10
to examine track and field coaches’ perceptions of their roles and coaching practices
11
during competition at major events. Eight coaches, seven male and one female, who had
12
coached one or more athletes to an Olympic or Paralympic medal were interviewed.
13
Inductive content analysis indicated that creating an athlete focused supportive
14
environment, detailed preparation and planning, use of effective observation and
15
limited intervention, coach and athlete psychological preparation and managing the
16
process were salient during competition at major events. These findings suggest that
17
during major competition the coach’s role is supportive and facilitative. Actions are
18
largely unobtrusive and in response to athletes’ needs, but remain as detailed as other
19
phases of the coaching process. The findings are discussed in relation to the coach as
20
orchestrator.
21
22
23
Key words: Coaching process, coaching behaviour, performance excellence,
24
orchestration, coaching psychology
25
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
3
Introduction
1
Coaching is a relational and contextual process that focuses on the guided
2
improvement and long-term development of athletes (International Council for
3
Coaching Excellence, 2013). This process involves the provision of purposeful activities
4
and interventions that focus on improving athletes’ performances (Lyle, 2002). Despite
5
a growing body of research examining what coaches do, this research largely focuses on
6
practice or training environments and excludes an important part of the coach’s role –
7
coaching during competition (Smith & Cushion, 2006). Furthermore, much of the
8
research has examined coaches working in youth or collegiate environments (e.g.,
9
Becker & Wrisberg, 2008; Claxton, 1988; Cushion & Jones, 2001; Gallimore & Tharp,
10
2004), with much less known about coaching during major competitions such as the
11
Olympic and Paralympic Games. Although the central focus of the coaching process is to
12
facilitate athletes’ preparation and performances (Lyle, 2002), coaches are also
13
performing (Giges, Petitpas & Vernacchia, 2004) and how coaches prepare and perform
14
is critical for athletes’ performances (Gould, Guinan, Greenleaf & Chung, 2002).
15
However, little is known about coaches’ psychological preparation and how their
16
performance can affect athletes. The present study is part of a larger study examining
17
the coaching practices of coaches and their effectiveness in the preparation leading up
18
to and during the Olympics and Paralympics. In the present study we explored
19
successful Olympic and Paralympic track and field coaches’ perceptions of their roles
20
and coaching practices during major competitions, including their psychological
21
preparation. In addition, as a means to capture the dynamic and complex nature of
22
coaching we examined the coaches’ roles and practices through Jones and Wallace’s
23
(2005) concept of coaching as orchestration. There has been only limited empirical
24
examination of this concept (i.e., Santos, Jones, & Mesquita, 2013) and it has not been
25
explored in the competition context. Therefore, a secondary purpose was to examine
26
coaching as orchestration during major competition.
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
4
Coaches’ influence on athletes’ Olympic performances
1
Coaches and coaching issues have been identified as critical factors in Olympic
2
performances (Gould & Maynard, 2009). The factors perceived to influence athletes’
3
performances were examined in series of studies conducted by Gould and his colleagues
4
(Gould, Greenleaf, Chung, & Guinan, 2002; Gould, Guinan, et al., 2002; Gould, Guinan,
5
Greenleaf, Medbery, & Peterson, 1999; Greenleaf, Gould, & Dieffenbach, 2001). In a
6
survey of 296 Atlanta and 83 Nagano Olympic athletes, Gould, Greenleaf, et al. (2002)
7
found that coaches were perceived to have positive and negative influences on athletes’
8
performances. Athletes perceived trust in the coach, dealing effectively with crisis
9
situations, making decisive but fair decisions, total commitment to helping athletes to
10
succeed, and implementing clear performance plans to have a positive influence on their
11
performances. In contrast, not keeping things simple, over coaching, spending too much
12
time with athletes, unrealistic expectations, and conflict were perceived to have a
13
negative influence on athletes’ performances. In a second study (Greenleaf, et al., 2001),
14
interviews with 15 Olympic athletes (N=8 Atlanta, N=7 Nagano) also found that coaches
15
were associated with positive and negative influences on athletes’ performances.
16
Coaching related factors that had a positive influence on athletes’ performance were
17
contact, trust, friendship, a good plan, well established performance routines and
18
treating the Olympic Games like any other competition. Factors such as conflict, power
19
struggles, and a lack focus by the coach on the team climate were perceived to have a
20
negative influence on athletes’ performances. In their study of a female footballer’s
21
journey through the preparation for and performance at the Olympics, Pensgaard and
22
Duda (2002) found that it is important for the coach to create positive learning
23
situations that fostered athletes’ belief in the possibility of reaching their goal. Gould, et
24
al., (1999) interviewed coaches and athletes from teams that failed to meet expected
25
performance levels and those who exceeded performance expectations about the factors
26
affecting their Olympic performances. Participants of teams that failed to meet
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
5
performance expectations reported problems associated with coaching such as a
1
negative attitude towards the coach, lack of trust and poor communication between
2
coach and athletes and the coach not being able to deal with distraction and situations at
3
the event. The findings of these studies indicate that coaches are important for athletes’
4
performances and maintaining quality relationships with athletes, having a clear vision
5
and plan for the competition, being prepared for the distractions and situations that may
6
arise, engaging in quality coaching, and not over coaching are important aspects of the
7
coach’s role during competition.
8
Coaches’ performances at the Olympics
9
Giges, et al., (2004) argued that just as athletes are performing so too are coaches
10
and therefore as much attention should be given to coaches’ preparation and
11
performance as has been given to athletes. Recent examinations of elite coaches’ sources
12
of stress and coping (e.g., Olusoga, Butt, Hays, & Maynard, 2009; Olusoga, Maynard, Hays
13
& Butt, 2012) suggest that researchers are beginning to heed Giges et al.’s call and
14
examine the performance of coaches. However, little is known about how coaches
15
prepare and perform during major competitions. The ‘coach as performer’ analogy is
16
perhaps most evident when coaching at a major competition such as the Olympic or
17
Paralympic Games. In these situations, coaches are expected to perform their coaching
18
duties in a highly pressurised environment, often where their jobs depend on their
19
athletes’ performance successes (Gould, Guinan, et al, 2002). For example, in an
20
interview with legendary Olympic swim coach, James Counsilman, it was revealed that
21
he was often nervous at major competitions but worked hard to hide his own stress
22
responses from his swimmers (Kimiecik & Gould, 1987). Counsilman had learned that
23
athletes model their coaches’ anxiety levels and can become more nervous and perform
24
poorly.
25
In their research with Olympic Games coaches, Gould, Guinan et al. (2002) found
26
that the coaches felt their effectiveness was hindered by marked changes in their
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
6
coaching behaviours, an inability to establish trust with the athletes, and poor handling
1
of crisis situations. Conversely, keeping things simple, having realistic expectations for
2
their athletes, and following a performance plan facilitated effective coach performance.
3
In a recent examination of coaches’ perceptions of the factors that enabled them to
4
coach in a stressful Olympic environment, Olusoga, et al. (2012) found the key factors
5
were psychological attributes (e.g., emotional control and confidence), preparation (e.g.,
6
strategic approach), effective communication, an athlete-focus, consistent behaviour,
7
and coping at the event (e.g., team and emotional support). The current literature
8
demonstrates that coaches play a critical role in athletes’ performances at major
9
competitions and are performing in their own way. This research also provides valuable
10
insight into a broad range of factors that might be considered and planned for by
11
coaches and support teams to facilitate athletes’ performances. However, little is known
12
about coaches’ specific roles and coaching practices during major competitions.
