Download Getting the Athletes and Coaches on the Same Page

*
Professional Practice
The Sport Psychologist, ?996,10,261-277
62 1996 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
The Use of a Performance Profiling Technique
in a Team Setting: Getting the Athletes
and Coach on the "Same Page"
Gregory A. Dale
Winthrop University
Craig A. Wrisberg
The University of Tennessee,
Knoxville
Both experimental and anecdotal data suggest that athletes of various ages,
abilities, ethnic backgrounds, and gender desire open two-way communication with their coaches (Chelladurai, 1980; Danielson, Zelhart, &Drake 1975;
Hendry, 1969; Masimo, 1980). In this paper we describe how performance
profiling procedures (Butler, 1989) may be used with teams to create a more
open atmosphere for coach/athlete communication and to facilitate team goal
setting. Specifically, a case study with a Division I women's volleyball team
is presented to illustrate the effectiveness of this procedure in profiling individual athletes, the team, and the coach. Profiles were conducted 1 week into
the practice season, at the midpoint of the competitive season, and at the end
of the competitive season. Significant improvements were made on one or
more characteristics by each athlete, the team, and the coach. As a result of
participating in this process, both the athletes and the coach agreed that there
was a more open atmosphere for communication. And, the athletes expressed
sincere appreciationfor the increased input they had in determining the nature
of their training program and their goals for competition.
Effective two-way communication between coach and athlete is essential
for athletic teams to maintain an acceptable level of success. Several researchers
in applied sport psychology (e.g., Martens, 1987;Vernacchia, McGuire, & Cook,
1992; Yukelson, 1993) have addressed the issue of coach-athlete communication
and the importance of allowing the athlete to have a voice in certain aspects of the
decision-making process. "Athletes want to be treated with respect and dignity
and want to feel that their input is valued and their contributions are appreciated"
Gregory A. Dale is with the Department of Health and Physical Education, 107
Peabody, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC 29733. Craig A. Wrisberg is in the Cultural
Studies Unit in the College of Education at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
37996-2700.
sem meal ay1 suo!lenl!s asayl jo auo lnq [ ~ u~
e 'Ipqlayseq s,uaw (a) pue 'lamos
s,uam (p) 'lpqlayseq s,uawoM (3) '~pqICal~on
s,uawom (q) 'plag p w y3e.q s,uauroM
(e) a p q ~ u !smeal asayL xapua8 p w ' ( ~ l q spasop pue uado) sadIC1 'sazys s n o p n jo
~ 3 ~p u o g e ~V) V ~ N
ang y l ! ~
Jamm
s m a l I uo!s!n!a ( u o ~ ~ ! ~ 3o s~s ~aa~e!%a1103
anbyuy~al8u!lgo~d aziwmlopad ayl pa)uaura~dur!aney arn 'alep o~
~ I ~ I ! eS U!
.pap!no~ds! uopuamaxu! ayl jo sa8els a y jo uogdu3sap 11rya 'uogenqs ayl pm m a 1
ayl jo uogdu3sap jauq e %u!mollod 'salalye pm? y3eo3 uaamlaq uoge3!ununuo3 loj
a~aydsowleuado alom e aleam ox Bu!llas m a ) e u! asn loj paldope seM anbluy3al
8u!l~~01daa3ueuuopad aql y3qm u! Apn)s ase3 e aqu3sap am 'ap!l.re sryl u1
'~~ysua1~emy3
q3ea jo slanal a,epdo~ddealom Su!na!y~e u! may lsrsse 01 padolanap
SVM 1eq1 ure18o~dBu!x1as-~eo8 ayl oxur ~ndu!iue3g!u8!s aney 01 alqe slam Lay1
'uo!1lppa ul .s3!lsua13e~y3asoq 01 uo!lelal uj sanlaswayl jo suoylda3lad ,salaIqle
aql uo paseq aJam s8uy1el a s a w .s3ys1~ra13e~ey:,
asoyl uo sanIasuray1 ale.101 uayl
pue uop!sod Iraq la JO pods l!ayl U! mmopad alga ue jo s3pspapemy3 Iljguap! 01
A~!unpoddoayx VIM pap!nold alam sala~yle'ase3 y3ea UI '(£661 "@ la lapna) uo1
uopeposse 'opnf '8u!wm!ms 8' u!33!1 ly8!am
-qxk?luadmapom pur! '~U!MO.I '~~eqlooj
'8u!xoq 'Aay~oypIag '8u!yeys paads 'Bu!pIC3 se y3ns spods jo Alapn e u! Su!led
-!3!md sIenp!A!pu! ql!m IClan!13a#a pazy~pnuaaq szy 8u!1!jold a~ueurropad
T pas f ~ 6 6 'Isah
1
78 h a a f ~ 9 6 '1s l a l p ~78 empuea
' ( ~ 8 6 1' w h ~
t9861 'wnpwa '%a) 1oguo31euos~ad~o
suo!lou h.1oduraluo301 re~!w!s Ill1enlda3
-uo3 s! 8u!uosea~ y3nS 'sleo8 m a 1 01 pa11!wmo3 alom aq 01 wayl sasne:, urn1 u!
