When the Honeymoon Is Over: A Case Study of a Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis

Transcription

1 The Sport Psychologist, 2003, 17, Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. When the Honeymoon Is Over: A Case Study of a Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis Sophia Jowett Loughborough University In an attempt to investigate the nature of the coach-athlete relationship in a systematic way, Jowett and colleagues (e.g., Jowett & Cockerill, in press; Jowett & Meek, 2000a) employed the interpersonal constructs of Closeness, Coorientation, and Complementarity (3 Cs) to reflect coaches and athletes emotions, cognitions, and behaviors respectively. This study utilized the 3 Cs in order to examine the nature of a single typical coach-athlete dyad that experiences interpersonal conflict. The dyad was interviewed and their responses were content analyzed. The analysis revealed a marked difference in the coach s and athlete s perceptions about their athletic relationship and areas of emotional isolation, disagreements, and incompatibility. The findings are discussed within the 3 Cs model. Probably the most important interpersonal relationship in the sport domain is that formed between the coach and the athlete. Michael Johnson and Clyde Hart, Inger Miller and John Smith, Carl Lewis and Tom Tellez, Steven Cram and Jim Hendley, Linford Christie and Ron Rodden are dyadic relationships that have established not only close relationships, but also successful partnerships in track and field athletics. Although there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that a causal relationship exists between the quality of the coach-athlete relationship and performance accomplishments, there is some evidence to indicate that successful relationships are likely to include positive interpersonal qualities such as trust, respect, commitment, and understanding (Greenleaf, Gould, & Dieffenbach, 2001; Hemery, 1986; Jowett & Cockerill, in press; Vernacchia, McGuire, Reardon, & Templin, 2000). In an attempt to fill this gap, the dynamics involved between coaches and athletes have been identified in areas such as leadership and motivational climate. However, the nature of the interpersonal relationship that coaches and athletes develop in the course of their athletic partnership remained unchallenged conceptually and empirically. Jowett and colleagues (Jowett & Cockerill, in The author is with the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, United Kingdom. S.Jowett@lboro.ac.uk. 444

2 A Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis 445 press; Jowett & Gale, 2002; Jowett & Meek, 2000a, 2000b; Jowett & Pearce, 2001) utilized a conceptual model to examine the nature of the coach-athlete relationship. The conceptual model of the coach-athlete relationship is based on Kelley et al. s (1983) definition of two-person relationships. According to Kelley et al., relationship members emotions, cognitions, and behaviors are interrelated. The significance of this definition is that it includes affective, cognitive, and behavioral aspects simultaneously to the study of interpersonal relationships (Jowett, 2001). The constructs of closeness (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989), coorientation (Newcomb, 1953), and complementarity (Kiesler, 1997) have been used independently to examine two-person relationships and behaviors. Jowett and colleagues integrated these constructs into a single model so that coaches and athletes emotions, cognitions, and behaviors are examined concurrently. The constructs of closeness, coorientation, and complementarity (3 Cs) have been discussed in detail elsewhere (e.g., see Jowett & Cockerill, 2002; Jowett & Meek, 2000a), thus only brief descriptions follow. Closeness refers to feeling familiar (close) with the other member in the relationship. Feelings of like, trust, respect as opposed to dislike, distrust, and disrespect between a coach and an athlete indicate a positive affective climate and mark the relationship s stability and members satisfaction. Coorientation is operationalized through the means of communication. Communication is the building block of all relationships. Communication (talk, self-disclosure, dialogue) provides coaches and athletes with an opportunity to share one another s experiences from which coorientation subsequently develop (cf. Duck, 1994). Finally, complementarity refers to the type of behavioral interaction in which the coach and the athlete are engaged. In effect, complementarity reflects coaches and athletes acts of cooperation. The 3 Cs have been utilized to investigate typical and atypical coach-athlete relationships 1 mainly in individual sports (e.g., athletics, swimming, wrestling). Jowett and colleagues studies (Jowett & Cockerill, in press; Jowett & Meek, 2000a, 2000b; Jowett & Pearce, 2001) have provided descriptive information related to the content, intensity, and significance of the 3 Cs. More specifically, the findings reveal that feelings such as respect, trust and commitment, cooriented views regarding values, practices, and performance goals, and finally, complementary behaviors are important aspects that affect athletic relationships positively (Jowett & Cockerill, in press, Jowett & Meek, 2000a, 2000b; Jowett & Pearce, 2001). On the other hand, negative feelings of closeness (feeling unattached, distant), disoriented views (competing interests, conflicting goals, and lack of understanding), and noncomplementary behaviors (incompatible roles, tasks, and support) affect athletic relationships negatively (e.g., Jowett & Cockerill, in press; Jowett & Meek, 2000b). Overall, the accumulated evidence indicates that the 3 Cs are useful in describing the nature of the coach-athlete relationship by identifying both positive and negative relational issues. Interpersonal conflict reflects a state of imbalance, incongruence, and incompatibility between relationship members (Hinde, 1997). Scanlan, Stein, and Ravizza (1991) have defined interpersonal conflict as experiencing discord between oneself and significant others (p. 112). Scanlan et al. found that elite figure skaters discord with coaches was underlined by disliking coaches dominant personality or style of coaching. In another study, Greenleaf et al. (2001) found that elite coaches and athletes experiences of conflict evolved around issues such as training, perceived power, technical information, and team climate. Poczwardowski, Barott

