Research Analysis paper

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*

Psychology 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: roberta.antonini@baspo.admin.ch (R. Antonini Philippe).

1 Tel.: C41 32 32 76 330.

R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / Psychology 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 / Psychology 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 / Psychology 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 / Psychology 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 / Psychology 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 / Psychology 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 / Psychology 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 / Psychology 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 swimmers are relatively free to choose. They

are in charge of their choices, it is their performance and it is them who know how hard they can push

themselves, not the coach’s’. It was clear that the athletes did not imply that they do not do what the

coach asks them to do on the contrary their respect for the role of their coach was uppermost. These

athletes made clear that they took responsibility for themselves. It was stated that ‘Respecting the role of

the swimmer also means respecting what we are asked to do. If the coach asks us to do an exercise it is

always with a particular goal in mind, usually with a view to improving our performance’ (A2). On the

whole the swimmers made a fairly sharp distinction between the roles of the swimmer and the coach: ‘I

am the swimmer and he is the coach, and we are there to listen to him and carry out what he asks us to

do’ (A3).

Discussion and conclusion

The focus of this study was to explore the quality of the coach–athlete relationship as perceived by

five male elite-level swimmers. Guided by the three interpersonal constructs of closeness, co-orientation

and complementarity, content analysis revealed the nature of the athlete–coach relationship. Closeness

was represented by ‘positive’ feelings that bond the relationship members. According to the athletes,

these feelings constitute the essential basis of the relationship especially in the context of competitive

swimming where swimmers are subjected to major workloads and physical stresses. The construct of co-

orientation is portrayed as the need to establish a common ground. Communication was viewed as a

vehicle to develop a common ground (knowing each other well) and included verbal interchanges of

technical as well as personal issues, decision making and goal setting. The coach’s communication skills

were viewed by the athletes interviews as paramount in developing good rapport. Complementarity is

interpreted as the capacity to accept the other roles, tasks and responsibilities. The different roles and

tasks as well as personal qualities each bring to the relationship were viewed as enriching and important

for performance success and development.

Notably, the results of our study highlighted the presence of extremely profound and intimate feelings

despite the absence of any familiar or marital relations. One reason for that is that the participants of this

study who expressed such feelings had been training for several years with that same coach. This means

that the swimmers have come to know their coaches well, appreciate their efforts and respect their

opinions, and in the course of time the feelings were deepened into what some of them described as

‘more than a friendship’. Sarason et al. (1990) have argued that emotional closeness is an important

factor in the coach–athlete relationship. Thus, it is important of establishing a relationship based on

strong feelings of respect, esteem and admiration as they can play an influential role in the development

R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171168

of the athlete (Bloom et al., 1998; Poczwardowski et al., 1998). Contrary to the studies conducted by

Jowett and her colleagues (see Jowett, 2003; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003), not a single swimmer spoke of

negative closeness or lack of closeness. The swimmers expressed that the coach–athlete relationship

must be a positive one to be worthwhile, and if not, then the best option is to find another coach.

According to the athletes interviewed, there was no place for negative aspects in the coach–athlete

relationship. But despite this, they do take into account the possibility of the ups and downs that all

coach–athlete dyads have to face from time to time.

Overall, the ‘social relationship’ developed between the coach–athlete relationship in which a sense

of a strong affective bond can be compared to what Bloom et al. (1998) and Jowett and Cockerill (2003)

have called the ‘human relationship’. This part of the coach–athlete relationship may reflect the more

personal and humanistic side of coaching in which coaches care about their athletes welfare, interests,

preferences, and needs (Jowett, 2005). The results suggest that the social relationship or human

relationship is an important facet because it promotes the professional relationship (i.e. the part of the

relationship that is most concerned with performance enhancement).

Co-orientation has been closely linked, as was expected, with effective communication. These results

are consistent with Gould, Guinan, Greenleaf, Medbery, and Peterson (1999) who demonstrated that

effective communication is associated with success in sport. Moreover, our results have shown that the

male elite swimmers in this study placed great importance on verbal exchanges which constitute a

mixture of professional and personal issues. In contrast, Jowett and Cockerill (2003) reported that female

former Olympic medallists did not recall engaging in ‘formal discussions’ with their coaches. Thus, it

would be interesting to examine whether the gender and the age of athletes impact on the patterns and

types of communication that athletes prefer to engage with their coaches.

Another result from this study suggests that the coach’s social qualities appear to be an indispensable

dimension for establishing a good coach–athlete relationship (cf. Crevoisier, 1985). Indeed, our

swimmers claim that what they look for in a coach is first and foremost social competence, and that

technical skills take second place after that. The implication of this is that coach education should put

emphasis not only on technical, tactical and physical skills related to the practice of the activity itself, but

to give equal weight to the communication skills of the coach, such as his ability to listen, and help solve

problems. Further, the swimmers reported that other related interpersonal qualities of the coach can be

instrumental for their development (e.g. coaches’ capacity to motivate and encourage, to provide

support, and a sense of responsibility). Thus, coaches’ capacity to provide social support (informational

and emotional) seems to facilitate the development of athletic performance (cf. Rosenfeld, Richman &

Hardy, 1989; Sarason, Levine, Basham, & Sarason, 1983; Sarason, Shearin, Pierce & Sarason, 1987).

