Conflict in Coach-Athlete Relationships

The foundation for building a successful sports program rests squarely with the athletic coaches. Coaches are responsible for providing leadership, creating team cohesion, and establishing individual and team goals. Coaches are more likely to successfully fulfill this responsibility if they have fostered trusting relationships with their athletes. When athletes feel cared for and respected, their objectives align with their coaches’ goals. Thus, the athlete feels empowered in their relationships with their coach. Conflict occurs in the coach-athlete relationship when the power dynamic between the pairs is unbalanced and threatens the athlete’s well-being.

The interpretation of the power balance between a coach and an athlete is dependent upon each specific conflict. Coaches need to be aware of how to best exercise their authority to reduce conflict in a given situation. During a conflict, individuals “almost never agree on anything having to do with power” (Hocker et al, 2019, p. 111) and how it is exercised. Thus, coaches must proactively anticipate areas of conflict to mitigate any explosive confrontations. When coaches have a comprehensive understanding of the positive use of power and coaching behavior, the power relationship between coaches and athletes is more balanced. Coaches may balance the power dynamic in the coach athlete relationship by incorporating leadership roles into the team. Moreover, coaches can include their athletes in the formulation of individual and team objectives. Thus, power types, the leader membership exchange of power, communication barriers, emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, and abusive behavior in coaching all affect the power dynamic in the coach-athlete relationship.

Power Type Influence

Power can be defined as, “The ability to influence the behaviors of others” (Laios et al, 2003, p. 150). Laios et al. (2003) studied several types of power including position, reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert power. They surveyed thirty coaches in four different sports. These sports were football (8), men’s and women’s basketball (7), volleyball (5), and tennis (5). The coaches identified personal power structures, such as expert power and referent power, as the most influential on team and individual performance. Expert power refers to the coach’s expertise based on knowledge, skills, and experience. Referent power refers to the respect and trust the athlete has for the coach (Laios et al, 2003). The coach’s use of both expert and referent power connects them with their team. This connection balances the power dynamics of the coach-athlete relationship through the inclusion of the athletes’ perspectives in important decisions while maintaining a healthy amount of authoritative power for coaches.

Pat Rylander (2016), a sports science expert, conducted research on power bases from the perspective of the athlete. He studied the relationship between coaching effectiveness and team sports coaches’ power base. The participants included eight hundred twenty athletes representing fifty-six teams and three major sports. Soccer had the largest sample size with three hundred eighty-three athletes. Handball was the second most represented sport with two hundred fifty-four athletes. This category was then followed by floor ball which had one hundred and eighty-three members in attendance. Rylander’s research illustrates that athletes value coaches’ expert power above other sources relative to coach effectiveness such as legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power (Rylander, 2016). Both studies imply that coaches’ use of expert and referent power positively influences the coach-athlete relationship. Moreover, both the athlete and the coach acknowledge that the prudent use of relational power results in improved team performance and enhanced interpersonal relationships. The personal relationships between coaches and athletes developed from the playing field positively affect the social and emotional health of the team and its members (Rylander, 2016).

The Leader-Member Exchange Perspective

Relational power within the coach-athlete dynamic can be further explored through the leader-member exchange perspective (LMX). LMX is an organizational theory that explores how leaders and subordinates communicate. Normally, the theory is applied to the perspective of the subordinate. Cranmer and Myers (2014) used the LMX theory to better understand athlete-coach communication and relationships. They surveyed one hundred fifty-eight former high school athletes enrolled in six different college communication courses. Each student received a questionnaire that asked them to rank their coach-athlete relationship. Utilizing the LMX framework, Cranmer and Myers’ findings show, “Athletes with in-group relationships with their coaches have higher quality communication and relationships with those coaches and their teammates (Cranmer & Myers, 2014, p. 113). Moreover, the research from the survey indicates athletes’ level of satisfaction with their coaches was positively correlated with the coaches’ use of prosocial power. Prosocial power includes the use of democratic decision-making, positive feedback, effective training, and social support.