3 446 Jowett and Henschen (2002) revealed that coaches and athletes in negative relationships (p. 130) experienced hurt feelings, lack of communication, commitment, and satisfaction. The study of interpersonal conflict in the coach-athlete relationship is important because it can impact relationship members level of stress, confidence, motivation, self-esteem, and performance accomplishments. Thus, its nature, antecedents, and consequences are areas that need to be addressed (Greenleaf et al., 2001; Poczwardowski et al., 2002). Framed within a three-dimensional model of Closeness, Coorientation, and Complementarity (3 Cs), the purpose of this investigation was to examine the nature of a typical, adult, and top-level coachathlete relationship, that encountered interpersonal conflict. Participants Method A single coach-athlete dyad volunteered to participate in the study. The criteria for selection included the dyad s relationship type, sport status, and experience of conflict. More specifically, the selected dyad (a) had a typical coach-athlete relationship, (b) participated in an individual sport and performed at a national and international level, and (c) experienced conflict or negative relational issues in the athletic relationship. The athlete was a female performer and represented the national team for over 13 years. The coach was a male national coach and his coaching career spanned a period of 12 years. (The nationality and specific sport of the participants are not reported to protect the dyad s identity.) At the time of the study, the dyad was working together for approximately a four-year period. The dyad s greatest success was a silver-medal in the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. Instrument and Procedure The interview schedule employed was similar to that used in previous studies (Jowett & Meek, 2000a, 2000b; Jowett & Pearce, 2001). The interview schedule 2 consisted of 75 open-ended questions. An introductory section of 11 questions was designed to collect general and demographic information relevant to the investigation (e.g., What are your major athletic achievements? How long have you been participating in sport? How many years have you been training with your current coach?). The main body of the interview schedule was divided into three sections: The first section was concerned with the nature (quantity and quality) of emotional closeness and included 18 questions (e.g., What does it mean to you to have a close relationship with your coach? Is there anything about your coach that you dislike? Do you trust your coach?); the second section was concerned with the nature of coorientation and consisted of 21 questions (e.g., Do you discuss with coach about training and competitions? How well do you know each other? Do you share the same performance goals?); and the third section was concerned with the nature of complementary behaviors and included approximately 25 questions (e.g., Can you describe the roles that you take as an athlete in the coach-athlete relationship? In what ways has your coach supported you over the years? Have you ever rebelled against your coach? How does your coach compare with coaches you worked with in the past?). Although separate interview schedules were prepared for the coach and the athlete, the dyad was asked similar questions with probes as

