Systems find talent...conversations keep it: RWC build up
/The Rugby World Cup is days away; while many teams are adding finishing touches to their squads and details, one country’s preparations have not been going to plan. England have had a turbulent warm up period, with shock losses, suspensions and now former coaches claiming the responsibility lies with the governing body, RFU. This week, now AUS Head Coach Eddie Jones told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
The results of England over the last five years… they’re not producing quality players…and so everyone looks at the head coach, and [says] ‘let’s blame the head coach’.
But the onus on producing quality players is the RFU. And that hasn’t happened. You’ve got to look at why you’re not bringing talent through, then you’ve got to look at why your talent development systems are not doing that.
The system’s not right. What needs to change? Where’s the gap? That’s the responsibility of the RFU.
Let’s compare this to a fascinating interview and article from former AUSCycling Chairman, Duncan Murray, who in 2021 offered a very honest review of how he feels high-performance sport is being approached, in cycling and more broadly across Olympic sports, and how he feels we are failing to meet the ethical responsibility we have to nurture people with exceptional talents. Murray is reported as stating:
When you look under the hood, the reality is they care materially more about sporting performance than the long-term life trajectory of their athletes…Sporting organisations – whether they be a motor racing team or a footy club or an NSO like AusCycling – owe the young people who are in their custody for the good part of a decade to invest their time, energy, intellect and balance sheets into setting them up for life.
Winning medals is no longer enough; We are in the 21st century, for god’s sake. The culture of sport needs to change; what is our purpose, what is the full cost, what are the metrics of success?
The core, philosophical cancer in high-performance sport at the moment is that a myopic focus rather than balance is the key to success
One of my favourite quotes within the report; Most high-performance programs are harvesters rather than farmers,…There isn’t a successful farmer in the world who just rocks up once a year and cuts the wheat. He argues what I have previously discussed and strongly believe; an investment in understanding your athletes as a whole person will ultimately give you a greater “rate of return for investment” and a more sustainable program to use and reflect on Murray’s corporate like philosophies. Sporting organisations need to investigate and better understand all layers of personality and recognise their players as a whole person as opposed to solely a sporting performer.
Combining the two articles, what the main points or areas of concern? Do all HP programs ignore effective relationships, slash and capitalise on their crops as quickly as possible as opposed to investing in relationships, understanding our athletes and watering our most important resource; our people?? What steps can we start with to develop strong connections with our athletes, seeing them as people, not solely as players, continually seeking new expendable talent and over coming the “win at all costs” mentalities mentioned by Murray and Jones?
The main aspects of influential and successful coach-athlete relationships revolve around ideals such as mutual trust, respect, support, cooperation, communication and understanding of each other and impact of each other within the relationship. Both performance enhancement and psychological well-being is deeply engrained within the coach-athlete relationship; for example, studies have shown that athlete satisfaction is related to the degree to which athletes understand their role and responsibilities within interactive sports teams. (Eys, 2007). Coaches need to acknowledge and recognise the effects of positive, interdependent relationships, which are dynamic and interlinked with cognition, feelings and behaviours to achieve common recognised goals (Jowett, 2007). Therefore, a coach’s ability to acknowledge and develop positive interpersonal connections, driven by interpersonal skills and united sense of purpose and achievement, can offer solid base for positive relationships and learning atmospheres.
Quality coaching responds to the need for collaboration between coach and players in navigating social interactions in the sporting context; this includes identifying and understanding differences between individual and team goal setting, offering suitable scenarios and choices with all members’ involvement, and collaboratively dealing with matters as opposed to eradicating them. Past research by Mageau and Vallerand describe the actions of coaches as important motivational influences within sport settings or environments (Mageau, 2003). Coaching should be recognised as a dynamic relationship, in which the coach can assist player’s goal achievement and development but both sides have an investment of will capital, where human initiative and intentionality are both dedicated to show commitment towards goals and relationships. The role of a performance coach for athletes entering the investment stage (variable between sports yet usually late teens or early adults) is highly important and understanding athlete’s motivations shall have positive impact on learning and development relationship of athletes of this stage. Coaches like current England coach Steve Borthwick could “prepare athletes for consistent high-level competitive performance” (Côté, 2009) through effective tactics such as integration of professional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal knowledge and developing player’s specific competence, confidence, connection, and character needs on regular basis; this can and should include understanding other elements of player’s identity as opposed to solely their sporting motivations.
Understanding motivation is necessary to investigate why athletes play and sustain their engagement or drop-out from sport. Basic psychological needs theory (BPNT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) is one of the sub theories within self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Autonomy (self-determination), relatedness (belonging), and competence (mastery) are the espoused universal needs (BPNT within SDT) that underpin why we do what we do. Self-determination theory, which is a popular framework for understanding motivational processes and outcomes (players’ cognitions, affect, and behaviours), is a social-cognitive and organismic theory of motivation and personality development that focuses on the social factors that influence different forms of motivation through influencing perceptions of these universal psychological needs. Coaching environments are contexts in which coaches can nurture psychological need satisfaction and subsequent internal motivation to enhance both performance and well-being (Amorose, 2007; Mallett, 2005). Satisfying these basic needs is said to “foster self-determined motivation” (Hollembeak, 2005) and has been associated with higher self-esteem and lower anxiety through greater engagement (Deci, 2001). Athletes or players are then better placed in developing intrinsically defined motivation in the pursuit of their sporting goals. Basic needs satisfaction also results in positive psychological consequences such as adaptive coping strategies for personal development and flow experiences, ideal for player development and both consequences required for specialising adolescent athletes as part of personal development (Lonsdale, 2009).
Addressing the Eddie Jones report, when athletes’ psychological needs are not satisfied and indeed thwarted, externally regulated motivations (controlling coach behaviours which Jones has been reported to conduct during his time as England head coach) are likely to lead to less adaptive outcomes in how players think, feel, and act (Bartholomew et al. 2009; 2011). For example, often overlooked symptoms of burnout, such as reduced sense of accomplishment and devaluation of sport may be exacerbated by behaviours or environments where athletes experience low levels of need satisfaction or perceive their basic needs to be chronically frustrated by controlling coach behaviours (Bartholomew, 2011). Research by Gould and colleagues (1996) suggested that coaches should cultivate personal involvement with players, offer two way communication, utilise player input and understand player’s feelings so as to enhance player engagement and motivation whilst reducing symptoms of burnout including depersonalisation towards their sport (Gould et al., 1996).
Looking at the articles and research around these ideas, which do you want your sporting organisation’s talent ID processes and people to be; farmers or harvesters? My opinion; as coaches and organisations, we should reflect and build our interpersonal skills to allow us to take time in future to better know and understand our athletes to gain a holistic view of involved players. The art of coaching is knowing how and when to communicate, and how this varies from individual. Work on empathetic relationships and having a better understanding of your athletes or players as this will allow you to modify your environment or approaches for greater impact and understanding. Know your players, know their story, know their context and then put it into practice….