Closeness, co-orientation and complementarity
in coach–athlete relationships: What male swimmers
say about their male coaches
Roberta Antonini Philippe*, Roland Seiler
1
Swiss Federal Institute of Sports Magglingen, 2532 Magglingen, Switzerland
Available online 19 September 2005
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to study the quality of the coach–athlete relationship. Utilising the three
interpersonal constructs of closeness, co-orientation, and complementarity [Jowett, S. (2003). When the
‘honeymoon’ is over: a case study of a coach–athlete dyad in crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 444–460; Jowett,
S. & Meek, G. A. (2000). The coach–athlete relationship in married couples: an exploratory content analysis. The
Sport Psychologist, 14, 157–175] as a framework to guide our exploration, athletes’ perceptions of the relationship
quality with their coaches were explored.
Method: Participants were five male swimmers from the Swiss national swimming team. All five athletes held
international titles and were preparing for the 2004 Olympic Games. A semi-structured interview schedule was
employed to obtain qualitative data. The responses of the athletes were content analysed.
Results: The results show that the coach–athlete relationship plays an important role for the swimmers investigated.
The relationship comprised essential coach–athlete requirements and social relationship (closeness), communi-
cation and setting of objectives/goals (co-orientation), as well as acceptance and respect of roles (complementarity).
It was revealed that swimmers placed great importance in maintaining good relations with their coach.
Conclusion: The content analysis has highlighted the nature of the coach–athlete relationship in an individual sport
(swimming) in the context of the three interpersonal constructs of closeness, co-orientation and complementarity.
The type of relationship formed as reported from the male athletes was personal and caring, and played a central
role in improving performance. Theoretical considerations and difficulties in classifying some 10% of the
responses lead to the conclusion that, from a conceptual point of view, the constructs have to be re-examined.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Coach–athlete relationship; Closeness; Co-orientation; Complementarity; Swimming*
of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171
www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport
1469-0292/$ – see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.08.004
* Corresponding author. Tel. C41 32 3276189; fax: C41 32 3276356.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Antonini Philippe).
1
Tel.: C41 32 32 76 330.
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport
R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171160
The relation between coach and athlete is a decisive factor for performance in competitive sport.
Athlete and coach are mutually dependent. Their mutual dependence is manifested in athletes’ need to
acquire the knowledge, competence and experience of the coach, and in coaches’ need to transfer their
competences and skills into performance and success. Therefore athlete and coach develop a partnership
or a professional relationship and they spend a great deal of time together in order to ultimately achieve
performance success. The relationship has a great impact on the athlete’s training procedure and
performance results, and more often than not includes aspects relating to the private sphere of the athlete
(Coakley, 1990). Research employing different methodologies and theoretical frameworks has shown
that the quality of the professional and personal relationships coaches and athletes develop impact on
athletes’ development and growth (Jowett, 2003; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Jowett & Meek, 2000;
Poczwardowski, Sherman, & Henschen, 1998; Smith & Smoll, 1996). Overall, coaching in which the
coach–athlete relationship is contained is capable to promote not only the learner’s skills in terms of
performance improvements (e.g. break personal bests and win medals), but also the learner’s skills in
terms of personal and social development (e.g. feel satisfied, worthy, and self-reliant). It is therefore
crucial to generate knowledge and an understanding of what makes the coach–athlete relationship
effective.
It was not until the late 1970 s that coach–athlete interactions in sport received scientific attention. For
example, conceptually and empirically the majority of research has maintained a steady momentum in
areas such as coach leadership (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978), and coach behaviours (Smith, Smoll, &
Hunt, 1977). Subsequently, researchers called for further research (e.g. Iso-Ahola, 1995; Wylleman,
2000). Wylleman (2000) has argued that the lack of empirical evidence is due to several reasons. First,
because interpersonal relationships do not belong to one single scientific discipline but are rather situated
at the crossroads of various scientific fields. The second reason involves the conceptualisation of this
relationship: the manner in which the relationship between the coach and the athlete becomes the central
and exclusive focus, without diverting attention to other relationship members engaged in the
performance of sport (e.g. parents, spouses). The third reason is methodological in that until recently
there is a lack of suitable psychometric instruments available to researchers (for a recently developed
scale see Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2002). Lastly, the study of relationships is a delicate area as it targets
relationship members’ innermost feelings and thoughts, ethical issues are also implicated such as
confidentiality.
