Developing coaching strategies to enhance Singaporean athletes’ competency motivations

Competence motivations

The need for competence is the desire to be effective in dealing with one’s environment and this can be clearly linked, in sport, to maintaining, or more preferably, improving, performance (Vallerand & Rousseau, 2001). Research in competence motivation as identified by Elliot and Dweck (2005):

“Must account for the ways in which individuals' behavior is energized (instigated, activated) and directed (focused, aimed). Our analysis of the energization of competence relevant behavior is grounded in the premise that competence is an inherent psychological need of the human being” (p.6).

At its basic level, competence motivation can be self-referenced and task-mastery oriented (Bortoli et, al., 2011; Duda, 1989; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Papaioannou et al., 2006; and Barnett et al., 2008; Wang, Liu, Nikos, Chatzisarantis and Lim, 2010) or other-referenced and performance-avoidance oriented (striving to perform well to avoid punishment and/or embarrassment and unhappiness) (Heckhausen, 1984; Lewis, Alessandri, & Sullivan, 1992; Stipek, Recchia, & McClintic, 1992; Hill, 2008; Wang, Liu, Nikos, Chatzisarantis and Lim, 2010); it may also be group-oriented if responsibility to a team is viewed as the main focus driving athletes to perform effectively (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005; Naylor, 2006; Sebanz et al., 2006a); and this might be as a result of Confucian values in Asian contexts (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999; Chang, Wong, & Teo, 2000; Kuah, 2007; Sevdalis & Raab, 2013).

Models to analyze competence perceptions have been constructed and these have greatly contributed to our knowledge on intrinsic motivation. For example, Johnson and Johnson (2002) have focused on the relationship between relatedness and competence through cooperative achievement striving and Elliot and Dweck (1983) have found a positive correlation between task involvement and competence development as task-mastery striving. This positivity between these variables is reiterated by Wang, Liu, Nikos, Chatzisarantis and Lim (2010):

“When task involvement prevails, perceived ability is evaluated in a self-referenced manner and the focus is on achieving mastery, effort investment and progress in learning” (p. 325).

Indeed, research in achievement motivation in the sport domain (Duda, 1989; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Papaioannou et al., 2006; and Barnett et al., 2008) has demonstrated that elite sport involvement is primarily task-mastery competence-oriented; that is, continued participation in high level competition is driven by the need to acquire physical mastery in the sport. This positive relationship between a mastery-approach goal and intrinsic motivation has also been confirmed by Adie and Jowett (2010). Mastery leads to highly positive affects such as joy and pride. In contrast, a lack of task-mastery may lead to negative affects such as unhappiness and shame (Heckhausen, 1984; Lewis, Alessandri, & Sullivan, 1992; Stipek, Recchia, & McClintic, 1992).

With regard to the role of affiliative concerns, different cultures may produce different competence motivations. In Asian cultures such as China, Japan and South Korea, where Confucian values are prominent (Kuah, 2007), some research (Chang, Wong, & Teo, 2000) seems to demonstrate that there is a more positive attitude to group-oriented competence motivation that considers obligation and responsibility to the team as essential factors (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). This leads Sevdalis & Raab (2013) argue that the locus of attention on team competence rather than individual accomplishment might be more motivational in Asian contexts. Their research suggests that interacting with others to accomplish concrete collective objectives in teams is a more rewarding competence motivation for these individuals from Asian contexts, especially those involved in team sports.

Finally, competence motivation is also intricately related to notions of normative comparison regarding performance. Focusing on concepts such as self-presentation and self and affiliative worth rather than task-mastery is known as ego-involved goals. As Wang, Liu, Nikos, Chatzisarantis and Lim (2010) state, when ego involvement prevails:

“Success is other-referenced and the focus is on outperforming others or winning with less effort” (p. 325).

A performance climate of this nature is generally viewed as one that tends to nurture negative attitudes, including the possibility of athletes adopting deceptive strategies (i.e., cheating).

