The science of the coach-athlete relationship

Introduction

Athletes of all sports rely on an individual coach or a team of coaches to help prepare them for different levels of competition. The ability to perform with, or as, the best in sport can require decades of preparation, all guided by those with a finely developed expertise. Although straightforward, it is not as simple as pairing up the most talented to create the best outcome. Athletes and coaches bring different personality profiles, life experiences, preferences, and needs to the relationship. The interaction of these differences can create a long lasting, productive relationship or it can create a large amount of difficulty, friction, and resentment.

The coach-athlete relationship has received much attention in the scientific literature over the last few decades, with most of the research involving Dr. Sophia Jowett of Loughborough University. Her work has culminated in a model, the 3+1Cs, to understand and measure the quality of a coach-athlete relationship. This matters because it allows coaches, sport psychologists, and scientists to measure and compare the qualities of these dyads (i.e., the smallest social unit - two people), providing information for those who want to improve or replicate them. The specific model discussed in this article is called the 3+1Cs, with the Cs referencing closeness, complementarity, commitment, and co-orientation.

Starting Strong

Broadly speaking, a relationship is a lasting situation in which the people’s thoughts, feelings, and cognitions become interconnected (Jowett, 2005). The need for social connection is a powerful feature of our existence, with effective relationships creating self-efficacy, expanding cognitive abilities, promoting optimal performance, human flourishing, facilitating happiness, mental health, subjective well-being, socio-emotional and cognitive development, and self-esteem (LaVoi, 2007). An inability to form or maintain effective relationships can lead to emotional problems, and maladaptive, neurotic and destructive behaviors and negatively alter life pathways and developmental trajectories at critical timepoints (LaVoi, 2007). 

In sport, an athlete’s success hinges on their preparation, typically created and managed by the coach. The process of coach involvement occurs across a variety of timelines, including a few days up to a few decades. Kendrick Farris and Kyle Pierce are a notable example, with the American duo collaborating for three Olympic games, including Kendrick’s development preceding the first games. Other non-primary coaches may get touch points for camps, workshops, and short stints, but generally, we see the coach-athlete relationship spanning longer periods of time, as performance is an organic outgrowth of extended preparatory periods. 

The relationship an athlete creates with their coach is ultimately the key that opens the door to current or future success. There are many other relationships created during a sporting career, but very few hold more importance than the coach-athlete relationship. Depending on who you ask and what the level of competition is, success can be defined in a myriad of ways, ranging from championships or titles won to positive changes in the athlete’s physiology (i.e., greater force production, faster sprint times, improved skill acquisition). For higher levels of performance, this is the case, but common measures of success do not always create effective relationships, those extending beyond the practice field.

Parsing Out Success and Effectiveness

Coaching effectiveness can be thought of as the impact on the person, measured by the degree of positive growth and development, not solely defined by changes in physical mastery (Jowett, 2005). This form of coaching has undertones of empathy, honesty, support, mutual liking, acceptance, caring, and positive regard (Jowett, 2005). On the other hand, ineffectiveness in coaching is highlighted by a lack of care and interest, proximity, a power imbalance, deceit, and exploitation (Jowett, 2005). 

The distinction here between coaching success and effectiveness is necessary to differentiate the quality of the coach-athlete relationship. Overwhelmingly, the relationship can be effective, but unsuccessful, and still be beneficial over the long run. Although, that’s not to say that coaching success doesn’t matter, but it can fall short and still provide value to the dyad. Whereas coaching success, void of effectiveness, can be detrimental and restrict people from finding greater meaning in life. 

“Overall, an effective (successful or unsuccessful) coach-athlete relationship is a helping relationship where the coach intelligently uses his/her ‘power’ and has the intention to promote the growth, development, maturity and functioning of his/her athletes over and beyond performance success.” (Jowett, 2005)

The 3+1Cs

Being able to define, measure, and purposefully change the components of a relationship is of the utmost importance. Without those abilities, most relationships develop according to the needs, wants, and actions of the individuals involved. This is less likely to create a situation where both individuals thrive and are able to work towards optimal functioning, especially so in a sports setting. 

Jowett, through her research, created a conceptual model of the coach-athlete dyad, emphasizing four constructs (e.g., closeness, commitment, complementarity, and co-orientation). These constructs run in parallel with our previous definition of a relationship, where the people involved are interconnected through their thoughts, feelings, and cognitions. A thorough understanding of the constructs can allow for their appreciation, application, and adjustment.

Closeness

The first construct is closeness, defined here as a mutual liking, trust, and respect for one another (Jowett, 2007). Closeness encapsulates the affective component of a relationship, and, at its highest level, showcases a bond akin to a mother/father figure or close friend (Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006). Relationships without closeness display distrust, disrespect, and dislike (Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006). As far as what creates a feeling of closeness, work done by LaVoi (2007) showed that, by far, communication is the most salient dimension in a close relationship. To create a close relationship, emphasize communication on and off the playing field.

“In short, ‘communication affects and is affected by the coach-athlete relationship’ [41, p.11] and, for the purpose of this study, it appears as if communication affects and is affected by perceptions of closeness.” (LaVoi, 2007)

Commitment 

Commitment, as a construct, is defined as the long-term orientation to the relationship undertaken by the coach and athlete, including thoughts of attachment and intention to maintain the relationship over time, despite ups and downs (Jowett, 2007; Jowett, 2017). This is contrasted to relationships lacking in commitment, expressed in distance, unfriendliness, and detachment (Jowett, 2017). In sport, you are bound to face many difficulties which challenge both the coach and the athlete (e.g., injury, repeated failure, mental hurdles). Commitment acts as the driver through those challenging times, warranting the energy and effort to push forward.