y3qm ' m a ) ayl 03 uo!lnqu)uo3 e 8u;ryews! mdu! l ~ a yaYg
l Iaaj 01 may) smoIla lCzr
-l!q!suodsal y l ! ~salajyle 8uuamodma ley3 palsa88ns seq suawm mylo y3ea a3ua
-nUu! salalyle ayl p w y3eo3 ayl y3!qm U! d!qs~0!1ela-l3!meuICp e san1oAut ssa3old
.s[eo8 uomuroz~pue spaau s,.~aqloy3ea laaw 01 ~ayla8ol3 . ~ saxa~yla
0~
pua
S!~LZ,
ayl y l ! ~'pue sassauyeam pue syl8ual1s pa~!axadlawsly 01 sa uo!u!do ue a3ron
lay/sIy
01 a ~ ~ e yalalyle
3
ayl sari!% 11 'IC[le!luassa .uop!laduro3 loj uo!~e~eda~d
lnoqe slaaj axalqle ayl moy olu! 1y8!su! lalea18 u!e% ox ~ 3 ~ 1 aq1
0 3 se Ifam se 8aIyle
ay) smol~t?algo-rd a3ueunopad ay1 'Alla3g!3ads alom '($361 "P la lapna) ma1
-qo.~dr e ~ n q ~ e jo
d Ou!puelslapun ua ug8 01 %u!ldurane uaym uogsanb u! Ienpy
-!pu! ayl molj mdu! sa8emo3ua y 3 q hI0aw
~
13rulsuo3 leuoslad ( ~ ~ 6s1, k) ~ ~ a x
uo paseq s! 8ug!jo-rd a3ueuuopad 'slaxoq malem y x pauamaldur!
~ ~
Alleu!8!.10
'(£661 'sauof f£66T 'UjMJI 18 'V!wS 'JaIlnS fZ661 '~PEH18 laPn8 f 1661 '6861
'lapng) ;Yu?ggo~d
a3uvm~oS,lad30 ley3 s! uo!1e3!unmmo3 jo saug Buruado u! sala~
-qe pue sayDzo3 %ups~ssa
303 pgualod anvy 01 smadde 1 - e y3eoldde
~
auo
- y ~ aqayl p w may1 uaamlaq uo!xe~~unmuro:,uado alow jo a~ueuodm!ay1 lnoqe
J
say3eo3 Auew jo s s a u s n o ~ ~ s au o9 ~as!w 01 paMas aneq d a q 'laqurnu u! M ~ IC~an!l
s33e y3ns y 8 n o y ~'(266 I 'paax f ~ 616
aq ABUI pue saldmxa 1a3!pw ~uasa~dal
'uosuyof) y3eo3 qayl ~su!e%esqoAa1 lalle~dox palnqp1uo3 seq s!q~ sasm amos UI
.mauxuol!nua 8u!ua1za~yluoue u! suo!u!do p w spaau qayl ssaldxa 01 Al!unuoddo
ay1 saxalyxe qayl molle mopras awos 'A~a~wnzrojun
. ( 9 ~ 1'd '£661 'uoslayn~)
Performance Profiling
263
coming off a mediocre season, and the coach perceived a lack of unified purpose
and motivation among team members. Due to the detailed nature of each intervention, a single case study involving the women's volleyball team will be offered to
illustrate the steps taken in the profiling process with each of the teams.
This team consisted of 12 players (3 fourth-year players, 2 third-year players, 4 second-year players, and 3 first-year players). The team had a record of 14
wins and 16 losses the year previous to this intervention.
The volleyball coach was beginning his sixth season as head coach at the
time of this intervention. His prior sport experience included playing professional
baseball for 2 years and coaching a women's softball team at a different NCAA
Division I school for three seasons. The coach contacted the mental training staff
and expressed an interest in exploring ways to increase focus and unity with this
"relatively young team." He also indicated a sense of frustration as a result of his
perception of a "lack of communication" between himself and his players. Consequently, an initial meeting with the coaching staff was scheduled.
Meeting With Coaches
In the initial meeting with the coaches (head coach and an assistant), we explained
the performance profiling technique and supplied evidence of its effectiveness in
other situations. We then suggested that this technique might be used to create a
more open environment for communication between coaches and players.
We explained that the first two team meetings might be more effective if the
coaches were not present. This was done because we felt that the members of the
team would be more likely to express their thoughts and concerns if the coaches
were not present. Obviously, the coaches' willingness to allow this requires considerable trust in the sport psychology consultant. This trust is essential and is
gained only through hard work and the building of a positive relationship between
the coach and the sport psychologist (Yukelson, 1993). It is also imperative that
the athletes trust the sport psychology consultant. In the present example, an acceptable rapport with the athletes had been developed, and there was a foundation
of trust in place. The coaches were comfortable with this suggestion and agreed to
absent themselves during initial team meetings.
Performance Profiling Sequence
Initial Team Meeting
As advocated by Butler et al. (1993), the initial meeting with the team took place
early in the season to integrate the new members into the team and to assist athletes in setting goals (both personal and group) for the upcoming training season.
The concept of performance profiling was explained to the athletes and characterized as a technique that had been successfully employed with individual athletes
in a variety of sports. Particular emphasis was given to the fact that athletes would
be given an opportunity to become more involved in their performance preparation (Butler et al., 1993). We informed the athletes that performance profiling is
essentially a process designed to "get the athlete and coach on the same page" with
regard to important components of individual and team performance and subsequent goal setting. The remainder of the initial team meeting consisted of three
phases: (a) individual profiles, (b) team profile, and (c) coach profile.