Nitsch and Hackfort’s (1984) model of social relations provides a useful framework from which
to study the coach–athlete relationship. Nitsch and Hackfort distinguished three distinct dimensions
of social relations, ‘The power dimension is defined through authority and accountability, the co-
operation dimension is defined through the distribution of tasks, and the dimension of bonds is
defined through sympathy and antipathy’ (p. 156, translated by R.A.P.). It was argued that conflicts
in the interaction between members may result from differences in one or more of the dimensions.
According to the model of Nitsch and Hackfort the relations are based on an underpinning
agreement in intentional and instrumental aspects. The intentional aspect means a mutual
agreement and acceptance of the goals and purposes of the interaction process, the instrumental
aspect means the mutual agreement and acceptance of the conditions under which the interaction
takes place. Each of these two aspects of the interaction contain two sub-aspects: the intentional
aspect is composed of interaction purpose (intended effects of the interaction) and interaction
themes (restrict the possible contents of the interaction). The instrumental aspect is composed of
interaction principles (are outlasting maxims for the interaction) and interaction rules (define the
R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171 161
interaction in a more concrete way). This conceptualisation was utilised by Seiler, Kevesligeti, and
Valley (1999) to investigate the social relations between coaches and their athletes. The interviews
of 15 female athletes and their respective coaches revealed that social relations included both
intentional (interaction purpose and interaction themes) and instrumental (interaction principles and
interaction rules). Mutual agreement and acceptance of goals and conditions were important
components of the coach–athlete relationship.
Recently, sport psychology has evidenced the development of a number of conceptual models
that aim to describe the coach–athlete relationship (Jowett & Meek, 2000; Poczwardowski, Barott,
& Henschen, 2002). For example, Poczwardowski, Barott, and Henschen put forward a coach–
athlete relationship conceptualisation that contains three major components: an instructive
component related to the task to be performed, a social–psychological component relating to
affective and cognitive aspects, and a behavioural and spiritual component relating to beliefs of
both athlete and coach with regard to their relationship with each other. Another conceptual model
proposed by Jowett and her colleagues (Jowett, 2001, 2005). Jowett and colleagues
conceptualisation was guided by Kelley et al.’s (1983) definition of interpersonal relationships in
which a relationship is described as a situation in which people’s emotions, thoughts, and
behaviours are mutually and causally interconnected. Correspondingly, coaches and athletes’
emotions, thoughts and behaviours have been originally examined through the constructs of
closeness, co-orientation, and complementarity (see Jowett, 2003; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Jowett
& Meek, 2000). These constructs are briefly discussed next.
Closeness is defined as an affective or emotional interdependence that contains such relational
properties as liking, trusting and respecting one another. In sport psychology literature, researchers
(e.g. Bloom, Durand-Bush, Schinke, & Salmela, 1998; Gardner, Shields, Bredemeier, & Bostrom,
1996; Hellstedt, 1987; Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990) have identified the importance of an
emotional connection between athletes and coaches. Co-orientation or corresponding beliefs, values,
interests, and goals is facilitated via open communication and includes dialogue, negotiations, and
decision-making. Research has generally shown that effective communication requires the
development of trust and respect between coach and athlete (Yukelson, 1984). Complementarity
is operationalised as the interaction type that promotes a sense of teamwork, mutual aid,
collaboration. Estroff and Nowicki (1992) associated high rates of complementarity with high rates
of performance in experimental situations. In others words complementarity reflects a situation
where athletes and coaches work together in a friendly, responsive, willingness and almost
uncomplicated environment toward improving performance (Jowett, 2005).
A series of qualitative case studies (e.g. Jowett, 2003; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Jowett & Meek,
2000) have been conducted thus far utilising the constructs of Closeness, Co-orientation and
Complementarity (3 Cs) yielding interesting findings relative to the content and quality of the
coach–athlete relationship. However, these case studies have almost always considered coach–
athlete dyads of mixed gender composition (i.e. athlete/female-coach/male). For the purpose of this
study, Jowett and colleagues’ 3 Cs model was utilised in an attempt to qualitatively explore the
perceptions of male elite-level swimmers who receive coaching from male coaches. A second
purpose was to shed light on the adequacy of the model for this type of relationship in top level
sport and compare with alternative models of social relationships.