13
Coaching during competition
14
The limited research that has examined what coaches do during competition
15
suggests that coaches behave differently under practice compared with competition
16
conditions (Cushion, 2010). For example, Smith and Cushion (2006) found that the
17
lower frequency of instruction and higher occurrence of silence during competition was
18
a deliberate coaching strategy to allow time for learning and was not time off-task. It has
19
also been suggested that competition is a time for greater reactive decision making,
20
where coaches observe and evaluate progress on an on-going basis and act when
21
necessary (Cushion, 2010). In addition, coaching during competition at major events
22
also includes the immediate preparation, briefings, and breaks in performance, all of
23
which are opportunities where coaches may influence athletes’ performances. Although
24
providing valuable information about the behaviours of coaches in practice and
25
competition conditions, the coaching behaviour research has generally been limited to
26
observations of a discrete range of behaviours such as instruction, feedback, and
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
7
organisation. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Potrac, Jones, & Armour, 2002; Smith
1
& Cushion, 2006) this research does not reveal the reasoning behind coaches’ actions,
2
nor, does it capture the dynamic and complex nature of coaching process during major
3
events (Potrac, Brewer, Jones, Armour, & Hoff, 2000; Jones & Wallace, 2005).
4
Theoretical framework: Coaching as orchestration
5
To frame our exploration of the dynamic and complex nature of the coaching
6
process during major competitions, we drew upon the concept of coaching as
7
orchestration (Jones & Wallace, 2005; 2006). This was derived from Wallace and
8
Pocklington’s (2002) use of orchestration as means to capture complex educational
9
change. Jones and Wallace (2005) argued that the orchestration metaphor could be
10
employed to theorise coaches’ contribution to the coaching process. Coaching as
11
orchestration was defined as: “a coordinated activity within set parameters expressed
12
by coaches to instigate, plan, organise, monitor and respond to evolving circumstances
13
in order to bring about improvement in the individual and collective performance of
14
those being coached” (Jones & Wallace, 2005, p. 128). Orchestrator coaches, it was
15
proposed, engage in extensive management of uncertainty, improvisation, and
16
adaptation to evolving situations, whilst “making sure the set course, which is carefully
17
considered in advance, is followed as closely as possible” (p. 131). Orchestration
18
recognises that coaching as a social activity demands appreciation of “the interaction
19
and interconnectivity of events” (Jones, Bailey, & Thompson, 2013, p. 272) and involves
20
both structure and ambiguity.
21
Central features of coaching as orchestration include, steering rather than
22
controlling, structure with flexibility, and close, often unobtrusive, monitoring.
23
Orchestration asserts that coaches steer rather than control the coaching process
24
shaping of the working environment with little overt leadership. This is achieved by
25
unobtrusive monitoring and channelling athletes’ agency through encouragement and
26
perceived mutually agreed agendas. The process of steering has been described as
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
8
‘behind the scenes string pulling’ (Jones & Wallace, 2005; Jones, et al, 2013) and is
1
supported by Santos, Jones, and Mesquita’s (2013) findings that elite Portuguese
2
coaches carefully consider their actions generating an illusion of empowerment to
3
ensure compliance with their agenda. Mallett’s (2005) reflection on his coaching with
4
the Australian men’s Olympic sprint relay teams demonstrates equally careful
5
consideration of his actions and shaping of the coach-athlete working relationship. In
6
contrast, however, he described how he facilitated an autonomy-supportive
7
environment whereby he worked with athletes to genuinely shift responsibility and
8
meaningful decision making back to athletes (Mallett, 2005). Further examination of this
9
feature of the orchestration concept would be valuable to determine a better
10
understanding of the extent to which the process is controlled or guided and who is
11
steering the process and how.
12
Coaching as orchestration suggests that the coaching process is structured,
13
individuals have clear roles, and great attention is given to the detail (Jones & Wallace,
14
2005). For example, the vision and strategy for an athlete is likely to have been
15
developed long before arriving at the Olympic or Paralympic Games. However, the
16
importance of coaches having a clear vision and plans for athletes during the event has
17
also been identified in research with Olympic coaches and athletes (Gould, Greenleaf, et
18
al., 2002; Gould, Guinan et al., 2002; Greenleaf, et al., 2001). However, whilst retaining
19
consistency, coherence, and sight of the overall objective, coaching is also flexible,
20
adaptable, and often unobtrusive (Jones & Wallace, 2005). Flexibility is a necessary
21
component to adapt to the dynamic circumstances ever-present in sport. The flexibility
22
is framed by guidelines that provide a definitive focus and direction without which
23
athletes may become uncertain of what is expected of them. Evidence from research
24
with Olympic athletes suggests that a good plan, being able to adapt tactically, and
25
coping with distractions and situations that may arise are factors that have a positive
26
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
9
impact on athletes’ performances (Gould, et al., 1999; Gould, Guinan et al., 2002;
1
Olusoga, et al., 2012)
2
According to orchestration, structure with flexibility is achieved through close
3
monitoring of athletes’ ‘on field’ performances and ‘off field’ interactions, challenges,
4
and emotions. Continual close monitoring has been described as noticing (Jones, et al.,
5
2013) and is viewed as being critical to effective orchestration because coaches must be
6
able to ‘see’ or notice what is happening and recognise opportunities to act (Jones et al.,
7
2013). The monitoring, and indeed coaches’ actions, is often unobtrusive with coaches
8
continually observing and analysing situations in light of the fit with their mental model
9
of expectation (Côté, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, & Russell, 1995). Observing, analysing, and
10
responding to events both on and off the ‘field’ are direct intervention functions (Lyle,
11
2002) that are critical for the athletes’ performances. However, what coaches observe
12
remains a topic of much discussion. Research suggests that one feature that separates
13
expert coaches from other coaches is that they notice more relevant information, often
14
more quickly, and are primed to observe different things (Schempp & McCullick, 2010).
15
Experts notice things that are ‘not the norm’ and have established repertoires of
16
responses from which to make decisions about how to act (or not act) (Schempp &
17
McCullick, 2010). Much still remains to be discovered about what coaches pay attention
18
to, when and how this is used to inform action.
19
In summary, research examining factors influencing athletes’ performances at
20
major competitions indicates that coaches play a critical role and that they are also
21
performers (Gould, Guinan, et al., 2002; Olusoga et al., 2012). Despite suggestions that
22
coaching is likely to be different in competition compared with practice, little is known
23
about coaches’ roles and coaching practices during major competitions such as the
24
Olympic or Paralympic Games. In addition, it is argued here that competition at major
25
events as a setting for coaching is indeed dynamic, complex and replete with ambiguity.
26
Coaching as orchestration provides a promising avenue for developing our
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
10
understanding of the roles and practices of coaches during major events. Therefore, the
1
purpose of the present study was to examine the perceptions of track and field coaches
2
who have produced Olympic and Paralympic medallists to gain a better understanding
3
of their roles and coaching practices during competition at major events. A secondary
4
purpose was to examine coaching as orchestration as a means to capture the coaching
5
roles and practices during major events.
