Incorporating Professional and Executive Coaching with Sport Coaching

Authors: Jonathan Armold

Corresponding Author:
Jonathan Armold
1721 Riviera Drive
Plano TX, 75034
Jarmold24@gmail.com
954-261-8851

Jonathan Armold is a current professional baseball coach in the Texas Rangers baseball organization. He has graduated with a Master’s Degree in Organizational Behavior with a specialty in Professional and Executive Coaching from the University of Texas at Dallas.

Incorporating Professional and Executive Coaching with Sport Coaching

ABSTRACT
Sport coaching has long been a very traditional and dogmatic field that is often directive-oriented with a base of instruction that is very “one-size fits all.” Undoubtedly, there have been incredible improvements in the past couple of decades as it relates to sport and exercise sciences; our physical training methods and techniques have been enhanced as we develop world-class athletes at higher and higher levels. While the systems and methods for athletes’ physical development have been improved by coaches, the traditional method of coaching has remained somewhat unchanged. Through my own experiences as a former amateur and professional athlete, as well as a former amateur and current professional coach, sports athletes are often very specifically told what to do and how to do it, rather than allowed the freedom to learn and discover for themselves. While this type of coaching and instruction still may lead to success, as indicated by the wide number of professional athletes across multiple sports who have been coached and instructed in such a fashion, it is my contention that this coaching model is neither the most effective nor the most enjoyable for the athlete. Contrary to the generic, traditional method of coaching that occurs in sport coaching, executive and professional coaching is an inquiry-based approach to personal and professional development that aims to allow for self-discovery and awareness, eventually creating action and growth.

Keywords: sport coaching, professional coaching, executive coaching, coaching tools, athletes, coaches

INTRODUCTION
The specific problem addressed by this project is a need for more informed and effective sport coaching. Through the project, the differences between directive-based coaching (traditional sport coaching) and inquiry-based coaching (professional/executive coaching) have been investigated, with the potential benefits of using professional/executive coaching tools as a basis for sport coaching examined and analyzed, as well as the impact to the player-coach relationship therein. Prior to the project’s completion, one may have hypothesized that when sport coaches use these tools as a basis for their coaching, whether intentional or not, it creates both a happier player-coach relationship and environment, improving learning, engagement, and ‘buy-in’ in the process. The outcome from this project may help to shed some light on the benefits of professional/executive tools, in particular listening and inquiring rather than the mere telling that is so prevalent in the field of sport coaching. Ultimately, I believe this project’s contribution will help to identify improved practices for more effective sport coaching, providing insight based on the findings for “coaching coaches”, leaving room for potential impact within the field of organizational behavior, the professional/executive coaching profession, as well as the sport coaching profession.

METHODS
In conducting this project, directive-based and inquiry-based coaching styles and their impact therein were compared and contrasted, primarily by surveying players. While the differences between the two coaching styles can be easily stated, their impact on both players and coaches has not been thoroughly diagnosed. While might be obvious to say that a positive player-coach relationship would be beneficial both on and off-the-field, this investigation and analysis may help to describe some general coaching behaviors that are perceived as more conducive to creating better relationships as well as an improved environment, specifically from a player’s perspective. Through surveying and interviewing players, this project subjectively allowed for performance and relational variances to appear between the different coaching styles as it was discovered how impactful, albeit beneficial or detrimental, they were.

It was believed to be outside of the scope of this project and analysis to include specific on-field results such as wins-and-losses or in-game statistics based on coaching style, primarily due to wide variances in the chief predictor of on-field performance – talent. In spite of this, analysis was available based upon the individual athlete’s opinion on the translation of coaching impact to on-field results. Beyond this aspect, it can may be inferred that the impact on player/coach relationships, environment, and engagement will positively or negatively impact on-field performance. With this information at hand, we may draw conclusions in an effort to identify some better and best practices that can inform more effective sport coaching.

Participants
Two different surveys were used for research; therefore there were two groups of participants with some overlap therein. Participants from Survey #1 were 21 athletes (all males ranging in age from 21 to 30 years), all with at least collegiate baseball playing experience and many with professional playing experience as well. Participants from Survey #2 were 50 athletes (all males ranging in age from 16 to 30 years), all with at least high-school baseball experience and many with collegiate or professional playing experience. All participants are acquaintances of the researcher and know the researcher as a baseball coach.

