Coaching as a performance by sports coach UK Research

sports coach UK Research Summary 10

Lights, Camera, Action – Coaching as a Performance

Fayyaz Ahmed, known within sport as Fuzz, is coach of Olympic high jump bronze medallist Robbie Grabarz, who he developed from 88th to third in the world rankings. An interesting aspect of his coaching philosophy is what he learnt from a background in acting, and it is this that researchers recently explored. While not everyone needs to train as an actor to improve their coaching, there are ideas from Fuzz’s story that any coach can try.

sports coach UK Research Summary 10 – Lights, Camera, Action – Coaching as a Performance

Introduction So what is Fuzz’s secret? Well, one lesser-known fact about Fuzz is that he trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts (RADA) in London and to this day uses RADA principles in his coaching. So much so that he suggests around 80% of what he does psychologically comes from RADA.

To give greater insight into these innovative coaching methods, researchers in Manchester have developed a new study with Fuzz at its heart. The study focuses on the social nature of coaching and the dynamics between athlete and coach. It explains how coaching as a performance can mould athletes into the best they can be, while simultaneously doing the same for coaches.

sports coach UK Research Summary 10 – Lights, Camera, Action – Coaching as a Performance

The theory – coaching through a lens To understand how he uses his RADA training in his coaching, the researchers interviewed Fuzz (pictured right) and observed his coaching practice. Five RADA principles were particularly evident:

•

using language

communicating with the body

using pace and pitch

the third eye

the fourth wall.

While the first three are pretty self-explanatory, the third eye and fourth wall are drama terms used by actors across the globe.

The third eye is when an actor is onstage, but instead of focusing on their acting, they are thinking about how they are being perceived by the audience. The fourth wall is an imaginary wall between the actors and the audience. Actors imagine it is there so they can act freely, as if there is nobody watching.

Fuzz incorporated these RADA principles into his coaching but took them a step further, manipulating them to ensure he received the desired response from his athletes. For example, the third eye is often seen as negative because actors can lose focus when thinking about how the audience perceives them. However, Fuzz used the third eye to his advantage, seeing how he was being perceived and reacting to it by changing his approach if the response from his athletes was not what he desired.

Similarly, Fuzz would break down the fourth wall to interact with the audience (his athletes), thereby giving himself the opportunity to alter their behaviour through his own actions.

The techniques used by Fuzz link closely to the teachings of the influential sociologist Erving Goffman. Goffman’s key work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life examined how individuals interact with each other, with, in his eyes, one person usually trying to guide the way they are perceived by the other through their own behaviour. Goffman also theorised about life as a dramatic performance so the researchers use three of Goffman’s key theoretical concepts to analyse Fuzz’s coaching and break down some of the complexity in his coaching persona.

The coaching performance

Goffman defines performance as everything an actor does in front of the audience and the effect it has on them. In this context, Fuzz is the actor and his coaching is the performance.

He consciously applies his RADA training in his coaching by focusing on clear communication tailored to each individual athlete. Using his body to communicate ideas, gestures to reinforce phrases and positive dialogue, Fuzz gives his athletes belief that they can perform to their best.

Examples include delivering key phrases in rhythmic tones to mimic the rhythm of a high jumper’s stride – ‘engage right side, drive final section’ – and adopting an encouraging style even when they don’t quite perform to their optimum level – ‘focus on your check points, you’re giving it away!’

To correct errors, Fuzz mimics his athletes’ technicalities, demonstrates what he is actually looking for and, crucially, asks them to analyse their own performance in order to understand where they have gone wrong – ‘You took it off [the bar] with your leg here. If your leg had been here and not there, then...?’

sports coach UK Research Summary 10 – Lights, Camera, Action – Coaching as a Performance

The theory – coaching through a lens

(continued)

Yet, despite the positivity in his performance, he doesn’t avoid conflict. The researchers note a number of occasions where Fuzz uses direct language and anger, and is challenging in order to provoke a response. This is an example of how he instantly changes his role to evoke a change in his athletes’ behaviour. Such complexities behind Fuzz’s approach to roles are examined in more detail below.

Manner of the coach

Goffman’s theory defines manner as the way a person plays a particular role. As touched on above, Fuzz’s coaching persona is complex in that, depending on the context, he may be encouraging and positive or direct and challenging. He chooses his manner depending on the response he wants from his athletes.