6
Methods
7
Participants
8
Eight track and field coaches, seven male and one female, who ranged in age from
9
46 to 72 years volunteered to participate in the study. The events coached included
10
Heptathlon (Multi-events), Long Jump, Triple Jump, High Jump, 100m, 400m hurdles
11
and 100m hurdles. To be considered for inclusion in the study, and to ensure the
12
credibility of the data emerging from the interviews, coaches were required to have
13
coached one or more athletes to an Olympic or Paralympic medal. In total, the coach
14
participants had coached athletes to 19 Olympic or Paralympic medals: 11 gold; 4 silver;
15
and 4 bronze. The coaches had between 21 and 51 years of coaching experience (M =
16
30.25 years). All were employed full-time as coaches and six were employed by their
17
National Governing Body. They had attended between one and ten Olympic or
18
Paralympic Games and between them amassed over 30 Olympic and Paralympic
19
coaching appearances. At the time of the interviews, the coaches were at the end of a
20
four-year Olympic cycle (i.e. just after the London 2012 Olympic/Paralympic Games).
21
Procedure
22
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the authors’ institution.
23
Subsequently, fifteen coaches were invited to discuss their perceptions of their roles and
24
practices during Olympic or Paralympic events. Initial contact was made through email
25
or a telephone call to each of the participants explaining the aims of the study and the
26
expected commitment. Ten coaches replied stating they would like to be involved and
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
11
eight coaches fully committed to the study. Once coaches agreed to participate in the
1
study, they were emailed a formal letter, informing them of the nature and purpose of
2
the study. Participants were assured that their comments would remain anonymous and
3
that data would be treated confidentially. Convenient dates and times for the interviews
4
were then agreed upon and informed consent was obtained before data collection. In
5
keeping with the tertiary institution’s ethical procedures regarding confidentiality, all
6
participants were given a code (e.g., Coach 1).
7
Data Collection
8
Based on existing coach development literature (e.g., Gilbert, Cote ́, & Mallett,
9
2006), a semi-structured interview guide was developed (Appendix A). This ensured
10
that all participants were asked the same set of major questions. However, as
11
participants were encouraged to elaborate, the natural flow of conversation directed the
12
discussion and explored the coaches’ unique experiences in greater depth as they arose
13
(Patton, 2002). The interview guide was divided into two main sections and the coaches
14
were reminded to focus on their Olympic and Paralympic experiences throughout. The
15
first section involved introductory questions about the coaches’ experience and
16
background, and encouraged participants to talk descriptively (Patton, 2002). The
17
second part of the interview guide focused on the coaches’ perceptions of their roles and
18
coaching practices during competition which occurred over several days at the event.
19
This section was further divided into 3 sub-sections. The first sub-section discussed the
20
coaches’ beliefs about their role and involvement. The second sub-section discussed
21
what the coaches’ do for the athlete such as coaching behaviours, how their actions
22
affect the athlete, considerations taken into account when acting or not. The third sub-
23
section discussed what the coaches do for themselves to improve their ability to assist
24
the athlete. The questions initially focused on the day of competition (e.g., what is your
25
role on the day of competition? However, because track and field events in the Olympics
26
and Paralympics typically take place over several days, the coaches were encouraged to
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
12
discuss their roles and practices during the wider ‘Olympic competition’ (e.g., what is
1
your involvement during competition? What do you do/not do?). Additional follow-up,
2
probing, elaboration, clarification questions were used throughout the interviews to
3
elicit in-depth information and to ensure that the coaches had discussed everything they
4
felt relevant. Coaches were also given the opportunity to add anything relevant that was
5
not discussed during the interview. All the interviews were conducted by the first
6
author. They were carried out either face to face, through Skype or over the telephone.
7
Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes and was audio recorded.
8
Data analysis
9
The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed. To ensure
10
trustworthiness and in keeping with procedures recommended and used within
11
coaching research, (e.g., Côté, Samela, Baria, & Russell, 1993; Olusoga et al., 2012) the
12
transcripts of each interview were content analysed by both authors independently. The
13
analysis was both deductive and inductive using axial and open coding (Patton, 2002).
14
The analysis was deductive in that the overall areas of the study were delineated by the
15
literature and interview guide (e.g., role, actions for the athlete, actions for oneself) and
16
axial coding was used to find evidence of the coaches’ roles and practices. However, in
17
keeping with the exploratory nature of the study inductive analysis and open coding
18
was used to analyse features of the complex and dynamic coaching practice. Following
19
initial coding of the data, preliminary lower order themes were developed. At this stage
20
the authors discussed and reached agreement on the themes emerging from data and
21
their meaning in relation to the purpose of the study. These themes were then analysed
22
further through an iterative process which involved organising the lower-order themes
23
into groups, then discussing and providing rationales for the groupings. This process
24
continued until both authors were satisfied that no further groupings were needed to
25
adequately represent the data (i.e., consensus was reached). These final groupings
26
became the higher-order themes.
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
13
Results
1
Overall, the coaching process during major events was athlete-led with the
2
coaches adopting a supportive and facilitative role including managing the wider
3
performance environment. Through detailed preparation and planning most of the
4
coaches’ work had been completed prior to the event and the coaches expressed a
5
desire to let athletes get on with their performances. However, they closely observed
6
and monitored the athletes’ preparation and performances, assisting when asked by the
7
athlete or if they felt some input was needed. Facilitating the psychological preparation
8
of the athletes was an important part of their coaching practice on the day of
9
competition. The coaches were also performing in their own way and ensuring that their
10
performance was effective required mental preparation and planning.
11
Six higher order themes emerged from the data representing the coaches’
12
perceptions of their roles and coaching practices during major competitions. These
13
themes were: athlete focused supportive environment, preparation and planning,
14
observation, analysis and intervention, athlete psychological preparation, coach
15
psychological preparation, and management. Each of the themes comprised a number of
16
lower order themes. These are summarised in Figure 1. The number of coaches whose
17
responses fit with each theme is cited next to each higher and lower-order theme. In the
18
following sections each higher-order theme is described, and lower-order themes
19
explored in detail.
20
Athlete-focused supportive environment
21
How coaches interpret their roles has implications for what they are likely to do
22
(Gilbert & Trudel, 2004). The athlete-focused supportive environment higher order
23
theme reflected the coaches’ perceptions that their roles and actions during competition
24
centred on the athlete and his/her needs. This theme comprised four lower-order
25
themes: athlete-led process, athlete empowerment, support for athlete’s performance,
26
and coach behaviour.