4 A Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis 447 needed. The interviews were arranged and conducted separately on a back-to-back sequence. Each interview lasted over two hours and thirty minutes. Both interviews were audiotaped with the participants permission. Data Analysis The data analysis followed procedures used in Jowett and colleagues earlier studies (e.g., see Jowett & Cockerill, in press; Jowett & Meek, 2000a). Briefly, the tape-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were then translated into English. Back-translation procedures were employed in several instances in order to ensure that the original meaning was not altered with the translation. Individual and combined vignettes were produced in order to promote understanding of each relationship member and of the dyad as a whole. At this stage, the data were deemed ready to be content analyzed. Content analysis was used as a method to classify the many phrases obtained from the interviews into much fewer content categories (Weber, 1990). The 3 Cs formed the general content categories. Following the initial categorization of the data into the 3 Cs (including both positive and negative relational aspects), a hierarchy of responses was then generated which moved from specific (i.e., raw data units) to general categories (including first-order and second-order themes). These categories provided an alternative mode of classification. Subsequently, frequency analysis in terms of percentages supplemented the deductive-inductive content analysis. It was used to determine the frequency in which participants cited second-order themes and general content categories. Frequency analysis has been commonly used in qualitative studies in order to facilitate the identification of patterns in the data and for comparison purposes (e.g., Greenleaf et al., 2001; Jowett & Meek, 2000a; Scanlan et al., 1991). Two researchers, both of whom were trained in qualitative methodology, participated in examining the classification system. This is known as investigator triangulation (Denzin, 1978); its use undermines bias arising from single evaluations and heightens the validity and credibility of findings (Patton, 1990). Investigator triangulation revealed some variations in the classification system relevant to organization and interpretation. Discussions and elaborations among the investigators led to reaching consensus about the final classification system. In an effort to maximize the trustworthiness of the case studies beyond the investigator triangulation evaluations, practical strategies were employed in order to increase the confidence with which the information is regarded. For example, both participants (coach and athlete) were well informed prior to the interviews about the nature of the study. The aims and background of the research project were outlined in the first communication seeking the dyad s participation in the study. Secondly, rapport was built between the interviewer and the interviewees. The author s background as a former athlete and a coach aided the development of a friendly atmosphere and facilitated clear and honest communication during the interviews. However, because this familiarity could have posed problems, the participants were encouraged prior to and during the interview to express their views as fully and freely as they possibly could. Thirdly, both participants were assured that confidentiality issues would be respected. Indeed, names of the participants were removed from all documents. Other information (e.g., personal and sport related) which could lead to identification, and which is not absolutely essential

5 448 Jowett to the study, was either removed or disguised. Finally, the participants were asked to check the transcriptions and inform the investigator of their accuracy. Both participants confirmed that the transcriptions were an accurate representation of their interviews. Results A brief history of the dyad s partnership is provided first, before detailed descriptions and interpretations relating to the nature of the dyad s relationship are presented. Both relationship members during the interviews referred to two significant phases that had an impact on themselves and on their athletic relationship. In 1994, the relationship was formed and started to grow. The athlete explained that their relationship was formed out of convenience and necessity; during this period, open channels of communication underlined the athlete s relating and working with the coach. The coach described the development of the relationship as follows: in the beginning it was conventional, relaxed and distant... and purely professional... when the first results made their appearance, our relationship was strengthened very much. The athlete expressed that she was satisfied working with her coach, she stated that he [the coach] was the only one who had never set any limits to my performance and I liked that... my previous coaches used to comment on my capabilities, in general, as if I could not [perform] any [better].... This period of exploration and hard work was rewarded by modest successes and eventually led to the climax of winning a silver Olympic medal in the 1996 Atlanta Games. Although the course of the dyad s athletic relationship was characterized according to the athlete as a continuous give and take, a sense of stability and trust before and during the Olympic Games, following this success, the nature of the relationship started to change. This second phase of the relationship was described as being less exciting and effective. More specifically, the athlete stated that relating to and working with each other has become increasingly difficult and the coach explained that the relationship s quality was affected because social issues came in between us. The following discussion is focused on the dyad s current relationship issues. Closeness Of the data coded from the 18 questions about closeness, 38 (59.4%) raw data units were attributable to closeness and 20 (31.2%) units were attributable to lack of closeness. Closeness contained positively framed statements suggesting a positive emotional connectedness and lack of closeness contained negatively framed statements suggesting a negative emotional climate. Six (9.4%) raw data units were irrelevant utterances; 3 thus, they were not considered in the discussion that follows. Closeness included two second-order themes: personal feelings and generic feelings (see Figure 1). Only the athlete referred to the second-order theme of personal feelings accounting for 10.3% and included the first-order themes of interpersonal like and trust. For example, she said, I like his training programmes... and the way he works... I like it because when he sets a goal, he works hard and nothing else matters and so do I and I feel I can trust him... I have to trust him if this co-operation that we have is to be successful. The secondorder theme of generic feelings accounted for 49.2% of the data and included the

