Coaching in the 21st century: Issues, concerns and solutions

Bennett J. Lombardo

Rhode Island College, USA

Sport systems need to be restructured and become congruent with the changing characteristics of athletes as the 21st century approaches. Current practice is dominated by the interests of the coach and precludes attention to the goals of the performers. Another concern relates to the need for coaching leadership which is more responsive to athletes emerging from newly evolved family configurations. No longer will highly structured, coach centred approaches coincide with skills and abilities of the athletes and the organisations that sponsor them. This article will review the educational models of sport, models which can respond not only to the emergent needs of performers of the new millennium, but also be responsive to other aspects of society which will require individuals who can think for themselves, analyse situations and respond appropriately, independently, and wisely. Sport must capitalise on its educational nature and assist in the development of capable thinkers as well as competent movers.

There is a great need for sport systems to be restructured as society moves into a new millennium. Currently sport is dominated by the needs and interests of the coach, by a system that I will refer to as the "Professional Model of Coaching" (Sage, 1973 ). This model limits attention to the needs, concerns, and goals of the performers, especially in those sport arenas supposedly justified by their contributions to the growth and development of the athletes (i.e., sport systems located within educational organisations). Another concern relates to the need for coaching leadership which is more responsive to the changes manifested in society. Specifically, the following societal trends would seem to have great import for those professionals working with young people:

1. The freedom of youth today, regardless of socio-economic status.
2. The time young people have unsupervised directly by an adult.
3. The frequent opportunity provided young people to make unmonitored personal decisions (e.g., food choices; TV programming; activity selections).
4. Access to money that many of our young people have.
5. The pressure to specialise in sport at an early age and the concurrent reduction in "multiple sport" athletes. Concurrent with this trend is the increasing emergence of twelve month sport training programs (e.g. indoor and outdoor soccer; summer ice hockey programs; fall baseball).
6. The reduction in public school and/or publicly funded athletic opportunities (e.g., In American schools the reduction in gymnastics programs because of both financial and liability concerns).
7. The facility with which individuals can enter the coaching profession (e.g., the "rent-a-coach" phenomenon; "walk-on" coaches; uncertified and inexperienced coaches).

Thirty or forty years ago coaching behaviour (which by all accounts has changed little if at all during this time period) was very much in-step and congruent with the other socialising agencies and institutions available to young people in our society. The powerful socialising agencies of the 1950s and 1960s, the religious institutions, the educational institutions, the family, the legal system, the political system, etc., were organised and operated from a very strong authoritative foundation, that is, almost wholly non- permissive, restrictive, and with the backing of the majority of adults in society. Regardless of their specific impact, athletics, coaches, coaching behaviour, and sport systems were very much in step and congruent with the societal imperatives of that time. However, for those who matured in the 1960s and 1970s, and for others who were in positions of authority at that time, it is understood that times really did change in many significant ways. Society, as manifested in the authority of these socialising institutions became, for better or worse, more permissive, open, relaxed, less restrictive, etc. Questioning and challenging authority, demands for accountability at every turn, openness, appeals for leniency and the lack of loyalty are more readily accepted today.

It is important, at this time, to examine aspects of family living in this era. As many authorities regularly remind us, families of the 1990s have two parents working and out of the house for significant amounts of time (Hellison, 1985; Lawson, 1997; Clifford and Feezell,1997; Martinek, 1997). Also, households more and more include only one parent, usually the mother. Often this female parent is herself a teenager. Neighbourhoods are not as permanent, stable, nor full of known loved ones, family, and friends (or at least that is the perception). In short, youngsters spend a lot of time alone, or in the company of their peers, and are provided numerous opportunities for personal, private, and unsupervised decision- making on their own and /or in the company of other immature, still-developing, young, inexperienced peers (Hellison, 1985; Lawson, 1997).

Yet, sport systems, and coaching behaviour have resisted many of these changes and in the late twentieth century, often remains out of step and incongruent with many athletes and their individual situations and lifestyle. Specifically, coaching behaviour derived and/or founded upon assumptions of the Professional Model of Coaching and Sport, is not congruent with the expectations, needs, assumptions, interests, and characteristics of many of the athletes of the 21st Century.

Young athletes accustomed to making many of their own decisions, arrive at the ball field, supervised by an adult, fully aware that the adults will make all the meaningful decisions. This often places young athletes on unfamiliar ground. What is going on here? Who is in charge? At home, when I am alone and/or with my buddies I make my own decisions. There is the potential for much disagreement and certainly conflict.

A second force driving the need to reassess the contributions and roles played by participation in sport are the needs and expectations of adults as the new century approaches. Society in the coming years will expect that adults will demonstrate a more flexible intellectual ability, accompanied by reflective behaviour and analytical competencies. All aspects of education, including the sport experience, will be expected to contribute to these goals. A recent example occurred in 1996 when The National Association of Secondary School Principals have put forth this very notion, specifically stating:

Essentially, all activities carried out under the aegis of a high school should be viewed in terms of their potential contribution to the school's overall goals for young people. This imperative applies to athletics and clubs as much as it does to student government and publications. (p.18)

A third motivational force driving the need to reassess coaching leadership derives from the status of current coaching behaviour in general. One needs only to periodically read the newspapers to learn of the most recent atrocious coaching behaviour.