Measures
Survey #1
Participants of Survey #1 were asked to describe three different sport coaches they encountered in an effort to analyze their coaching styles. With 21 athletes surveyed, there was an analysis of 63 coaches. Each survey consisted of seven questions for each coach described (totaling twenty one questions regarding specific coaches) and three general questions in order to describe the participant’s personal preferences. Questions were primarily subjective in nature and of short answer or paragraph format.

Survey #2
Participants of Survey #2 were asked to analyze three separate coaches; one coach that created a positive experience, one coach that created a negative experience, and one coach that created a neutral experience for the athlete. With 50 athletes surveyed, there was an analysis of 150 coaches (50 positive, 50 negative, 50 neutral). Questions within the survey utilized a “Scale from 1-10” format, allowing for more data-type responses that could be grouped and analyzed. Each survey consisted of seven questions for each coach described (totaling twenty one questions).

Procedure
Survey #1
Surveys were sent via e-mail to each participant individually with responses being sent directly back to the researcher upon completion. The following was explicated at the beginning of the survey: “Please answer the following survey questions as truthfully and honestly as you can, analyzing three sport coaches you have encountered and their coaching styles. The information provided will be kept confidential and you do not need to name or describe each Coach, outside of the descriptors of their coaching styles. Understand that these answers are meant to be subjective and should be your opinion as the athlete.”

Participants started with one coach (named Coach X for confidentiality and clarity purposes) and were asked the following questions:

  1. How would you describe your relationship with Coach X? Positive? Negative? Please explain.
  2. About what percentage of the time did this coach DIRECT you (meaning he specifically told you what to do, what to feel, and/or how to do it)? (instructed to circle/highlight your answer, with percentages ranging from 0 to 100% in increments of 10%)
  3. About what percentage of the time did this coach ASK you (meaning he tried to find what you felt, what you were trying to do, and/or how you were trying to do it)? (instructed to circle/highlight your answer, with percentages ranging from 0 to 100% in increments of 10%)
  4. What other coaching strategies did this coach use?
  5. What kinds of influence or coaching from Coach X did you enjoy the most or were most-effective?
  6. What kinds of influence or coaching from Coach X did you enjoy the least or were least-effective?
  7. How did Coach X’s coaching support (help or hurt) your on-field performance? Explain.

After completing the first set of questions for Coach X, they would go on to answer the very same set of questions for a second and third coach (nicknamed Coach Y and Coach Z respectively).

The final three questions of Survey #1 were more personal and preference-related in nature, asking participants to describe their preferred (or not preferred) timing and method of coaching/feedback:

  1. When, specifically, do you not like being TOLD information (as it relates to sport)?
  2. When, specifically, do you not like being ASKED questions (as it relates to sport)?
  3. Where/when do you believe you would benefit from non-directive coaching (meaning, less input or telling from the coach and more guidance from the coach)? Describe the situation.

Survey #2
Surveys were sent via e-mail to each participant individually with responses being sent directly back to the researcher upon completion. The following was explained at the beginning of the survey: “Please answer the following survey questions as truthfully and honestly as you can, analyzing three sport coaches you have encountered and their coaching styles. The information provided will be kept confidential and you do not need to name or describe each Coach. Understand that these answers are meant to be subjective and should be your opinion as the athlete.”

Participants were asked to start with Coach X, a coach that created a positive experience, and were asked to answer the following questions:

  1. On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), how would you rate your PERSONAL RELATIONSIP with this coach?
  2. On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), how would you rate your ATHLETIC/ON-FIELD RELATIONSHIP with this coach?
  3. On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NOT AT ALL, 10 being ABSOLUTELY), how much did you TRUST this coach?
  4. On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NONE, 10 being INCREDIBLE), how much SPORT-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE did this coach have?
  5. On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NEVER, 10 being ALL OF THE TIME), how often did this coach ASK YOU QUESTIONS?
  6. On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NEVER, 10 being ALL OF THE TIME), how often did this coach TELL YOU WHAT TO DO, WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS?
  7. On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), what was your OVERALL SATISFACTION with this coach?

After completing the first set of questions for Coach X, they would go on to answer the very same set of questions for a second and third coach (nicknamed Coach Y and Coach Z respectively, with Coach Y having been a negative experience and Coach Z having been a neutral experience).