264
Dafe and Wrisberg
IndividIcal Profiles. Once the athletes understood the concept of performance profiling, each was asked to think about the characteristics of an elite performer at her particular position (e.g., outside hitter, middle blocker, setter). An
elite performer was described as an all-conference athlete. This activity was carried out in small groups according to position so that the athletes would have an
opportunity to discuss various characteristics relative to their particular position.
In keeping with goal-setting principles emphasized by Burton (1984, 1989),
Gould (1993), Martens (1987), and Orlick (1986), the athletes were reminded to
think in terms of process or performance characteristics rather than outcome characteristics and to be as specific as possible when suggesting these characteristics.
Specificity was emphasized throughout the intervention with each athlete and with
the coach. After the athletes "brainstormed" characteristics,each was given a numbered sheet of paper entitled "Characteristics of an Elite Performer" and asked to
write down her own individual list of elite performer characteristics. Upon completing the list, she was asked to rate herself on a scale of 1 to 10 with respect to
her perceived level of each characteristic, with 1 being this is not me or I am not
very strong in this area and 10 being this is me or I am very strong in this area.
Athletes identified their personal set of characteristics by writing their names on
this sheet and returning it to the sport psychology consultant.
Once this process was completed, the athletes were informed that the coach
would also be asked to rate each player on the characteristics the athlete indicated
were essential qualities of an elite performer. They were told that the coach would
do this without knowledge of the athlete's rating. It was explained that by having
the coach rate each player as to his perceptions of that player on each characteristic, the two (coach and athlete) would begin the process of comparing their present
views of the athlete on those characteristics.
Team Profile. After the completion of the individual portion of this process, the athletes were asked to do a group profile of their current team. The initial
step involved arriving at what they considered to be characteristics of a successful
team. Athletes were asked to discuss what they thought successful meant in terms
of describing a volleyball team. After much discussion, the athletes unanimously
agreed that successful described a team that consistently finished at the top of the
final standings in their conference.
Once a definition of successful was determined, the athletes vocalized their
perceived characteristicsof such a team. All characteristics were written on a chalkboard for everyone to observe. When terms were vague or too general, the athletes
were asked to restate the characteristic in more specific terms. After some discussion, several of the characteristics were combined. For example, characteristics
such as "willing to do whatever it takes each practice," "dedicated to working hard
each practice," and "devoted to working hard each practice" were combined and
labeled "dedicated to giving maximum effort each practice."
After the athletes were satisfied that all relevant characteristics had been
written on the board, each athlete was given a numbered sheet of paper entitled,
"Characteristics of a Successful Team." They were then instructed to write each
characteristic that appeared on the chalkboard on the piece of paper and then rate
their own team on each characteristic on a scale of 1 to 10. It was em~hasizedthat
these ratings should be based on each athlete's perceptions of the team at the current time in the season. The athletes were also reminded not to write their names
on this sheet of paper to ensure confidentiality.
Performance Profiling
265
After all athletes were finished with this task, it was explained that the scores
would be combined and a mean score for each characteristic would be calculated.
Characteristics with the lowest mean score would then be targeted in helping the
team devise a goal-setting program to address perceived team weaknesses. The
athletes were informed that this information would be discussed at the next team
meeting in order to obtain group consensus on perceived strengths and weaknesses.
Once this was done, the coach would be asked to rate the team as to his perception
of the team with regard to team-devised characteristics.
Coach Profile. There have been numerous studies published in the sport
psychology literature addressing the desired leadershipcharacteristicsof the coach.
Much of this research has utilized various questionnaires based on Chelladurai's
(1980) MultidimensionalModel of Leadership and Chelladurai & Haggerty's (1978)
Normative Model for Decision Styles in Coaching. The results of studies testing
these models have revealed several factors associated with the desired leadership
style of a coach, such as age, competitive level, years of experience, gender, and
nationality of the athletes (Horn, 1992). Chelladurai (1980) has also indicated that
leadership effectiveness in sport is dependent on the characteristics of both the
leader and the group members and has suggested that optimal performance and
satisfaction on the part of the athletes is more likely to be achieved if the leadership behaviors exhibited by the coach are (a) similar to the preferred behaviors of
hidher athletes and (b) appropriate to the particular situation.
Athletes of various ages and abilities have expressed an interest in having a
coach who listens to them and who provides them with the opportunity to assume
personal responsibility. They have said things like "I appreciate a coach who is
interested in me as a person" and "I like a coach who respects and knows me as an
individual" (Masirno, 1980). Other desirable characteristics of the coach that have
been identified by athletes include conscientiousness, being realistic, being willing to break with tradition by being innovative in personal dealings with players,
stability during competitive crises, having sensitivity to individual differences in
athletes, cooperating with rather than dominating athletes, and positively critiquing performance when mistakes are made (Danielson et al., 1975; Hendry, 1969).
The final stage of the initial team meeting involved a session in which the
athletes were asked to brainstorm characteristics of the ideal coach and then rate
their coach on each of these characteristics. The team had two coaches: an assistant whose responsibilitiesincluded working primarily with blockers, and the head
coach who was involved with all players and with all aspects of team supervision.
Initially, we thought it would be more helpful to profile both coaches. However,
due to the more direct influence of the head coach on all team members, the athletes decided that only the head coach would be profiled and rated. At this point,
we explained that this was not a time to "air dirty laundry" or create a negative
situation. Rather, it was to be viewed as an opportunity for the athletes to express
themselves in regard to characteristics they desired in a coach and to convey feedback to him regarding his perceived strengths and weaknesses with respect to those
characteristics.