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
14
Athlete-led process. During competition at the event the coaches believed the
1
coaching process should be, and was, led by the athlete rather than directed by the
2
coach. The coaches described the process as athlete-focused and largely athlete-led. The
3
comments of Coach 6 clearly illustrate this focus: “I am there for support but not there to
4
lead. It is all about the athlete… It is not just athlete centred, it is athlete led.” Their focus
5
included facilitating athlete’s ownership and avoiding ego-involvement. Coach 2 stated
6
that his “philosophy is that they [coaches] should be there for the athlete, focused on the
7
athlete, not on themselves.” Several coaches described how earlier in their careers they
8
had been too involved but had learnt to step back and allow the athletes to lead the
9
process. For example:
10
When I first started in professional coaching, I interfered a bit too much … I
11
got over that and all I do now is I am with them. I am there and let them
12
bounce of me. Otherwise, I just let them get on with it because they don’t need
13
anyone fussing around them at an important competition. (Coach 3)
14
Athlete empowerment. All the coaches expressed a desire to let the athletes
15
perform, but to be there if they were needed. Coach 4 focused on “creating the
16
environment where the athlete is in control.” Coach 5 questioned the athletes to ensure
17
they knew their plan for the competition: “I get them to tell me what their game plan is.”
18
Coach 6 explained his view in this way:
19
…it is up to athlete… it is their competition, it is their life and what happens is
20
for them it is not about the coach… There is, not a handing over of
21
responsibility because it’s a team effort, it’s a pairing. There is a case of “we
22
have got here together, that’s great, now you take it on. This is your glory,
23
not the coach’s…”
24
Support for athlete’s performance. The coaches viewed their role during major
25
competition as supporting the athlete to perform to his/her best. Coach 2 indicated that
26
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
15
“on the day, my job really is to ensure the athlete competes to their potential. Whatever
1
that takes, within reason.” Coach 6 expressed it this way:
2
I honestly see myself as, not a crutch, but a supporter who’s at a distance…
3
At that stage, it is all about the athlete… However, if you see the wheels
4
coming off you need to intervene.
5
Coach behaviour. The coaches treated the competition as a normal day. Coach 1
6
referred to it as “just another day in the office.” For many of the coaches this involved
7
providing consistency and stability for the athletes, particularly not changing their
8
behaviour. The importance of consistent behaviour from the coach was highlighted by
9
Coach 7 who reflected on the consequences of a time when she had mistakenly changed
10
her behaviour:
11
When moving the hurdles (trying to help her), she bit my head off… ‘just leave
12
me to it.’ You see I don’t normally help her with these, but because of the
13
stressful environment, I thought I would help her… I’ve just got to let her go
14
with the flow and let her manage her own warm up.
15
Treating the competition as everything as usual was facilitated by the strong
16
relationships the coaches had established with the athletes over time prior to the Games
17
and knowing how to work with and support them. Coach 6 described his approach in
18
this way:
19
Different athletes act differently at different times and a coach comes to know
20
this… I tailor my communications, body language, around what the athlete is
21
expecting… What does not change for me is having a positive attitude… I’m
22
very controlled and constructive in my thinking, nothing should change… I
23
act... the way the athlete expects me to behave… I have an understanding of
24
the athlete… everything is based on how well you know your athlete… the
25
relationship.
26
Preparation and planning
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
16
The preparation and planning higher-order theme reflected the work done before
1
arriving at the Games and during the Games to ensure that athletes were appropriately
2
prepared to compete to the best of their ability. This theme comprised three lower-
3
order themes: high quality work prior to event, rehearsal and simulation, and joint
4
process.
5
High quality work prior to event. Many of the coaches indicated that the coach’s
6
work had been done prior to the competition and the event was the time for the athlete
7
to perform. The coaches believed that detailed preparation and planning prior to the
8
competition was critical for optimal athletic performance on the day. Coach 8 commented
9
that “all the hard work should have been done in advance.” The following quotes illustrate
10
the coaches’ views:
11
My role is in the weeks and months prior, I go over everything for the day of
12
competition with the athlete … I speak to the athletes in the weeks before and
13
put on paper, you know, wake up at this time etc… exactly what to do and
14
when. I keep my mouth shut on the day. (Coach 1)
15
For developed athletes,… people overestimate the role of the coach… if
16
coaches need to coach their athletes whilst competing… what are they doing
17
when coaching before the competition?… They should sit back and enjoy the
18
competition… In training, the whole reason is to teach athletes to compete
19
well and out there let them get on with it… I have come to understand I have
20
done my job prior to competition. (Coach 3)
21
Coach 1 went on to describe an experience which demonstrated the value of pre-
22
competition preparation when an athlete needed to refocus after a poor performance:
23
…she messed up in [event]… she came back to the warm up track and I said
24
‘do you remember what to do in these circumstances, ‘she said ‘yes’… [I]
25
knocked on her door 2 hours later… she had left [the event] behind her and
26
was in control of the situation and could make a joke at difficult moment in
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
17
her career… This was because we went over this scenario so many times
1
before… ‘What will you do? What do you need to do and feel, thought
2
process?’… I did not have to say anything… all I had to say was ‘do you know
3
what you now have to do’.
4
Rehearsal and simulation. Preparation included rehearsing elements of the
5
plan and performance, including travel, pre-performance routines, and simulating
6
‘big event’ conditions. The coaches made comments such as “this would all have
7
been rehearsed beforehand. It is a ritual that they have gone through several times”
8
and “keep to routines the importance of which has been explained previously.”
9
Coach 5 described rehearsing their travel plans:
10
We always have a defined time when we go to the track. We’ve run that
11
system 3 or 4 times, we never leave it to chance, taking the bus and organising
12
that trip 3 or 4 times before the competition. (Coach 5)
13
This coach also described how at an appropriate time during their preparation he
14
would simulate the noise and distractions of a major competition so the athlete could
15
experience the conditions and learn to cope:
16
…the athlete must be in a good place technically for you to do this. If the
17
athlete is struggling with their training technically, you wouldn’t carry out
18
this exercise. I would have a ghetto blaster at training to create as much noise
19
as I can, and then I try to communicate with the athlete in the session, and try
20
to talk over it. I would try to create noise and distraction. I would get people
21
to walk in front of the athlete. I would move their mark. I would put a cone in
22
their way. So that the athletes can develop skills for the big stage. (Coach 5)
23
Joint process. Competition plans were developed jointly between coach and
24
athlete and generally worked back from the time of competition. Coach 6 indicated
25
that he and the athlete “agree sensible things and processes beforehand.” Coach 7
26
explained their joint process:
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
18
We created a run sheet for the day… a run of tasks… we work out what time
1
the event is, what time the call room is, what time we have to start warm up,
2
what time we need to be at the warm up track, what time the bus is etc… all of
3
those things.
4
Observation, analysis and intervention
5
The observation, analysis, and intervention higher-order theme reflected the
6
coaches’ actions during the competition directly related to athletes’ performances. This
7
theme comprised four lower-order themes: monitor preparation, input and feedback,
8
observe performance, and decide to intervene.
9
Monitor preparation. The coaches monitored athletes over the course of the day
10
and during preparation. Prior to competition, they monitored the athlete’s state of
11
readiness and ensured plans and routines were being followed. The monitoring was
12
often unobtrusive:
13
…out of the corner of my eye I am keeping an eye on my athletes to make sure
14
that they are doing what they should be doing… whilst keeping an eye on
15
reporting times and once they report… I give them time checks as they go.
