Craig Pickering

Sports Science Quarterly – Q4 2024

/by

Every quarter we take a deep dive into the latest research in sports science. This quarter I’m going to take a slightly different approach, looking at the subject of coaching effectiveness. Below, I outline a number of key studies which explore how we can become better coaches – which, given that we’re all involved in making people better, makes for crucial reading.

As always, the full Sports Science Quarterly is available exclusively to HMMR Plus Members. You can browse the past topics on our archive page. The first topic below is free to everyone, but sign up now to read about all the latest research. To get an idea of what Sports Science Quarterly is all about, the April 2016 edition is available in its entirety for free.

This Quarter’s Topics

Moving coaching science forward: professional judgement and decision making

Quick Summary – When a science is new, there are a plethora of theories that develop. As the science then matures, it’s important to begin to cull the theories into more understandable chunks, which in turn allows us to better understand the key principles. In this paper, the authors argue that decision making is a (the?) crucial skill in sports coaching, and present a model through which is scaffold decision making for sports coaches.

Coaching, as a science, is relatively new, with the study of coaching, and the understanding of coaching theories, only really having come to the forefront in the last 30 years or so. As a newish science, there is a rapid increase in knowledge and associated theories. As these various theories accumulate, we come to a fork in the road; we can either continue to create theories, and hence split the overarching science down into smaller niches (e.g., coaching athletes with disabilities, coaching children, etc.), or we can start to “cull” theories into more broader, overarching ones. Without culling, the applied science becomes less applied, because those who apply it become less interested in (or able to keep up with) the various theories, and, secondly, any important theories are not explored to their fullest depth.

So starts an older paper from Andrew Abraham and Dave Collins, published in 2011 in the journal Quest. Here, they argue that a cull in coaching science is long overdue, and present their argument in two key parts. First, they discuss the current positions within the sports coaching literature, and, second, they highlight the role that decision making—which they term Professional Judgement and Decision Making (PJDM)—has on coaching effectiveness. They then bring these two aspects together into a final integrated model, which they term nested thinking. Let’s take a look.

To begin with, Abraham and Collins suggest there are five key themes from existing research – that coaching practice can be modelled and that knowledge is required to perform the role of coaching; coaches utilise a range of strategies in practice; coaches reflecting in order to improve; and coach-athlete relationships being linked to efficacy and knowledge of self. As a summary of this research, there are two key, but broad, approaches; one approach which seeks to provide structure to coaches through modelling, and an opposite approach which views coaching as highly complex, and as such cannot be explained through models. The authors believe that both approaches are essentially correct; whilst coaching does require a high degree of flexibility, knowledge, and thinking in order to excel, good coaching is also systematic (i.e., at least scaffolded by models). This scaffolding is important – a scaffold offers guidance on what elements of the key issue need to be addressed, the knowledge that is required, strategies that can be utilised to address the problem, and a method for the coach to recognise and use the knowledge and skills they have (whilst also being able to identify the skills and knowledge they don’t have).

Building on this need for a flexible scaffold, Abrahams and Collins view a common issue that faces coaches is in deciding what to do. As a result, they believe that enhancing a coaches PJDM is the most effective way to improve coaching. There are two key schools of thought when it comes to decision making; Classical Decision Making (CDM) and Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM). CDM assumes that decisions should be completely rational and optimal. NDM is more pragmatic – it recognises that the situations in which decisions are made can involve limited time, high levels of uncertainty, high stakes, unstable conditions, varying constraints, and varying amounts of experience. As a coach reading this, you may well recognise that you tend to operate in an environment in which it is far more likely you will have to use NDM processes as opposed to CDM; rarely does a coach have time to consider all options free from constraints. This isn’t to say CDM doesn’t have merit; at times coaches do have the time available to consider all options and weigh up appropriate solutions, especially when reflecting on their practice. The challenge with NDM is that it is subject to bias – any mental shortcut that is used to arrive at a decision quickly has the potential to be sub-optimal.