A review of recent headlines will support this notion:

"Players Say Coach Tried to Make them Lesbians" (The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 24, 1998);
"Mass. Swim Coach Arrested in N.J., Held on Child Sexual Assault Charges"(The Providence Journal Bulletin, January 11, 1999);
"Rumors fly that bribes given to youth players" (The Providence Journal Bulletin, April 20, 1995);
"Coach in Abuse Case is Shot by Girl's Father" (New York Sunday Times, October, 1993);
"Coach Pleads Innocent After On-ice Brawl" (The Providence Journal Bulletin, October 26, 1997);
"Coach Resigns in wake of 'motivational' shooting" (The Providence Journal Bulletin, November 25,1993);
"N.C. Soccer Coach denies suit charges, Ex-UNC player cites 'uninvited contact' " "(The USA TODAY, August 26, 1998).

These extreme, albeit regularly occurring incidents, in combination with the major changes in society in recent years should have professionals in sport and coaching concerned about the future of athletics as a viable and educational venture. What solutions are available and how can concerned professionals respond?

It is important to keep in mind that coaches remain quite powerful in the lives of their athletes and can be very influential in the lives of young people. Indeed, coaches must be effective since they are and will always be role models for youth and simultaneously, powerful socialising agents. Some athletes spend considerably more time with the adult- coach than any other adult in their life. A seven day practice schedule for two hours per day, provides that adult with extensive contact time and an opportunity to greatly impact on the lives of young people. Coaches must come to the realisation that they are major players in the general development of their athletes. This is magnified and intensified more so in school settings, when these sporting activities are intended to be educational and growth promoting. Coaches must be fully cognisant of these issues, these expectations, and these heavy demands on their performance, in several domains of learning. With this recognition hopefully will come the understanding of the full scope of their responsibilities, well beyond the "Xs" and "Os" !

What choices are available to coaches? How can coaches address the changing nature of their athletes, within a changing society as we approach the year 2000?

Several broad possible courses of action will be outlined next. All three should provide some assistance to responsible leaders of sport as the new century approaches.

There are several options available to concerned leaders of sport. These options, categorised as educational models of sport leadership, contrast markedly with the seemingly pervasive professional model of sport and coaching behaviour. It is important first to have a clear understanding of the specific aspects of the professional model of sport. Often considered the standard (or traditional) model of coaching behaviour, the professional model can be defined as a program of coaching leadership which is centred on winning, the attainment of specific psychomotor outcomes, and the general interests of the coach. Learning and development in both the cognitive and affective domains tend to be secondary, incidental, and not major concerns. The professional model is one that is coach-centred, with an authoritarian emphasis framed within a rigid, inflexible structure. All decisions are made by the adult- coach and the team is viewed as belonging to the coach. Other characteristics include an externally imposed conformity, a strong group focus and a definite product orientation, that is, a powerful emphasis on competition and winning. The professional model also does not pretend to aspire to educational outcomes, but rather stresses learning and enhanced motor proficiency vehicles to improved performance and thereby enhancing the chance for victory.

This professional model is very appropriate at the professional level, in which there is little pretence or concern for the growth and development of the performers. It is very appropriate at the professional level where winning often is the only outcome which justifies the actions of the sport leader. It is, however, grossly inappropriate for all sport ventures organised and conducted within educational institutions. These latter groups are very vocal in their efforts to proclaim that sport is a vehicle which can enhance the growth and development of the participants. If this is indeed the case, and this writer firmly believes that the sport experience is definitely a growth promoting experience for all participants, then the next three models of sport leadership (i.e., the educational models) are much more appropriate.

The general education model of coaching has as its focus the growth and development of its participants. Typically this is a program in which regular and intense instruction is provided for the athletes, but growth and development is often limited to that which occurs in the psychomotor domain only (e.g., sport skills and fitness). Coaches provide relevant instruction and athletes learn how to play the game. Learning in the cognitive and subjective domains tends not to receive much attention. The minimal time devoted to learning in these latter areas often is unintentional and incidental. The coach remains the primary decision maker and the team is viewed as an extension of the coach.

