Motivation in Team Sports

The Effects of Coaching and Motivation in Team Sports

Since its conception, sports psychologists have used scientific methods of psychology to answer problems encountered by coaches and athletes (Griffith, 1925, as cited in Gould et al., 2002). In recent decades sports psychology has increasingly become a business, a way to make money for moth athletes and businesspersons. Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees makes over $20 million a year on a team with a payroll well over $200 million a year. Colleges such as USC and Texas receive millions for their teams (success) appearance in high profile bowl games. Winning means big profits and rewards for all parties involved, and winners are highly motivated, so a review of the research on motivation in team sports is justified.

Motivation is the key to success, and sports are no different, successful athletes, coaches, and teams are almost always identified as highly motivated (Giacobbi et al., 2002). There are two main types of motivation that interact to "drive" individuals toward their goals; intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is self-made and comes from an internal desire to participate in an activity, while an extrinsically motivated individual participates for external reasons (e.g. social pressures, to avoid punishment (Ryan & Deci). According to Ryan and Deci, "Perhaps no single phenomenon reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as intrinsic motivation, the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one's capacities, to explore, and to learn." The benefits suggested by Ryan and Deci's description of intrinsic motivation will be discussed throughout the review.

In team sports, coaches often receive criticism for the teams' defeats whereas the athletes receive praise for team's successes (www.espn.com). Perhaps rightfully so, as the coach is the leader of the team, the one the players look to at all times for leadership on and off the field of play. Leadership is defined as the behavioral process of influencing individuals or groups toward established goals; and in athletics it requires a large amount of personal interaction with the athletes, and as a result the coach has a large effect on the motivation of his or her players (Chelladurai, 1984b, as cited in Turman, 2003).

Smoll and Smith (1989, as cited in Kenow & Williams, 1999) developed a model of leadership in sports. According to Smoll and Smith's model, the coach behaviors are interpreted by the athlete, and based on this interpretation the athlete has a reaction. It is crucial to understand that it is not the coach's actual behavior that is important, rather it is how the athlete perceives the behavior that matters.

This literature review will focus on the different areas of coaching and motivation in team sports, emphasizing the Self-Determination theory in understanding athlete motivation. The review will present different motivational profiles and goal orientations of athletes and then review specific coach behaviors and coaching styles. Additionally, the review will investigate how the coach and athlete interact, and how environmental factors affect athlete motivation. Finally, the review will examine burnout, the mental and physical state that causes players and coaches alike to stop participating in athletics.

Athletes

Athletes are the essence of sports; they are the kids you see playing Little League baseball on the weekend, the student-athletes that represent their schools, and the superstars playing in front of worldwide audiences. An athlete's motivational profile will determine how he will behave in his sport (Harwood et al., 2004). Motivation will affect the amount of energy and effort used in an activity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In addition to unique motives for participating in a sport, athletes also possess a unique type of goal orientation that determines how an individual pursues a goal and defines success (Harwood et al.). The motivational profile of an athlete has two components, a goal orientation and personal motivations for participation.

Goal Orientations

The way athletes strive to achieve their goals and define success is significant to all relationships and interactions within the team (Papaioannu, 2004). Research in psychology consistently defines two different types of goal orientations (Papaioannu, 2004). A task goal oriented individual gives attention to the process of completing or learning a task, and enjoys the value of learning as an end in itself (Papaioannu). Harwood et al. (2004) stated that individuals with an ego orientation focus on the demonstration of superior competence, basing success on the display of superior ability.

It is the question of process versus product; task oriented individuals focus on the process of an activity, on the other hand, an athlete with an ego orientation concentrates on the product (Papaioannu, 2004). It is important to understand that a goal orientation is not as clear cut as black and white, athletes have the ability to base success on personal improvement (task) as well as outperforming the competition (ego) (Harwood et al., 2004). More task oriented athletes focus on getting better at their sport, success is internally referenced (Harwood et al.). Ego-oriented athletes base their success on wins and losses (Harwood et al.). As one may expect, task and ego oriented athletes have different responses to victory and defeat (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

There is an important distinction between task and ego oriented individuals with regard to effort (Duda, 2001 as cited in Papaioannu, 2004). Task oriented individuals feel that more effort will result in a better performance, on the other hand, ego oriented individuals believe that ability is fixed and cannot be modified by effort (Duda, 2001). A highly ego oriented athlete may walk away from a bad loss saying to themselves that there is nothing I can do, I am just not good enough. While a losing task oriented athlete may walk off the same field saying, "If I try harder I can beat them." Differences in the way individuals define success in a sport are critical variables in the variations in motivational processes (Nicholls, 1989, as cited in Etnier et al., 2004).