The solution to these issues, when operating in complex environments when NDM may be more favourable, is to utilise mental models, which have been shown to assist decision making. Research suggests that the optimal use of mental models is reliant on three key factors:

  • A high level of cognitive engagement and thought – demonstrating that CDM is an important component. An example of this might be a pre-mortem, in which potential issues are identified (and problem solved) prior to the event occurring;
  • The initial development of models requires a high level of critical analysis – which again is a CDM process;
  • Elements of mental models may be more relevant in some situations than others – suggesting that both CDM and NDM skills are likely important.

As a result, it is clear that successful coaching requires both CDM and NDM – something which is potentially aligned with Kahneman’s Thinking Fast & Slow, with NDM being the fast and CDM being the slow. Decision making is crucial for coaches for a variety of reasons. The majority of coaching environments require a pedagogical, sociological, and political skillset, all of which influence the decisions to be made, as well as how to interact with influence. Successful NDM is underpinned by slower processes, including premortems, cognitive experimentation, critical planning, debriefs, and reflections, which allow the coach to critically evaluate what did and did not work, updating their mental model(s) ahead of the next situation that calls for NDM. The model that Abraham and Collins developed therefore maintains these key principles—i.e., CDM and NDM are both important processes for coaches—allowing us to understand how coaches (should) make decisions. Their model suggests that coaches should engage in nested thinking, where decisions made at a micro level are then embedded (i.e., nested) within medium term agendas, which are then themselves linked to (i.e., nested within) longer term aims. Basically, a decision on a given day has an impact on a given month, which then affects the overall year.

The highest level of the model—the macro level—is termed the socio-political-strategic level. At this level, coaches are required to critically consider the required strategic and sociopolitical goals of their work; this could include a successful transition of an athlete from junior to senior in the case of a pathways coach, and managing upwards and managing performance expectations in the case of a performance coach. At this level, the coach needs to identify who they need to communicate with, and how, with this process allowing coaches to be proactive in developing an environment that meets their needs, as opposed to being subject to constraints that they have no control over, and just have to tolerate. As a general rule, this level of the model requires a greater CDM input, given its slower, more strategic nature.

The second level of the model—the meso level—is termed the socio-tactical-motivational level. Having completed the goal setting and planning processes required at the macro level, the coach can then focus on the process that allows for these goals to be achieved—i.e., how do we meet our goals? This typically focuses on developing the right environment for the athlete to develop and perform, and also considers other key stakeholders—for example, in the case of a youth coach, the parents of the athlete.

The third and final level of the model—the micro level—is termed the idio-tactical level. This level is directly focused on implementing meso targets with athletes, for example, achieving the key goal of a training session. At this level, the majority of the decisions a coach is required to make are likely to be fast, and with incomplete information—i.e., requiring NDM processes. However, coaches can set the groundwork for effective NDM processes at this level through key CDM processes, such as premortems and reflective practice. Here, the quality of their NDM processes will likely make the biggest difference to athlete performance.

In their conclusion, Abrahams and Collins highlight that their nested/PJDM model can act as an umbrella theory for coaching practice because it:

  • Recognises that coaching is a decision-making endeavour;
  • Is nested in nature, working towards various levels of goals and with various stakeholders;
  • Recognises that coaches often have a variety of goals, including social, political, performance, individual, etc.;
  • Recognises that coaches can make decisions in both a classical and naturalistic way.

As such, using this model to scaffold how we approach coaching, it’s crucial that we begin to consider our ability to make decisions, how effective our decisions are, and how we can enhance the decisions that we make. If, as Abrahams and Collins believe, coaching is underpinned by effective decision making, then focusing on this key area should enhance our practice.

Join Now to Keep Reading

This is just the beginning. To continue reading this article you must be a HMMR Plus member. Join now to get access to this and more content. Learn more and sign up here. If you are already a member, log in here.