16
(Coach 2)
17
Input and feedback. On the day of competition the coaches engaged in
18
limited direct coaching, providing only minimal input and feedback. As Coach 8
19
explained, the preparation and planning prior to the competition supported the
20
coaching process at the Games, enabling the process to be athlete-led and require
21
only limited coaching intervention: “you don’t want to do much… if you are doing a
22
lot on the day then you are patching things up… all the hard work should have been
23
done in advance… [just] remind them of the usual things.” The performance
24
process was led by the athlete with the coaches responding to athletes’ questions:
25
Biggest competition… [the athlete says] ‘just let me know where I am on the
26
board, I can do the rest’. I just answered the questions he asked… There are
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
19
some things a coach wants to say but that is not what the athlete wants to
1
hear… you need to understand what athlete requires. (Coach 6)
2
I normally don’t say too much unless she talks to me. Sometimes we chat
3
about silly things like where her boyfriend is sitting, or look at that guy’s
4
jacket. Sometimes it is specific questions… So then you are giving feedback, at
5
this point it’s about how she feels, rather than technical. (Coach 7)
6
If the coaches were providing information or feedback it was “concise and
7
accurate”, “very simple” and reinforced key messages and readiness:
8
…when giving the athlete feedback during the competition, I try to keep it
9
simple, positive and general in nature, and don’t say too much technically.
10
As a principle I think every time you say something, it creates inhibition for
11
the athlete because they have to digest the information, so normally I would
12
say, ‘yeah it looks great’… I like to restrict myself to only the most necessary
13
information. (Coach 1)
14
Observe performance. Observation and analysis of athletes’ performances was a
15
very important activity for the coaches during the competition. For example coaches
16
reported getting the “best seat that they possibly can to observe their athlete” and that
17
they “concentrate very hard on the competition and focus on who I am coaching… seeing
18
everything they are doing”. The observation and analyses was critical to enable the
19
coaches to provide specific feedback to the athlete if required:
20
…athlete comes out and misses by a mark… I sit there and work out why they
21
missed the board by a mark… you evaluate and then you give feedback.
22
(Coach 2)
23
…athlete is going down the runway… video… discuss this is what I saw, this is
24
what I think you ought to do to improve it, ask the athlete what they did, what
25
do they think they saw… give them one or two bits of information… They can’t
26
take in any more… everything should be simple. (Coach 8)
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
20
Decide to intervene. The coaches only intervened if they felt something was
1
not right or the athlete requested it. The coaches would shape the actions of the
2
athlete if they felt it was necessary. Coach 4 suggested that, “the athlete is central
3
to everything… but at times you have to steer the athlete to where they need to be
4
to perform even if they don’t realise it themselves.” Coach 5 made an analogy of a
5
curling stone and brush. The coach being the brush: “you know when you have a
6
curling stone, and you have a brush on the ice and you control the direction of the
7
stone with a brush.” The coaches would also intervene if they felt the athlete’s
8
preparation or performance was not progressing well. Coach 3 explained how he
9
approached direct coaching on the day in this way: “if they ask me technical
10
questions I will give them an answer and if they are making a terrible mistake, I will
11
put them right. But my interference now in major competitions is very few and far
12
between.” Coach 6 described a more subtle but no less direct intervention: “if I see a
13
problem that needs some thought process I will draw their attention [to it].”
14
The decision to intervene, however, was not always straightforward. Coach 8
15
discussed a challenge he faced and his decision making process:
16
In the competition the decision to intervene is very much a judgement call, and can
17
almost be seen as a gamble. In the Olympics, I noticed that the athlete was taking
18
two more strides than they normally take, but she looked good coming in and
19
comfortable at the board. So do I potentially throw petrol on the situation and light
20
a match by telling the athlete ‘your run up is all wrong’, or do I say nothing?
21
Sometimes as a coach, you need to have the confidence to say nothing. That’s when
22
you, as a coach, become a bit of artist, where the situation is quite thick and it’s
23
layered, and you’re comfortable enough to go “let it be”. Inside you might be going
24
“f*** hell, f*** hell, f*** hell”, but you look at it and you go, ‘nah just let it go’, let it sit.
25
It’s a gamble.
26
Athletes’ psychological preparation
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
21
The athletes’ psychological preparation higher-order theme reflected the roles
1
and practices the coaches’ engaged in to assist athletes to be in an appropriate mental
2
state during the competition. This theme comprised three lower-order themes: manage
3
emotional state, instil confidence, and maintain task focus.
4
Manage emotional state. All the coaches identified that part of their role was to
5
ensure the athlete was mentally ready to compete and assist this process if necessary.
6
The coaches commented “my job as a coach is getting the athlete settled into being in the
7
right place for that competition” and it is “very much creating a focused, confident not
8
arrogant, relaxed, supported athlete.” Coach 8 discussed minimising the pressure the
9
athlete felt: “our job is to take off all pressure… our job to unload her [athlete].” Coach 1
10
described the need to help the athlete manage their emotions: “In general as a coach… it’s
11
about emotions… when they are too great you pull them down… when they are
12
depressed… you pull them up… always focused on this is where you have to be.” Coach 6
13
explained his approach in this way:
14
Athletes are grown people and should be sensible, however, their minds are
15
on fire, especially on the day of competition… [The coach should] be
16
supportive, positive, be aware of what the athlete needs, not what you think
17
the athlete needs and or/wants, which can be slightly different…
18
The coaches often monitored athletes’ psychological states, unobtrusively, and
19
managed it by assisting athletes to cope with anxiety, remain relaxed, or energised. Coach
20
2’s description of the way he facilitated athletes’ psychological preparation reinforces his
21
monitoring, confidence building and also his flexibility to adapt to the circumstances
22
facing him:
23
basically… monitoring the state of the athlete all the time … if they are
24
agitated or confident,… and I try not to make it obvious, just looking and
25
feeling the right vibes. If things don’t feel or seem right my job is to try and
26
settle [the athlete] as much as I can and if there is a bit of self-doubt there, I
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
22
can try to instil confidence back... I make it up as I go… I have a number of
1
tools in my bag of what to say and how to say it and it depends on the
2
scenario that faces me which tool I pull out.
3
Instil confidence. The coaches focused on supporting and building the athletes’
4
confidence. For example coaches talked about “giving confidence” and “making them feel
5
like a million dollars”. They also modelled confidence no matter how they felt “I try to
6
almost show confidence and transfer it from me to them.”
7
Maintain task focus. Ensuring the athletes are focused on the task of performing and
8
were not distracted was also an important role for the coaches. Coach 5 explained his role
9
was do whatever was needed, this might be to assist the athlete with refocusing, smooth
10
out any minor issues, take care of the small things so that the athlete could focus on
11
performing: “my role is I don’t let them get distracted… If needed, I am the re-focuser. I’m
12
a smoother outer… the ‘don’t worry about the small stuff’.”
13
Coaches’ psychological preparation
14
The coaches’ psychological preparation higher-order theme reflected the actions of
15
the coaches to optimise their own performance. Coach 5 compared himself with the
16
athlete: “I need to focus and prepare my mind just as the [athlete] does.” This theme
17
comprised four lower-order themes: manage emotions, show confidence, maintain task
18
focus, and strategies.
