1. Examining the Methods and Frequency of Communication
Between Collegiate Players and Coaches
Austen Flint
Oregon Institute of Technology
3201 Campus Drive
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Paper reviewed by:
Kevin Brown, communication: Professor, Oregon Institute of Technology
Veronica Koehn, communication: Assistant professor, Oregon Institute of Technology
austen.flint@oit.edu
(541) 539-0559

2. PLAYER & COACH COMMUNICATION “U” 2
Abstract
This study examines how methods and frequency of communication between
players and coaches have changed over time. The results were collected from 50 current
or previous collegiate basketball athletes from a small northwest college. A survey
consisting of six questions uses a combination of multiple-choice and likert scale
questions to establishing measurable values from respondents. The data analysis intends
to determine whether significant differences exist in the methods and frequency of
communication between players and coaches over time. This study found significant
evidence that methods of communication have changed depending on the year of athletic
participation of student-athletes. Digital technologies have become increasingly used as a
method of communication, resulting in other methods of communication decreasing over
time.

3. PLAYER & COACH COMMUNICATION “U” 3
Introduction
Practice is important. The regular season is important. Your meetings are
important. Your walk-through is important. Everything is important. You want to
be a championship team, there's a price to pay. And that's what you have to do.
There's no shortcuts. You can't shortcut your way to success. (as cited in Amick,
2015)
This is a quote from Chicago Bulls head coach Tom Thibodeau on February 2,
2015, regarding his conflict with Bulls management concerning his aggressive coaching
style. Four months later, Thibodeau was fired after five seasons having amassed a 255-
139 record and a 64.7% winning percentage that is the 6th
best all time among NBA
coaches with at least 200 games experience (NBA Coach Register, n.d.). In what was a
tumultuous final season, Thibodeau and Bulls management could not agree on the
coaching styles that were implemented by the head coach; the players were also
frustrated with his aggressive coaching style.
The following question remains: What is the best coaching style to lead a team?
Numerous studies have been conducted addressing this question in order to find answers
that lead to the achievement of ultimate team performance. It is necessary to understand
what type of coaching style is most effective depending on the sport, player gender,
motivational needs of athletes, and a coach’s ability to understand the unique
characteristics of each player.
While research suggest the role of a leader is crucial, as Pratt and Eitzen (1989)
explain nowhere is it more clear than on athletic teams, where there is a consistent focus
on the style of leadership used, rather than the communication used between coaches and

4. PLAYER & COACH COMMUNICATION “U” 4
players. Butterworth and Kassing (2015) discuss the need for expanding research on
communication and sport beyond media-centric analysis to include further theories and
concerns associated with communication studies. The objective of future research should
be to not disregard existing research from the landscape of communication and sport, but
to unearth new and exciting areas of research (Butterworth & Kassing, 2015).
This quantitative study will examine how the methods and frequency of
communication between players and coaches have changed over time and the satisfaction
players receive from the communication. Current literature and research explaining how
leadership styles affect a coach’s ability to influence and motivate athletes along with
their ability to effectively communicate with players and improve their performance will
be discussed. In addition, a study introducing the leader-member theory of player
communication with coaches and teammates will provide a foundation for future
research.
Literature Review
Coaches’ Influence
The influence of a coach’s leadership on individual’s behavior has a direct
contribution to the success or failure of athletes and teams (Ardua & Márquez, 2007;
Fletcher & Roberts, 2013). According to Turman (2006), coaches’ effectiveness can be
measured by their ability to communicate their power to individuals. In relation to
leadership styles, the type of leadership displayed to athletes is vital to the success, and a
coach’s combination of power with a particular leadership style can accurately illustrate a
team’s performance (Pratt & Eitzen, 1989). Therefore, coaches have a major influence
on the performance of athletes, due to a position that provides each individual with

5. PLAYER & COACH COMMUNICATION “U” 5
support, direction and guidance. A connection can be made between coaching behavior
and athlete satisfaction. In particular, the coach’s ability to help players reach their full
potential can be dependent on the type of sport in which athletes’ participate. Some
studies support the notion that democratic styles of coaching are preferred in individual
sports, compared to an emphasis on direction, training, and instruction being more
effective in collective sports (Ardua & Márquez, 2007). In contrast, other research has
suggested that athletes in team sports can prefer low levels of autocratic behavior
(Fletcher & Roberts, 2013). Hence, the influence of coaches on their athletes can differ
from team to team and athlete to athlete. An important question in respect to a coach’s
influence is how autocratic leadership affects players and teams.
Aggression/Autocratic Style of Coaching
An autocratic leader attempts to promote discipline, strict rules, and hierarchical
structures of power, while establishing impersonal relationships with athletes to ensure
each individual is held to the same standard in order to maximize performance (Pratt &
Eitzen, 1989). Autocratic coaches view their athletes as instruments or resources
available to the team, which are used to fulfill team goals that are clearly established and
measurable (Pratt & Eitzen, 1989). A key to authoritarian coaching and teaching is built
within the structural conditions that are forced onto players with a focus on
accomplishing task and outcomes as opposed to supporting and rewarding individuals
(Barić & Bucik, 2009; Pratt & Eitzen, 1989). Fletcher and Roberts (2013) suggest that
autocratic behavior may increase when stress and intensity increase during competition,
causing coaches to impose more power and control in directing their team. Turman
(2006) believes coaches are able to introduce the notion of tough love, arguing that