6 A Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis 449 first-order themes of respect, belief, and intimacy. Only the coach cited the theme of respect: You need to earn the respect of your athletes.... As a former athlete I know that to become a top-level athlete requires a lot of sacrifices and I respect them for that. Mutual belief was a relational aspect that both the athlete and the coach raised in the interview. The athlete referred to mutual belief (belief that the coach can improve her performance) as a factor that encouraged her to work hard in order to achieve the goals set. Similarly, the coach explained that he believed in his athlete s abilities and this was the driving force that made him persevere through the ups and downs. Moreover, the coach illustrated using a metaphor that feeling close to one another was an important element because it help[s] essentially the coach to discover the soul and heart of the athlete. However, both participants set limits to their levels of closeness and emotional attachment; they stated to a degree close (coach) and close to a point (athlete). The athlete reasoned that close emotional involvement impacts on coaches objective judgment and status. This view was also supported by the coach; he explained that the ability to impose order and control become problematic once the development of stronger feelings are allowed to dictate the athletic relationship. The coach stated that a balance of feelings is required: You have to be close to the athlete and respect her, but at the same time you have to be able to impose, direct, and persuade. To strike a balance between being friendly and being demanding is important... and you as a coach you also have to know when that balance can lean to one or another direction. The coach expressed that the intensity (quantity; how much) of closeness was a function of the sport season. For example, it was argued that during the preparation season, strong feelings of closeness create a sense of unity or being in sync with each member of the team. In effect, this unity enables both the coach and the athlete to complete effectively the hard training that is being demanded during the preparation season. On the other hand, in the competitive season, the coach argued that these feelings of closeness have to loosen up and allow the athlete s autonomy to develop. Lack of emotional closeness was cited by both dyad members and consisted of two second-order themes. The themes of feeling unattached accounted for 16.9% and feeling distressed accounted for 14.5% (see Figure 1). Feeling unattached included the first-order theme of isolation, whereas feeling distressed included the first-order themes of frustration and anger. The athlete explained that her feelings about her coach changed following the Olympic Games. Emotions and feelings caused the athlete to feel isolated at a personal and interpersonal level. The athlete further revealed that she experienced frustration and often anger, which in turn prevented her from not only relating with her coach but also completing her training sessions as she would have otherwise expected. The athlete stated this: I just want to enjoy again my sport.... I have come to believe that [my coach] does things just to annoy me, to create problems; for example, he compares me with other athletes in a degrading way. The coach too expressed negative feelings about his athlete. The coach felt rejected by and dissatisfied with his athlete s behavior: It is intimidating, because top-level athletes with the greatest performances in the world can become so spoiled. One day they wake up surrounded by

7 450 Jowett Figure 1 Hierarchy of data categories related to Closeness.

8 A Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis 451 money, cars, and houses.... And, when the next day success is no longer there, coach becomes the scapegoat. Coorientation Of the data coded from the 21 questions about coorientation, 20 (35.7%) data units were attributed to coorientation and 30 (53.6%) units were attributed to its diametrically opposite relationship aspect, namely, lack of coorientation. Coorientation contained statements that suggest that both relationship members have reached a common ground (e.g., similar beliefs, values, practices, goals), whereas lack of coorientation reflects the dyad s discrepant views and opinions. Six raw data units (10.7%) were irrelevant utterances. Both the coach and the athlete identified the construct of coorientation as a positive element of the relationship. Coorientation included two second-order themes, namely, shared knowledge and shared understanding (see Figure 2). Shared knowledge accounted for 32.3% of the data and included the first-order themes of self-disclosure and information exchange, whereas shared understanding accounted for 3.4% of the data and included the first-order themes of acceptance and influence. The coach explained that his coaching job was less complicated because he knew his athletes well. Knowledge of the athletes personality, behavior, strengths, weaknesses, aspirations, and dreams placed the coach in an advantageous position. This position enabled him to read his athletes mental and physical condition at any given time. Furthermore, it enabled the coach to work with each athlete appropriately and effectively in order to bring about improvements in performance. Specifically, the coach stated that exchanging and disclosing information were very useful tasks: I discuss the training programmes with her [athlete], or I can infer whether the program works or not from what I see in the sport field, for example, how she moves, how enthusiastic, and energetic she is.... I frequently ask her how she feels and whether she feels physically or mentally tired in order to make the appropriate changes.... Her opinion counts, it is only natural to consider what the athlete thinks and feels, so whenever convenient we talk.... Her word counts in the creation of the program, which is and has to be tailor-made to her strengths and weaknesses. The athlete too expressed that discussions with her coach had contributed to achieving her performance goals. She stated: my coach is my friend and I can discuss with him anything and so can he. I believe that athletes have to talk with their coaches about the training program in order to come to joint decisions. Although, knowledge was available, the athlete felt that [understanding] each other is important, but I am not sure how much or how well we have come to understand each other, indicating that the dyad s coorientation or common ground was somewhat limited. Both the coach and the athlete referred to disagreements, inadequacy signs, unequal needs and imbalanced influence. Disagreements and inadequacy signs led to the formation of the second-order theme of disconnection (25%), whereas imbalanced influence and unequal needs led to the formation of the second-order theme of contention (28.6%; see Figure 2). Disconnection and contention, in turn, led to a disoriented state of affairs in the dyad s relationship. In other words, coaches