19
Manage emotions. The coaches recognised that their emotions could affect their own
20
performance as well as that of their athletes. Coach 8 stated: “if I look anxious, stressed, all
21
I am going to do is transfer that to the athletes and that is of no value at all… you deal with
22
your own anxiety so as not to worry [the athlete].” They discussed “suppressing their
23
emotions”, “feeling in control”, being “as relaxed as possible”, and “appearing clam.” Coach
24
6 explained:
25
…stability comes from the coach. I don’t think a nervous coach or an over anxious
26
coach helps the athlete perform. The idea is to appear calm and I think that is what
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
23
the athlete wants. Everything is matter of fact. There is enough tension without the
1
coach being stressed as well. Therefore, I aim to act as normal as possible, no matter
2
how I feel. Even if I’m feeling insecure, or having bad day, the coach needs to
3
supress their emotions.
4
Show confidence. The coaches described “looking confident” no matter how they
5
were actually feeling. Coach 2 explained “I am pretty good at supressing my emotions and
6
looking confident even when feeling very insecure.” This was often described as being
7
relaxed. Coach 5 said “I try to be as unnervous and relaxed as possible.” Coach 4
8
commented being “relaxed, chilled out, very free and easy.”
9
Maintain task focus. Staying focused was also important to enable the coaches
10
to perform their roles during the competition to support the athlete. Coach 4
11
described being nervous but remaining focused “observing everything and not
12
necessarily communicating a lot… In the call room I can be very nervous but I’m
13
very controlled, knowing exactly where we are all the time… and what is going on.
14
Coach 1 indicated the need to “be aware of it [nerves]” but to remain “focussed on
15
the job and fully aware of things that are not right.”
16
Coping strategies. The coaches reported using a range of methods to help them
17
manage their emotions and stay focused during the competition. These included “normal
18
breathing techniques to keep calm”, “talking to other coaches”, “walking a lap” to gather
19
their thoughts, “stopping negative thoughts”, “talking to themselves”, taking time out for
20
themselves when possible and having a plan for their own performance. Coach 4
21
described his approach in this way:
22
…on the day of competition… my day is equally as planned out as the
23
athletes… I don’t have any interference from what is going on… I will phone
24
home in the morning… there is no further interference… [I try to be] in
25
control not showing any nerves… being as confident as I can and that is part
26
of the plan… and that is also part of training.
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
24
Management
1
The management higher-order theme reflected the coaches’ involvement in
2
managing the wider performance environment. This theme comprised two lower-order
3
themes: manage competition process, and manage support staff.
4
Manage competition process. The coaches ensured athletes followed established
5
plans and routines and were not disrupted. Their actions to manage the process were
6
often relatively unobtrusive. The following quotes illustrate how two of the coaches
7
approached this management role.
8
On the day of competition the athlete would have his plan. I stay very much in
9
the background, and only make decisions on what was needed. I would
10
ensure the athlete had his space. So on the day I would keep the media and all
11
the support staff away, giving him space and keeping everything normal, or as
12
normal and as structured as possible. During the warm up there would be
13
very little communication, with any communication very much guided by the
14
athlete (Coach 4).
15
Managing support staff. The coaches also recognised the importance of managing
16
the support staff including establishing clear roles and managing their anxiety levels.
17
Coach 8 explained his views on managing support staff:
18
As coach you have to manage the team as well as yourself… It’s an element of
19
being in charge of the whole team and manage them… She [athlete] is on the
20
track and I am there to support her and you [management team] are there to
21
support me.
22
Discussion
23
The purpose of the present study was to examine the coaches’ perceptions of their
24
roles and coaching practices during major competitions. We found that the coaches
25
worked to create an athlete-focused supportive environment focussing on managing the
26
wider performance environment and overseeing the performance process. The coaches
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
25
expressed a desire to let athletes get on with their performances. This was possible due
1
to the detailed preparation and planning prior to the competition and the experience
2
level of the athletes. The coaches still had important roles. They engaged in detailed,
3
often unobtrusive, observation and analysis of the athletes’ psychological and physical
4
preparation and performances. This enabled them to provide feedback and intervene if
5
requested by the athlete or if something was not right. The coaches also recognised and
6
actively worked to control their emotions and portray themselves as confident and
7
relaxed. The findings from the present study provide valuable insight into how the
8
coaching process is implemented in highly pressurised sporting environments such as
9
the Olympic and Paralympic Games. These findings can assist those working in these
10
environments to develop a greater understanding of the influences on athletes’
11
performances and the implementation of coaching practice to facilitate improvements in
12
performance.
13
Previous research has examined factors influencing athletes’ performances at the
14
Olympic Games and factors associated with successful coaching in this environment
15
(e.g., Gould, et al, 1999; Gould et al, 2002; Gould & Maynard, 2009; Greenleaf et al, 2001;
16
Olusoga et al, 2012; Pensgaard & Duda, 2002). Our findings are consistent with this
17
research, specifically, the coaches in the present study emphasised preparation and
18
planning, not over-coaching, managing the athletes’ emotional states, and helping the
19
athlete maintain focus. The findings also reinforce the notion that coaches are
20
performing (Giges, et al, 2004) and therefore managing their own emotions and
21
maintaining consistency in their behaviour is essential to their effectiveness (Gould &
22
Maynard, 2009).
23
Examining the coaches’ roles and coaching practices in greater detail allowed us
24
to explore how coaches operate in these complex and dynamic settings. Using Jones and
25
Wallace’s (2005) concept of coaching as orchestration it was clear that the coaches
26
could be described as orchestrators and their coaching during competition as
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
26
orchestration. The concept of orchestration suggests that coaches steer rather than
1
control the coaching process. One coach’s use of the curling stone and brush analogy to
2
describe his role and practice captures this unobtrusive steering of the process and
3
supports the concept of coaching as orchestration. Unobtrusively steering the coaching
4
process could be interpreted as manipulative on the part of the coach. Where the coach
5
shapes the athletes’ experience to serve the coaches’ own interests and there may only
6
be a perception that the agenda is mutually agreed between coach and athlete (Jones &
7
Wallace, 2005). Some support for this notion comes from a study of five elite Portuguese
8
coaches which found that the coaches carefully considered their actions to engender an
9
illusion of empowerment to ensure compliance with their agendas (Santos et al, 2013).
10
This might suggest a hierarchical coach-athlete relationship. Such an interpretation
11
appears somewhat at odds with more humanistic, athlete-centred views on coaching
12
(e.g., Kidman, 2005; Mallett, 2005) where coaches support athletes’ autonomy, show
13
genuine care for athletes’ perspectives, and involve athletes in meaningful decision
14
making to facilitate responsibility and ownership of the overall objective. The coaches in
15
the present study did appear to steer the coaching process, however, they also described
16
a process whereby the athlete was the central focus and they worked to empower the
17
athlete to lead the process. From the coaches’ perspectives this ‘agenda’ was mutually
18
agreed between athlete and coach, rather than the result of a hierarchical relationship
19
where the coach set the agenda. Examples such as coaches limiting communication with
20
athletes unless requested by the athlete (e.g., answering their questions) or an athlete
21
berating the coach for behaviour that was not ‘normal’ (e.g., ‘helping’ with hurdles)
22
suggest the coaches were perhaps not as ‘in control’ of the process as even the
23
orchestration concept seems to suggest. In fact, athletes, particularly experienced
24
athletes, actually determined the process during competition at the event. Rather than
25
resist this situation or see it as cause for concern, the coaches embraced, encouraged,
26
and actively supported the athletes’ autonomy. Their approach appeared to be a genuine
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
27
expression of empowerment that let the athletes ‘get on with it.’ It is important to note
1
that the coaches in the present study were working with experienced elite athletes.
