Search Results

The main purpose of this study was to examine the links of coach-athlete relationship (CAR) and perceived coach-created motivational climate to persistence in youth sport. A total of 1692 persistent and 543 withdrawn football, ice hockey, and basketball players, aged 15–16 years, completed the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire and the Perceived Motivational Climate Sport Questionnaire. Results indicated that persistent players reported higher scores in CAR and task-climate than withdrawn players. Persistent players also represented higher competition level, higher amount of training, and more years of involvement in sport than withdrawn players. Cluster analysis identified three profiles: 1) High CAR, high task climate, and moderate ego climate, 2) Moderate CAR, moderate task climate, and moderate ego climate, and 3) Low CAR, low task climate, and high ego climate. Differences between profiles were found in terms of relative proportion of continuing players, competition level, and amount of training. In all, Profile 1 appeared to be the most beneficial from the perspective of sport persistence. The present findings lend support for the view that coach-athlete relationship and motivational climate together can have implications for young athletes’ maintenance in organized sports.

The purpose of the current study was to provide insights in how and why four head coaches in elite football experienced being either high or low in burnout symptoms (BS) during a competitive season. A longitudinal sequential quantitative-qualitative mixed method approach was used to enhance the understanding of coaches’ experiences. First, data were collected using online questionnaires at the start and at the end of the competitive season with all coaches working at the Norwegian Elite Football League level. Second, in-depth interviews were conducted with four head coaches who were purposefully selected based on having the two highest and the two lowest burnout scores across the season compared with the overall sample. A quantitative approach was used to explore whether these four coaches differed when compared with the overall population on the associated variables: performance, budget, quality of motivation, perceived workload, work-home-interference (WHI), and recovery. A qualitative approach helped gain more insight in the experiences these four coaches had with possible onset variables. Analyses comparing the two sets of coaches, indicated no difference related to performance, budget and workload. However, the motivational profile, WHI, and ability to meet recovery demands were variables that contributed to explain differences in coaches’ BS.

The purposes of this study were to, (a) assess motivational experiences of performance enhancement tasks (PET) and administrative tasks (AT), and; (b) examine the relationships of emergent motivational experiences of each task type to coaches’ perceived stress and intentions to continue coaching. In total, 572 coaches completed an online survey, which assessed autonomy, competence, relatedness, and other characteristics of PET and AT, intentions to continue coaching, and perceived stress. Two separate exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted, one for AT and one for PET. This was followed up with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM to examine relationships between emerging factors and stress and intentions. The factors generated for PET reflected ideas of autonomy, time conflict, and satisfaction, and for AT also included competence, effort, and job requirements. The resulting experiences of AT and PET appear to have different influences on stress and intentions, suggesting their distinction will be important in future work examining coach retention.

Cross-domain relationships (CDRs) involve coaches knowing and caring about aspects of athletes’ lives beyond the sport context (e.g., family, school, relationships). Purposes of the current study included (a) comparing athletes’ levels of cross-domain relationships with head and assistant coaches, (b) evaluating gender, roster size, and sport type as correlates of CDRs with head and assistant coaches, and (c) examining relationships between CDRs with head and assistant coaches and motivational variables. Collegiate athletes (N = 294, 139 male, 155 female) completed surveys assessing study constructs. Results indicated that levels of CDRs with head coaches and assistant coaches did not differ. Male athletes had stronger CDRs with head coaches than female athletes did. While female athletes with female head coaches had moderate levels of CDRs with head coaches regardless of assistant coach gender, female athletes with male head coaches had stronger CDRs with head coaches when the assistant coach was female than when the assistant coach was male. Stronger CDRs with head coaches were related to greater perceived competence, enjoyment, and sport commitment, while CDRs with assistant coaches were not related. Findings suggest that researchers should not assume that CDRs with assistant and head coaches are similarly related to athletes’ motivational outcomes.

Little in-depth knowledge is known about the person behind successful coaching. Therefore, the current study was designed to comprehensively examine the personality of a successful Olympic coach. Using McAdams’ whole-person framework, we sought to elicit a coherent description of this coach’s personality by integrating data drawn from three layers of personality: (i) dispositional traits, (ii) personal strivings, and (iii) narrative identity. The findings suggest that, compared with the norm, the participant coach is emotionally stable, agreeable, conscientious, and open to new experiences. His achievement and power strivings shape his motivational agenda as a coach. His narrative identity identifies many redemptive sequences that speak of a coach who is seeking to redeem his failures as an athlete, to feel special, and who invests himself wholeheartedly into developing others to help fulfill their potential. Overall, the study, incorporating McAdams’ personality framework, provided a deep understanding of the person as a coach. We were able to garner insights about how this individual typically behaves, what guides and structures his coaching priorities, and how he has made sense of his life experiences that are fundamental to his investment in coaching and winning. Tentative implications for coaches and coach developers are presented.

The purpose of this study was to develop and deliver a humanistic coaching workshop, as well as investigate coaches’ perceptions of this workshop and their experiences using humanistic coaching. Participants were 12 coaches of grade 7–11 basketball teams from schools in low socioeconomic communities in a major Canadian city. Data were collected using semistructured interviews and personal journals. An inductive thematic analysis revealed coaches perceived the workshop to be effective in teaching the humanistic principles and how to apply them in youth sport settings. The perceived strengths of the workshop included the group discussions, use of videos, practical coaching examples, and learning about the findings from empirical studies. The participants applied the humanistic principles with their teams by asking questions that guided athlete learning and by requesting feedback about various individual and team matters. Despite facing challenges such as increased time and effort to implement humanistic coaching principles, the participants reported positive outcomes in their athletes related to autonomy, communication, motivation, and willingness to help teammates. These results are discussed using literature on youth sport coaching, knowledge translation, and youth development through sport. Findings from this study can be used to enhance youth sport coach training protocols.