The researchers identified Fuzz’s role as the power holder who knows he holds the power and uses it to motivate, for example, by both encouraging and providing careful criticism at the right times.

Interestingly, Fuzz describes how he has developed himself as a coach by handing some of the power back to his athletes. Reflecting on his earlier methods, he recalls spending too much time micromanaging and providing athletes with minute details of their technicalities.

Now, he prefers them to think for themselves by analysing their own performance and finding the answers as to where they went wrong. This changes them from

being passive recipients of his information and knowledge to cognitively aware performers.

This change is key, and it reflects Fuzz’s entire approach to empowering his athletes. By being honest with them at all times and giving them the power to understand their own performance, he empowers them to believe that they are ready to jump high.

3 A coaching front

Finally, Goffman’s notion of front is the image or impression that the actor gives the audience. In this study, the researchers found Fuzz’s front changed depending on the athlete being coached.

As we have already seen, to some athletes he is challenging, while he handles others more sensitively – ‘He needs pushing but at the same time needs a lot of love.’

In examining front in Fuzz’s coaching persona, the researchers found further complexity in that he is a self-confessed manipulator, happy to manipulate his athletes if he feels it will improve them and draw out their competitive edge.

One example relates to a former Olympic finalist who had struggled with injuries since competing at that level. When observing training, the researchers watched as Fuzz temporarily ignored him and made him wait around. This reinforced hierarchy in the group with the intention of motivating him further. In Fuzz’s own words – ‘Know your place; you’re no longer top dog.’

sports coach UK Research Summary 10 – Lights, Camera, Action – Coaching as a Performance

Throughout all Fuzz’s coaching, the common denominator between himself and his athletes is the desire to achieve common goals. His performance, manner and front are interrelated and drive each other, often changing depending on the athlete and situation. Fuzz compares his coaching to an evolving approach – ‘I make it up as I go along because the athletes change, and if I’m doing the right job, then they get better, therefore I get better.’ He recognises that athletes and their situations change, therefore his coaching performance, manner and front must be fluid and flexible while always being convincing. This is a key point echoed by Goffman, who argued that a performer will only realise the intended response from their audience if the performance is credible, thereby leading the audience to fully succumb to the front they are presenting. In other words, if athletes don’t totally believe in the performance Fuzz is giving, they are very unlikely to respond in the way he requires.

Learning from the research The complexity in Fuzz’s coaching means we cannot use him as a model for aspiring coaches to follow. Nor do the researchers suggest all coaches should undertake RADA training. Instead, all coaches should seek to develop their own coaching persona. As Fuzz states, ‘not everyone should coach like me because they are not me’.

Instead, we can identify elements of Fuzz’s coaching that could help coaches at any level develop themselves, particularly in relation to communicating and interacting with participants: •

Reflect on your coaching by thinking about how you are perceived by your participants – is it in the way you intended? If not, think about how you could change your coaching performance to bring about a change in their perceptions. This could mean you are more likely to get the response you desire.

•

Remember, it is crucial for participants to buy in to your coaching performance. If they don’t, it’s unlikely you will get the response you desire.

Consider using your body and gestures to communicate ideas, rather than simply standing still and talking. Movement can reinforce your wording and phrases, effectively encouraging participants in your sessions to engage more fully and buy in to your coaching. Tailor your communication to individual participants – try to recognise when people need to be challenged and when they need to be encouraged, and don’t forget to be honest at all times.

Understand your participants’ goals and keep them in mind throughout your coaching. If you understand their goals, you will be able to tailor your coaching towards your participants achieving them.

References If you are interested in finding out more about this area, this summary is based on the article below:

Consterdine, A., Newton, J. and Piggin, S. (2014) ‘Time to take the stage: a contextual study of a high performance coach’, Sports Coaching Review, 2 (2): 124–135. Other more general reading includes:

Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1961) Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction – Fun in Games & Role Distance. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Chekhov, M. (2002) To the Actor: On the Technique of Acting. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN: 978-0-415258-76-0.

Jones, R. (2006) ‘Dilemmas, maintaining “face”, and paranoia: An average coaching life’, Qualitative Inquiry, 12: 1012–1021.

Jowett, S. and Cockerill, I.M. (2003) ‘Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete–coach relationship’, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4: 313–331.

Potrac, P. and Jones, R. (2009) ‘Power, conflict, and cooperation: Toward a micropolitics of coaching’, Quest, 61: 223–236.

Working to common goals