2
Future research should continue to explore how the coaching process is steered and
3
determine whether coaches working with less experienced development athletes also
4
adopt an empowering approach.
5
The coaches’ desire to let the athletes get on with performing and their
6
willingness to ‘stay in the background’ was largely possible due to the established
7
coach-athlete relationships and detailed planning and preparation prior to the event
8
and day of competition. Establishing a strong relationship between the coach and
9
athlete enables the coach to understand the psychological needs of the athlete and
10
respond accordingly (Gould & Maynard, 2009). Preparation and planning has been
11
identified as an important factor influencing athletes’ performances (Gould et al, 2002)
12
and part of successful coaching in the Olympic environment (Olusoga, et al, 2012). In
13
addition, sport psychology researchers have suggested that preparing athletes for
14
dealing with disruptions and helping them to avoid distractions is one of the most
15
important things coaches can do to assist athletes in their Olympic performance (Gould
16
et al, 2002; Orlick & Partington, 1988). Structure and attention to detail are central
17
features of orchestration (Jones & Wallace, 2005). The detailed plans and routines
18
provided structure, clear direction, and a strong foundation from which the athlete then
19
had the freedom to perform. They were developed prior to competition, sometimes over
20
years, and reduced the ambiguity in the setting for athletes and coaches. This provided a
21
sense of control where complete control is not possible.
22
Another key finding was the extensive use of observation by the coaches, whereby
23
they were constantly monitoring and assessing the athletes’ preparation and
24
performance. From an observer’s perspective, the coaches may appear to be ‘off-task’,
25
however, the coaches were very much ‘on task’. They were actively, but silently,
26
observing the athlete’s preparation and performance. The use of silence by the coaches
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
28
provides support for Rupert and Buschner’s (1989) notion of silently monitoring as a
1
coaching strategy, where the coach reflects on appropriate interventions. Silent
2
observation by the coach was also found by Smith and Cushion (2006) to be a deliberate
3
coaching strategy, with coaches silently monitoring individual performance, and
4
reflecting upon timely and appropriate intervention. The extensive use of observation
5
and analysis and limited direct intervention is another central feature of orchestration
6
(Jones & Wallace, 2005; Jones, et al., 2013). Borrowing from Mason’s (2002) work, Jones
7
et al (2013) argued that noticing was the foundation for orchestration in that before a
8
coach can act he/she needs to recognise an opportunity to do so. The coaches in the
9
present study were clearly noticing. Of interest is what they were noticing. The coaches
10
described looking for things that were ‘not right’. Although the coaches did not directly
11
mention it, this suggests they had a representation in their mind or mental model of
12
what they expected to see (Côté, et al, 1995). This extended beyond the athletes’ sport-
13
specific technical and tactical performances. At major events the coaches attended to the
14
athletes’ psychological states, the actions and psychological states of support staff,
15
potential for distractions and the possible impact of their own actions and psychological
16
state on athletes’ performances. These findings support the importance observation and
17
analysis play in coaching and as perhaps one of the distinguishing features of expert
18
coaches (Schempp & McCullick, 2010). Investigations into what, when, and why coaches
19
notice and how this is used to impact performance holds promise to further our
20
understanding of the coaching process and influences on coaches’ performance.
21
Another important finding from the present study was that the coaches provided
22
only limited input and feedback to athletes during major events. This finding is in
23
contrast, to research examining coaching behaviours in training situations. For example,
24
Potrac, Jones and Armour (2002) finding that the football coach in their study used
25
frequent instruction. The high frequency of instruction was explained by the coach’s
26
desire for control over the team’s and players’ improvement and the coach’s conscious
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
29
efforts to portray his knowledge of the game and thereby gain the players’ respect. Our
1
finding is consistent with the limited research examining coaching during competition,
2
which suggests a greater emphasis on silent observation and ‘on-task’ monitoring and a
3
lower frequency of instruction (e.g., Smith & Cushion, 2006). In the present study, the
4
coaches used simple and concise input and feedback to provide a definitive focus,
5
thereby reducing ambiguity for athlete, and maintain momentum towards their
6
objectives. This allowed the athlete to continue their preparation or performance with
7
only minimal disruption. However, the decision to intervene could be a complex
8
decision making process, with the coaches considering a wide range of information to
9
decide whether or not to intervene and, if so, what to do and when. The cognitive ability
10
to make repeated rapid assessments of circumstances, compare them with mental
11
models, and make an appropriate intervention has been suggested to be a cornerstone
12
of coaches’ expertise (Schempp & McCullick, 2010).
13
Coaching as orchestration focuses on the social activity of coaching, the
14
interactions amongst various stakeholders in complex and dynamic contexts. It
15
considers the management of coaches, themselves, largely in the context of how they
16
steer others. The findings from the present study indicate that although the focus of the
17
coaching process is on the athletes and their performances, coaches are performing in
18
their own way. The coaches were consciously managing their own performance, albeit
19
for the betterment of the athletes’ performances. This finding supports the growing
20
recognition that coaches are performers (e.g., Giges et al, 2004; Olusoga et al, 2012) and
21
that personal preparation is important for the facilitation of a successful coaching
22
performance (Gould, Guinan et al. (2002). To date, only a small number of studies have
23
examined how coaches prepare for their performance during competition at major
24
events or how they perform at these events. In addition to managing their own
25
emotions, the coaches in the present study indicated that it was important for them to
26
take time out to relax away from the stresses of the environment, so that they could
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
30
function to the best of their ability, both physically and mentally. Recognising the value
1
of leaders’ personal well-being (physical, spiritual, emotional and mental) to their
2
performance is gaining recognition (e.g., Giges, et al, 2005; Loehr & Schwartz, 2001;
3
Olusoga et al., 2012). Greater understanding of coaches’ own preparation and
4
performance will enable developments in education and support to ensure coaches are
5
appropriately prepared for the pressurised environment of major events such as the
6
Olympic and Paralympic Games.
7
Limitations and future directions
8
Our findings provide valuable insight into the process of coaching during track
9
and field competition at major events, however, it is not our intention that these findings
10
be generalised to other sports, or contexts. This is for several reasons. First, due to the
11
small number of participants it would be inappropriate to generalize the findings
12
beyond this sample. Second, coaching is a contextualised process and the present study
13
focused on coaches working with experienced athletes from one sport, track and field, in
14
a very specific context, the Olympic and Paralympic Games. How coaches in different
15
sports, with different athletes, and in different contexts, interpret their roles and coach
16
is might not be the same as that of the coaches in our study. However, our findings do
17
provide some interesting directions for future research. To further our understanding of
18
the coaching process during competition researchers might examine coaches working
19
with athletes in different contexts (e.g., other sports or working with developing
20
athletes). For example, one of the coaches in our sample stated that you cannot stop an
21
athlete in the middle of the 800m, therefore, coaching during the actual performance is
22
limited. However, a basketball coach, for example, can call a timeout, make substitutions,
23
use quarter- and half-time breaks as opportunities to influence athletes’ performances.