Cranmer and Myers further suggest that prosocial power increases communication symmetry in the relationship and promotes empathetic and open communication. Athletes who frequently communicated openly with coaches reported higher levels of satisfaction with their coaches, greater communication symmetry, increased levels of team cohesion, and greater cooperation with their teammates. In short, the perception of the interpersonal power dynamic becomes more balanced when coaches use prosocial communication strategies (Cranmer and Myers, 2014).

Furthermore, the positive use of cooperative communication enables a deeper emotional connection between the coach and the athlete and a more democratic methodology of managing conflict. Wachsmuth et al. (2018) found in their study of conflict management that coach-athlete relationships benefit from cooperative communication. One area of conflict management that they studied was conflict prevention. Implicit conflict prevention, as they described, “aims to naturally enhance relationship quality and facilitate an optimal performance environment without deliberately targeting a reduction of conflict” (Wachsmuth et al, 2018, p. 376). Factors that influence implicit conflict prevention and lead to high quality relationships between coaches and athletes include a positive channel of communication, an open interpersonal climate, and an optimal performance environment help to maintain high quality relationships between coaches and athletes. The researchers also identified the need for explicit conflict prevention, or the intentional proactive use of prevention strategies, such as self-regulation, anticipating areas of conflict, and promoting open communication. In addition, seeking optimal times of prevention and creating an environment of constructive feedback also led to conflict prevention (Wachsmuth et al, 2018). However, conflict prevention does not eliminate all relational power issues in the coach-athlete relationship, as athletes may still feel like they are in a subordinate role with their coaches.

Communication Barriers

Conflict that arises from the power dynamic of coaches and athletes is derived from communication barriers that delay team success and cohesion is another way to address. Elail Aznan and colleagues (2022) studied how perceived communications barriers alter team cohesion. In a study with one hundred thirty volleyball players and one hundred on handball players, Aznan et al. discovered that process barriers were the most prevalent disruption in coach-athlete relationships. Process barriers in communication occur when the receiver of the communication does not feel free to offer an opinion for fear of being criticized. Process barriers prevent athletes from openly communicating with their coaches and other athletes because they are concerned about being disparaged by the others. Therefore, removing the process barriers by encouraging open communication without criticism can increase team cohesion (Aznan et al, 2022). Team cohesion is important because it elevates team behavior, creates strong connections, and improves interpersonal relationships of coaches and athletes.

Athletes’ Perceptions

Athlete’s perception can negatively impact the power balance in the coach-athlete relationship. One factor that affects athletes’ perception is their play time in sporting competitions. Paul Truman (2006) examined the influence of athletes’ playing time on their perception of the coaches’ use of power and its connection to athletes’ satisfaction regarding their sport. He surveyed three hundred seven athletes from twenty high school football teams (127 athletes), boys basketball teams (112 athletes), and girls basketball teams (68 athletes). He discovered that athletes with the highest playing time reported the highest levels of satisfaction with their sport. He also deduced that many athletes believe that coaches use power as a way of giving playing time to athletes (Truman, 2006). According to an earlier research study conducted by Paul Truman, athletes were willing to accept the imbalance of power dynamic if they felt they had a trusting relationship with their coach (Truman, 2001). Thus, athletes are willing to adjust to the perceived distribution of power with regards to playing time, if they feel their needs are met in the coach-athlete relationship.

Jeffrey Kassing and Rachel Anderson (2013) also examined athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ use of power in relation to playing time. They collected information from seventy-three former high school athletes using an online questionnaire. They noted that starters, who had more playing time, had a larger opportunity to positively interact with their coaches. They also observed that an athlete’s opportunities to positively interact with their coaches correlated to their satisfaction with their chosen sport. Continuously, the athletes with the highest level of playing time enjoyed a higher status on the team. These same players were also more likely to express their opinions with their coaches. Inversely, athletes who experienced less playing time believed their coaches were not open to their feedback (Kassing and Anderson, 2013).

