Influence of athlete gender on the coaching process of successful coaches of combined gender sports

Nicole A. Kulikov, MA, University of Northern Colorado

Wade Gilbert, Ph.D., California State University, Fresno

Athlete gender has been widely cited as a characteristic that influences the coaching process. The coaching process is defined as formal and informal coach actions in training, organization, and competition designed to improve performance (Côté et al., 1995; Lyle, 2002). Three common models that provide empirical support for the influence of athlete gender on the coaching process are Chelladurai’s (1993) multidimensional model of leadership, a mediational model of leadership that was developed from work with youth sport coaches (Smith & Smoll, 1989), and the coaching model developed by Côté and colleagues (1995). All three of these models include athlete gender as an antecedent of coach leadership style. Although similarities have been cited between male and female athletes, sufficient differences have been found to warrant a plethora of gender-based research on the characteristics of male and female athletes.

Currently, coaches of single sports can access literature relative to coaching male or female athletes and utilize that literature as a resource to inform and improve their own coaching practices. However, many sports, particularly at the high school level and below, often combine both males and females in the same training/competition environment under the direction of the same head coach. Based on evidence of gender-related differences, coaching a combined gender sport may increase the difficulties that coaches often encounter in developing an effective coaching process.

This article is a presentation of the findings of a study that examined the coaching processes of four head coaches of NCAA Division I and II cross-country/track & field combined gender teams. Interviews were conducted with each coach and two of his or her athletes. The coaches of these four teams were highly successful. Each of the coaches had won various coaching honors, ranging from conference and region Coach of the Year to various honorable positions on NCAA, World, and Olympic teams and committees. It is hoped that this information will (a) provide an opportunity for coaches of combined gender sports to be able to recognize when a situation may call for a gender-specific approach, and (b) offer strategies that can be used to develop effective gender-specific approaches.

The coaches acknowledged that there were some athlete gender differences that necessitated an adapted approach relative to gender. These differences emerged primarily in issues concerning organization and communication. The athletes themselves, both male and female, expressed more of an awareness of athlete gender differences, and in fact felt that there were many times where their coaches could have been more effective if they had adapted their approach to fit these differences.

Note: Participant codes are labeled as follows: C1 = Coach one; C1MA = Coach one’s male athlete; CIFA = Coach one’s female athlete.

Communication

One of the differences noted was that females, in general, tend to be more sensitive and take criticism personally: “The men handle criticism differently than the women” (C2). “I think girls are a lot more sensitive to things” (C4FA). “The men tend to not care as much if he gets personal” (C3MA). One of the areas that emerged in terms of female sensitivity was body-related issues. Two of the coaches and two of the female athletes discussed the need for coaches to be aware of the impact that body-related comments, even in joking or directed toward other females, can have on the female athletes’ perceived body image. This may be even more critical in younger athletes (high school and below) who are still developing their self-images and are under a stronger peer influence to attain what is often an unrealistic physical ideal.

The coaches also discussed how communication among the athletes themselves differs and needs to be monitored. For instance, one of the coaches (C4) found that team dynamics were a great factor in the effectiveness of his female team. If something, such as a fight between any of the female athletes was disrupting team cohesion, the team did not perform well. He did not find this to be the case with the male athletes: “I just feel that friendship is really important for the girls, but not so much with the guys because the guys will be pissed off and then they’ll race fine” (C3).

The coaches cited the need to self-monitor and be able to recognize a situation when a gender-specific communication approach may be necessary. For example, Coach 2 discussed how after a poor performance, her male athletes respond well to her relaying her disappointment in their efforts and consequently put in more effort in the following practices and competitions. However, she stated that if she tries this approach with her females they take it personally, becoming emotionally upset, and consequently withdraw from her, leading to a decline in effort.

Organization of Practices

In terms of organization, only one coach (C1) held separate practices for the genders. The other three coaches felt that it was important to maintain one cohesive unit as much as possible. The fact that the coaches discussed fairness and team cohesion or functioning as a “unit” may address why they made efforts to maintain uniformity with their approach. Specifically, three of the coaches (C1, C2, and C4) cited the development of a “team concept” as one of their main overall goals. “. . . today’s sports culture . . . team is the biggest thing in our society. You make the individuals better by trying to have the team concept” (C1).

However, all of the coaches, including those who held simultaneous practices, acknowledged that there were certain situations where separate meetings were necessary. Separate meetings were held when the coach needed to address gender specific issues or breakdowns in team dynamics, or simply felt that a gender specific approach was necessary in order to effectively communicate a message. For example, Coach 3 stated there were times when he held meetings for his female athletes to address conflicts that the female athletes were having among themselves that were affecting the overall team dynamics. This coach also stated that there had been times during his career when he had to address specific nutritional issues with his female athletes.

In conclusion, coaching a combined gender sport requires, above all, the ability to recognize situations when a gender-sensitive approach is necessary. Successful coaches know how to create a positive environment, be cognizant of their athletes’ psychological characteristics, and preserve a healthy coach-athlete relationship (Côté, et al., 1995). Coaches are encouraged to commit to understanding how their athletes, both male and female, respond to specific environmental processes and work to develop strategies that address any differences that may emerge.

References

Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant, (Eds.)

Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York: Macmillan.

Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1995). The coaching model: A grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches’ knowledge. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 1-17.

Lyle, J (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behaviors. London: Routledge.

Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.

Contact Nicole Kulikov at kuli6602@blue.unco.edu