Coaching strategies to enhance competence motivations

Applying the Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP) to investigate the factors that lead to dropout and prolonged engagement in competitive sports, Fraser-Thomas et al., (2008: 2750) found that coaches with a greater focus on task orientation and mastery-approach goals were more readily accepted by athletes in individual activities such as swimming than those who concentrated primarily on more extrinsically-motivated goal orientations such as other-referencing and winning. These coaches focused primarily on winning or punishing losing and were more likely to exhibit performance-avoidance motivations .VandeBergheet al (2013, p.6) and Slack (1997) had similar results. Slack (1997) argues that ‘scold’ behaviour is ‘dysfunctional because it alienates people and builds up resentment’ (p. 181). In contrast, praise is said to be much more effective in promoting positive competence motivation (ibid).

Amorose and Horn (2000) also report that in team sports, coaches who discuss the teams’ performance positively, focusing on task-orientation rather than other-referencing, create more productive environments. Yukelson’s (1997) research also suggests that coaches who seek to build team identity and group pride, along with instilling in individuals an explicit team goal orientation, are more successful. Further, Wallace, Baumeister & Vohs (2007) highlight that it is important that coaches work towards training athletes not to choke under pressure by perceiving a lull in their individual performance to be instrumental to their team’s loss. If athletes tend to blame themselves for the team’s overall performance, it may increase the potential to focus less on task-mastery and more on performance-avoidance and hence have a negative impact on the team.

Participants

Both purposive and snowball sampling were applied to acquire the candidates for the research. The criteria for interviewees were: (a) aged between 19 and 25 (b) must have represented Singapore in national or international settings (c) for a continuous period of at least 2 years and (d) professed to have had a coach in a competitive setting for at least one year. A sample of ten highly competitive athletes both males (n=5) and females (n=5), from a variety of team and individual sports were selected (canoe, figure skating, floorball, handball, hockey, squash, rock climbing, football, swimming, taekwondo and track & field). Athletes from both individual and team sports were selected to observe if competence motivations were perceived differently by these samples. Any differences in motivation orientations could be recorded and might be useful for coaching purposes.

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants were told at the outset that they should express themselves as fully as possible to avoid the construction of an oral questionnaire. Open-ended questions, with relevant follow up prompts were applied. These were felt to be important as they would help to reduce any researcher bias. This method also has the advantage of encouraging rich descriptions (Smith & Caddick, 2012) as it provides respondents with a freedom to express themselves within a subjective space. The method therefore reinforces the interpretivist paradigmatic underpinnings of the research. Perspectives from individuals and their emotions were welcomed and encouraged during interviews so that qualitative descriptions of the symbols that they associate with these concepts could be garnered.

Initially, a question developed by Amorose and Horn (2000) was asked: how good do you think you are at your sport? This can be seen to relate to The Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale (BNSGS). It was deemed a useful opening question as it asked athletes to focus on evaluating their perceived competence. This was followed up with questions such as how important is it to feel good at your sport? After that, another question, related to the Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) by Bortoli et al., (2011) was asked: do you feel you can meet the challenges in your sport?” This was selected to elicit from athletes the challenges that they confront and therefore to enable the researcher to pose follow up questions regarding how the athlete deals with these. Both of these questions were designed to produce data to ascertain the level of the athletes’ competence awareness. The next question, the most important for the research, was to establish whether the athletes leaned more towards task or ego orientations as a competence motivation. This was elicited using an item from Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ from Duda & Nicholls, 1992): do you feel successful in your sport when you perform well or when you perform better than other players? The use of these scales, already developed for research practices, helped to provide structural validity for this work.

Data Analysis

An inductive, interpretational analysis of the raw data was conducted. The process followed six analytic strategies on data analysis: open coding, selective coding, reflecting on coding, seeking similarities and differences between codes, generalizing about codes to construct theoretical understandings, and then finally analyzing these generalizations through the lenses of existent research results to further knowledge in the field. Citations from interviewees were isolated that could be used to represent general homogenous meanings. Once the data had undergone this process, a second processor was engaged to analyze selected coding for the results. A high inter-rater agreement was found to confirm the study’s reliability.

The development of feelings of self-worth through awareness of competence

Task-mastery competency was connected with feelings of self-worth and confidence. All of the athletes reported that feelings about being good at the sport were quintessential to their continued engagement because these boosted their levels of confidence. One athlete described why confidence was so important:

“I enjoy skating because I am good at it. Since skating is all about confidence, the knowledge that you are good helps a lot because it relieves pressure.”