24
Questions might focus on the extent to which coaches’ recognise the ambiguity in sports
25
settings, what attempts, if any, are made to retain control, and how they manage
26
uncertainty for the athlete but equally for themselves. Furthermore, the present study
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
31
only gained the insight of the coaches. Gould and colleagues (Gould, et al, 1999; 2002;
1
Greenleaf et al, 2001) found that athletes’ also had views on their coaches’ effectiveness
2
leading up to and during the Olympics. Future research should include more in-depth
3
analysis of athletes’ perceptions, specifically about the coaches’ roles and the process of
4
coaching during competition. This could include consideration of athletes’ perceptions
5
of coaching as orchestration.
6
Conclusion
7
The present study provides detailed insight into eight coaches’ perceptions of
8
their roles and coaching practices during competition at major events. The coaches
9
emphasised that competition was a time to ‘let the athletes get on with it’, noting that all
10
the work was done prior to the competition, and only minimal input, if any, was needed.
11
This is not to say that the coaches had no part to play, rather that much of their role was
12
unobtrusive. They supported and facilitated athletes’ performances, closely monitoring
13
athletes, and intervening only if needed. This involved the use of psychological
14
strategies to manage the emotions and focus of the athlete, the support team, and
15
themselves. The findings provide preliminary support for coaching during competition
16
as orchestration, and the coaches appeared to be the orchestrators. However, further
17
research is warranted to examine who steers the process and how, and whether this
18
changes as athletes gain more experience. In addition, the coaches were engaged in
19
detailed noticing and some insight has been gained about what coaches notice. This is a
20
promising area for future research to identify what coaches notice and how this informs
21
coaching practice. Finally, the findings indicate that coaches are performing in their own
22
way and a greater understanding of the coaches’ performance process is needed to
23
ensure coaches can be adequately prepared to perform effectively in highly pressurised
24
environment such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
25
26
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
32
References
1
Becker, A. J., & Wrisberg, C. A. (2008). Effective coaching in action: Observations of
2
legendary collegiate basketball coach Pat Summitt. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 197-
3
211.
4
Claxton, D. B. (1988). A systematic observation of more and less successful high school
5
tennis coaches. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 302-310.
6
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1993). Organising and interpreting
7
unstructured qualitative data. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 127 – 137.
8
Côté, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1995). The coaching model: A
9
grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches' knowledge. Journal of Sport
10
and Exercise Psychology, 17, 1-17.
11
Cushion, C. J. (2010). Coach behaviour. In J. Lyle, & C. J. Cushion, (Eds.), Coaching
12
professionalism and practice (pp. 43-62). Elsevier: London
13
Cushion, C. J., & Jones, R. L. (2001). A systematic observation of professional top-level
14
youth soccer coaches. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 24, 1 – 23.
15
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (2004). What a coach can teach a teacher, 1975-2004:
16
Reflections and reanalysis of John Wooden’s teaching practices. The Sport
17
Psychologist, 18, 119-137.
18
Giges, B., Petitpas A. J., & Vernacchia R. A. (2004). Helping coaches meet their own needs:
19
Challenges for the sport psychology consultant. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 430-
20
444.
21
Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2004). Role of the coach: how model youth team sport
22
coaches frame their roles, The Sport Psychologist, 18, 21-43.
23
Gilbert, W., Côté, J., & Mallett, C. (2006). Developmental paths and activities of successful
24
sport coaches. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 1, 69–76.
25
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
33
Gould, D., Greenleaf, C., Chung, Y., & Guinan, D. (2002). A survey of U.S. Atlanta and
1
Nagano Olympians: Factors influencing performance. Research Quarterly for
2
Exercise and Sport, 73, 175-186.
3
Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., & Chung, Y. (2002). A survey of U.S. Olympic coaches:
4
Variables perceived to have influenced athlete performances and coach
5
effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 229–250.
6
Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., Medbery, R., & Peterson, K. (1999). Factors affecting
7
Olympic performance: Perceptions of athletes and coaches from more and less
8
successful teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 371-394.
9
Gould, D., & Maynard, I. W. (2009). Psychological preparation for the Olympic Games.
10
Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1393–1408.
11
Greenleaf, C. A., Gould, D., & Dieffenbach, K. (2001). Factors influencing Olympic
12
performance: Interviews with Atlanta and Nagano U.S. Olympians. Journal of
13
Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 179-209.
14
International Council for Coaching Excellence. (2013). International Sport Coaching
15
Framework 1.2. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
16
Jones, R. L., & Wallace, M. (2005). Another bad day at the training ground: Coping with
17
the ambiguity in the coaching context. Sport, Education and Society, 10, 119-134.
18
Kidman, L. (2005). Athlete-centred coaching. Innovative Print, Christchurch, NZ.
19
Kimiecik, J., & Gould, D. (1987). Coaching psychology: The case of James ‘Doc’
20
Counsilman. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 350–58.
21
Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. (2001). The making of a corporate athlete. Harvard Business
22
Review, January, 120–128.
23
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviour. Routledge:
24
London.
25
Olusoga, P., Butt, J., Hays, K., & Maynard, I. W. (2009). Stress in elite sports coaching:
26
Identifying stressors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 442–459.
27
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
34
Olusoga, P., Maynard, I., Hays, K., & Butt, J. (2012): Coaching under pressure: A study of
1
Olympic coaches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30, 229-239.
2
Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport Psychologist, 2,
3
105-130.
4
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand
5
Oaks, CA: Sage.
6
Potrac, P., Jones, R., & Armour, K. (2002). 'It's all about getting respect': The coaching
7
behaviours of an expert English soccer coach. Sport, Education, and Society, 7, 183-
8
202.
9
Potrac, P., Brewer, C., Jones, R., Armour, K., & Hoff, J. (2000). Towards a holistic
10
understanding of the coaching process. Quest, 52, 186-199.
11
Rupert, T., & Buschner, C. (1989). Teaching and coaching: A comparison of instructional
12
behaviors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 9, 49 – 57.
13
Schempp, P. G., & McCullick, B. (2010). Coaches’ expertise. In Lyle, J. & Cushion, C. (Eds.)
14
Sports coaching: Professionalisation and practice (pp. 221-232). Elsevier, London.
15
Smith, M., & Cushion, C. J. (2006). An investigation of the in-game behaviours of
16
professional, top-level youth soccer coaches, Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 355-
17
366.
18
19
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
35
Figure 1. Olympic and Paralympic track and field coaches’ roles and coaching
1
practices during major events.
2
3
4
5
6
7
COACHING DURING OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES
36
Appendix A. Interview Guide
1
Can you tell me about your coaching background?
2
What do you see your role during competition?
3
As the coach, what are you doing for the athlete?
4
As the coach, what are you doing for yourself?
5
What is your philosophy on what your role should be on the day and why is this?
6
Why do you take a particular approach, and how did it develop?
7
Can you tell me of a critical incident (moment) on competition day where you had to
8
make a decision that affected the athletes performance?
9
Can you give me an example of a successful outcome?
10
Why did you make that decision?
11
Can you give me an example an unsuccessful outcome?
12
Why did you make that decision?
13
How have you, the successful coach, developed your ability to coach successfully in an
14
Olympic environment?
15
16