Motivational Profiles

For athletes, coaches, and teams alike, staying motivated is essential for success. According to the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000), people participate in activities for different reasons with differing degrees of energy, effort, and persistence. The SDT identifies three different types of motives for participation: amotivation (AM) or a lack of motivation, extrinsic motivation (EM) or participating for external reasons (e.g. recognition, money), and intrinsic motivation (IM), which is the most self-determined type of motivation (Ryan & Deci). IM is taking part in an activity for the pleasure and sense of fulfillment one receives from the activity itself (Ryan & Deci). Individuals participate in activities to fulfill feelings of competence, autonomy, and relatedness; and the satisfaction of these three needs are essential to an athlete feeling intrinsically motivated (Ryan & Deci).

A sub theory of the SDT, Deci & Ryan's (1985, as cited in Ryan & Deci, 2000) cognitive evaluation theory (CET) maintains that events that promote individuals feelings of competence in an activity can enhance his or her IM for that activity (Ryan & Deci). Therefore, a scholarship or a big contract can increase IM if it is viewed as a reward for being good rather than an external motivation for participating. However, CET claims the feelings of competence will only increase IM if the individual feels autonomous in that activity (Ryan & Deci). This means that in sports, no matter how much positive feedback players receive about their ability, their IM will not be facilitated if they feel they are being forced to participate.

There are two main motivational profiles; athletes are usually either (more) intrinsically or extrinsically motivated (Ryan & Deci). Similar to goal orientations, athletes have varying levels of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Ryan & Deci). Intrinsically motivated athletes play for the pleasure and fun of the game while their extrinsically motivated teammates play for the tangible benefits of sports (e.g. social rewards or avoid punishment). Research has identified benefits to being intrinsically motivated in sport (Amiot et al., 2004). Research has shown that intrinsically motivated players perform better than their extrinsically motivated counterparts when they have the same level of perceived competence (Ryan & Deci). Simply put, if two players believe they have the same skill level, the intrinsically motivated player will do better than the extrinsically motivated one. Similar to goal orientations, athletes have varying levels of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Ryan & Deci). The motivational profiles of athletes will return when the literature review looks at the interactions on sports teams.

Coaches

Coach Behaviors

Every coach uses a wide variety of behaviors in communicating with players throughout the season. Coaches may criticize for a mistake, praise a good play for one player while ignore the same mistake for the next player. Coaches would benefit from watching how successful coaches interact with their team and modeling the behavior of the experts. Tharp and Gallimore (1976) also found that Wooden's demonstrations rarely lasted more than five seconds so as not to interrupt the flow of practice. In these brief demonstrations he said what the player did wrong, showed them how to do it right, then continued with practice (Tharp & Gallimore). Although Wooden scolded twice as often as he rewarded, his scolds were loaded with instructions and rarely directed at an individual, usually they were shouted during a group activity when no individual player was singled out and as a result, every player tries to "put himself in order". Gassner (1999) identified the effectiveness of metaphors in any learning environment, especially sports. According to Gassner, metaphors have performance enhancing capabilities and encourage active listening from players because they must interpret the message of the metaphor and then respond with the appropriate response. Obviously different behaviors will have different effects depending on the individual, sport, and level of competition.

Decision-making style

Every coach has a unique way of leading a team and making decisions. Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) identified two major categories of coaching styles; democratic and autocratic. A democratic coach is open to receiving input from players when making certain decisions (Sullivan & Kent, 2003). Individuals playing for a democratic coach feel that they have some say in what goes on (Sullivan & Kent). An autocratic decision making style is one where the coach, and the coach alone makes the decisions (Sullivan & Kent). Autocratic coaches run their teams like dictators, an environment where the players have no opinion in any decisions (Hollembeak & Amorose). Research has consistently shown that athletes prefer to play for democratic coaches and the benefits (for athletes) of a democratic coaching style are discussed later (Price & Weiss, 2000).

Coach Efficacy

Legendary Olympic Swim coach James Counsilman, revealed that he was often nervous at major events but worked hard not to let his swimmers recognize his own stress because he knew that athletes model their coaches anxiety levels (Kimiecik & Gould, 1987, as cited in Gould et al., 2002). Coaches need to have self-confidence in what they are doing in order to be successful and perceived by their players as confident as a coach (Short & Short, 2004). A coach's self-confidence, or self-efficacy, is a contextually referenced judgment of one's capabilities; it is the coach's belief that he can lead his or her team to success (Sullivan & Kent, 2003).

