Coach-Athlete Relationship Model

Coach-Athlete race ModelIntroductionThe cultivate- jock race is widely recognised as one of the most important interpersonal affinitys in sport (Jowett and Cockerill, 2002 Lyle, 1999). In the past, coaching foc enjoymentd largely on improving the physical and proficient skills of the athletic patronizeer however, more recently, the importance of developing the athletes psychosocial skills has to a fault been acknowledged (Miller and Kerr, 2002). It is now accepted that the behaviours, thoughts and emotions of the coach and athlete be interconnected, with both(prenominal) someones having a mutual appreciation and respect for distributively some other (Jowett and Meek, 2000 Philippe and Seiler, 2006). The briny goal of the coach-athlete dyad is to produce an outcome of improved, high performance from the athlete, and the persona of this relationship can impact significantly on whether successful outcomes are achieved. The aim of this paper is to review published evidence o n the nature and dynamics of the coach-athlete relationship and the potential sour of significant others on this dyad.conceptual manakins to investigate the dynamics of the coach-athlete relationshipTraditionally, the dynamics between coach and athlete have been studied from the berth of coaching croakership (Jowett, 2005). The earlier models which provided a conceptual framework for this query include the Mediational model (Smoll and Smith, 1989), the Multidimensional model (Chelladurai, 1993) and the Coaching model (Ct, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, Russell, 1995). These models focus on the behaviours of the coach, perceptions of these behaviours, and the impact of much(prenominal) behaviours on outcome variables such as performance and satisfaction. A itemise of newer conceptual models have been developed which also largely have a behavioural focus (Jowett and Cockerill, 2002 Mageau and Vallerand, 2003 Poczwardowski, Barott, Peregoy, 2002 Wylleman, 2000). Worthy of note is the Motivational model proposed by Mageau and Vallerand (2003), which whitethorn be of value in the study of inspirational motivation, a recent focus of leadership question. This considers whether an several(prenominal) shows an exceptional ability to lead others to higher performance levels and/or provide inspiration through the use of clear principles and goals, and has been shown to be a strongly associated with athletes level of satisfaction with their coach (Gomes, Sousa, Cruz, 2006). It can be argued that a major limitation of all these models is that they stag to consider the non-behavioural aspects of the coach-athlete relationship (e.g. thoughts and emotions) which may also be importance influencers of the speciality and success of this relationship.The 3Cs and Co-orientation modelsThe Closeness, Commitment and Complementarity (3Cs) conceptual model developed by Jowett and colleagues incorporates both behavioural and non-behavioural atoms of the coach-athlete dyad, and r eflects the relational aspects of emotions, cognitions and behaviours, respectively (Jowett, 2002 Jowett, 2003 Jowett and Cockerill, 2002 Jowett and Meek, 2000). An additional interpersonal construct, co-orientation, has also been evaluated and is include in the Co-orientation model (Jowett, 2006 Jowett and Clark-Carter, 2006). This adds another dimension by considering coaches and athletes perceptions astir(predicate) each other from three different aspects actual similarity, put on similarity and sympathetic understanding (Jowett, 2005). Both the 3Cs and Co-orientation models have been pivotal in recent research investigating the nature of the coach-athlete dyad from the perspective of the athlete in individual sports including swimming (Philippe and Seiler, 2006 Poczwardowski, Barott, Jowett, 2006).Analysing the nature of the coach-athlete relationshipIn addition to their own perspective on the coach-athlete relationship, both segments of the dyad willing also form perceptio ns of how the other member views the relationship. Laing and colleagues (1966) first proposed the terms direct perspective (i.e. the individuals own perspective) and meta-perspective (the individuals perception of the other dyad members perspective). More recently, Kenny and Acitelli (2001) developed a method of measuring the trueness of these perceptions (Kenny and Acitelli, 2001). A study using this methodology has investigated empathic truth and fictitious similarity in perceptions of tightness, commitment and complementarity in the coach-athlete relationship (Jowett and Clark-Carter, 2006). Findings showed that empathic accuracy and assumed similarity were evident in both coach and athlete perceptions however, athletes were more accurate in identifying their coaches feelings in terms of closeness, while in newer relationships, both members showed higher levels of empathic accuracy.Communication is another important component of the coach-athlete dyad (Jowett, 2003 Phillipe an d Seiler, 2006). Studies have show that stiff communication promotes a shared out understanding of the importance of key issues between both dyad members and may therefore reduce the likelihood of problems or conflict occurring within the relationshipThe Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) is a self-report instrument developed to explore the nature of the coach-athlete relationship by examining closeness, commitment and complementarity from a meta-perspective (Jowett and Ntoumanis, 2004). The robustness, internal consistency and reliability of this questionnaire were demonstrated in 2 independent samples of British coaches-athlete dyads. More recently, a classic language version of the questionnaire (GrCART-Q) has been developed, together with a modified version incorporating co-orientation (Jowett, 2006). The validity and reliability of