The athletes then identified the characteristics they deemed important for a
coach, and these were written on the chalkboard for everyone to observe. As with
the previous two profiling exercises, athletes were reminded to be as specific as
possible when vocalizing characteristics. Similar characteristics were combined if
necessary until a final list was derived. The athletes were then given a third sheet
266
Dale and Wrisberg
of paper entitled "Characteristics of the Ideal Coach" and were asked to write each
of the characteristics on it and then to rate their coach on a scale of 1 to 10 on each
characteristic. During this process the athletes were reminded that their individual
ratings of the coach would remain anonymous. They were encouraged to be sensitive
to the high-risk nature of this exercise for their coach and to be honest in their ratings.
Once this exercise was completed and ratings were collected, it was explained that an average group score would be calculated for each characteristic. A
second meeting would then be scheduled to allow for discussion of the results
before they would be communicated to the coach to assure that what team members were saying about his characteristics were accurate.
Again, it was explained that after the team members had an opportunity to
verify the resulting data in a second team meeting, the coach would have the opportunity to rate himself on each of the team-derived characteristics. He would be asked
to provide these ratings without being aware of the ratings given him by the team.
Second Team Meeting
This meeting took place within 1 week of the initial meeting, with only the athletes
and mental training staff present. The team profile was addressed first. Each athlete was provided a copy of the bar graph representing the group mean score for
each characteristic they had identified. As Butler et al. (1993) indicate, having a
visual profile for the athlete and coach to see, makes the information more easily
understood. The athletes were given the opportunity to discuss these results to
ensure that everyone agreed with them. A consensus was reached as to the accuracy of the results before moving to the next step. Figure I depicts the group profile degrmined by this team.
As can be seen in this figure, the athletes rated their team high in the characteristics of sound fundamentals, physical strength, dedication to giving maximum
effort, and talent. As a group they felt they were weak in the characteristics of
unselfishness, communication on the court, mental toughness, and possession of a
winning attitude.
Communicate Well on Court
Winning
Sound
Attitude
Fundamentals
Mentally Tough
Physically
Strong
Unselfish
Ded. to Giving Max. Effon
-
Talented
Figure 1 -Team profile composed by athletes.
I
I
I
PerformanceProfiling
267
I
Dedicated to his Work
Encouraging
Good Communicator
I
Confidenl in Program
Calm Under Psessun
Knowledgeable of the Game
I
I
I
Realistic Expectations
Treats A11 Players Equally
I\,
I
I
Figure 2 -Coach profile composed by athletes.
Once this process was completed, data from the coach characteristics were
discussed. Each athlete was provided a copy of the bar graph representing the
group mean score for each coach characteristic (Figure 2).
Inspection of Figure 2 indicates that the athletes felt their coach had a good
knowledge of the game, was confident in the program, was dedicated to his work,
and treated all players the same. The athletes felt he was weaker in his ability to be
realistic in his expectations, calm under pressure, and encouraging of his athletes.
He was rated weakest on his communication skills.
The team was given the opportunity to discuss these results to ensure that
everyone agreed with them. As it turned out, only one athlete gave the coach extremely low ratings for two of the "ideal" coach characteristics.Although the athlete in this situation was very emphatic about her low ratings, she agreed to discuss
the problem with the coach individually at a later time, and this portion of the meeting
ended with a consensus among all athletes on team and coach characteristics/ratings.
The final stage in the second meeting was the discussion of individual athlete profiles. Once again, each athlete was given a copy of a bar graph representing
the profile she had constructed of herself. The athletes were given an opportunity
to make any final changes in the profile at this time. An example of one setter's
profile is provided in Figure 3.
As can be seen from this figure, the athlete perceived herself to be a risk
taker who communicates well, possesses soft hands and quick feet, and is a relatively positive team leader. She also perceived herself to be weak in upper body
strength, peripheral vision, and mental toughness.
Before a third team meeting was held, the coach was asked to provide his
ratings of individual, team, and coach characteristics. For the individual profiles,
the coach was provided with a list of the characteristics each athlete indicated
were important in an elite performer and then was asked to rate the athlete based
on his perception of the athlete's strengths and weaknesses on those characteristics. The coach did not have access to the athlete's ratings at this point in the
process because it was felt he would be less influenced in his ratings if he were not
aware of how each player had rated herself. The same process was carried out for
268
-
Dale and Wrisberg
Mentally Tough
Positive Team Leader
Communicates we11
Good Peripheral Vision
I
I
I
I
Quick Feet
Upper Body Strength
A Risk Taker
Figure 3 -Individual athlete profile composed by athlete.
Communicate Well on Court
I
Winning Attitude
I
Sound Fundamentals
Mentally Tough
Physically
Strong
Unselfish
Ded. to Giving Max. Effort
Talented
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
Figure 4 - Team profile with contrasting coach rating. The dark lines are the athletes' scores; the grey lines are the coaches' scores.
characteristics of a successful team and an ideal coach. Once the coach provided
his ratings, profiles of each athlete, the team, and the coach were developed.
Third Team Meeting
To address the characteristics of the successful team and the ideal coach, a third
team meeting was held within a week of the second meeting, with coaches, athletes, and mental training consultantspresent. This meeting was conducted for two
reasons. First, to provide the coach and his athletes an opportunity to openly discuss contrasting ratings of team characteristics. Secondly, to allow the coach an
opportunity to address the characteristics his athletes desired in their coach.