There are certain coaching behaviors related to a coach's efficacy level (Sullivan & Kent, 2003). Fetz et al. (1999, as cited in Short & Short, 2004) found that more confident coaches displayed more use of praise and encouragement. Sullivan & Kent (2003) also recognized that as coaches became more confident, they perceived themselves as closer to ideal coaches in respect to using positive feedback, and appropriate training and instruction of the team. This means that for a coach to maximize her potential, she needs to have confidence in what she is doing. It should be noted that coaching efficacy can be significantly improved by coaching training programs (Malete & Feltz, 2001, as cited in Sullivan & Kent, 2003).

Team

Motivational Climates

In team sports, the constant interaction between coaches and athletes forms a motivational climate for the team (Smith et al., 2005). In group settings, there are two types of climates: task involved and ego involved (Papaioannou, 2004). Task involved motivational climates are defined as giving attention to the processes of completing or learning a task, embracing the intrinsic value of learning as an end in itself, and characterized by the belief that appropriate effort will result in a better performance (Papaioannou). Ego involved motivational climates focus on winning as the criteria for success and the idea that performance is a result of ability and not effort (Smith et al.).

The behavior of the coach is the main factor influencing how an athlete perceives the motivational climate (Smith et al., 2005). How a coach deals with mistakes in particular is crucial to the athletes' perception of the environment; Smith et al. found that athletes, who believed their coach provided positive and encouraging feedback but did not ignore mistakes, perceived a task involved climate. Athletes perceived an ego involved climate when the coach exhibited less positive feedback and higher amounts of punishment.

In team sports, Newton and Duda (1999) found that coaches in task-involved motivational climates reinforce the athletes when they improve, work hard, and help each other learn, and the coaches convey to the team that each team member plays a vital role in the group's success. In an ego involved motivational climate the coach punishes players for mistakes and the best players on the team receive the most attention and recognition (Newton & Duda). The motivational climate has numerous implications for player motivation, satisfaction, and performance among other things (Smith et al., 2005).

Omundsen & Roberts (1999, as cited in Smith et al., 1999) found that athletes prefer a task involved climates to an ego involved climate. Their research showed that athletes in task involving climates have higher levels of enjoyment, effort, satisfaction, lower tendency to skip practice or experience performance anxiety, and had a more positive relationship with the coach. In contrast, Omundsen and Roberts found that athletes who perceived they were participating in an ego involved climate reported less enjoyment, lower levels of satisfaction with being on the team, higher performance anxiety and boredom, and a more negative relationship with the coach. So if coaches want their players to enjoy their athletic experience, they should focus on creating a more task involved climate and encourage players rather than punish them.

Although, task involved teams result in more psychologically satisfied individuals, Papaioannu (2004) found that they might not be best for every athlete. In a longitudinal study of physical education classes, Papaioannu found that task oriented individuals performed best in a task-involved environment whereas ego oriented individuals were most successful in ego involved environments. At a closer look, these results seem logical. Highly ego oriented individuals in a task oriented environment have few opportunities to demonstrate their abilities, which undermined their ego orientation (Papaioannu). Without opportunities to display superior ability, ego oriented individuals in a task involved environment have no chances to be successful (which for them is externally referenced), as a result their ego orientation is damaged, lowering their IM (Papaioannou). According to Papaioannou, although this research was conducted on P.E. classes, it is likely that the effects of the motivational climate on individuals would be more intense in sports than in the classroom.

In the team setting, coaches would benefit from keeping the practices and treatment of players diverse to provide both the task and ego oriented athletes on the team the opportunities they need to be successful and the treatment to keep them motivated. Although it is a delicate balance, the overall motivational climate should be task involved, yet there needs to be some opportunities for the ego-oriented players to display their skills.

Research has unanimously supported the superiority of a task-oriented climate in team sports, especially in terms of athlete motivation (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Newton & Duda, 1999; Smith et al., 2005). The key to maximizing motivation of athletes is to emphasize success based on effort and improvement (e.g., task orientation) rather than in terms of comparison to peers (e.g., ego orientation) (Nichols, 1989 as cited in Smith et al., 2005). It is only in this context that every individual on a team has the opportunity to be successful (Nichols). Since success is the main goal of sports, it seems practical for coaches to develop a more task involved climate to increase the athletic experience at all levels.

The relative strength of the individual's goal orientation and team's motivational climate may also affect performance; Duda (2001, as cited in Papaioannou, 2004) cautioned that although strong team climates may supersede the effects of weaker individual goal orientations, individuals with powerful goal orientations are less likely to be affected by the motivational climate of the team.

Coach-Athlete compatability

The extent to which a coach and player get along or their compatibility is very important in sports (Kenow & Williams, 1999). If an athlete's goals, personality, and beliefs are consistent with those of the coach, the interaction will likely be positive for both people resulting in a positive interpersonal atmosphere (Kenow & Williams). Solomon (1998) found that when coach's beliefs were consistently communicated and understood by the athletes, athletes altered their behavior to conform to the coach's expectation. Coaches need to be clear and consistent in communication with a player so that the he knows exactly what the coach expects of him.