6. PLAYER & COACH COMMUNICATION “U” 6
autocratic leadership can be effective as long as the athletes know that their coach is
looking out for their best interests. However, aggressive behavior shown towards athletes
can be detrimental some situations, such as immediately after a loss in competition; the
nature of the sport, as well as the experience and gender of players can result in autocratic
coaching styles being unsuccessful (Fletcher, & Roberts, 2013; Sagar & Jowett, 2012).
Furthermore, autocratic behavior can be detrimental in the learning context of sport,
which can be destructive to an athlete’s overall development (Sagar & Jowett, 2012). The
type of leadership style used by can directly impact their ability to communicate
effectively with athletes.
Effectiveness of Coach Communication
In a sporting context, coaches instruct athletes on how to improve their skills in
order to achieve optimal performance and success through communication. The
effectiveness of these interpersonal interactions can have significant implications on an
athlete’s mindset, skill development, and overall performance (Sagar & Jowett, 2012).
Communication can be most important after a loss in competition or when errors are
made in training, because it can have a negative effect on the individual’s well being. In
particular, young athletes should be given communication and feedback that focuses on:
the beneficial qualities that sport offers, such as life lessons, values of physical activity,
relationships, and self-esteem building (Sagar, & Jowett, 2012). Ardua and Márquez
(2007) contend that team sports should utilize communication that focuses on training
and instruction to promote player development and that the communication should be in
the form of positive feedback. In addition, positive feedback combined with autocratic
leadership can result in higher levels of effective learning within athletes (Turman, 2006).

7. PLAYER & COACH COMMUNICATION “U” 7
These studies regarding communication from coaches to players can also be used to
examine how coaches are able or unable to motivate athletes and improve their
performance.
Affects on Athlete Performance and Motivation
The quality of a coach-player relationship can directly affect an athlete’s
perception of satisfaction related to practice and game performance, achievement of
goals, personal motivations, and passion for the sport (Sagar & Jowett, 2012). A key to
successful leadership is a coach’s ability to motivate players to achieve optimal
performance while also increasing athlete satisfaction during competition. The influence
coaches impose on athletes differs, depending on the coach’s profile and leadership style
(Barić & Bucik, 2009; Turman. 2006). Because coaches have their own unique
characteristics, athletes’ motivation can be dependent on their perception of how the team
is motivated by their coaches on a consistent basis, and the relationship between team and
individual differences regarding personality, goal orientation, and self-perceived ability,
along with the perceived motivational climate surrounding the sport team (Barić &
Bucik, 2009). It is difficult to motivate a number of athletes in the same way. For
example, some athletes may view autocratic coaching methods as preferable in some
situations. During the end of a season, autocratic styles do not threaten athletes, as it is
the most efficient style of coaching at that particular time (Turman, 2003). In contrast,
other players might view negative actions as ineffective and be unable to cope with the
disappointment of making an error (Sagar & Jowett, 2012). Effectiveness of
communication can be influenced by the gender of players a coach instructs, which can
alter the leadership style used to direct the team. The most effective coaches can be those

8. PLAYER & COACH COMMUNICATION “U” 8
who adapt correctly to the direct needs of particular players and situations, which may
require them to be more demanding or supportive (Pratt & Eitzen, 1989). To better
understand how communication can affect athletic motivation and performance,
researchers are beginning to use organizational perspectives to examine interactions
between players and coaches.
Leader-Member Theory of Player Communication
The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory is a perspective not regularly used to
examine communication in a sport team environment. Cranmer and Myers (2014)
propose the integration of LMX is significant for sport communication research because
the theory acknowledges that athlete-coach communication and relationship vary from
team to team and from individual to individual. Sport teams are comprised of several
complex layers involving informal and formal leadership, layers that also include formal
and informal types of communication. Due to the consistent superior position displayed
by a coach, LMX is an appropriate perspective to examine athlete-coach communication
and relationships (Cranmer & Myers, 2014). LMX can be used to examine player and
coach through an organizational framework, focusing on areas of importance such as how
coaches promote in-group and out-group relationships with athletes and how those
relationships affect cooperation in the dyadic relationship (Butterworth & Kassing, 2015).
This is important when analyzing the methods and frequency of communication, as
satisfaction and regularity of interaction can be influenced by the cohesion and
cooperation existing between a player and coach.