A copy of the bar graph representing athletelcoach ratings of the current
team on characteristics that had been identified as essential for a successful team
was dismbuted to all group members (Figure 4). Characteristics rated highly by the
Performance Profiling
269
coach and the athletes (e.g., being dedicated to giving maximum effort) were addressed first and the coach complimented the athletes for each characteristic. He also
encouraged them to continue to maintain a high level of achievement in these areas.
Characteristics rated low bv both the athletes and coach were addressed in
the second phase of the meeting. For example, the ratings in Figure 4 indicate that
the athletes and the coach felt the team was not communicating very well on the
court nor playing as a group. The athletes felt this was due to a lack of camaraderie
and communication off the court. There were several players who indicated that
personal conflicts had diminished team play on the court. The coach agreed, and it
was decided that the sport psychology consultants would provide sessions on effective communication and various other team-building activities. Most importantly, all athletes made a commitment to attempt to put personal conflicts aside
and to compete in a more unseIfish manner.
Finally, characteristics with large discrepancies in rating between the athletes and the coach were addressed. For example, the graph shown in Figure 4
clearly indicates that the athletes felt their level of fundamental volleyball skills
was very high, whereas the coach rated them as average.
When asked what he thought could be done to enhance the team's fundamental
skills, the coach indicated that more time would be devoted to fundamentals during training sessions. The athletes agreed, but requested that some of the drills be
designed to develop fundamentals within more "game-like" situations. The coach
accepted this as a positive suggestion and agreed to be more creative in the design
of drills.
Upon agreement of a course of action that would be taken to improve deficient team characteristics, discussion of the coach's profile commenced. Prior to
the meeting, the consultants had reminded the coach that this was potentially a
difficult exercise for coaches and athletes to participate in and that E
i was important for him to express appreciation for their opinions, particularly where ratings
were low. A comparison of the ratings of the athletes and coach regarding the
latter's characteristics is given in Figure 5.
Dedicated to his Work
Encouraging
I
Good Communicator
Confident in Program
Calm Under Pressure
I
Treats Players Equally
Figure 5 - Coach profile with contrasting coach rating. The dark lines are the athletes' scores; the grey lines are the coaches' scores.
270
Dale and Wrisberg
Once again, those characteristics that both athletes and coach indicated were
strengths of the coach were addressed first. For example, data in Figure 5 indicate
that these athletes appreciated their coach for his dedication to and knowledge of
the sport. They also felt he treated all players the same regardless of their status on
the team. The coach thanked the athletes for this feedback and indicated that the
highly rated characteristics were ones he had worked hard to develop. At this time,
the athletes again voiced their appreciation for these qualities in their coach.
Next, the group addressed those characteristics of the coach they felt were
subpar. Though the coach rated himself higher than did his athletes on all characteristics, he admitted that there were a few areas he needed to improve upon. One
example from Figure 5 is the low rating by both coach and athletes on the coach's
ability to communicate well with players during training sessions. The athletes
indicated that they felt he was not consistent in his demands and that they were
often confused as to what he expected of them from one moment to the next. The
coach indicated that he knew this was a weakness and that he was willing to do
what he could to improve in this area. The group agreed that communication and
team-building sessions conducted by the sport psychology consultants would be
helpful. The coach also made a commitment to improve his communication by
having a more structured, previously posted practice schedule to follow and by
stating exactly what he expected of the players prior to each drill. In turn, the
athletes were asked to let him know anytime they did not understand what was
expected of them.
The team rated the coach low on three additional characteristics ("calm under pressure," "realistic expectations," and "encouraging"). The athletes indicated
they felt the coach was not always calm in stressful situations during competition.
The coach said he was actually surprised the athletes had given him a lower rating
than he had given himself and then asked for specific examples of such behavior.
The athletes described two such situations. Upon hearing this, the coach indicated
that he was "naturally uptight" during games but that he was willing to make more
of an effort to improve his composure during competition. After the meeting, he
asked the sport psychology consultants to provide him with some articles on stress
and anxiety and agreed to work with them to become better at managing both.
Regarding the characteristic of "encouraging," the athletes explained their
low rating was a result of a lack of positive reinforcement during practice. They
indicated a desire for the coach to recognize good effort or performance by verbally acknowledging it. Again, the coach agreed that he was negligent in this area
and that he would make an attempt to be more positive in his feedback. According
to the athletes, the characteristic "realistic expectations" corresponded with "encouraging." They felt the coach was often unrealistic in his expectations of their
ability to achieve a designated criterion level on particular drills. For example,
they discussed a dig drill that required the athletes to dive for and reach balls
thrown several feet away. The athletes' perception was that during the drill the
coach acknowledged only those attempts in which the athletes were not successful. If the team did not reach a certain criterion, they were required to do extra
running after practice. The athletes felt that even with maximum effort, the possibility of meeting the expectations of the coach were minimal. The coach explained
that his reasoning for the procedure was that he had high expectations for th'e
athletes. After some discussion, the athletes and the coach agreed that the
expectations would remain high, but that the coach would attempt to recognize
Performance Profiling
271
good performance and consider eliminating the use of extra running as punishment.
There were no other large discrepancies between ratings given by the athletes and those given by the coach on the ideal coach characteristics. Had such a
situation existed, these discrepancies would have also been discussed in detail to
resolve differences and to identify possible solutions.
The final stage of the third team meeting included a discussion of the process to that point along with "next steps." Most importantly, all questions and
concerns were addressed at this time, and emphasis was placed on the commitment by everyone to build upon the foundation that had been established as a
result of the more open environment for communication that had taken place.