Emotional Intelligence

Constructive conflict management could promote athlete wellness by reducing communication issues and building positive regard in the coach-athlete relationship. Coaches with highly developed interpersonal and social skills find ways to reduce communication barriers and manage conflict constructively. Furthermore, they understand how to utilize emotional intelligence to promote positive communication with athletes on and off the field. Emotional intelligence includes gaining competencies in self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skills (Hocker et al, 2022). According to the research conducted by Jonathan Chan and Clifford Mallett (2011), it is paramount for highly effective coaches to utilize high levels of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence improves the coaches’ ability to form deep bonds of trust in all interpersonal relationships (Chan & Mallett, 2011). Coaches who are keenly self-aware develop even stronger relationships with athletes. In contrast, coaches with underdeveloped emotional intelligence lack the necessary interpersonal skills to enhance student well-being in the coach-athlete relationship (Chan and Mallet, 2011).

Moreover, emotionally intelligent coaches place the coach-athlete relationship above external forces. In their article, Paul Potrac and Robyn Jones (2009) claim that coaches need to be mindful of the potential impact of organizational dynamics external to the sports programs themselves. For instance, micropolitics, such as coaching tenure, teaching responsibilities, donor relations, or media attention, may undermine even self-aware coaches. These efforts “to gain the support of the contextual stakeholders and achieve their goals” force coaches to “engaged in a process of constantly forging and reforging alliances with contextually significant others,” and consequently “engage in a process of constantly forging and reforging alliances with contextually significant others,” (Potrac and Jones, 2009, p. 233). These efforts can significantly interfere with the preservation of the coach-athlete relationship. The more confident coaches are in their own emotional intelligence, the less likely they are to be swayed by these external forces. Thus, emotionally intelligent coaches manage external organizations by establishing relationships that connect athlete wellness with the organizational missions (Potrac & Jones, 2009).

Coaches’ Lack of Interpersonal Skills

Regrettably, interpersonal conflict can become destructive when coaches do not establish trusting and empowering relationships with their athletes. One outcome of the coaches’ lack of interpersonal skills is poor instruction. The dissemination of the coaches’ expert knowledge is dependent on the ability of the coaching staff to effectively communicate their knowledge (Gearity, 2012). Brian Gearity (2012) conducted research regarding athletes’ perception of poor teaching by coaches. He surveyed sixteen athletes who all played team sports. The athletes he surveyed reported coaches who did not tailor and individualize instruction, had little expert knowledge of the sport, did not incorporate training in character development outside the athletic competition, and lacked the ability to communicate performance objectives were rated as poor instructors. Gearity asserts that the athletes’ perception of quality instruction is equally important to the quality of the teachings. Furthermore, he reported that athletes expect to receive character building lessons to aid in maturation off the playing field, too. The coach-athlete relationship is diminished when coaches do not teach the necessary skills to excel at a given sport or provide communicative support to their athletes. Athletes desire to form trusting relationships with coaches who have a high level of interpersonal skills and are competent experts in their sport (Gearity, 2012).

Coaches who lack interpersonal skills may also have difficulty with emotional self-regulation. Emotional regulation is the ability to control and to choose appropriate responses given specific situations. Martin et al. (2009) surveyed two hundred ninety-four undergraduate students at a midwestern university about their experiences with coaching styles. The researchers deduced that when coaches used messages that encouraged and reinforced positive self-esteem, athletes had increased motivation and felt bonded with their coach. However, coaches’ verbal aggression negatively affected the coach-athlete relationship and reduced player motivation (Martin et al, 2009). When coaches use coercive power, athletes become increasingly sensitive to feedback (Cranmer and Goodboy, 2015). Coaches who lack interpersonal skills may justify the use of authoritarian power with their athletes. This justification could dissolve the affective bonds that promote well-being. In fact, the relationship becomes abusive when coaches lack self-regulation and use coercion in their communication with athletes.

