Should ex athletes be able to short cut coach education?

It is a sporting story as old as time...the legend of the game that gets a job as head coach in a prestigious elite role... or the ex elite athlete that gets the job in the academy role, or as the school Director of Sport... While the dedicated lifelong coach that has spent decades honing their craft and skill never gets a look in.

And yet, more often than not, the ex player / athlete fails in the role...but the cycle keeps repeating itself. The question is...why do employers keep thinking that being an elite athlete means that that you will be impactful as a coach?

But equally, the question should also be asked... Do high level athletes have qualities, attributes and skills that are beneficial in a coaching role and how can organisations ensure that these skills are taken into account when thinking how they can be supported to succeed in a coaching role? In a revealing new study published in Professional Development in Education, Dr Thomas Leeder examines the practice of fast-tracking former athletes through coaching qualifications. As someone deeply invested in coaching development, I find the implications fascinating from a policy, practical and ethical standpoint.

The research, focused on British Orienteering, examines a widespread issue in coach education and development...whether those with athletic experience should be given a priority over those with formal education and fast tracked through the various levels. Experiential knowledge vs formal education While elite athletes undoubtedly possess valuable experiential knowledge, the assumption that this automatically translates into effective coaching practice is troubling. As one coach developer in the study pointedly observed: "I know quite a lot of people who are and have been elite athletes who I wouldn't trust with a random collection of 10 people." This points to the suggestion that being a high performer as a participant requires different qualities and skills than being a high performer as a coach. The assumption that the skills and knowledge gleaned in one domain transfers to another domain is not supported in the literature and any workforce development leader should be mindful of this if they are condoning the practice of fast tracking.

Impact on coaching as a profession

Fast-tracking fundamentally challenges the notion of coaching as a profession with rigorous standards. When we allow shortcuts based on athletic achievement, we implicitly devalue the complex pedagogical skills that formal education aims to develop. As one contributor observes...

"Sport coaching is embedded with ego and sociocentric beliefs which assumes that embodied experience as an elite athlete is necessary to become an effective coaching practitioner, at the expense of knowledge obtained via formal professional development opportunities."

This observation reveals a cultural bias that pervades coaching development. The implicit devaluation of formal education undermines the very professionalisation that sports coaching aspires to achieve. Impact on the perception of the value of coach education

Coaches who work hard on their craft and commit diligently to professional development could well find themselves frustrated that their energy and commitment seems to count for less than an individual who is a high level performer being given a privileged route to progression. This could then lead to more and more coaches opting out of coach education as they feel that it is perceived as being low value by employers and the NGBs themselves.

Systemic inequalities

The research reveals an uncomfortable truth: fast-tracking potentially marginalises excellent coaching candidates who lack elite playing/participation experience. It also serves to create an 'old boys club' ('boys' is chosen deliberately!) where those that have been involved can progress more easily than those who haven't been involved previously which serves to continue the lack of diversity in the coaching community.

Fast tracking is risky...for the participant and the coach

Perhaps most concerningly, fast-tracking may actually disadvantage the very coaches it aims to help. By bypassing fundamental learning experiences, these coaches miss crucial opportunities to develop pedagogical skills, reflect on practice, and build a comprehensive model of participant development. This point is illustrated by this quote... "There are some ways to put things over that an elite sportsperson wouldn't necessarily know about unless they had some form of training... coaching is about changing behaviour, changing the way people do things to make them better."

This insight illustrates the concern that coaching excellence requires specific pedagogical skills that athletic experience alone may not provide. There are dangers in putting participants in the hands of inexperienced pedagogues and it is ethically problematic to allow individuals with limited training to be placed into these positions of responsibility with limited training, support or supervision. Fast tracking is a symptom of an overly rigid system

On the other hand, the quote above does point to the fact that those with significant experience as athletes or participants probably do have experiences and knowledge that would be really valuable in a coaching role. The fact that they don't have some of the coaching skills shouldn't mean that they have to start at the bottom and start learning about coaching with people who are less experienced or accomplished. The paper points to the fact that the system is a big part of the problem as it is too linear and rigid and doesn't enable people to enter coaching at a point that is relevant for them based on their previous knowledge. Equally, there seems to be an overconfidence in the role that formal coach education plays in developing coaching practice. People might have attended all of the courses and collected all of the badges and certifications but this formal learning is no more of a guarantee of high quality coaching practice than someone with practical experience. Practical reflections / suggestions

The research suggests a more nuanced approach is needed. Rather than enabling fast-tracking by the back door, we might consider:

• Recognising the knowledge and skills that someone brings to coaching in more sophisticated ways while maintaining core educational requirements. Just because someone hasn't done the course doesn't mean that they haven't developed the ability by other means.

• Developing flexible and individualised learning pathways that don't compromise on quality. In a digital age, learning is everywhere...if someone has found information that helps them practice we should be able to recognise that.

• Creating practical, on the job, 'in situ' mentorship style learning programmes that bridge experiential and formal learning.

As coach education grapples with professionalisation, we must ask ourselves: what truly makes an effective coach? The answer lies not in shortcuts but in meaningful engagement with both theoretical understanding and practical experience.

#CoachEducation #SportsDevelopment #ProfessionalStandards #Ethics

The Academic Grinch

“The Grinch hated Christmas! The whole Christmas season!

Now, please don’t ask why. No one quite knows the reason.”

That is one of the opening lines from the famous Dr Seuss book ‘How The Grinch stole Christmas’.

It’s a story about how a miserable and spiteful creature decides to try and ruin Christmas for everyone in a town by stealing all the presents only to find that Christmas isn’t about the presents and eating - it’s about family, community, connection, sharing and celebrating our humanity.