Individual Meetings With Athletes
Meetings between the coach and each athlete were then scheduled to address their
respective ratings of the athlete's characteristics. To assist in the process of these
individual meetings between the coach and the athlete, a sport psychology consultant was present. Once the coach and the athlete felt comfortable with the process, they met on their own.
In developing a plan that would help the athlete (the setter) improve in areas
identified as needing improvement, the coach assisted her in setting realistic training goals. For example, both the athlete and the coach felt the athlete lacked upper
body strength as well as an overall ability to be mentally tough in various situations during competition (Figure 6).
In discussing the rating of upper body strength with the athlete, the coach
discovered that the athlete was intimidated in the weight room because of her
perceived lack of strength as compared to other athletes. The coach emphasized
the importance of upper body strength for all his players, and the athlete indicated
that she knew this was important but had not been committed to improving in that
area. As a result of this discussion, the athlete made a commitment to lift weights
on "her own time" in addition to the regular time spent in the weight room. It was
decided that the strength coach would assist the athlete in designing a specific
weight-training schedule for the extra sessions to guard against overtraining.
Mentally Tough
Positive Team Leader
Communicates Well
Good Peripheral Vision
Upper Body Strength
I
I
I
A Risk Taker
Soft Hands
Figure 6 -Individual athlete profile with contrasting coach rating. The dark lines are
the athletes' scores; the grey lines are the coaches' scores.
272
Dale and Wrisberg
In their discussion of the athlete's lack of mental toughness, the athlete revealed that she was very nervous in competition and was generally afraid of making mistakes. Consequently, when she made a mistake she often dwelled on it
during subsequent points. The player also indicated that she was involved in a
volatile relationship outside of volleyball that adversely affected her ability to perform during particularly troublesome times. It was agreed that she would begin to
work with one of the sport psychology consultants to address these particular areas.
The final phase of the individual coach-athlete meetings involved discussion of characteristics receiving the most discrepant ratings between coach and
athlete. First, both the athlete and the coach had the opportunity to explain the
rating given. The profile in Figure 6 is once again used to illustrate one characteristic, peripheral vision, that received a discrepant rating by the coach and athlete.
In this case, the athlete had rated herself low, feeling that she was unable to anticipate the defensive set of the opposing team very well. The coach indicated that he
thought she was very good at anticipating defenses and provided examples of situations in which she had demonstrated this ability. As a result of this discussion, the
coach agreed to work more closely with the athlete in developing her visual scanning skills and also made a commitment to encourage her in a positive manner in
training sessions and competition. In addition, he indicated he would try harder to
point out particular instances in which he felt she anticipated well. Both the athlete
and the coach agreed that, given this kind of attention, her peripheral vision should
improve as the season progressed.
Evaluation of Progress
Follow-Up Meetings
To evaluate progress and obtain further feedback from the athletes, both individual
and team follow-up meetings were scheduled periodically throughout the season.
These meetings allowed the athletes and coach an opportunity to monitor progress
and make adjustments in training sessions and goals if necessary.
Butler et al. (1993) suggest that repetitions of the profiling process can assist
in determining progress that has been achieved and the extent to which athletes are
reaching goals set for themselves. In the present situation, subsequent profiles
were completed by the athletes and the coach in regard to team characteristics,
coach characteristics, and individual athlete characteristics on two subsequent occasions during the season. The resulting profiles provided evaluative feedback
(Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981) to the athletes and coach on how the behaviors being targeted for change were being altered and how this was contributing to
the attainment of individual and team goals. A comparison of Figures 4, 5, and 6
with Figures 7, 8, and 9, respectively, illustrates perceived changes made by (a)
the team, (b) the coach, and (c) the athlete who played the setter position over the
course of the season.
For example, ratings of the team by both coach and players at the conclusion
of the season (Figure 7) revealed several perceived improvements. Both coach and
players felt that the team was competing more unselfishly as a unit and cornmunicating better with each other on the court. The importance of playing as a team was
stressed throughout the season, and several mental training sessions were devoted
to addressing this area of concern. These sessions incorporated various teambuilding activities such as an experiential adventure task (e.g., ropes course) and a
Performance Profiling
273
Communicate Well on Court
Winning
Attitude
Sound Fundamentals
Mentally Tough
Physically
Strong
Unselfish
Ded. to Max. Effon
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
Figure 7 - Final team profile with contrasting coach rating. The dark l i e s are the
athletes' scores; the grey lines are the coaches' scores.
Dedicated to his Work
Encouraging
Good Communicator
Confident in Program
I
I
Calm Under Pressure
Knowledge of the Game
Realistic
Expectations
Treats Players Equally
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
Figure 8 - Final coach profile with contrasting coach rating. The dark lines are the
athletes' scores; the grey lines are the coaches' scores.
Mentally Tough
I
Positive Team Leader
Communicates Well
Good Peripheral Vision
Quick Feet
Upper Body Strength
A Risk Taker
Soft Hands
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
Figure 9 - Final individual athlete profile with contrasting coach rating. The dark
lines are the athletes' scores; the grey lines are the coaches' scores.
274
Dale and Wrisbevg
discussion of principles of communication and team dynamics (Canon, 1988;Martens, 1987; Orlick, 1986, 1990; Vernacchia, McGuire, and Cook, 1992; Yukelson,
1993).