9 452 Jowett Figure 2 Hierarchy of data categories related to coorientation.

10 A Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis 453 and athletes thoughts about important issues relevant to their athletic relationship, such as performance goals and plans, were not congruent. For example, the athlete proclaimed that following the Olympics, she needed a break in order to regain strength and energy. This need was not shared, accommodated, or understood by her coach. The athlete stated the following: I needed to let myself rest and relax, and I probably did just that subconsciously; [coach] did not understand how I felt and he pushed me, something I could not tolerate at the time.... I carried on training and competing through the seasons under his instructions resulting in suffering of exhaustion, failing to qualify [at a major Championship], and injuring myself. The athlete viewed that the relationship continued in an unstructured fashion without an organized provision of training and clear goals. The coach during the interview appeared to be trapped in his own preoccupations and personal obligations; he expressed, before the Olympic Games there was a continuous effort of improving our performance, after winning such a prestigious event it was about confirmation... it is natural to try to outperform that success and that causes anxiety in itself. The loaded responsibility and preoccupation to confirm the success achieved on the part of the coach contributed to being disconnected from the athlete. The coach was seemingly consumed with personal ambition and thoughts of maintaining and continuously trying to prove his athlete s competencies. This ambition was largely pursued through participating in social and athletic events, neglecting basic principles of training and coaching (e.g., goal setting and recovery periods). In addition, it became evident that social issues (e.g., status, sport authorities, fans, media, and press) noticeably impinged upon the coach, the athlete, and their athletic relationship. The athlete strongly emphasized the need to set goals and start working together again as before. However, the coach appeared moderately content with the relationship; despite the difficulties stated in coaching his athlete effectively, he expressed that their athletic relationship is strong and deep-rooted. Complementarity A total of 80 (95%) raw data units emerged from coaches and athletes responses from the 18 questions about complementarity. Forty units (50%) were attributed to complementary behaviors and 36 units (45%) were attributed to noncomplementary behaviors of lack of complementarity. Complementarity included statements that reflect compatible behaviors, whereas noncomplementarity included incompatible behaviors between the relationship members. Four units (5%) were unclassified irrelevant utterances. Complementarity included the second-order themes of reciprocal behavior and helping transactions and was cited by both dyad members (see Figure 3). Reciprocal behaviors accounted for 44.3% and included the first-order themes of roles and tasks, whereas helping transactions accounted for 6.2% of the data and included different types of social support. The athlete and the coach alike said that due to the nature of the relationship, their actual behavior on the track was based on the give and take principle. In other words, both of them needed each other in order to train and coach respectively. The coach described that their roles in the sports

11 454 Jowett Figure 3 Hierarchy of data categories related to complementarity.