R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171162
Method
Participants
Within each coach–athlete dyad, only the athletes were invited to participate in the study. Five male
swimmers from the Swiss national swimming team volunteered to participate in the study. The choice of
these subjects was made on the basis of their level of expertise (participation in advanced levels of
competition). All five athletes held international titles and were preparing for the 2004 Olympic Games.
These criteria ensured that participants were and still are the best athletes in Switzerland. The swimmers
participated in the study had a different coach (male). The mean age of the athletes was 26.4 (SDZ5.0)
and they had an average of 16.4 years of experience in their sport. To guarantee anonymity athletes were
assigned the letter A and the numbers 1–5 were used for their identification.
Instrumentation
An interview guide was developed that was a modified version from that utilised by Jowett and
Meek’s (2000) study. The modified guide consisted of 57 open ended questions. The interview started
with an introductory section composed of ten questions covering demographic details and information
such as number of training hours and length of relationship with coach. The introduction was followed
by three separate sections. The section on closeness included 14 questions (e.g. ‘What feelings do you
have for your coach?’ ‘What specific feelings do you consider helpful in your coach–athlete
relationship?’); the section on co-orientation included 18 questions (e.g. ‘Who decides on performance
goals?’ ‘How important is to discuss with your coach about your sport performance?’); and the section
on complementarity included 15 questions (e.g. ‘Does your coach listen to you and act on your thoughts
or suggestions’? ‘What role does your coach play in competition?’ ‘Can you describe your own role as
the athlete in the coach–athlete relationship?’).
Procedures
Upon consent to participate in the study, each participant was interviewed separately. The interviews
began with a presentation of the study objectives. The study was presented as an investigation into the
nature of the relationship between the coach and the athlete. Permission to record and transcribe the
interviews was obtained from all participants. The interviews took place at a sport institute where
the Swiss national swimming team stayed over a weekend to carry out activities such as physical tests
and career planning. The interviews were scheduled to accommodate the team’s main activities and
lasted over ninety minutes. Due to the cultural background of Switzerland as a multi-lingual country, the
interviews were conducted in either French or German, the choice of language depending on the
participants’ preference.
Data analysis
After verbatim transcription, a qualitative content analysis was undertaken. The first author
segmented swimmers’ responses into phrases or statements with a single thematic aspect. The obtained
raw data units were initially considered to be part of the a priori domains of closeness, co-orientation and
R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171 163
complementarity. Subsequently, a number of sub-domains and themes were created based on the
collected data with a deductive-inductive content analysis mode (Bardin, 1991).
Several measures were taken to establish validity and consistency of the data. Two researchers with
experience in qualitative methods independently content analysed the results and assigned the raw data
units in two separate steps to the sub-domains and themes, respectively. On average, 90% of the raw data
units were classified into the three domains (92% for closeness, 88% for co-orientation and 90% for
complementarity) whereas the remaining 10% could not be aligned to either domain and were excluded
from further steps. The same procedure was used for the sub-domains and similar percentages found
where classification was possible: for closeness (92% for essential coach–athlete requirements, 88% for
social relationship), for co-orientation (90% communication, 86% setting objectives/goals) and for
complementarity (94% acceptance, 90% respect of the roles).
The small numbers of participants in this study, limited of course by the relatively few swimmers on
this competitive level, require the use of a case study style analysis of the data.
Findings
Closeness
Fourteen questions were asked concerning the affective tone of the relationship between the athlete
and his coach. As a result of the content analysis, two sub-domains essential coach–athlete requirements
and social relationship and seven themes have been found. Table 1 gives the themes with anchor
examples as found in the raw data for each theme.
Results show that each and every athlete felt that the establishment of affective relations with the coach is
important. This type of closeness allowed the swimmers to feel a sense of bond and a sense of familiarity with
the other person and led to a better development of the athlete. For example, an athlete expressed that ‘It is
when we know each other well that we can make progress together. to know him as a person, that means the
human being as a whole.’ (A1). Another said, ‘A sound relationship is a relationship based on respect,
esteem, understanding each other, and it is the type of relationship that allows the athlete to develop.all the
same it is very important to get along well with your coach.‘ (A4). All swimmers defined the relationship
Table 1
Anchor examples from the raw data units related to closeness
Closeness Anchor example
Essential coach–athlete requirements
Respect I respect his decisions but I also respect him as a person
Esteem It is very important to esteem the person you are working with
Admiration He was great, when you think of all he did for us. I really admired him
Appreciation I really appreciate his attitude and the way he sees things
Professional relationship At the start our relationship was mainly a professional one
Social relationship
Friendship As well as being my coach, he’s also become my friend
Love We feel a kind of love for each other—it’s more than just a friendship
R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171164
with the coach as a relationship that is very close, and this closeness is characterised by different types of
feelings.