Athletes and coaches also perceived moderate improvements in winning attitude, mental toughness, and physical strength. As with the individual athlete, the
team as a unit worked with the sport psychology consultants throughout the season. Before the season began, meetings occurred twice a week and then once a
week thereafter. These meetings involved the introduction and practice of the following strategies: goal-setting (Botterill, 1983; Gould, 1993), positive self-talk,
imagery, concentration, confidence-building, and performance routines (Loehr,
1991; Orlick, 1986; Schmid & Peper, 1993; Weinberg, 1988).
In addition to the previously mentioned characteristics, the coach indicated
he perceived improvements in the athletes' fundamental physical skills. He felt
they were much better at incorporating these skills in game situations. The athletes
indicated an appreciation for the coach's willingness to vary practice drills in order to increase their desire to work on fundamental skills.
End-of-season ratings of the coach's characteristics (Figure 8) indicate the
athletes felt he had improved his communication with them and was doing a much
better job of communicating exactly what he wanted from each player. The athletes
also felt he had made improvements in encouraging them in a positive manner
when they were not performing up to his expectations. At various times during the
season, the coach worked with the sport psychology consultant to improve his
ability to relate to his athletes and indicated he had become more aware of when he
was being condescending with them. The coach also devoted a great deal of attention to becoming more realistic in his expectations of his athletes.As a result of the
individual meetings with each athlete, the coach felt he was in a better position to
be more realistic in his expectations.
The athletes perceived a moderate improvement in the coach's dedication to
his work, his equal treatment of all players, and his ability to be calm under pressure. To assist the coach in maintaining a calmness during pressure situations,
Taylor's (1992) five-step model, designed specifically to assist coaches in the
management of stress and anxiety, was used. The coach was also provided with
additional literature on competitive anxiety (e.g., Dunn & Nielsen, 1993; Swain &
Jones, 1992; Maynard & Cotton, 1993) to allow him to further explore the concept. Although no significant improvements were perceived by the coach and the
athletes in the coach's ability to remain calm under pressure, the coach indicated
that he would continue to practice the skills he had learned and felt confident he
would eventually improvein this area.
Interestingly, the athletes perceived the coach to be less confident in the
program at the end of the season than he was early in the season. When asked why
this might have occurred, the athletes indicated they may have been disappointed
in the outcome of the season and disconcerted by the fact that several of the starters on the current team would be graduating. However, the coach indicated that
this season had been a learning process for everyone and that, though he was disconcerted by the fact that he would be losing a majority of the players with the
most playing time, he was optimistic about the future because of the progress that
had been made.
In the case of the individual athlete (Figure 9), both the coach and player felt
she had improved her upper body strength. The setter had originally given herself
Performance Profiling
275
a rating of 5 whereas the coach had given her a rating of 4 (Figure 6). As mentioned earlier, the athlete and strength coach developed a goal-settingprogram that
included daily performance goals (i.e., number of repetitions at a certain weight)
for her to achieve and record. A daily log was kept, and the strength coach met
with the athlete once a week to monitor progress. This process continued throughout the season, and the final rating of 8 by both the athlete and coach indicates that
they felt the athlete had improved her physical strength. These ratings were supported by data collected by the strength coach on specific exercises designed to
improve this athlete's upper body strength. By the end of the season she had increased the weight she was lifting in all shoulder and chest exercises.
This athlete was not only stronger but also expressed more confidence in her
abilities in the weight room as a result of the goal-setting program and additional
time spent training. The coach indicated that her improved strength was noticeable
in competitive situations, and he felt it made her a much better player.
The athlete and coach also felt she made improvements in the area of being
mentally tough. Originally, the athlete had given herself a rating of 3, and the
coach had rated her a 4 (Figure 6). As a result of the low ratings, the athlete agreed
to participate in a systematic mental training program that involved principles of
concentration control (Loehr, 1991; Orlick, 1986; Schmid & Peper, 1993;Weinberg,
1988). To assist the athlete in becoming better able to "take one point at a time"
and "separate volleyball from other aspects of her life," the program emphasized
developing mental routines before each match and point, determining relevant focus cues, enhancing imagery skills, and learning more objective ways to measure
her success in accomplishing these skills. The athlete and sport psychology consultant met on a regular basis throughout the year. The athlete perceived she had a higher
degree of mental toughness, and her final rating of 8 along with a final rating of 7
by the coach on this characteristic, corroborated this perception. Ratings of the
other characteristics indicate no perceived decline during the course of the season.
Summary
The performance profile, which is based on Kelly's (1955) Personal Construct
Theory, has been effectively utilized in the sport domain with individual athletes
(Butler, 1989, 1991; Butler & Hardy, 1992; and Butler et al., 1993; Jones, 1993).
The purpose of this article was to discuss alternative uses of performance profiling
with teams. The case study presented suggests that the technique can be particularly useful in creating an atmosphere in which the athlete and coach have an
opportunity to identify and openly discuss areas in need of improvement and goals
designed to address deficiencies.
By participating in such a process, the members of the volleyball team in the
present study were able to take a more active role in the development of individual
and team goals. Carron (1993) has indicated that athlete input is a very important
step in gaining commitment to the team. More specifically, he emphasized that
"team members engage in behaviors more persistently, with greater intensity, and
for a longer duration when they have had the opportunity to participate in decision
making" (p. 116).