RESULTS
Survey #1
The primary purpose of Survey #1 was to allow for the ability to analyze coaching relationships that were considered positive/negative/neutral and find any correlations between coaches that primarily used asking or telling strategies. Within the positive/negative/neutral relationship descriptors, it was also important to note whether or not the athlete found the coaching to help or hurt on-field performance. The secondary purpose of Survey #1 was to gain insight via the short-answer formatted questions at to when, where, and how athletes may prefer feedback.

Participants showed a strong proclivity for describing positive coaching relationships. In responses, there were 44 coaches described with a positive relationship, 10 coaches described with a negative relationship, and 9 coaches described with a neutral relationship. Admittedly, this allows for a relatively small sample size when analyzing the relationships described as negative and neutral; however, there were still some distinctive trends amongst these coaching groups.

On average, the positive group of coaches showed the highest percentage of asking questions (59.5%) and the lowest percentage of directing (48.9%). The negative group of coaches showed the lowest percentage of asking questions (15%) and a median percentage of directing (54%). The neutral group of coaches showed the highest percentage of directing (63.3%) and a median percentage of asking questions (34.4%).

Taking this data a step further, it was interesting to note how the ask and tell percentages related to the relationship. In analyzing this, Table 1 was formulated to show the differences in relationships between coaches who had a higher ask % than tell %, coaches who had a higher tell % than ask %, and coaches who were equal with both percentages.

Table 1

In analyzing how much the characteristic of a positive/negative/neutral relationship led to impact of on-field performance, the positive coaching group was described as helping on-field performance the most (90.9%). The negative coaching group helped on-field performance the least (0%). The neutral coaching group was the median in helping on-field performance (33.3%).

The responses to short-answer style questions were more difficult to group and analyze with the massive amount of subjectivity and the tremendously large variances in responses afforded by each question. Nonetheless, there were some patterns found specifically within the questions regarding the timing of being told information, the timing of being asked questions, and the timing participants would prefer more non-directive coaching. The most common answers to when participants did not like being told information were “Not in-competition”, “Not when the information is obvious” and “Not when the information is already known.” The most common answers to when participants did not like being asked questions were “Not in-competition”, “Not after failure” and “Ask questions at any time.” In comparing and contrasting the responses to both of these questions, it seems worthwhile to point out that while several participants stated that there was no time that they did not like being asked questions, the same was never said about being told information. The most common answers to when and where participants would prefer more non-directive coaching were “Most situations” and “When struggling.”

Survey #2
The primary purpose of Survey #2 was to allow for a more specific quantitative data-set than Survey #1, with the intention of analyzing coaching strategies and their impact on both coaching relationships and overall coach satisfaction.

The first useful piece of analysis came by means of grouping the feedback based on each coach’s scoring from 1-10 on Overall Satisfaction. Pairing off the answers to Overall Satisfaction in pairs of two (1-2 [terrible], 3-4 [below average], 5-6 [average], 7-8 [above average], 9-10 [excellent]) and then averaging the answers for each category produced the results in Table 2.

Table 2

While the data shown in Table 2 proved interesting in and of itself, it was important to discover what truly made the most impact on the Overall Satisfaction and if there were any other correlations therein. Utilizing the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (Computing the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, 2003), data was specifically analyzed to find which specific coaching traits and which particular traits of the player-coach relationship proved most beneficial. The correlation coefficients were analyzed using the “guide that Evans (1996) suggests for the absolute value of r: .00-.19 “very weak”, .20-.39 “weak”, .40-.59 “moderate”, .60-.79 “strong”, .80-1.0 “very strong”” (Pearson’s correlation, n.d.).

Within the seven questions asked on Survey #2, five questions had a positive correlation to overall satisfaction (personal relationship, athletic/on-field relationship, trust, sport-specific knowledge, asking questions) while one question had a negative correlation to overall satisfaction (telling what do do). The following were the correlation coefficients as it pertained to Overall Satisfaction, in order from strongest to weakest:

  1. Trust: r = 0.91 (very strong)
  2. Athletic/On-Field Relationship: r = 0.88 (very strong)
  3. Personal Relationship: r = 0.79 (strong)
  4. Asking Questions: r = 0.67 (strong)
  5. Sport-Specific Knowledge: r = 0.60 (strong)
  6. Telling What to Do: r = -0.47 (moderate negative)