All of the athletes demonstrated an incremental view of their talents as malleable and open to development and related this to their levels of self-worth. At several instances during the interviews, the coach’s mastery and impact on the athletes was reported as absolutely essential at all levels for the athletes’ progression. For example, a runner explained that without her coach’s knowledge of mastery, her achievements would be greatly reduced:

“My coach knew I was in that phase, you know… once he pushed me past it, my running improved and I started enjoying it again”.

The findings also indicate a need for coaches to be able to recognize that errors often reveal risk-taking. Errors should be seen as a potential opportunity for constructive feedback and positive reinforcement.

Perceived as competent by other competing athletes or teams

Ego involvement motivations were also present in several interviewee accounts. For these participants, success was partially other-referenced by outperforming competitors. The athletes stressed the importance that other competitors believe them to be competent at their sport. It emerged that this relates to the importance of achievement standards proposed and collectively shared by significant others. One athlete stated that:

“It is good to know that they (competitors) watch me execute my shots with such precision. It shows how hard I’ve trained and helps to set the standard for the game”.

Self-worth is therefore also constructed as dependent on how the athletes project other competitors’ views about their performances.

Competent for the spectators’ enjoyment

Performance goals in terms of winning positive judgements of competence and avoiding negative ones, were linked to competence motivation also. For these athletes, spectators’ judgements and how much they enjoyed the performances, were important signifiers. One athlete stated that he:

“Felt good to know that they (spectators) could watch the team doing their set plays effectively”.

This feeling of competence was important. The athlete and his team felt motivated if they were able to meet their spectators’ expectations and perform as they should in order to entertain. Interestingly, if they were able to meet these standards, they felt that they had performed successfully, even if they had not won the match. This need to demonstrate competence to spectators did not refer solely to parents of players or friends at a sporting event but to all spectators present.

Importance of the team’s performance or competence above all else.

Athletes involved in team sports had a tendency to report that individual competence is much less important in team games. What mattered was the team’s overall competence. One athlete reported:

“There’s nothing more rewarding than when we play well collectively.”

Further, if an athlete feels that he has performed badly, it has less significance if the team has performed well overall. One athlete reported that this helped her to forget her individual failings:

“It helps me shift my focus away from my own whims, towards the team goal and team well-being.”

The development of feelings of self-worth through awareness of competence

This is the most significant motivation from the research. All participants acknowledged the importance of the coach’s views about their competence as a source of motivation and its relatedness to their own feelings of self-worth. This echoes much research in this field that has found correlations between achievement goals and the development of ability (Duda, 1989; Nicholls, 1989; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Papaioannou et al., 2006; Barnett et al., 2008). This also echoes research finding that coaches with a greater focus on task-mastery-approach goals were more readily accepted by athletes (Fraser-Thomas, Cote and Deakin, 2008).

In addition, potential self-government in competence amelioration was also rejected by athletes. At several instances during the interviews, the coach’s mastery and impact on the athletes was reported as absolutely essential for the athletes’ progression. Errors reveal risk-taking and are a potential opportunity for constructive feedback and positive reinforcement. When asked what a good coach does to develop self-confidence and self-worth, athletes reported that it is important that the coach, first and foremost, shows respect for the athletes and their skills. This means recognizing adept performance and communicating this to provide positive reinforcement.

Demeaning the athlete with too much harsh criticism, even if there has been a poor performance, was referred to as an ineffective approach to coaching and therefore not recommended. This supports research by Van de Berghe et al (2013); breaking athletes’ self-esteem at times when they are dissatisfied with their own performance may have negative impacts on future performances. This finding also tallies with research from Cameron & Pierce (1994) that argues that positive reinforcement increases intrinsic motivation. Indeed, it seems that at times of self-dissatisfaction such as these, the athlete needs encouragement and confidence-boosting and the coach should try to examine the performance in a constructive way by exploring any mistakes made as part of the learning process. Further, in training sessions, mistakes should not be discouraged as they often can lead to learning opportunities. If an athlete is asked to think through parts of a poor performance or watch a video with mistakes in it or acts that could be improved, this can have very beneficial rewards.