Behaviors that seem to reflect and drive commitment include the tendency to think in terms of “we, us, our”, the drive to accommodate disappointing behavior instead of retaliating, and the urge to perceive a particular relationship as being better than other coach-athlete relationships (Jowett, 2007). Coaches and athletes in more committed relationships are likely to use motivational strategies to stay invested in the dyad (i.e., providing reasons to stay in the current relationship), along with assurance that their partner can count on them (Davis, Jowett & Tafvelin, 2019). Commitment can be improved through the development and reinforcement of the dyad, seeing each other as a person you would be willing to fight for despite ups and downs in performance or related situations (e.g., injury). 

Complementarity

Complementarity is a construct centered around the interaction between the coach and athlete that are co-operative and effective, guided by behavioral properties such as being responsive, friendly, and willing (Jowett, 2005). The behaviors displayed through this construct are reciprocal in terms of control and affiliation (i.e., assigning and executing on responsibilities, creating a training environment that is supportive) (Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006). Although, actions reflective of more or less complementarity can indicate the degree to which a member contributes to the relationship (e.g., taking resources, but not providing them) (Jowett, 2007). 

Work by Jowett and Meek (2000) examined the coach-athlete relationship dynamic of four married couples, who also form coach-athlete dyads. The results, particularly those examining complementarity, showed higher and more general second-order factors relating to the relationship. For the studied couples, the interpersonal behaviors reflected that of a director and follower, sustaining order in the procedures and task-oriented environment (Jowett & Meek, 2000). The second-order factors referred to “helping transactions”, initiating a cascade where influence is needed, wanted, and then supplied (Jowett & Meek, 2000). This highlights the ways that coaches can complement athletes (e.g., supplying inspiration that is deeply desired) or that athletes can complement coaches (e.g., executing on instructions).

To improve complementarity, find what the other person needs, wants, and provides. Those opportunities and values can be fulfilled, enhancing the quality of the relationship.

“The following quotation is representative of how the majority of athletes perceived the inspirational side of their coach: ‘He gives me the courage that I can accomplish the unthinkable. His way of asking and supporting, with such confidence, alters what I thought unachievable to achievable.’” (Jowett & Meek, 2000)

Co-orientation

This construct refers to the degree of similarity between the coach and athlete, from an assumed perspective, an actual perspective, and an empathetic understanding (Jowett, 2007). The dimensions also assume a direct and meta perspective, reflecting how the coach and athlete feel about their self-perceptions and meta-perceptions (e.g., ‘my coach trusts me’ is a meta-perception of closeness) (Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006). Here are direction and meta perspectives of the three dimensions:

Assumed similarity, direct and meta perspective (Jowett, 2007):

A: I respect my coach. / A: My coach respects me. 

C: I respect my athlete. / C: My athlete respects me.

Actual similarity, direct perspective (Jowett, 2007):

C: I like my athlete. / A: I like my coach.

Empathetic understanding, direct and meta perspective (Jowett, 2007):

C: I trust my athlete. / A: My coach trusts me.

A: I trust my coach. / C: My athlete trusts me.

A = Athlete, C = Coach

These particular dimensions contribute to the depth of interdependence the relationship expresses. Dyads expressing similarity from each dimension highlight high levels of potential interdependence, whereas with low levels of similarity, there is likely to be low interdependence (Jowett, 2007). 

Relationships expressing high degrees of similarity and understanding are likely to experience higher levels of relationship satisfaction (Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006). Whereas the inverse holds, and lower levels of similarity and understanding facilitate an ineffective relationship when conflict, disagreement, and false impressions arise (Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006). The creation and maintenance of co-orientation starts with an appreciation for what the individual wants, and an alignment between that and the partner’s needs, wants, and hopes. 

“These studies also suggest that a single person’s experiences and perceptions are in some sense social and that individual perceivers are capable of creating potential for relationship change (for better or worse) based on their personal experiences and perceptions.

(Jowett & Clark-Carter, 2006)

Summary

The purpose of this article is to expose coaches and athletes to the constructs underpinning all coach-athlete dyads. Relationships, particularly those in sport, rely on an ability to interpret and anticipate the other person’s thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. Four constructs put forth by Jowett (2005), closeness, commitment, complementarity, and co-orientation, provide an avenue to develop, diagnose, repair, and/or replicate relationships. The degree to which these constructs are realized, provide a platform for both sporting success and effectiveness. An inability to understand and act on this information can be limiting, just as an inability to assume a meta perspective can leave both parties in a state of confusion (e.g., “I don’t think the coach likes me”). The proper care for and development of these constructs have the potential to create a cycle of sporting and personal flourishing.

References

Davis, L., Jowett, S., Tafvelin, S. (2019) Communication Strategies: The Fuel for Quality Coach-Athlete Relationships and Athlete Satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2156.

Jowett, S. (2005). On Enhancing and Repairing the Coach-Athlete Relationship, in: Jowett, S. and Jones, M., eds., The Psychology of Coaching (pp. 14-26). British Psychological Society, Leicester.

Jowett, S. (2007). Interdependence Analysis and the 3+1Cs in the Coach-Athlete Relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social Psychology in Sport (pp. 15–27). Human Kinetics.

Jowett, S. (2017). Coaching effectiveness: the coach-athlete relationship at its heart. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 154-158.

Jowett, S., Clark-Carter, D. (2006). Perceptions of empathic accuracy and assumed similarity in the coach–athlete relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 617-637.

LaVoi, N. M. (2007). Expanding the interpersonal dimension: Closeness in the coach-athlete relationship. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2(4), 497-512.

Rhind, D., Jowett, S. (2010). Relationship Maintenance Strategies in the Coach-Athlete Relationship: The Development of the COMPASS Model, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 106-121.