With the data showing that Trust had the highest correlation to Overall Satisfaction, it was important to analyze the impact other areas had on perceived trust. The following were the correlation coefficients as it pertained to Trust, in order from strongest to weakest:

  1. Overall Satisfaction: r = 0.91 (very strong)
  2. Athletic/On-Field Relationship: r = 0.81 (very strong)
  3. Personal Relationship: r = 0.77 (strong)
  4. Asking Questions: r = 0.64 (strong)
  5. Sport-Specific Knowledge: r = 0.63 (strong)
  6. Telling What to Do: r = -0.45 (moderate negative)

With the data showing that Athletic/On-Field Relationship had the highest correlation to Trust, it was then important to analyze the other areas that had the strongest impact on the athletic/on-field relationship. The following were the correlation coefficients as it pertained to Athletic/On-Field Relationship, in order from strongest to weakest:

  1. Overall Satisfaction: r = 0.88 (very strong)
  2. Trust: r = 0.81 (very strong)
  3. Personal Relationship: r = 0.78 (strong)
  4. Asking Questions: r = 0.68 (strong)
  5. Sport-Specific Knowledge: r = 0.52 (moderate)
  6. Telling What to Do: r = -0.43 (moderate negative)

Finally, the data also showed that Personal Relationship was important with regards to its impact on the athletic/on-field relationship. The following were the correlation coefficients as it pertained to Personal Relationship, in order form strongest to weakest:

  1. Overall Satisfaction: r = 0.79 (strong)
  2. Athletic/On-Field Relationship: r = 0.78 (strong)
  3. Trust: r = 0.77 (strong)
  4. Asking Questions: r = 0.61 (strong)
  5. Sport-Specific Knowledge: r = 0.46 (moderate)
  6. Telling What to Do: r = -0.47 (moderate negative)

With this project’s focus centered specifically on the use of professional and executive coaching tools in the realm of sport coaching, an analysis of the data similar to that of Survey #1 proved interesting. As so much of professional and executive coaching is inquiry-based, data was compiled again to show the differences in participants’ satisfaction based on each individual coach’s asking vs. telling percentages, indicating if a coach had a higher, lower, or equal asking-to-telling rating in conjunction with their overall satisfaction score based on the results of the survey. This data is shown in Table 3.

Table 3

DISCUSSION
Preliminary analysis conducted in Survey #1 shows that whether a player-coach relationship was considered to help or hurt on-field performance; an important starting point for deciding if it is even worth discussion. Evidence showed that 90.9% of relationships described as positive were reflected to be helpful for on-field performance. This is a telling percentage compared to the 0% of negative relationships that were viewed as helpful and 33.3% of neutral relationships what were viewed as helping on-field performance. Though participants elected to mainly provide information on coaches that were positive, this analysis is still not without merit.

As stated previously, sport coaches and instructors (generally speaking) show an inclination for being directive-based with their feedback and instruction whereas the professional and executive coaching field is primarily inquiry-based in nature. In first analyzing whether or not inquiry-based coaching would be viewed as beneficial in sport coaching, it is reasonable to look at participant’s responses in both Survey #1 and Survey #2 and pay specific attention to the answers regarding coaches who were more directive-based or more inquiry-based. Table 1.0 (Survey #1) and Table 2.0 (Survey #2) show a pretty substantial difference in both perceived player-coach relationship and overall satisfaction on account of the differences in how much an individual coach uses inquiry-based or directive-based feedback. It is important to note in analyzing these tables that the data is certainly not hard-and-fast; participants can be biased and we are unable to have concrete percentages that a coach actually used either inquiry or directive-based communication, rather we have each participants’ perception of the type of communication used. Nevertheless, as it has often been said that “Perception is reality”, the athletes’ perception showed that the coaches ranked highest in relationship and satisfaction utilized inquiry-based communication more often than directive-based communication.

Trust and effective communication are two of the hallmarks preached by professional and executive coaching. Invariably, sport coaches are also aware that it is incredibly important for what is often referred to as buy-in. As shown by the data and results of Survey #2, Trust had the highest correlation to Overall Satisfaction with a sport coach.