Kenow and Williams (1999) found that athletes who felt more compatible with their coach felt more supported by their coach and evaluated their coach's communication ability more positively. Their study showed that coach-athlete incompatibility leads to frustration and a loss of self confidence on the part of the athlete. If a player on a team does not get along well with the coach and the two do not communicate well, the player will not know what is wanted from her, feel like she can do nothing right, and lose confidence in her abilities. This vicious cycle is the result of poor communication by the coach (Kenow & Williams). Coach Wooden made sure to avoid this cycle, his scolds were loaded with instructions, and the mistake committed was always made clear to the players (Tharp & Gallimore, 1976). Sometimes the coach would physically demonstrate to the players in what the researchers identified as a "Wooden." In this form of communication to his players Wooden would demonstrate the correct way to perform an act, followed by the incorrect way a player just performed it, then followed again by the correct way.

Kenow and William's research also found that athletes whom felt more (compared to less) compatible with their coach experienced fewer negative effects from their coach's behavior during competitions. This means that if coaches want their players to perform to their maximum potential they need to get along with players on a day to day basis. Baker et al. (2003) found that team goal setting, mental preparation and personal rapport with the coach were all positively related to athlete satisfaction with the coach.

Effect of Coach behaviors on Athlete IM

Perhaps the most essential task for a coach is to keep his or her players motivated. According to Deci and Ryan's cognitive evaluation theory (CET) (2000), in achievement contexts such as sports, events or factors in the environment that facilitate or enhance a players feeling of competence, autonomy, or relatedness will increase that individual's IM. Individuals are intrinsically motivated toward situations and experiences that satisfy those needs (competency, autonomy, relatedness). CET can be applied to the coach athlete interaction in that any coach behavior that is perceived to enhance any of these feelings in a player will facilitate that player's IM while feedback that undermines these feelings will decrease IM.

Athletes that believed their coach consistently provided positive and information-based feedback were more intrinsically motivated (Amorose & Horn, 2000). Athletes want to be taught, they want to know how to do things right when they make a mistake. Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) found that coaching behaviors of training and instruction, positive feedback, and democratic behavior positively affected IM. Interestingly, the relationship between relatedness and IM was stronger than that between competence and IM (Hollembeak & Amorose). This suggests that it is more important to an athlete's motivation to feel a part of the team than their feelings of ability in the sport. Coaches emphasizing the worth of every member of the team will help keep the kids at the end of the bench motivated and working hard in practice.

In order to be intrinsically motivated an athlete needs to feel autonomous, or that he is participating because he wants to on his own free will (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Hollembeak and Amorose (2005) found that a democratic decision-making style positively affected autonomy while autocratic behaviors had the opposite effect. When athletes are given the opportunity to voice their opinion and have a say in what goes on, they feel like they have choices and this results in an increase in feelings of autonomy. In contrast, exerting excessive control will hurt IM (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Athletes playing for autocratic coaches are not given the chance to state their feelings about any decisions and may feel like soldiers being bossed around by a drill sergeant. Reinboth et al. (2004) found that athletes who feel powerless and forced to participate in their sport perceive less energy available when fatigued compared to athletes that feel they participate in their sport autonomously. Hollembeak and Amorose did find that the coach's use of training and instruction (despite increasing overall IM) negatively affected the autonomy of the athletes. If a team is feeling like they have no input and are out of energy, to get the energy back up coaches should lay off the instructions and ask the players for input on the next few activities.

CET also identifies feelings of competence as an essential psychological need for an individual to be intrinsically motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000). An athlete's feeling of competence is their perception of her own ability in a sport (Ryan & Deci). The study by Amorose and Horn found that full scholarship players reported higher levels of competence and IM than their non-scholarship teammates. Success feedback should provide feelings of competence and as a result increase in IM while failure feedback should decrease feelings of competence and lower IM as a result (Vallerand, 99). However, coaches should be wary of giving out undeserving positive feedback; complimenting players inappropriately can result in low perceived competence (Horn 2002, as cited in Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). If players feel the coach is complimenting them for no reason, the athlete may feel "I suck if I am getting compliments for that."

Interestingly, Reinboth et al. (2004) noted that feeling competent in the presence of autonomous or controlled actions may lead to an increase in IM, this is not possible if the athlete believes that his or her behavior is controlled. An athlete who does not feel autonomous is a difficult athlete to motivate.