The performance profiling technique requires a substantial time commitment from the coach, athletes, and sport psychology consultant. However, it can
be an effective method of creating a more open atmosphere for communication
276
* Dale and Wrisberg
among members of a team as well as between the coach and hislher athletes. Though
only selected characteristics of one team were addressed in this paper, it should be
pointed out that improvements were made on one or more characteristics by all
who participated. Most importantly, both the athletes and the coach agreed that
there was in fact, a more open atmosphere for communication. In addition, the
athletes expressed sincere appreciation for the increased input they had in determining the nature of their training program and their goals for competition.
Because of their previous experience of subpar athlete-coach cornmunication, performance profiling was used with the volleyball team depicted in this
paper; however, it should be emphasized that the technique is not limited to teams
experiencing "problems." In fact, the performance profiling process could be a
valuable exercise for athletes and coaches of any team. At the present time this
approach is being used with both a Division I women's softball team and a men's
baseball team. Neither is experiencing particular difficulties, but the coaches of
both teams felt that performance profiling might help them highlight positive team
qualities that already exist and perhaps identify issues in need of "fine tuning."
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A,, & Walters, R. (1963). Social learning andpersonality development. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Berry, J., & West, R. (1993). Cognitive self-efficacy in relation to personal mastery and
goal setting across the life span. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
16(2), 351-379.
Botterill, C. (1983). Goal setting for athletes with examples from hockey. In G.L. Martin &
D. Hrycaiko (Eds.), Behavior modification and coaching: Principles, procedures,
and research. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Burton, D. (1984, February). Goal setting: A secret to success. Swimming World, 25-29.
Burton, D. (1989). Winning isn't everything: Examining the impact of performance goals
on collegiate swimmers' cognitions and performance. The Sport Psychologist, 3,105132.
Butler, R.J. (1989). Psychological preparation of Olympic boxers. In J. Kremer & W.
Crawford (Eds.), The psychology of sport: Theory and practice (pp. 74-84). BPS
Northern Ireland Branch, Occasional Paper.
Butler, R.J. (1991). Amateur boxing and sport science 11: Psychology. Coaching Focus, 18,
14-15.
Butler, R.J., & Hardy, L. (1992). The performance profile: Theory and application. The
Sport Psychologist, 6, 253-264.
Butler, R.J., Smith, M., & Irwin, I. (1993). The performance profile in practice. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 5,48-63.
Carron, A. (1988). Group dynamics in sport: Theoretical and practical issues. London,
ON: Sports Dynamics.
Carron, A. (1993). The sport team as an effective group. In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport
psychology: Personal growth to peak perfomzance (pp. 110-121). Mountain View,
CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Chelladurai, P. (1980). Leadership in sports organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied
Sport Sciences, 5,226-23 1.
Performance Profiling
277
Chelladurai, P., & Haggerty, T. (1978). A normative model of decision-making styles in
coaching. Athletic Administration, 13,6-9.
Danielson, R.R., Zelhart, P.E, & Drake, C.J. (1975). Multidimensional scaling and factor
analysis of coaching behavior as perceived by high school hockey players. Research
Quarterly, 46,323-334.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Dunn, J.G.H., & Nielsen, A.B. (1993). A between-sport comparison of situational threat
perceptions in ice hockey and soccer. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15,
449-465.
Gould, D. (1993). Goal setting for peak performance. In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport
psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 158-169). Mountain View,
CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Hendry, L.B. (1969). Assessment of personality traits in the coach-swimmer relationships
and a preliminary of the father-figure stereotype. Research Quarterly, 39,543-55 1.
Horn, T. (1992). Leadership effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances
in sport psychology (pp. 182-201). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Johnson, B. (1995, Febmary 1). Kohlenstein exits UNCC. The Charlotte Observer, pp. Bl, B5.
Jones, G. (1993). The role of performance profiling in cognitive behavioral interventions in
sport. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 160-172.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology ofpersonal constructs. Vols. I & II. New York: Norton.
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M., & Latham, G.P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.
Loehr, J.E. (1991). The mental game: Winning at tennis. New York: Penguin Books.
Martens, R. (1987). Coaches guide to sportpsychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Masimo, J. (1980). The gymnast's perceptions of the coach: Performance competence and
coaching style (pp. 229-237). In R.M. Suinn (Ed.), Psychology in sport: Methods
and applications. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess.
Maynard, I.W., & Cotton, P.C. (1993). An investigation of two stress management techniques in a field setting. The Sport Psychologist, 7,375-387.
Orlick, T. (1986). Coaches training manual to psyching for sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit ofpersonal excellence: How to win at sport and life through
mental training (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.
Reed, W.F. (1992, November 30). Youth must be heard. Sports Illustrated, 77,86.
Schrnid, A., & Peper, E. (1993). In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied sportpsychology: Personal
growth topeakperfomzance (pp. 262-273). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Swain, A., & Jones, G. (1992). Relationship between sport achievement orientation and
competitive state anxiety. The Sport Psychologist, 6,42-54.
Taylor, J. (1992). Coaches are people too: An applied model of stress management for
sports coaches. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 427-50.
Vernacchia, R., McGuire, R., & Cook, D. (1992). Coaching mental excellence: It does
matter whether you win or lose. Dubuque, 1.4: Brown & Benchmark.
Weinberg, R. (1988). The mental advantage: Developing your psychological skills in tennis. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.
Yukelson, D. (1993). Communicating effectively. In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peakperfonnance (pp. 122-136).Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing.
Manuscript submitted: March I995
Revision received: April I996