Following Trust, the Athletic/On-Field Relationship was closely behind Trust as the only other category showing a very strong correlation. It is worthy of note that Personal Relationship fell behind with only a strong correlation, indicating that while a connection via the personal relationship can and should be considered important, perhaps more time and attention should be paid to the athletic/on-field relationship in search for a mutually beneficial outcome. For this reason, it would seem helpful to turn to the responses of feedback and communication timing that were received in Survey #1. Across the board, participants made it obvious that feedback and communication that was happening “during game” or “in-competition” was unwanted; this would play counter-intuitive to generic and traditional sport-coaching practices that see coaches providing in-game feedback or coaching players to make specific adjustments during the throws of competition. One could infer that if a sport coach is providing a player-led process through practice and doing so effectively, that the athlete should be able to make their own adjustments without the need for the coach’s interjection. In keeping with the solution-focused concepts of professional and executive coaching, the results of specifically when and where athletes prefer a more non-directive style of coaching indicated that use of this style would be more beneficial in “Most situations” and “When struggling.” Though rather counter-intuitive as it was stated earlier that athletes preferred less feedback when “in-competition”, discernment is a foundational pre-requisite for great coaching; knowing when to back-off and when to push is an important piece of that puzzle, as well as when to actually utilize both inquiry and directness.

CONCLUSIONS
First, it is important to note that correlation certainly does not equal causation. Coaching, professional and executive or sport, is an incredibly fluid and dynamic process with an inconceivable amount of nuance and detail that make it impossible for there to be a scientific formula for consistently perfect coaching; at least so long as it is humans that are coaching and being coached. Undeniably, there is a litany of factors that make up what one may consider a great coach. To assert that there is one absolute best way to coach (sport or professional/executive coaching) would be to undermine the very nature of coaching, leading and communicating. Coaching does not occur in a vacuum and great coaching requires great discernment; different coaching conversations and situations require different roles for the coach. Nevertheless, the goal of this project was never to achieve some model for perfect coaching rather it was to analyze coaching strategies and relationships in an effort to create more informed and effective sport coaching, potentially utilizing some tools from professional and executive coaching in that quest.

In the infancy of this project, it was hypothesized that sport coaches who utilized professional and executive coaching tools would be able to foster better player-coach relationships and better environments with improved engagement. While some of those hypotheses are still inconclusive following the limited scope of the project, the data and analysis included therein supports them at least in part. With directive-based communication and feedback serving as the only category that provided a negative correlation in Survey #2, as well as much lower overall satisfaction when Tell % was more than Ask %, it may be anticipated that sport coaches would benefit from the professional and executive coaching tools that utilize inquiry more often than not.

In Brett Bartholomew’s Conscious Coaching: The Art & Science of Building Buy-In (Bartholomew 2017), there are many professional/executive coaching tools that are utilized though not explicitly stated as such. Bartholomew is a professional strength and conditioning coach and spends the vast majority of the book analyzing the “interpersonal dynamic between coach and athlete [that] is central to the coaching process” (Bartholomew 2017, p. 3). This analysis validates that there is a perceived problem within the sport coaching industry of creating enhanced buy-in and a litany of coaches that utilize a more directive-based style of coaching; a style of coaching Bartholomew does not see the benefit of. A Conscious Coach is someone who is able to balance both the art and science of coaching; someone who “understands all the technical material but is also comfortable adapting it for a given athlete’s needs. Conscious Coaching occurs through a connection. Conscious coaches teach athletes how to teach themselves by enhancing an athlete’s awareness of the training method and its desired outcome” (Bartholomew 2017, p. 6). Bartholomew’s work seems to suggest a way to bridge the gap between professional/executive coaching and sport coaching; the coaching relationship and understanding that allowing clients to self-discover are central tenets of the professional/executive coaching process. Trust is a major theme both within Conscious Coaching and professional/executive coaching; it is described in professional/executive coaching as necessary for the relationship, intimacy, and eventual progress, while also described in Conscious Coaching as the driving force for growth, progress, and action.