A coach's decision-making style has the strongest impact on the overall intrinsic motivation of the athletes (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). A democratic coaching style where athletes have an input on decisions was positively related to levels of IM, whereas an autocratic decision making style negatively affected the IM levels of the athletes (Hollembeak & Amorose). The study by Amorose and Horn (2000) supported that athletes of democratic coaches are more intrinsically motivated than peers playing for autocratic coaches. These two studies both got the same results using the Leadership Scale for Sports to measure decision-making style.

There is not one behavior that motivates every athlete; it is the coach's ability to understand each player and find out how to motivate all the players on the team that makes a great coach. In an observational study of John Wooden, Tharp and Gallimore (1975) found that the legendary coach used enormous variation in the treatment of different players, some players were mostly praised, others mostly scolded, and others rarely criticized or praised in a public forum such as practice. Coaches in the study by Giacobbi et al. (2002) noted the significance of adjusting to individual athletes and knowing how specific players respond to certain actions. These coaches stated that individual meetings were essential in understanding each individual and helping them make progress. Coaches need to know how to "push the right buttons" with each player to keep them motivated.

Team Cohesion

The ideal team is a cohesive unit where all of the different athletes, with diverse motivations and goal orientations, work tirelessly for a coach whom they are willing to die for in the successful attainment of victory. Unfortunately, this is not the norm, and a team's cohesion is vital to a team's success (Kozub, 2000). A cohesive team works well together, members of a cohesive group have feelings of we-ness, as individuals in cohesive groups are more likely to use the term we rather than I when referring to a group (Cartwright 1968, as cited in Turman, 2003).

Realizing the importance of team cohesion, Joe Torre, the manager of the New York Yankees, regularly has meetings with individual players to find out how everyone is doing and maintain team harmony and cohesion (Giacobbi et al., 2002). He refuses to let minor issues become big problems, as a result he has been one of the most successful coaches in the last decade. Team cohesion levels affect individual and group behavior and it is important for coaches to establish a level of cohesion that builds a climate for team success (Turman, 2003).

Kozub (2000) studied the effects of a teams' cohesion on feelings of collective efficacy and found that athletes who had higher scores for team cohesion also had higher scores for team efficacy. The more an athlete perceives their team as working together, the more confidence one has in their team's capabilities (and abilities).

There are certain coach behaviors that athletes identified as helping and others that hurt a team's cohesion (Turman, 2003). Turman found that players who perceived their coaches to treat everyone the same reported higher team cohesion levels. Turman found that favoritism has a negative effect on a team's cohesion. Tharp and Gallimore noted that coach Wooden had an obsession with being fair in his treatment of players. Turman's results also suggested that yelling at a player negatively impacts a teams' cohesion. After being yelled at by the coach, athletes had negative feelings toward the coach, and other team members said that after someone is yelled at they stay away from the recipient of the criticism (Turman). Coach sarcasm increased feelings of team cohesion, perhaps because it shows that a coach has a side to him other than the one focused on the sport (Turman). In pre game speeches, an "us versus them" talk was effective at bonding the team and uniting them towards a common goal (Turman). A team prayer was one of the most effective cohesion enhancing strategies identified; prayer removed separation, animosity and individual prejudices moments before game time (Turman). In the research of Olympic coaches by Gould et al. (2002), U.S. Olympic coaches believed that team cohesion and the factors influencing team cohesion were very important to a team's success. If Olympic coaches consistently mentioned team cohesion as vital to team success, coaches should try to avoid the actions that hurt cohesion and use the behaviors that promote it.

Burnout

As the information above suggests, there is nothing simple or effortless in team sports. Participation in team sports as an athlete or coach requires a large investment of time, energy, and emotion. As with many things in life, there may come a time in athletics when individuals no longer enjoy playing a sport the way they did when they first picked up the ball. There comes a time when the sport participation is more of a burden than a pleasure, a time when a coach or athlete burns out (Price & Weiss, 2000). Research consistently defines burnout as a psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Malasch & Jackson, 1981a, as cited in Price & Weiss, 2000). Raedke (1997) rationalized that Malasch & Jackson's depersonalization is reproduced in the sporting world in an athlete's development of a negative attitude toward what is important to athletes: the sport itself. Raedke's definition for burnout in sport is a psychological syndrome of emotional/physical exhaustion, a reduced sense of accomplishment and sport devaluation. Raedke et al. (2000) noted that only highly committed individuals will experience burnout, and ones commitment is a result of how much a player (or coach) has invested in the sport and how attractive they perceive other options. This section will identify the precursors or symptoms of burnout in athletes and coaches, and ways burnout can be prevented.

Athlete Burnout. As athletes rise up the athletic pyramid, the competition gets tougher and the demands to get ahead become more challenging. Many athletes decide that participation is "no longer worth it" and become burned out, but there are symptoms that athletes exhibit before they decide to quit (Raedke & Smith, 2001).

