Understanding motivation to enhance the quality of coaching
Issue: Volume 28 Number 3
What makes an athlete sacrifice a highly desirable social life for the demands of high-performance sport? What pushes the athlete to pursue success in sport at all levels? Ryan and Deci (2000) emphasised the importance of motivation and how it influences the way in which people think, feel and behave. As the architects of optimal training environments, coaches require an informed understanding of the underlying motives of athletes.
Understanding motivation
The commonly held view is that motivation is either ‘good’ (intrinsic) or ‘bad’ (extrinsic). However, this understanding is limited and promotes an inaccurate understanding of extrinsic motivation and its varying influences on sport participation. Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory is a popular theory of motivation, which proposes that people seek to satisfy three psychological needs — self-determination (autonomy), perceived competence, and relatedness (sense of belonging) — necessary for personal growth. Self-determination theory also proposes several forms of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation.
Intrinsic motivation is associated with the inherent fun and enjoyment associated with sport participation. For example, some athletes naturally enjoy running fast or striking the ball ‘sweetly’. In contrast, amotivation is a lack of or reduction in motivation. In between these two opposing forms of motivation is extrinsic motivation, which is generally associated with the achievement of some goal, such as winning an Olympic gold medal. Of primary interest here is a more thorough understanding of extrinsic motivation and its influence on sport participation.
There are two broad types of extrinsic motivation and understanding the difference between the two major forms is important.
- Firstly, non-self-determined extrinsic motivation is concerned with coercion and obligation. Athletes undertake some training (for example, strength training), which for many athletes is not normally fun, and are coerced by their coaches to perform those aspects of training. Alternatively, athletes might feel guilty if they do not complete the planned training so do the training to please their coaches. This broad type of motivation lacks the perception of choice.
- Secondly, self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation are concerned with a conscious valuing or acceptance of the training. The athlete over time might come to the realisation that strength training will help them achieve their ultimate goal of winning a medal at the Olympics. They may even endorse the training as being consistent with their personal beliefs about health and fitness. Over time, the source of motivation to undertake less enjoyable aspects of sport may move from non-self-determined extrinsic motivation to self-determined extrinsic motivation, which is an important form of adaptive motivation. Self-determined extrinsic motivation is similar to intrinsic motivation in that there is the perception of choice (autonomy).
Self-determination theory proposes that factors which promote perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness positively impact on adaptive forms of motivation (that is, intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation), which is important in the context of elite sport because self-determined motivation is associated with persistence, performance and the ability to cope better with competitive stress. A summary of self-determination theory research has shown that self-determined forms of motivation characterised elite athletes in a number of sports. Self-determined motivation (self-determined extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation) produces positive outcomes and importantly can be nurtured and developed by coaches, parents or the athletes themselves. Even in the context of over-controlling, autocratic coaches, successful elite athletes have been found to pursue autonomy in their training.
Developing an autonomy supportive coach–athlete environment
There are two major coaching approaches: a controlling style and an autonomy supportive style. Research using self-determination theory strongly supports the adoption of an autonomy supportive coaching approach. Margeau and Vallerand (2003) proposed seven autonomy supportive coaching behaviours to enhance the perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness that coaches could employ to develop an adaptive motivational climate. Their guidelines are presented in the box below.
- Provide choice within reason
- Provide reason/s for tasks to be performed
- Demonstrate respect for other’s feelings and perspective
- Allow athletes to work independently and to have input into solutions for solving problems
- Provide competence feedback that contributes to positive behaviour changes
- Avoid coaching behaviours that seek to control athletes — avoid coercion and bullying. (adapted from Margeau and Vallerand 2003)
Application to coaching
In preparing the Australian 2004 Olympic relay teams, whose performances later created Olympic history (4 x 400 metres — second, and men’s 4 x 100 metres — sixth), an autonomy supportive coaching environment was developed. Using the above guidelines the teams were provided with several opportunities to develop positive perceptions of autonomy, competence and relatedness. For example:
- The relay athletes were provided with choice in a number of management and performance areas (for example, negotiated training, training times, training venues, uniforms for training and competition, choice in deciding the running order).
- Formal and informal team meetings provided ample opportunity for the thoughts and feelings of personal coaches and athletes to be heard, respected and valued. The rationales behind all major decisions made by the relay coach were presented.
- In the design of the training environment the athletes were guided to take personal responsibility for learning the essential relay skills (for example, baton exchange). The team coach played a facilitative role (athlete-centred approach) in preference to a controlling role (coach-centred approach).
Conclusion
If the research shows that:
- elite athletes are driven by self-determined reasons
- athletes actively seek autonomy, even in controlling environments
- athletes develop positive coping strategies in an autonomy supportive climate
it is argued that coaches should consider the adoption of an autonomy supportive coach–athlete environment to enhance the quality of sport performance. This approach to coaching is applicable at all levels of coaching.
References
Amiot, CE, Gaudreau, P and Blanchard, CM 2004, ‘Self-determination, coping, and goal attainment in sport’, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, pp. 396-411.
Chantal, Y, Guay, F, Dobreva–Martinova, T and Vallerand, RJ 1996, ‘Motivation and elite performance: an exploratory investigation with Bulgarian athletes’, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, pp. 173–82.
d’Arrippe–Longueville, F, Fournier, JF and Dubois, A 1998, ‘The perceived effectiveness of interactions between expert French judo coaches and their athletes’, Sports Psychologist, 12, pp. 317–2.
Deci, EL and Ryan, RM, 1985, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behaviour, Plenum, New York.
Forzoni, RE and Karageorghis, CI 2001, ‘Participation motives in elite soccer across age groups: a test of cognitive evaluation theory’, in A Papaioannou, M Goudas and Y Theodorakis (eds), Proceedings of the International Society of Sport Psychology 10 th World Congress of Sport Psychology, 3, pp. 318–20.
Mallett, CJ and Hanrahan, SJ 2004, ‘Elite athletes: what makes the fire “burn” so brightly?’, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 183–200.
Margeau , GA and Vallerand, RJ 2003, ‘The coach–athlete relationship: a motivational model’, Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, pp. 883–904.
Ryan, RM and Deci, EL 2000, ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55, pp. 68–78.
Vallerand, RJ and Rousseau, FL 2001, ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise: a review using the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation’, in RN Singer, HA Hausenblas and CM Janelle (eds), Handbook of Sport Psychology, 2nd edn, Wiley, Brisbane, pp. 389–416.
Dr Cliff Mallett coordinates the postgraduate programs in sports coaching at the University of Queensland, in conjunction with the Australian Sports Commission. He is an international coach (Olympic team coach, 1996 and 2004), sport psychologist and researcher in coaching and sport psychology.