In the research literature of A Review of Controlling Motivational Strategies from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective: Implications for Sport Coaches, Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Thogerson-Ntoumani, and the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences at the University of Birmingham (2009) examine two different types of coaching strategies; adaptive (or autonomy-supportive) versus maladaptive (controlling). For the purpose of this project, a connection can be made between inquiry-based coaching strategies and adaptive (autonomy-supportive) coaching strategies, as well as a connection between directive-based coaching strategies and maladaptive (controlling) coaching strategies. Professional and executive coaching tools are designed to allow the client to lead the process, rather than allowing the coach to control it. This research purported that “coach behaviours employed to pressure or control athletes have the potential to thwart athletes’ feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which, in turn, undermine athletes’ self-determined motivation and contribute to the development of controlled motives. When athletes feel pressured to behave in a certain way, a variety of negative consequences are expected to ensue which are to the detriment of the athletes’ well-being” (Bartholomew et al. 2009, p. 2). The implications of this are obvious; in the inquiry-based professional/executive coaching model, clients are made to feel engaged and empowered, while in a directive-based generic sport coaching model, athletes can be made to feel the exact opposite. Reflecting upon my personal experiences as an amateur and professional athlete, I recall times of high confidence, high clarity, and high performance as correlating with when I was most free. On the contrary, I recall times of low confidence, low clarity, and low performance as correlating with when I was most controlled or lost, forced to fit a mold that may not have made the most sense to me. While all people are not the same (which, after all, is a major theme of this project), I would venture to guess that a large percentage of athletes have felt this way at one time or another. If it is reasonable to say that an athlete will perform at his best when he is free of fear with the freedom to simply perform, then it is also reasonable to say that our coaching-styles should take this very same concept into the day-to-day practice of the player-coach relationship.

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT
Professional and executive coaching is designed to be a solution-focused partnership aimed at inspiring a client-led process to inspire and maximize potential (“ICF, the Gold Standard in Coaching”, n.d.). In doing so, the core tenets of establishing trust and intimacy, active listening, powerful questioning, and facilitating learning and results creates a model of what sport coaching could be. While game strategy, movement patterns and general sport mechanics are certainly important in individual and team success, coaches would be remiss if they neglected the importance of the player-coach relationship and the communication strategies that could improve it.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
None

REFERENCES
1. Bartholomew, B. (2017). Conscious coaching: the art & science of building buy-in. Omaha, NE: Bartholomew Strength.

2. Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thogersen-Ntoumani, C. (2009). A Review of Controlling Motivational Strategies from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective: Implications for Sports Coaches. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,2(2), 215-233. doi:10.1080/17509840903235330

3. Computing the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. (2003, September 08). Retrieved December 03, 2017, from http://www.stat.wmich.edu/s216/book/node122.html

4. ICF, the Gold Standard in Coaching | Read About ICF. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2017, from https://coachfederation.org/about/

5. Pearson’s correlation. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2017, from http://www.statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/pearsons.pdf

Appendix A: “Survey #1”

Name: ______________________________________

Please answer the following survey questions as truthfully and honestly as you can, analyzing three sport coaches you have encountered and their coaching styles. The information provided will be kept confidential and you do not need to name or describe each Coach, outside of the descriptors of their coaching styles. Understand that these answers are meant to be subjective and should be your opinion as the athlete.

COACH ‘X’
1) How would you describe your relationship with Coach X? Positive? Negative? Please explain.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2) About what percentage of the time did this coach DIRECT you (meaning he specifically told you what to do, what to feel, and/or how to do it)? (circle/highlight your answer)
0% | 10% | 20% | 30% | 40% | 50% | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100%

3) About what percentage of the time did this coach ASK you (meaning he tried to find what you felt, what you were trying to do, and/or how you were trying to do it)? (circle/highlight your answer)
0% | 10% | 20% | 30% | 40% | 50% | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100%

4) What other coaching strategies did this coach use?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

5) What kinds of influence or ‘coaching’ from Coach X did you enjoy the most or were most-effective?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

6) What kinds of influence or ‘coaching’ from Coach X did you enjoy the least or were least-effective?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

7) How did Coach X’s coaching support (help or hurt) your on-field performance? Explain.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

COACH ‘Y’
1) How would you describe your relationship with Coach Y? Positive? Negative? Please explain.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2) About what percentage of the time did this coach DIRECT you (meaning he specifically told you what to do, what to feel, and/or how to do it)? (circle/highlight your answer)
0% | 10% | 20% | 30% | 40% | 50% | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100%

3) About what percentage of the time did this coach ASK you (meaning he tried to find what you felt, what you were trying to do, and/or how you were trying to do it)? (circle/highlight your answer)
0% | 10% | 20% | 30% | 40% | 50% | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100%

4) What other coaching strategies did this coach use?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

5) What kinds of influence or ‘coaching’ from Coach Y did you enjoy the most or were most-effective?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

6) What kinds of influence or ‘coaching’ from Coach Y did you enjoy the least or were least-effective?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