The physical and mental exhaustion is the result of overtraining and leads to fatigue and withdrawal (Raedke et al., 2002). The most common symptom of oncoming burnout is an athlete distancing herself from the training regime by finding excuses to get out of workouts or reduce the workload (Raedke et al.). Raedke et al. also found that athletes experiencing burnout physically separate themselves by reducing the amount of time that they spend with their teammates. Coaches and parents should be aware of these symptoms in combination with other signs.

Athletes experiencing burnout are also characterized by reduced feelings of accomplishment (Raedke et al., 2002). There are a number of factors that may trigger these feelings, but the most influential is an athlete setting unrealistic expectations for himself (Raedke et al.). Raedke et al. recognized that this occurs when athletes reach a performance plateau yet continue to raise their goals to keep up with peers. This pressure to outdo other individuals can increase the motivation to train and perform but it can also lead to unrealistic expectations (Raedke et al.). Gould et al. (1996, as cited in Raedke et al., 2002) also found that unmet expectations and failure reach these personal goals caused burnout in athletes. Again focusing on the process rather than the end results can alleviate burnout as athlete will not place so much emphasis on results.

Another emotion connected with athlete burnout is feelings of entrapment (Raedke & Smith, 2001). Entrapment is the opposite of autonomy; entrapment is the feeling of forced participation (Raedke et al., 2002). Entrapped athletes may feel that they have invested too much time and energy to quit, that others expect them to continue their sport involvement, or that there are few attractive alternatives to their current sport (Raedke et al., 2000). It is also interesting to note that Raedke et al. found that coaches saw other people as the causes of burnout and themselves as using preventative strategies to alleviate athlete burnout.

There is not one physical or psychological symptoms that always characterizes burnout; it is a combination of both physical and psychological signs that indicate an individual is burned out (Raedke et al., 2002). There are a number of ways that coaches can prevent athletes from burning out (Raeke et al., 2002). Raedke et al., found that a common strategy employed by coaches was simply to listen to their athletes more and try to understand the players as more than just athletes. Having good athlete-coach communication will also help athletes set realistic goals and avoid athletes feeling like failures (Raedke et al.). Udry et al. (1997) provided support for this and found that positive behaviors from coaches such as providing athletes with support, empathy, and instruction and expressing a belief in their athletes, was related to lower levels of athlete burnout. In contrast, coaches who put pressure on athletes, communicated conflicting ideas to players, and conveyed a lack of confidence in the athlete were all related to higher levels of burnout (in athletes) (Udry et al.). Consistent with player motivation and performance, athletes benefit and experience less burn out by having a positive relationship with their coach characterized by good communication.

Coach Burnout.

The research on coach burnout is inconclusive at best. There are conflicting results as to what coaching styles and behaviors are the causes of burnout and what coaching styles are the results of burnout. Vealey et al. (1998) found that coaches with higher levels of burnout displayed a more autocratic style, gave less praise, and lacked empathy toward their athletes. It makes sense that coaches who no longer enjoyed their job and were burned out would be described as such. However Price and Weiss (2000) found that coaches higher in emotional exhaustion were perceived by their teams as using a less autocratic style and making more democratic decisions. These results could be interpreted two ways. One is that coaches who are burned out no longer care; they welcome athlete opinion because they do not really want to worry about it anymore: a "do whatever you want" attitude (Price & Weiss). A second interpretation is welcoming athlete opinion is the most effective way to coach, but also the most difficult and this coaching style requires the most skill and is more stressful and demanding (Price & Weiss). Consequently, coaches who use this style are more likely to become burned out (Price & Weiss).

The level of commitment of the coach is also a factor, in a study by Raedke et al. (2000), results showed that coaches who had (comparatively) lower levels of commitment and coaches that showed feelings of entrapment experienced the highest levels of exhaustion. This study does not deny that burnout is stress related, but it does support the idea that burnout is more than a simple reaction to stress.

Regardless of which is the cause and which is the effect, coaches who are burned out can use a number of methods to avoid burning out. Price and Weiss (2000) found that the most common intervention strategies for avoiding coach burnout was improving time management skills, staying positive, and having fun. These activities will reduce stress in all aspects of life so it is not surprising that they would be effective in diminishing burnout. Consistent with results from Raedke et al. (2002) for preventing athlete burnout, Price and Weiss found that seeking social support will alleviate coach burnout as well.

Conclusions

This review has outlined some of the key components to a successful team. There are many factors that must be present in order for a team to maximize it's potential. Coaches and athletes alike could benefit from this review by trying to mold their actions and motivate themselves in the ways that research has shown to be most successful.

