Coaches’ Use of Power in Youth Sports Setting

Power can be defined as the ability to influence others to do something that you want done or something they would not have normally done [1]. In the sporting field, coaches’ role include helping to realise their players’ fullest potential. Thus, the use of different sources of power has a large influence on players’ motivation, which consequently affects their sporting performance and overall development.

Power Base Description

Legitimate: Player’s perceptions of the formal power or authority that comes with the position of coach.

Coercive: Player’s perceptions that his/her coach is in a position to punish him/her psychologically, socially, and/or tangibly.

Reward: Player’s perceptions that his/her coach is in a position to provide him/her with psychological, social and/or tangible rewards.

Referent: Player identifies with the coach and sees the coach as a point of reference for his/her own behavior, attitudes, and/or beliefs.

Expert: Player’s perceptions of his/her coach’s competence and expertise in a particular subject.

Players’ playing level, team status and age shaped the perception of their coach’s power use

Amateur youth players

Amateur football youth players had a high perception of their coach’s expert power (Figure 1) [2]. Realising that they were still at the developmental phase, they were more receptive towards their coach’s instructions and feedback. They understood the need to learn as much from their coach in order to become better players, and thus have a shot at playing professionally – a move towards self-actualisation.

Regular starters

Regular starters were noted to have a higher perception of reward power, in comparison to reserve players [3]. Being consistently starting matches and given key playing roles was considered as rewards to the starters in testament to their higher abilities. Interestingly, the reserve players did not form a higher perception of the coach’s coercive power, even though the lack of playing time could be seen as a form of indirect punishment. This could be attributed to the coach’s good man management skills and young players’ inclination for social inclusion [4].

The age factor

Age is a standout variable that greatly affects the perception of power use. Younger players – below the age of 18 – perceived their coach as wielding more power [5]. Generally, they have an internal belief that their coach, an adult and expert figure, knows what is best for them. This naturally increases the receptivity of their coach’s power use, regardless of its bases.

The use of prosocial power as a motivational tool in coaching

Finding the right balance for the team’s objectives

Players’ motivation largely influences not only the amount of effort they put in, but also the amount of learning that they are receptive towards. When coaching a sports team, finding the right balance between chasing sporting achievements and providing opportunities for every player to develop is imperative.

Often times, the relentless pursuit of achievement – such as gunning for a major championship – comes at the expense of the team’s benevolence. Especially when there are a few exceptionally skillful players in the team, coaches have the tendency to revolve their team play heavily around these players. Initially, this makes perfect sense, as it would be playing to the team’s strengths. However, the coaches might be operating under bounded rationality [6].

In the process, other players would be neglected. They would realise that their roles were limited to supporting casts with minimal attention given during trainings. This would greatly affect their motivation to train and play, and could have a dire consequence on their love for the sport, and sports in general. This could lead to amotivation.

Focus on the use of prosocial power

Thus, the emphasis on the use of prosocial power bases (Figure 1) can motivate the players and maintain the overall team morale and cohesion. For instance, effective referent power use would allow the players to identify and align their personal objectives with the team’s – every player has an important role to play towards winning the championship. Also, more playing responsibilities could be given to the other starters as a reward for their improvements during trainings.

Conclusion

Different contexts require different power use approaches and each case of power uses can be distinctly different from one another. Prosocial powers have generally been shown to produce positive responses from youth players. However, it may not work as effectively in different cultural settings [7]. Thus, instead of replicating it, a successful case study should be viewed as a guide to approach a similar case, since no single case is the same.

Players’ and coaches’ differing backgrounds and characteristics have shown to have a large influence on coaches’ power use effectiveness. Players’ positive response to their coaches’ power use can accelerate players’ sporting development, satisfaction level, morale, performance and team cohesion.

The only constant is… change

Fortunately, for coaches whose players are not responding ideally to their power use, a concerted effort to alter their power use can overturn it. Attributions of coaches’ power base can change over time, as the coach-player relationship blossoms. Coaches’ highly perceived use of antisocial power bases will decrease when they start to display increased knowledge and competence (i.e., expert power) and provide more playing opportunities (i.e., reward power). After all, “people must consent to power being used on them before such power can be effective” [8]. Players’ consent is certainly attainable when coaches employ their power bases purposefully and meaningfully.

References

1. French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
2. Konter, E. (2009). Perceptions of soccer players about leadership powers according to their level of play. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(4), 503-511.
3. Turman, P. D. (2006). Athletes’ perception of coach power use and the association between playing status and sport satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23(4), 273-282.
4. Morrow, V. (2001). Young people’s explanations and experiences of social exclusion: retrieving Bourdieu’s concept of social capital. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21(4/5/6), 37-63.
5. Rylander, P. (2015). Coaches’ bases of power: Developing some initial knowledge of athletes’ compliance with coaches in team sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27(1), 110-121.
6. Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161-176.
7. Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications.
8. Tauber, R. T. (1985). Power bases: their application to classroom and school management. Journal of Education for Teaching, 11(2), 133-144.