But the world of sports academia has its very own ‘Grinch’.

Someone so miserable and spiteful that they think it is suitable to publish an ‘opinion paper’ (academic speak for a tabloid ‘hit piece’) just days before Christmas.

A piece of writing with only one aim…to try and to criticise and discredit as many people as possible.

It is the worst kind of cynical attack masquerading as scholarship and the sad thing is…

Quite a few people have been taken in by it!

But …the plan has already backfired!

Just like the ‘Who’s from Who-ville’ in the Dr Suess story, those in the firing line have become more connected and have forged an even stronger sense of community…

…and the attack is so flawed, full of distortions and misrepresentations and also so logically incoherent that it has only served to expose the Grinch’s dark heart.

So the Grinch’s plan didn’t work…he didn’t steal Christmas…the targets of his attack will celebrate Christmas regardless…their sense of solidarity, togetherness and community has been strengthened.

The Grinch can wait! We’ve got celebrating to do!!

Have an awesome time everyone!

Coaching Poker

There are many viewpoints and opinions about coaching practice. The variety of viewpoints has got wider with more and more people offering ideas through social media and books. The academic community doesn't help either - they have a tendency to want to avoid being clear on particular issues. If they do take a strong position, they are criticised by their peers as being 'dogmatic' or 'evangelical'.

So where does that leave the coach or the person designing the syllabus for professional?

The Challenge of Choice

Some have suggested that we should adopt an 'it depends' approach, suggesting that the use of professional judgement is a way that coaches can navigate the complexity of the coaching journey. This middle ground of 'it depends' is appealing on the surface. It suggests we can pick the best bits from different approaches and create something that works. This seems sensible - after all, why limit ourselves to one way of thinking or acting?

But this creates problems. If we believe certain approaches work better than others, using less effective methods some of the time means we're knowingly choosing sub-optimal practice. Equally, we can't believe two things about the world at the same time. You can't believe that the world is flat and confidently walk to the edge of the horizon safe in the knowledge that if you keep walking for long enough you will arrive back where you started. Likewise, you can't call yourself a vegan and have the odd bacon sandwich! 'It depends' isn't really that helpful...

A Simple Way to Think About It

I think about coaching philosophy like betting at poker:

Small Bet Coaches: Put minimum commitment into any approach. They keep their options open, using bits from everywhere. They're playing it safe. There is minimal risk and they are prepared to accept that the payoff might not be that great.

Medium Bet Coaches: Show stronger commitment to particular approaches based on evidence and experience, while maintaining some flexibility. It is a strategy that has some risks as mixing approaches might come across as inconsistent to athletes it also might not work that well. But this is a 'managed risk' approach with uncertain pay offs.

All-In Coaches: Commit fully to approaches they believe work best. They've studied the evidence and integrated it into their practice. There may be higher risk if you are wrong but they believe that the pay off is better in the long run.

The Reality of Choice

This isn't just about methods - it's about the theories that make the most sense to us and using them to enable us to have a clear rationale for why we do what we do the way that we do it? We can be honest in our practice and honour our philosophy. If we truly believe certain approaches work better, we face a clear choice:

1. Commit fully to what we believe works best

2. Mix approaches knowing some might be less effective

3. Admit we're unsure and explore different approaches while being open with participants about this

A way to avoid paralysis

The biggest danger is that the uncertainty could lead us to paralysis but it need not be that way. Whichever route we choose has it's own pro's and cons. So in order to move forward we could follow these guidelines below so that we can move forward in the most ethically rigorous way possible:

• Be clear about our position

• Involve participants in choices about their development and the approach we are taking

• Focus on meeting real needs (for more on 'needs led' coaching check out my new podcast collaboration with Mark Bennett MBE from PDS and take advantage of his special Christmas offer PBNO25 to join his online learning community for 25% off)

• Design learning environments that match our beliefs and be consistent

Moving Forward

Being clear about our position doesn't mean being inflexible. It means:

• Understanding why we choose certain approaches

• Being honest about our choices

• Staying open to new evidence and working out if that evidence maps with our theoretical approach and worldview.

Key Points for Coaches

1. Be Informed: Know what you believe about how people learn and develop. Make choices based on this understanding.

2. Stay Honest: Make sure your methods match your beliefs. Don't mix approaches just because it feels safer.

3. Be Open: Tell learners about your approach and help them understand why you coach the way you do.

4. Keep Learning: While staying committed to what you believe works, stay open to new ideas and evidence.

5. Take Action: Choose your approach and commit to it properly rather than trying to please everyone.

The question isn't whether to commit to an approach, but whether we're willing to stand behind our understanding of how people learn and develop. You can mix methods but you can't mix theories. Having weighed up the possibilities...I've come to the conclusion that one approach has far more promise than others. I don't pretend that it is perfect theoretically, nor do I think that it has a complete perspective on every challenge that I face as a developmental practitioner. Nor would I say to anyone that this is the only way (contrary to what some commentators would have you believe!). What I would say is that it is the only way for me...and I am prepared to go all in. I can’t keep two contradictory ideas about human development in my mind at the same time…it doesn’t feel honest, intellectually rigorous or ethically appropriate.

I defend anyone’s right to take their own stance on this…as long as they’ve done a bit of digging and come to a conclusion…that’s good enough for me.

Just don’t take the easy way out and too easily accept the words of those who will tell you that you can have your theoretical cake and eat it too!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I support and advise organisations and professionals who are looking for better ways to design and develop learning solutions for practitioners in sport, business and education. If you would like to set up a free consultation to explore these ideas then please get in touch on my contact page.