Behaviors and Actions of the Strength and Conditioning Coach in Fostering a Positive Coach-Athlete Relationship

Abstract

Carson, F, Blakey, M, Foulds, SJ, Hinck, K, and Hoffmann, SM. Behaviors and actions of the strength and conditioning coach in fostering a positive coach-athlete relationship. J Strength Cond Res 36(11): 3256–3263, 2022—A number of models have been developed to explain the various factors that affect coach-athlete interactions; however, they have had limited application to strength and conditioning (S&C). A systematic review of the literature was completed using the databases SPORTDiscus Full Text, MEDLINE, Global Health, Academic Search Complete, and PsychINFO, sourcing articles related to S&C coach-athlete relationships. An initial search yielded 1,364 articles, which when screened against the inclusion criteria was narrowed to 8 articles relating specifically to the S&C coach-athlete relationship. Four major themes were identified throughout the included articles: leadership styles; perceptions of leadership; coach knowledge, experience, and training; and building relationships. These themes highlighted that positive coach-athlete interactions are fostered through a mutual understanding of the S&C coach's responsibility to improve performance and reduce injury through scientific methods, with an awareness of different psychosocial behaviors of both the coach and the athlete. This will create a mutual interconnectedness whereby both parties can participate in a functional dyad. Three practical applications deduced from the findings identified the importance of building an autonomy-supportive environment, keeping knowledge and expertise at a high standard, and embracing the whole person rather than just the athlete. These teachings aim to guide S&C coaches through the necessary actions and behaviors recommended to successfully build and foster positive S&C coach-athlete relationships.

Exploring Coaching Leadership Behaviours in Strength and Conditioning Coaching: Preferences of NCAA Division I and II Collegiate Student-Athletes Based on Task Dependence

“…They indicate that collegiate athletes prefer coaching behaviours characterised by training and instruction, positive feedback, situational considerations, and social support while demonstrating less preference for democratic and autocratic coaching styles. These findings are consistent with prior research, emphasising the significance of positive psychosocial behaviours in the context of strength and conditioning coaching (Fraser et al, 2022). The ranking of preferred behaviours, such as training and instruction, positive feedback, situational considerations, and social support, provides insight into the areas that student-athletes value the most in their coaching interactions.…”

“…In support of the current findings, a recent review on strength and conditioning coaching by Fraser et al (2022) underscored the importance of positive psychosocial behaviours, building trust, care, effective teaching skills, and adapting leadership styles in nurturing positive coach-athlete relationships, which contribute to athlete performance and well-being. Arguably, these findings could apply to both types of sports, suggesting no distinct difference in coaching leadership behaviour preferences.…”

“…As a result, researchers in executive coaching, coaching psychology, sports coaching, and strength and conditioning coaching have identified commonalities that extend beyond specialised knowledge. These commonalities often encompass behaviours, interpersonal skills, and the quality of relationships (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004;Boyce et al, 2010;Passmore, 2010;Baron et al, 2011;Gilbert & Baldis, 2014;Griffo et al, 2019;Fraser et al, 2022). Links between coaching effectiveness, coaching behaviour, and leadership further support these commonalities (Cummins et al, 2018).…”

“…Initially dominated by quantitative methods, there has been a noticeable shift towards incorporating qualitative approaches, thus resulting in a more balanced research approach. This transition is also reflected in strength and conditioning coaching, with many studies adopting both methodologies (Brooks et al, 2000;Fraser et al, 2022). Despite the commonalities between coaching disciplines and the considerable research focus on coaching behaviours and leadership styles observed in sports coaching, the investigation of coaching behaviours in strength and conditioning coaching between 2000 and 2023 remains limited, highlighting a clear research gap.…”

“…Whilst underexplored, research in strength and conditioning coaching has seen various data collection approaches, mirroring the evolving landscape of sports coaching research. These methods include scales (Chesters, 2013;Lee et al, 2013;Eisner et al, 2014;Greenslade & Willams, 2019;LaPlaca & Schempp, 2020;Tiberi & Moody, 2020), observations (Massey et al, 2002;Gallo & DeMarco, 2008), reviews (Gilbert & Baldis, 2014;Fraser et al, 2022;Jones & Newland, 2022), interviews (Dorgo, 2009;Szedlak et al, 2015;Shuman & Appleby, 2016;Foulds et al, 2019;Gillham et al, 2019;Szedlak et al, 2022), and original methods (Szedlak et al, 2018), exploring both the coaches' and athletes' perspectives of effective strength and conditioning coaching behaviours.…”