12 A Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis 455 field were complementary. He stated, my work was complemented by my athlete s hard work and ascertained, speaking in general, that coaches and athletes need to be receptive and responsive to each other s actions. Such complementary behaviors aim to enhance each other s contribution in reaching the goals set and achieving success. The athlete explained that her lengthy experience in the competitive arena allowed her to take an active role in her training. She stated that as an athlete, I have many experiences, even more than my coach himself does; I believe that it would be silly not to use this knowledge to our advantage. In that way, the athlete s experience complemented the coach s job. Moreover, the athlete referred to the importance of the instructional and emotional types of support that coaches provide. The athlete reported that the latter type of support was provided moderately despite its importance during the time that she was injured and distressed. The nearly equal distribution of complementary behaviors or positively framed statements (50%) and noncomplementary behaviors or negatively framed statements (45%) suggests a potentially problematic pattern of behavioral interactions. The second-order themes of ineffectual support (15.5%) and opposed behaviors (29.5%) included first-order themes such as lack of support (cited only by the athlete), incompatibility, and power struggles (see Figure 3). More specifically, roles that did not fit the bill of the athlete arose. The athlete stated that the quality and amount of support dropped considerably following the Olympic Games: He was paying more attention to his other athletes.... He ruined the model coach I had. He stopped providing me with certainty, energy... he even said to me that it would be difficult to perform as good as I have done in the past. The coach referred to being disappointed with the athlete s behavior; the coach felt that there was a lack of responsiveness relative to the way he wished to coach her: There is cooperation due to the nature of the relationship... [However] because I had not had her since she was a young athlete, I am not the boss.... There are situations, however, where I have to be the boss, where I have to direct and be demanding. In any case [athlete] is not the boss, she has to follow my instructions.... Many times, I have felt that this is a matter of wanting and not being able to exert influence on [my athlete]. The coach repeated several times in the course of the interview that, our relationship is peculiar, as I had not had her from a youngster. The coach explained the importance of being able to influence and exert power on the athlete in a constructive way in order to make the athlete benefit. However, because the specific athlete was an adult, moulded in a specific way, the coach felt that his views were not always influential. The coach s preferred way of interaction during training would be that of directing the procedures and expecting the athlete to follow. The inability to exercise this coaching style became more pronounced following the Games and caused him to feel frustrated and, perhaps to a degree, inadequate. The athlete confirmed this power struggle: He cannot influence me... I have been performing in competitive sport for many years; I know what works for me best.... Sometimes he does not like it.... With his other athletes he is domineering but he can t be with me.

13 456 Jowett Associations According to Kelley et al. (1983), in dyadic relationships, two people s emotions, cognitions, and behaviors are interrelated. Correspondingly, it is expected that in the coach-athlete relationship, coaches and athletes emotions (Closeness), cognitions (Coorientation), and behaviors (Complementarity) are interrelated. The interrelationships between the 3 Cs are termed here associations. Such associations were reported during the interviews by both the coach and the athlete. A total of 47 statements (of which 29 or 59.2% were negative) were recorded and placed under the three association categories of closeness/coorientation (11), coorientation/ complementarity (16), and complementarity/closeness (20). Within these categories, positive and negative associations were present. Positive associations included the relational aspects of closeness, coorientation, and complementarity, whereas negative associations included the relational aspects of lack of closeness, lack of coorientation, and noncomplementarity. An example of a positive association between closeness and coorientation is, I believe that we can come closer [closeness] if we start setting common goals again [coorientation]. The athlete further explained that lack of common goals (lack of coorientation) resulted in disliking and in drifting apart from her coach (lack of closeness) denoting a negative association. Both these accounts indicate that coorientation and lack of coorientation affect levels of closeness differentially; the reverse is also true. For example, for athletes to disclose information to their coach (a means by which coorientation develops), they will have to trust them first. In this study, trust was only evident on the part of the athlete and was related to coorientation: my coach is my friend [closeness] and I can discuss with him anything [coorientation]. Other positive associations between closeness and complementarity include [my athlete] appreciates [closeness] my professional approach to coaching [complementarity] and if [coach] starts caring about me [closeness]... like he used to, we could be successful again [complementarity]; these quotes illustrate that emotional closeness (care, respect, appreciation) is associated with complementary behaviors. A negative association between lack of coorientation and noncomplementarity is the following: He didn t want to understand me [lack of coorientation]... resulting in burning me out and injuring me [noncomplementarity]. In this association, lack of coorientation affected negatively the athlete s physical and psychological preparation. This association suggests that coaches skill to bring the best out of their athletes requires to continuously update their knowledge and understanding regarding their athletes strengths and weaknesses, personal goals and dreams, physical and psychological tolerance thresholds, commitment, and the like. Overall, these associations reveal that the 3 Cs are interrelated aspects and thus their existence into a single integrated coach-athlete relationship model is justified. The examination of the 3 Cs as interrelated aspects is important in uncovering the more complex and deeper nature of interpersonal athletic relationships. Although these associations are consistent with previous studies (Jowett & Cockerill, in press; Jowett & Meek, 2000a), research is needed to examine the substantive nature of these critical linkages, for example, the extent to which closeness predicts complementarity or vice versa and whether positive associations between the 3 Cs lead to higher levels of satisfaction and performance accomplishments than negative associations do.