Research has supported the benefits of an overall task orientation in athletes, especially in terms of effort (Duda, 2001 as cited in Papaioannu, 2004). Athletes should try to focus more on the process of getting better rather than emphasizing the result as the source of success. An athlete's motives for participation are also of interest, as studies have consistently found benefits of intrinsically motivated athletes (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although external rewards such as money or scholarships may enhance motivation, a solid base of intrinsic motives for participation is necessary.

In team sports, coaches are the leaders of the team, the people who are in charge of guiding the team to success. Research has found the same coach behaviors to be most successful in terms of motivating athletes, athlete satisfaction, coach-athlete compatability, team cohesion, and preventing athlete burnout. Most important is a democratic coaching style, coaches should incorporate some athlete opinion into the decision making process. The benefits of a democratic coaching style are numerous: athletes prefer to play for a democratic coaching style, athletes playing for democratic coaches are more motivated, it promotes team cohesion and promotes a task involved climate.

Similar to goal orientations, task involved climates focus on the process of getting better while an ego-involved climate emphasizes winning as grounds for success. Athletes involved in a task involved motivational climate have higher levels of enjoyment, effort, satisfaction, and a lower inclination to skip practice or experience performance anxiety (Omundsen & Roberts, 1999 as cited in Smith et al., 2005). On the other hand, athletes whom perceived an ego involved climate reported less enjoyment, lower levels of satisfaction with being on the team, higher performance anxiety and boredom (Omundsen & Roberts). A coach's response to mistakes is important in an athlete's perception of the motivational climate. Research has supported that athletes perceived a task involved motivational climate when the coach provided positive and encouraging feedback but did not ignore mistakes while an ego-involved climate is perceived when the coach exhibited less positive feedback and higher amounts of punishment (Smith et al.). Coaches do still need to provide the ego-oriented players opportunities to display their abilities.

The behavior of the coach is also important in terms of keeping athletes motivated (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). According to Deci & Ryan's CET, individuals need to have feelings autonomy, competence, and relatedness, in an activity to be intrinsically motivated in that activity. To satisfy these three needs coaches can focus on three main behaviors; allow athlete input (autonomy), provide appropriate praise and encouragement (competence), and stress the importance of every member on the team (relatedness). Coaches should be aware that as the season progresses, coaches use more controlling behaviors, decrease praise, and specific guidance (Turman, 2003). Since these behaviors specifically undermine athlete's IM, as the season goes on coaches should make a conscious effort to continue to allow athlete input and provide positive, information-based feedback.

Coaches would benefit from imitating the behaviors of experts, successful coaches such as John Wooden, whose demonstrations rarely lasted longer than five seconds to never interrupt the flow of practice. Wooden was also a master at pushing the right buttons to keep his players motivated. He knew how each athlete responded to different behaviors and acted accordingly to keep everyone motivated. Also, it is important for coaches to act confident (even when they are not) because athletes look to their coaches and a nervous, insecure coach can lead to nervous, insecure players (Kimiecik & Gould, 1987, as cited in Gould et al., 2002).

Team cohesion is a key to success in sports. Team cohesion is the direct result of what coaches do or do not do. To establish team cohesion coaches need to take a little extra time to establish a relationship with their players and get to know players (and allow them to get to know you) on a level that is not sports oriented (Giacobbi et al, 2002). There are countless ways to develop team cohesion, the most effective is to establish relationships away from the court, establish a sense of camaraderie by having team activities away from the playing field (Gould et al., 2002).

In sports, there comes a time when athletes and coaches alike become emotionally and physically burned out, and cease their athletic participation (Raedke & Smith, 2001). Athletes focusing on the internal processes rather than external results will decrease the likelihood of burnout. For athletes and coaches the keys to avoiding burnout are to surround oneself with adequate social support, and try to remember why they got involved with sports, for the love of the game (Raedke et al., 2002).

John Wooden's pre game speech before coaching his last game (which his players knew would be his last), sums it up: "Come out of the game, win or lose, with your head high; only you and your Lord will know, but the only thing that matters is that you really mean it" (Tharp & Gallimore, 1976).

Future Research

There are many areas that research on motivation in team sports could be improved. The main limitation in the research presented is that the vast majority of the studies gathered data at only one time. When studying an area such as this, longitudinal studies are essential. The time of the season (preseason, in season, postseason), a big victory or a tough loss all affect multiple aspects of the team environment and studies that only take data once have serious limitations. Longitudinal studies would prove fruitful in looking at the ebb and flow of motivation in team sports. Longitudinal studies would be especially beneficial in the area of burnout. As many burnt out athletes and coaches are no longer participating, a longitudinal or continuous study would help psychologists, athletes, and coaches in understanding and preventing burnout in sports. This would be especially practical for answering the question of which coaching styles are the cause of burnout and which are the result.