The humanistic model of athletic coaching is an educational model devoted to the total development of the individual. It is athlete-centred, and focused on enhancing the self-awareness, and growth and development (across three domains of learning) of the participant. Based upon the seminal work of Maslow (1962) and Rogers (1969), the humanistic model addresses the whole person who is the athlete and encourages athletes to reflect upon the subjective experience of sport. In this model, sport experiences are used as vehicles to enhance the individual's self-understanding and personal development. The humanistic model has been delineated specifically in the works of Hellison (1973), Sage (1973), Lombardo (1987), and Lombardo et al (1995). The goals of the athletes take precedence over those of the coach. Coaches are authentic, real, and value all the participants. The coach encourages and supports athletes as they develop into authentic and valued adults. Humanistic coaches are empathetic and never forget what it was like to be a sports performer. Athletes are expected to analyse, think and make important decisions. To facilitate the attainment of these outcomes, humanistic coaches ask many questions, require athletes to figure out strategies and the underlying reasons for both motor and team performances. Athletes and their thoughts are important and critical to the functioning of the team, and as such, athletes' must be given opportunities to be heard. The coach must be an active listener. Both coaches and athletes study, celebrate, and learn from their individual, subjective encounters with sport. The affective development of the performers is regularly addressed by the coach. Athletes within humanised sport systems, as a result, get excited and remain enthusiastic about sport. The team is viewed as a co-operative group, albeit the coach cannot fully relinquish the responsibilities inherent in his/her assignment as the adult leader.

It should be obvious that the humanistic model requires a major shift in the thinking and actions of sport leaders. However, such changes would make sport much more congruent with the needs of the athletes and also respond to the demands of society in the 21st century.

The invitational model of coaching, adapted from the work of Purkey (1991) and his colleagues, provides leaders of sport with yet another viable alternative to the professional model of sport leadership. The invitational approach is an educational model which focuses on the presentation of positive, encouraging invitations to all participants. It is characterised by a sincere optimism for the performers, trust in the capabilities of the athletes, respect for all individuals connected to the sport experience, and an intention to be a positive force in the development of our youth. Broadest in scope of the three educational models, invitational coaching attempts to ensure that all aspects of the experience are inviting, including the people running the programs (e.g., coaches should be inviting in their behaviour), programs, policies, processes, and procedures (e.g., the process of team formation, selection of players), and places in which sport is conducted (e.g., clean and pleasant environment for sport participation; safety equipment; ventilation). Its goal is to create a total sport environment that intentionally summons people in sport to realise their relatively boundless potential in all areas of worthwhile human endeavours (Purkey and Stanley, 1991).

Chandler's (1988) analysis provides further delineation of the invitational model. Invitational thinking, when applied to sport results in an athlete-centred, process-oriented experience, versus the usual emphasis on the outcome or product of the competition (i.e., winning) . There is a major emphasis on the invitations resulting in strengthened self-concept of the participants and a simultaneous focus on providing successful sport experiences for the athletes. Also, the invitational approach respects everyone in the sport setting, including vendors, officials, coaches, players and spectators. Invitational coaching leadership requires coaches and sport leaders to value human potential, in a manner similar to that of the humanistic approach, and thereby coaches are required to transform this belief into a positive, growth- promoting experience for all performers.

The invitational approach to coaching provides yet another viable alternative to the professional model of sport leadership. Along with the other educational models (i.e., the general educational and humanistic models), the invitational model provides coaches with some options and possible variations to traditional coaching behaviour.

As the year 2000 approaches, it is imperative that sport remains within educational systems. In order to maintain its current position, coaches as leaders of the sport experience, will be asked to do more, and to contribute in more powerful and direct ways to the learning of their athletes. In addition, in the near future the public will require sport to account for its specific effects and justify its place within the educational hierarchy. This article has outlined several possible alternatives for those individuals who lead our youth through the many, varied sport experiences. These alternative models can assist not only in documenting the many positive effects of the sport experience, but also make the experience more potent for the athletes. The alternatives presented here can assist in efforts to modify and change sport so that it better fulfils its promise, and helps develop youngsters who are better equipped to face the realities of the new millennium.

Chandler, Gary L. (1988). Invitational physical education: Strategies for junior high school. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. 59(4),68-72.

Clifford, C & Feezell, R. (1997). Coaching for character: Reclaiming the principles of sportsmanship. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics, Publishers.

Hellison, D. R. (1973). Humanistic physical education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Hellison, D. R. (1985). Goals and strategies for teaching physical education. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.

Lawson, Hall A. (1997). Children in crisis, the helping professions, and the social responsibilities of universities. Quest, 49 (1), 8-33.

Lombardo, B. J. (1987). The humanistic coach: From theory to practice. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.

Lombardo, B. J., Mancini V. H. & Wuest. D. A. (1995). The humanistic sport experience: Visions and realities. Dubuque, Iowa: Brown and Benchmark, Publishers.

Martinek, T. J. (1997). Serving underserved youth through physical activity. Quest. 49 (1), 3-7.

Maslow, A. (1962). Towards a psychology of being. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1996 ). Breaking ranks: Changing an American institution. A report of the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the Carnegie Foundation.

Purkey, W. W. & Stanley, P. H. (1991). Invitational teaching, learning, and living. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill.

Sage, G. H. (1978). Humanistic psychology and coaching. In, Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete behaviour. William F. Straub (Editor). Ithaca, NY: Movement Publications, pp.148-161.

Copyright sociology of sport online, 1999