Essential coach–athlete requirements
They refer to feelings that have a bearing on development and effectiveness of the coach–athlete dyad
and become salient when two persons work together for a certain time. The swimmers mention the
following feelings of respect, esteem, admiration, appreciation, and regard. The athletes viewed these as
being essential requirements for forming a good relationship. For instance, one of them (A1), said, ‘I
respect my coach as a person, but also for the work he puts in and for his commitment . I am full of
admiration for everything he does, although he has a family he devotes enormous amounts of time to us,
his swimmers come first.. positive feelings are crucial for the relation’.
The swimmers have also highlighted the importance of taking the relationship seriously and not
forgetting that is a professional one in which our main aim is to improve performance and become the
best. One swimmer stated, ‘It must never be forgotten that our relationship is above all a professional
one, we work together’ (A2). Nevertheless, this relationship does not stop at the professional level. On
the contrary, the swimmers emphasised the need to balance the professional with the social element of
the relationship. In fact, the swimmers defined the relationship with the coach as a combination of
professional relationship and friendship relation. The next subcategory highlights the emphasis the
swimmers placed on developing a social relationship with the coach.
Social relationship
The social relationship was expressed in terms of the feelings the swimmers experienced towards their
coaches. This sub-domain included friendship and love. Although these positive feelings have less
influence on the effectiveness of the performing dyad, they have an importance on establishing the
relationship. One participant, summed up his view by saying, ‘At first we are there to train, to work
together, and then in time our relationship became friendlier’ (A3). This quote not only expresses the
feelings experienced but also the developmental aspect of the relationship. Even as strong feelings as
’love’ can be experienced, for example (A3) stated, ‘I consider our relationship not to be just a simple
coach–athlete relationship, it is not just a professional relationship but . is a true friendship, in such a
way I love him. I consider him a member of my family’. Overall, the swimmers referred to the social
relationship, as an indispensable part of the coach–athlete relationship.
Co-orientation
The content analysis of the replies of the swimmers to the 18 questions on the subject of co-orientation
formed two sub-domains communication and setting objectives/goals and 6 themes (see Table 2).
Communication
In the definition of the ideal relationship between a coach and an athlete, the swimmers stressed the
interpersonal communication skills of the coach. Thus, the ideal coach is described as a person capable
of listening to his swimmers, of understanding them, of recognising the needs of each one of them, and of
being able also to guide, support, and instruct them in an effective and individual manner. This sub-
domain is therefore composed of such themes as technical communication/instruction, ‘savoir-être’,
verbal interchange, and problem resolution.
Table 2
Anchor examples from the raw data units related to co-orientation
Co-orientation Anchor example
Communication
Technical communication/
instruction
You must stretch out your arms more—you will go faster, and breathe in time
Savoir-être Reassuring that I have what it takes to achieve my goals
Verbal interchange We talk about everything, not just swimming
Problem resolution When I have a problem we discuss it together, and most of the times he helps me solve it
Setting objectives/goals
Common goals You have to have the same goals, otherwise it is impossible to make progress together
Respect the goals set Sometimes I adjust them according to my fitness and what I feel like doing, but I always
keep in mind the main purpose and what we are striving for
R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171 165
Technical advice, such as instruction on how to correct swimming style, is important, but this did not
appear to be the most important element in the dyad. For example, an athlete stated, ‘It is important that
the coach is competent and has a good knowledge of the sport, but since we are experts in it what we
really require is that he should possess social skills’ (A1). Savoir-être appeared to take precedence over
technical expertise. Savoir-être refers to social or communication skills, such as the ability to motivate
others or give them confidence or provide a ‘sympathetic ear’ when needed.