7) How did Coach Y’s coaching support (help or hurt) your on-field performance? Explain.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

COACH ‘Z’
1) How would you describe your relationship with Coach Z? Positive? Negative? Please explain.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2) About what percentage of the time did this coach DIRECT you (meaning he specifically told you what to do, what to feel, and/or how to do it)? (circle/highlight your answer)
0% | 10% | 20% | 30% | 40% | 50% | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100%

3) About what percentage of the time did this coach ASK you (meaning he tried to find what you felt, what you were trying to do, and/or how you were trying to do it)? (circle/highlight your answer)
0% | 10% | 20% | 30% | 40% | 50% | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100%

4) What other coaching strategies did this coach use?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

5) What kinds of influence or ‘coaching’ from Coach Z did you enjoy the most or were most-effective?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

6) What kinds of influence or ‘coaching’ from Coach Z did you enjoy the least or were least-effective?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

7) How did Coach Z’s coaching support (help or hurt) your on-field performance? Explain.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

General Questions:

1) When, specifically, do you not like being TOLD information (as it relates to sport)?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2) When, specifically, do you not like being ASKED questions (as it relates to sport)?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

3) Where/when do you believe you would benefit from non-directive coaching (meaning, less input or ‘telling’ from the coach and more ‘guidance’ from the coach)? Describe the situation.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix B: “Survey #2”

Name: ______________________________________

Please answer the following survey questions as truthfully and honestly as you can, analyzing three sport coaches you have encountered and their coaching styles. The information provided will be kept confidential and you do not need to name or describe each Coach. Understand that these answers are meant to be subjective and should be your opinion as the athlete.

Please think of your three coaches now. You do not need to name the coaches in this survey.
COACH X should be a coach that created a POSITIVE EXPERIENCE for you.
COACH Y should be a coach that created a NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE for you.
COACH Z should be a coach that created a NEUTRAL EXPERIENCE for you.

COACH X (POSITIVE EXPERIENCE)
1) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), how would you rate your PERSONAL RELATIONSIP with this coach? _______

2) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), how would you rate your ATHLETIC/ON-FIELD RELATIONSHIP with this coach? _______

3) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NOT AT ALL, 10 being ABSOLUTELY), how much did you TRUST this coach? _______

4) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NONE, 10 being INCREDIBLE), how much SPORT-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE did this coach have? _______

5) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NEVER, 10 being ALL OF THE TIME), how often did this coach ASK YOU QUESTIONS? _______

6) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NEVER, 10 being ALL OF THE TIME), how often did this coach TELL YOU WHAT TO DO, WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS? _______

7) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), what was your OVERALL SATISFACTION with this coach? _______

COACH Y (NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE)
1) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), how would you rate your PERSONAL RELATIONSIP with this coach? _______

2) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), how would you rate your ATHLETIC/ON-FIELD RELATIONSHIP with this coach? _______

3) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NOT AT ALL, 10 being ABSOLUTELY), how much did you TRUST this coach? _______

4) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NONE, 10 being INCREDIBLE), how much SPORT-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE did this coach have? _______

5) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NEVER, 10 being ALL OF THE TIME), how often did this coach ASK YOU QUESTIONS? _______
6) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NEVER, 10 being ALL OF THE TIME), how often did this coach TELL YOU WHAT TO DO, WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS? _______

7) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), what was your OVERALL SATISFACTION with this coach? _______

COACH Z (NEUTRAL EXPERIENCE)
1) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), how would you rate your PERSONAL RELATIONSIP with this coach? _______

2) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), how would you rate your ATHLETIC/ON-FIELD RELATIONSHIP with this coach? _______

3) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NOT AT ALL, 10 being ABSOLUTELY), how much did you TRUST this coach? _______

4) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NONE, 10 being INCREDIBLE), how much SPORT-SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE did this coach have? _______

5) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NEVER, 10 being ALL OF THE TIME), how often did this coach ASK YOU QUESTIONS? _______

6) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being NEVER, 10 being ALL OF THE TIME), how often did this coach TELL YOU WHAT TO DO, WITHOUT ASKING QUESTIONS? _______

7) On a scale from 1-10 (1 being TERRIBLE, 10 being EXCELLENT), what was your OVERALL SATISFACTION with this coach? _______

Print Friendly, PDF & Email