both versions of this questionnaire were confirmed in a sample of coach-athlete dyads from individual sports (Jowett, 2006).Effec tive versus successful coach-athlete relationshipsWhen considering the nature of the coach-athlete dyad, it is important to distinguish between effective and successful relationships. Effective relationships are underpinned by values such as empathy, support, acceptance, respect and responsiveness (Jowett and Cockerill, 2003 Jowett and Meek, 2000). While these undoubtedly provide positive psychosocial benefits for the athlete, they will not necessarily improve performance. In contrast, successful relationships are ones in which a measure of performance success has been achieved, although these may not always be effective in nature (Jowett, 2005).The influence of significant others on the coach-athlete relationshipIt has been suggested that the coach-athlete relationship should not be considered solely as two members of the dyad working together, but also should also take enumerate of the influence of significant others. For example, some believe that coach leadership may be a shar ed function rather than a habit taken on by the coach alone (Jowett, 2005 Jowett and Chaundy, 2004) while in the national of children, parents and other family members may play an important role in the development and success of the athlete (Cheng, Marsh, Dowson, Martin, n.d.).To conclude, there is a considerable soundbox of literature investigating the nature and dynamics of the coach-athlete dyad and those factors which may influence the development, effectiveness and success of this important relationship.ReferencesChelladurai, P. (1993). lead. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, L. K. Tennant (Eds.) Handbook on research on sport psychology. New York MacMillan.Cheng, J. H. S., Marsh, H. W., Dowson, M. Martin, A. J. (n.d.) Exploring the effect of relationship dynamics of support on gymnasts and figure skaters self-concept, education and psychological resilience a research proposal. Retrieved 5 July, 2008 from http//www.aare.edu.au/05pap/che05309.pdfCt, J., Salmela, J. H., Trudel, P. , Baria, A. Russell, S. (1995). The coaching model A grounded appraisal of expert gymnastic coaches knowledge. ledger of magnetic declination and Exercise psychological science, 17, 117.Gomes, A. R., Sousa, S. A. Cruz, J. F. (2006). Charismatic, trnasformational and grotesque dimensions in sport leadership towards new paths for the study of coach-athletes relationships. In N. S. Huber M. Harvey (Eds.). Leadership at the crossroads. University of Maryland The James MacGregor Burns Academy of Leadership.Jowett, S. Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Incompatibility in the coach-athlete relationship. In I. M. Cockerill (Ed.) Solutions in Sport Psychology. London Thomson Learning.Jowett, S. Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medallists perspective of the athlete-coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 31331.Jowett, S. Chaundy, V. (2004). An investigation into the impact of coach leadership and coach-athlete relationship on group adhesion. Group Dynamics Theory, Research and Practice, 8, 30211.Jowett, S. Clark-Carter, D. (2006). Perceptions of empathic accuracy and assumed similarity in the coach-athlete relationship, British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 617-37.Jowett, S. Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine Science in Sports, 14, 24557.Jowett, S. (2002). The coach-athlete questionnaire and dyad maps (Research Monograph No. 1). Staffordshire School of Health, Staffordshire University.Jowett, S. (2003). When the honeymoon is over a case study of a coachathlete dyad in crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 44460.Jowett, S. (2005). The coach-athlete partnership. The Psychologist, 18, 4125.Jowett, S. (2006,). Interpersonal and structural features of Greek coachathlete dyads performing in individual sports. Journal of use Sport Psychology, 18, 6981.Jowett, S. Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Incompatibility in the coach-athlete relationship. In I. M. C ockerill (Ed.) Solutions in sport psychology. London Thomson Learning.Jowett, S. Meek, G. A. (2000). The coach-athlete relationship an exploratory limit analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 15775.Kenny, D. A. Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in perceptions of the partner in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 43948.Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H. Lee, A.R. (1966). Interpersonal Perception. Baltimore Perennial Library.Lyle, J. (1999). Coaching doctrine and coaching behaviour. In N. Cross J. Lyle (eds.) The coaching process principles and get along for sport. Oxford Butterworth-Heineman.Mageau, G. A. Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship a motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883904.Miller, P. S. Kerr, G. A. (2002). Conceptualising evidence past, present and future. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 14053.Philippe, R. A. Seiler, R. (2006). Closeness, co-orientation and complementarity in coach-a thlete relationships What male swimmers say about their male coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 15971.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, 98115.Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J. E. Jowett, S. (2006). Diversifying approaches to research on athlete coach relationships. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 12542.Smoll, F. L. Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviours in sport a theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 152251.Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport uncharted territory in sport psychology. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 55572.