Verbal interchange and dialogue featured as key factors for achieving performance. The content of the
interchange is partly geared towards the swimming activity (i.e. it is based on the training programmes,
technical advice, dietary requirements). But it also involved more personal discussions such as the
choice of having a family and children; it also included discussions of a political nature. The importance
of verbal interchange is also linked to the fact of becoming acquainted with each other and, above all,
getting to know the needs of the other. For instance, one of them (A5), said, ‘We often discuss things
together, it seems to me that this type of dialogue is absolutely essential. A relationship without
interchange is not a relationship, let us say it is like when you are with your own girlfriend or family, it is
important to exchange ideas. At the same time it lets you get to know the other person and benefit from
his knowledge.‘ All of the swimmers viewed open channels of communication as a means to work
effectively and productively with one another. According to the swimmers, it is not possible to establish
a relationship without really knowing the coach and vice versa. A swimmer (A1) said, ‘We work better
when we know the other person well, after all we know our own needs and can more readily satisfy them
. this allows us to benefit more from the other person’.
Problem resolution also seems to be an important aspect of ‘communication’. It proved to be just as
important to communicate with the coach with the aim of resolving a problem. On the whole, the
swimmers claimed to discuss matters with their coach whenever there was a disagreement on a certain
subject. They then look for common ground, and if this is not found each person leaves with his first
opinion still in place. ‘When there is a problem, we always look for a solution. A solution, that is, which
suits both of us, otherwise we let it drop and each sticks to their own views’ (A1).
Setting objectives/goals
According to the swimmers, success in sport is correlated in a positive way to the process of
determining common objectives and goals. So, the swimmers decide, in agreement with their coaches,
R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171166
on the objectives of the season, but the final decision always seemed to be in the hands of the athletes.
The athlete appeared to be in charge of the final decision. For example, it was stated by (A2), ‘We set the
goals together . it is important to have the same line in the selection of objectives as my coach. . The
final decision is always up to me’. The swimmers expressed that they have always respected
the objectives that they have set with the coach; the aim has always been to establish a common ground
that will satisfy the dyad. The responses received suggest that the swimmers consider it very important to
keep to the original goals and persist to achieve them; the long term goals are very important. On the
other hand, it appeared that the short term goals may often require adjustment or change. For instance,
one of them, (A3) said, ‘At times I change the task I have been given slightly, but only when I am tired. I
tried to respect the goals set . I think it is very important to respect what has been jointly decided’.
Complementarity
Responses relevant to the construct of complementarity were obtained through 15 questions. Content
analysis found the two sub-domains involving acceptance of the other person and respect of the roles
with 4 themes (see Table 3).
Acceptance
According to the swimmers, the most fundamental factor is the acceptance of the other person in
terms of his better and poorer personal qualities. The swimmers stressed that being able to focus on the
positive sides could lead to better relationships. An athlete (A3) stated, ‘there are things I do not put up
with in him, such as . his [coach] lack of organisation. But that is what he is like and you have to be able
to accept . There is still a positive side to his disorganised nature: he is a flexible person who is open to
change. I think it is his laidback attitude that gives him this flexibility’.
The athletes referred to that being different from their coaches was a positive element for the coach–
athlete relationship. Thought tricky at times, their differences were viewed as an advantage for the
progression and development of both members of the dyad. For example, the coach may have the
authority due to his position, yet athletes’ submissiveness allows them both to play their roles in a
cooperative rather than competitive fashion. Thus, each member through their different roles has a
valuable contribution to make to the dyad. It was felt important that athletes and coaches use their
differences in a co-ordinated and mutually accepted fashion for personal enrichment. ‘Everything new
and different should be seen as a potential resource: we learn something new when we get to know
people who are different from us’. (A4)
Table 3
Anchor examples from the raw data units related to complementarity
Complementarity Anchor example
Acceptance
Seeing the positive side You must always look for the good side of other people. We all have our faults but we have
good points too
Using the differences Everyone is different: you have to know how to make use of these differences
Respect of the roles
Assuming responsibilities Each person is responsible for carrying out his own task
Respecting the task The swimmer carries out the task his role requires of him
R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171 167
Respect of the roles
The swimmers were unanimous in emphasising the importance of respecting reciprocal roles as a
factor enabling progress in an athletic relationship. However, with regard to the questions affecting
management of the dyadic dynamics between the athlete and the coach, the swimmers described the
situation in general terms, saying that the coach prepares the training schedule to be carried out, and
gives advice, but it is solely up to the swimmer to make the decisions. The athletes expressed that their
coach empowers them in terms of giving them the responsibility to decide what is good for them or not
so good. The following example illustrates the respect of each role (A1), ‘The boss? . He is out of the
water . he has the power . He is the coach, but only on paper, and that means that he is formally in
charge, he assigns the tasks we have to carry out, but the …
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more