Perceived as competent by other competing athletes

This is an interesting aspect of competence motivation. It can be seen to be related to Hill’s (2008) work on the validation of self as the meeting of expectations imposed by significant others. This projection validates athletes’ sense of self and encourages them to focus on their performance. Although the majority of the athletes were very skeptical of performance avoidance as a sound training environment, there were perceptions that a climate in which interpersonal competition is emphasized, can be motivational. This was true for both individual and team sports. If coaches are aware of this importance, they might video the play or refer to it live during a break in play and raise their athletes’ awareness about how other players are perceiving them during a competitive event. This kind of feedback is likely to be provided to individual participants as their opposing competitors are similarly specialized. Thus, feedback might make explicit the way a competitor in a similar role is impressed by certain skills presented. For example, in football, a striker might be encouraged by a coach’s demonstration of how a defender assigned to that striker might find it difficult to cope with that striker’s speed or close ball skills. This personalized feedback could build the confidence of the athletes and enable them to further focus on developing their task-mastery.

Competent for the spectators’ enjoyment

From this research, it seems essential that the athletes feel that they perform well-enough to offer an interesting, exciting match for those watching. This has an impact on these athletes’ own achievement standards. If coaches are aware of the importance that athletes link to the spectators’ enjoyment, they might refer to this at a competitive event or during post-event training to build the confidence of the athletes so that they can further focus on developing their task-mastery. The possible difference this variable has with the above-mentioned perception is that this competence motivation could be more related to the team’s performance rather than the individual’s. Instead of focusing on how an opposing competitor finds an athlete’s successful behaviour difficult to assimilate, the coach could refer to the spectators’ involvement during the game and how that reflected the competence of the team.

Additionally, as research at the highest level from Wallace et al., (2007) demonstrates, critical audiences may also lead athletes towards ‘maladaptive self-monitoring and over-cautiousness’ (p. 429) at critical moments. This can induce an increased self-focus which might impact the automatic execution of the skills performers have developed through their practice. In order to deal with this potential obstacle, coaches might use video to help to condition athletes at the highest level to deal with supporter pressure during competitions. This is, according to these authors’ (Wallace et al., 2007), particularly important for more ego-oriented players who might have a tendency to choke if they feel they are underperforming.

The importance of the team’s performance or competence above all else.

This relates to the notion that competency in Asian cultures such as China, Japan and South Korea, may have a more positive attitude towards group-oriented competence motivation (Chang, Wong, & Teo, 2000), which considers obligation and responsibility to the team as essential factors in competence motivation (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). This finding appears to support research from Sevdalis & Raab (2013) who present how neurocognitive functions such as empathic tendencies can influence performance. Expanding on work on cooperative achievement striving by Johnson and Johnson (2002), Sevdalis & Raab (2013) posit that interacting with others to accomplish concrete collective objectives requires individuals to perceive others’ intentions, empathize with these, and adapt their own accordingly. This occurs during training as well as competitive sporting events. This embodied mutual engagement is important. Sevdalis & Raab (2013) state:

‘These perception–performance relationships are underscored by empathic processes associated with the capacity to understand other individuals’ affective or cognitive states’ (p.3).

Through the development of these relations, a bi-directional link or mutual ground of understanding is created and significant feelings of empathy developed. According to research (Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005; Sebanz et al., 2006a), these perception–action relations appear hardwired and pivotal in the development of intention, understanding and cooperation. This knowledge is also important for the confidence of each player in the team: if it is believed that the team is good, each individual feels confident, even if particular players might secretly feel that they are performing below their peak. This kind of encouragement can also be used to develop the motivation to win as a team, which is what Naylor (2006) suggests is good competency-orientated development practice.

In order to act in an informed way using these findings, coaches could first, facilitate a substantial amount of team practice; they could also set aside time to discuss performance in relation to the team perspective analysing strong or weak performances as a collective unit using collective terms such as the defense or attack, backs or forwards. Finally, a coach might set up group work activities as part of training such as requiring a group to study their own or another team’s performance and to report on it as a collaborative presentation.