14 Discussion A Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis 457 The ultimate goal of a coach-athlete relationship is to produce a combined outcome of an improved performance. Such a process might be slow or quick, interesting or uninteresting, successful or unsuccessful. Wilmot (1975) describes the developmental process of a relationship in terms of progressive and regressive spirals. A progressive spiral is an upward spiral that drives the relationship and its members to enjoy a honeymoon voyage marked by satisfaction and performance accomplishments, whereas a regressive spiral is a downward spiral that is characterized by an unstable and unsuccessful relationship course. This study, framed within a three-dimensional conceptualization of the coach-athlete relationship (3 Cs), highlighted the difficulties between two interdependent people to negotiate their rights, responsibilities, and assessments for each other. The dyad s accounts suggest that although an apparently progressive spiral marked the first phase of the relationship, a regressive spiral was experienced in the second phase. Overall, the findings reveal that the second phase of the dyad s relationship was marked by both positive and negative relational components. The emerged positive relational components are similar to those found in atypical (Jowett & Meek, 2000a, 2000b) and typical coach-athlete relationships (Jowett & Cockerill, in press; Jowett & Pearce, 2001). The finding that closeness was divided into a positive and a negative component is significant. Positive feelings necessary for the existence of any relationship, such as belief and respect, were present, but their presence was circumscribed by the experience of negative feelings (e.g., lack of trust and commitment). Moreover, an apparent lack of understanding between the coach s and athlete s needs, wants, and desires prevented the dyad from continuing or even restoring an otherwise successful coach-athlete partnership. The athlete s outcry for a new start by setting new goals on one hand, and the coach s assertion that everything is progressing well on the other, indicate that the relationship members failed to realize areas of disagreements and the need to update their coorientation by establishing new common grounds. Finally, a major problem that underlined the dyad s behavior was the desire or need to enact their prescribed roles in ways that the other did not necessarily agree with. Although, both relationship members have appeared to acknowledge negative behavioral interactions, there was no indication that they were prepared to deal with and solve this potential problematic area of their relationship. Subsequently, such negative relational issues had seemingly unpleasant ramifications to the dyad s performance accomplishments and satisfaction. These findings support evidence (Greenleaf et al., 2001; Jowett & Cockerill, in press; Jowett & Meek, 2000a; Poczwardowski et al., 2002; Vernacchia et al., 2000) that indicates a link between the quality of the coach-athlete relationship and its outcomes. The question that arises is this: What happened to the dyad s athletic relationship following the Olympics? According to Braiker and Kelley (1979), the more the interdependence experienced by two people, the more the potential areas of interpersonal conflict. Therefore, one explanation is that given the evolution of the relationship, the relationship members passed the stage of ingratiation and moved up to closer and riskier self-disclosure. Although self-disclosure is beneficial because it enables relationship members to establish a common ground (i.e., cooriented views, practices, and goals) and facilitates cooperation (Hinde,