In addition, it would benefit the field to further divide the groups in future research. For example, looking at coaching styles and athlete's satisfaction in Division I, II, & III basketball teams and stating that these coaching styles are applicable to college basketball is not accurate. Tharp and Gallimpre noted that Wooden's athletes had the max incentive where success could mean fame and fortune. These athletes may be more accepting of harsh criticism and more difficult workouts than a D 3 basketball team. Researchers should break down the groups in future studies so they can make conclusions that are more applicable.

Future studies should look at the psychological profiles of athletes when investigating how they respond to different coach behaviors. Maybe the response is more complicated than intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Another interesting topic is the effects that extrinsic rewards such as free shoes (for successful youth and high school teams) or multimillion-dollar contracts have on the motivation of athletes over time. If initially the reward increases feelings of competence, over time does it become an extrinsic goal needed for success to be attained? As the field of sports psychology develops, these questions and more will surely be addressed, as sports become a worldwide business.

References

Amiot, C.E., Gaudreau, P., & Blanchard, C.M. (2004). Self-determination, coping, and

Goal attainment in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 396-411.

Amorose, A.J., & Horn, T.S. (2000). Intrinsic Motivation: relationships with collegiate

athletes' gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches' behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-84.

Amorose, A.J. (2003). Reflected appraisals and perceived importance of significant

others' appraisals as predictors of college athletes' self-perceptions of

competence. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 60-70.

Baker, J., Yardley, J., & Cote, J. (2003). Coach behaviors and athlete satisfaction in team

and individual sports. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 34, 226-239.

Etnier, J.L., Sidman, C.L., & Hancock, L.C. (2004). An examination of goal orientation

profiles and motivation in adult team sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 35, 173-188.

Gassner, G.J. (1999). Using metaphors for high-performance teaching and coaching. The

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 70, 33-37.

Giacobbi, P.R., Roper, E., Whitney, J., & Butryn, T. (2002). College coaches' views

about the development of successful athletes: A descriptive exploratory

investigation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 164-180.

Gould, D., Greenleaf, C.G., & Chung, Y. (2002). A survey of U.S. Olympic coaches:

Variables perceived to have influenced athlete performances and coach

effectiveness. Sport Psychologist, 16, 229-250.

Harwood, C., Cumming, J., & Fletcher, D. (2004). Motivational profiles and

psychological skills use within elite youth sport. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 16, 318-332.

Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A.J. (2005). Perceived coaching behaviors and college

athletes' intrinsic motivation: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 26-30.

Kenow, L., & Williams, J.M. (1999). Coach-athlete compatibility and athlete's perception

of coaching behaviors. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 251-259.

Kozub, S.A., McDonnell, J.F. (2000). Exploring the relationship between cohesion and

collective efficacy in rugby. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 120-129.

Newton, M., & Duda, J.L. (1999). The interaction of motivational climate, dispositional

goal orientation and perceived ability in predicting indices of motivation.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30, 63-82.

Papaioannou, A., Marsh, H.W., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). A multilevel approach to

motivational climate in physical education and sport settings: An individual or a

group level construct. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 90-118.

Price, M.S., & Weiss, M.R. (2000). Relationships among coach burnout, coach

behaviors, and athletes' psychological responses. Sport Psychologist, 14, 391-409.

Raedeke, T.D., Lunney, K., & Venables, K. (2002). Understanding athlete burnout: coach

perspectives. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 181-206.

Raedeke, T.D., & Smith, A.L. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an

athlete burnout measure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 281-306.

Raedke, T.D. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment

perspective. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 396-417.

Reinboth, M., Duda, J.L., Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need

satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes.

Motivation and Emotion, 28, 297-313.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Short, S.E., & Short, M.W. (2004). Coaches' assessment of their coaching efficacy

compared to their athletes' perceptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 729-736.

Smith, S.L., Fry, M.D., Ethington, C.A., & Li, Y. (2005). The effect of female athletes'

perceptions of their coaches' behaviors on their perceptions of the motivational

climate. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 170-177.

Sullivan, P.J., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in

intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 1-11.

Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. What a coach can teach a teacher. Psychology Today, 52,

75-78.

Turman, P.D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: the impact of coaching techniques on team

cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 86-104.

Turman, P.D. (2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication

perspective: The influence of coach experience on high school wrestler's preferences and perceptions of coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education, 52, 73-86.

Vallerand, R.J. & Losier, G.F. (1999). An integrative análisis of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 142-169.

Vealey, R.S., Armstrong, L., Comar, W., & Greenleaf, C.A. (1998). Influence of

perceived coaching behaviors on burnout and competitive anxiety in female college athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 297-318.