Abuse in Coaching

When the coach-athlete relationship becomes abusive, the coach holds all the power in the relationship. Ashley Stirling and Gretchen Kerr (2009) explored the consequences of athlete abuse by interviewing five retired elite female swimmers and four retired elite gymnasts to investigate abused athletes’ perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship. Elite coaches’ abusive behavior was justified because they had proven successful track records. Athletes did not report the abuse because they feared how it would reflect onto their sport and career. The athletes shared how their abusive relationship with their coach has negative life-long impacts. All coaches and athletes would benefit from policies that create safeguards to prevent abuse and empower athletes to establish relationships with trustworthy coaches (Stirling and Kerr, 2009).

Conclusion

A balanced coach-athlete power dynamic supports the socio-emotional development and well-being of athletes. A balanced power dynamic also fosters team cohesion, reduces communication barriers, and promotes constructive conflict management. Coaches are responsible for maintaining a balanced power dynamic with their athletes. They can maintain this balance by leading with expert and referent power, expanding their emotional intelligence, creating open channels of communication, and establishing affective relationships beyond the field of play. Furthermore, the coach-athlete relationship should be grounded in trust and mutual respect. Unfortunately, an unbalanced power dynamic can be a direct result of a a coach’s lack of interpersonal skills, poor coaching instruction, or even athlete abuse. A positive coach-athlete relationship is essential to maintaining a successful sports program and the well-being of athletes.

References*

Aznan, E., Rafi, F., Kassim, A., Miswan, M., & Samat, H. (2022). Association between communication barriers and cohesion in sports among team athletes. SEARCH Journal of Media and Communication Research, 3, 1–13.

Chan, J., & Mallett, C. (2011). The Value of emotional intelligence for high performance coaching. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 6(3), 315–328. SAGE.

Cranmer, G., & Goodboy, A. (2015). Power play: Coach power use and athletes’ communicative evaluations and responses. Western Journal of Communication, 79(5), 614–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1069389

Cranmer, G., & Myers, S. (2015). Sports teams as organizations. Communication & Sport, 3(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479513520487

Gearity, BrianT. (2012). Poor teaching by the coach: A phenomenological description from athletes’ experience of poor coaching. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 17(1), 79–96.

Kassing, J., & Anderson, R. (2014). Contradicting coach or grumbling to teammates. Communication & Sport, 2(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/216749512473988

Laios, A., Theodorakis, N., & Gargalianos, G. (2003). Leadership and power: Two important factors for effective coaching. International Sports Journal, 7(1), 151–154.

Martin, M. M., Rocca, K. A., Cayanus, J. L., & Weber, K. (2009). Relationship between coaches’ use of behavior alteration techniques and verbal aggression on athletes’ motivation and affect. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32(2), 227–241.

Potrac, P., & Jones, R. (2009). Power, conflict, and cooperation: Toward a micropolitics of coaching. Quest, 61, 223–238. American Academy of Kineseology and Physical Education.

Rylander, P. (2016). Coaches’ bases of power and coaching effectiveness in team sports. International Sport Coaching Journal, 3(2), 128–144. Human Kinetics.

Stirling, A. E., & Kerr, G. A. (2009). Abused Athletes’ Perceptions of the Coach-Athlete Relationship. Sport in Society, 12(2), 227–239.

Turnman, P. (2001). Situational coaching styles: The impact of success and athlete maturity level on coaches’ leadership styles over time. Small Group Research, 32(5), 576–594. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200504

Turnman, P. (2006). Athletes’ perception of coach power use and the association between playing status and sport satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23(4), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090600962540

Wachsmuth, S., Jowett, S., & Harwood, C. (2018). Managing conflict in coach-athlete relationships. Society for Sport, Excercise, and Performance Psychology, 7(4), 371–391. American Psychological Association.

*The full paper, including all footnotes, cited sources, and bibliography are available upon request.