15 458 Jowett 1997; Jowett & Cockerill, in press), it involves risks and increases the discloser s vulnerability. Especially in the absence of interpersonal trust, as was the case for this dyad, extreme openness is unsafe, and it can be used to harm rather than to benefit the relationship and its members. Another explanation for the dyad s interpersonal conflict comes from evidence that suggest that either in the absence of goals or when goals become conflicting and broken relational roles lead to the breakdown of a relationship (e.g., Baxter, 1986; Braiker & Kelley, 1979; Canary & Stafford, 1994). Particularly, roles that relate to the autonomy versus connectedness distinction are very important. For example, the existence and maintenance of all relationships require a degree of connectedness and autonomy so that relationship members feel united and in control of their environment. However, attempting to be too close may be just as isolating as independence, and attempting to be too controlling or directive can be seen as constraint. Thus, optimal levels between connectedness and autonomy have to be achieved (cf. Jowett & Meek, 2000b). It has been suggested that this balance can be achieved when relationship members make some compromises and sacrifices (Van Lange et al., 1997). Lack of commitment may be a relationship factor accounting for how and why the dyad did not show an inclination to compromise. If the coach and the athlete compromised, then problems that were related to noncomplementary behaviors could have been resolved, and new performance goals could have been agreed upon. Subsequently, such acts of compromise or sacrifice could have prevented the break up of a successful coach-athlete dyad the dyad s athletic partnership was ended six months following the interviews. The current findings represent the first systematic step in understanding the role interpersonal conflict plays in the coach-athlete relationship. The insights of this single case study into interpersonal conflict warrant further investigation. In an attempt to explain the complexity inherent as athletic dyads move toward relationship instability and, in some cases, termination of that relationship, researchers might wish to examine the process, content, and duration of conflict during periods of change, adjustment, and/or adaptation. References Baxter, L.A. (1986). Gender differences in the heterosexual relationship rules embedded in break-up accounts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A.M. (1989). Issues in studying close relationships: Conceptualising and measuring closeness. In C. Hendric (Ed.), Close Relationships (pp ). London: Sage. Braiker, H.B., & Kelley, H.H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R.L. Burgess & T.L. Huston (Eds.), Social Exchange in developing relationships (pp ). New York: Academic Press. Canary, J., & Stafford, L. (1994), Communication and relational maintenance. London: Academic Press. Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Duck S. (1994). Dynamics of relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16 A Coach-Athlete Dyad in Crisis 459 Greenleaf, C., Gould, D., & Dieffenbach, K. (2001). Factors influencing Olympic performance: Interviews with Atlanta and Nagano U.S. Olympians. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, Hemery, D. (1986). The pursuit of sporting excellence: A study of sport s highest achievers. London: Willow Books Collins. Hinde, R.A. (1997). Relationships: A dialectical perspective. London: Psychology Press. Jowett, S. (2001). The psychology of interpersonal relationships in sport: The coach athlete relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter, UK. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. (2002). Incompatibility in the coach-athlete relationship. In I. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in Sport Psychology (pp ). London: Thomson Learning. Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. (in press). Olympic medallists perspective of the athlete-coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. Jowett, S., & Gale, E. (2002, July). An exploratory study into the nature of the coach-athlete relationship in track and field athletics. Presented at the Annual Conference of the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Manchester, UK. Jowett, S, & Meek, G. (2000a). Coach athlete relationships in married couples: An exploratory content analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, Jowett, S., & Meek, G. (2000b). Outgrowing the family coach athlete relationship: A case study. In B.A. Carlsson, U. Johnson, & F. Wetterstrand (Eds.), Sport psychology conference in the new millennium: A dynamic research-practice perspective (pp ). Halmstad: Halmstad University. Jowett, S., & Pearce, J. (2001, May/June). An exploration into the nature of the coach athlete relationship in swimming. In A. Papaioannou, Y. Theodorakis, & M. Goudas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10 th world congress of sport psychology, (Vol. 3, pp ). Skiathos, Greece: Christodoulidi Publications. Kelley, H.H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J.H., Huston, T.L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L.A., & Peterson, D.R. (Eds.). (1983). Close relationships. New York: Freeman. Kiesler, D.J. (1997). Contemporary interpersonal theory research and personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York: Wiley. Newcomb, T.M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2 nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J.E., & Henschen, K.P. (2002). The athlete and coach: Their relationship and its meaning. Results of an interpretive study. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, Scanlan, T.K., Stein, G.L., & Ravizza, K. (1991). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters: III. Sources of Stress. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, Van Lange, P.A.M., Rusbult, C.E., Drigotas, S.M., Arriaga, X.B., Witcher, B.S., & Cox, C.L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, Vernacchia, R.A., McGuire, R.T., Reardon, J.P., & Templin, D.P. (2000). Psychosocial characteristics of Olympic track and field athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis. (2 nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

17 460 Jowett Wilmot, W.W. (1975). Dyadic communication: A transactional perspective. London: Addison-Wesley. Notes 1 Jowett and colleagues (Jowett, 2001; Jowett & Cockerill, in press) have used the terms typical and atypical relationships to refer to the different types of coach-athlete relationships that are formed in team and individual sports. More specifically, the typical relationship refers to the coach and the athlete who are not related in any other way other than through their athletic relationship, whereas the atypical relationship is a dual role relationship in which the coach and the athlete are also related through familial, marital, or educational ties. 2 The interview schedule is available upon request from the author. 3 Irrelevant utterances are accounts that did not have direct bearing on the investigation (e.g., athlete s mental state during the Games, thoughts about training camps, the significance of attending social events following the Games). Although these accounts are excluded from the discussion of the results, they are accounted for because they were raised during the interview. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the participants of this study for their determination to open up and share positive and negative interpersonal experiences. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. A. Stathi and Dr. I. Yaka for their valuable insights during the data triangulation and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and critical feedback. Manuscript submitted: November 9, 2001 Revision received: November 10, 2002