The swimmers in our study interpreted complementarity as acceptance and respecting the different

roles. Thus it is possible to establish a relationship in which one accepts the other despite differences and

dissimilarities and accommodates these differences accordingly. The reciprocation that existed in the

relationship was manifested by swimmers reports relevant to respecting the other’s roles and tasks. In a

way, athletes appeared to help the coach fulfil his duties and responsibilities whilst coaches helped their

athletes fulfil their duties and responsibilities. The coach’s role was viewed as an advisor, whereas an

athlete’s role was viewed as listening to the coach’s advise but deciding by his own to do things

differently if thought to be adequate. The swimmers referred to a ‘symbolic submission’ that existed in

their relationship with their coach when they said that the coach is the boss in the sense that the coach is

out of the water, above them, with the swimmer in the water below. However, what the coach says is

interpreted as advice and not rather than as a command.

R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171 169

The results underscore that the relationship between the athlete and the coach as perceived by male

elite swimmers is based on the principle of ‘give and take’. In other words, they both need the other in

complementary ways, yet the swimmers maintained they were in charge of themselves and responsible

for their actions. Taking responsibility for their actions meant that the they had the hard task of paying

back the investment the coach made in them. Thus, being responsible for their actions may reflect their

appreciation for their coach. It is speculated that the coach’s role in making the athlete feel and be a

responsible relationship member is paramount. In fact such an important impact on the part of the coach

is more likely to be manifested when coaches systematically employ an athlete-centred approach

(Bloom et al., 1998; Gould et al., 1999; Jowett, 2005; Poczwardowski et al., 2000).

From a methodological perspective, this study employed a qualitative methodology and data was

obtained via a semi-structured interview. While qualitative investigations may also be used with the aim

of generalising findings (Vergeer, 2000), they do tend to provide a limited depth and breadth relevant to

the subjective experiences of the participants examined when employing single interviews at one point

in time and using recall technique. Thus, it is proposed that the utilisation of diaries in which athletes

(and coaches) during a season make notes of their interpersonal feelings, thoughts and behaviours may

add substantially to an understanding of relationship quality and stability or change. On the other hand,

quantitative methodology can be utilised to study the coach–athlete dyad. The Coach–athlete

Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2002) has recently become available and

is an attempt to measure quantitatively the quality of the coach–athlete relationship. Another important

issues to consider from a methodological perspective is the unit of analysis. This study was restricted to

investigating one member of the coach–athlete dyad, namely, the athlete. A line of future research is to

examine both relationship members and reveal the mutual perception of their relationship.

Some of the findings of our qualitative study make us believe that, from a theoretical perspective, the

underpinning constructs of closeness, co-orientation and complementarity as the basic ingredients of the

coach–athlete relationship have to be thoroughly re-examined. Though it has been possible to assign

most of the responses obtained by the swimmers, a number of responses could not be classified along the

three a priori dimensions. In addition, the assignment of these three domains or constructs to emotional,

cognitive and behavioural aspects of the relation as proposed by Jowett and Meek (2000) proves to be

difficult. Consequently, the conceptual framework may require further development. It might be

worthwhile to consider concepts from Nitsch and Hackfort’s (1984) model. For example, the power

structure, the co-operation dimension and the dimension of bonds, each with emotional, cognitive and

behavioural aspects, might be considered to describe the relationship and to classify the responses of the

athletes. The underpinning agreements about the aims of the relationship (intentional aspects) and the

ways the aim is strived for (instrumental aspects) may well be the basis and at the same time go beyond

the three dimensions of closeness, co-orientation and complementarity.

It is proposed that, with the aim of developing the theoretical and conceptual framework, further

exploratory studies be conducted. Once the theoretical framework is established, comparative

investigations should be conducted in which the quality of the coach–athlete relationship is investigated

considering the gender composition of the relationship members (e.g. all-female dyads to all-male dyad).

Seiler et al.’s (1999) study showed that female coaches assume roles that reflect masculine attributes,

such as leadership and decision-making, whereas male coaches take roles that reflect more feminine

attributes, such as the ability to listen and to talk, when they coach, communicate and relate to female

athletes. Another research direction worth pursuing involves different levels of expertise. The question is

how the quality of the relationship is related to the level of expertise and performance, and how the latter

R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171170

two are influenced by the relationship. Also, longitudinal studies might demonstrate the evolvement of

the relationship over time, together with the development of expertise and performance. Thus, it is

essential that the research work in this complex field of interpersonal relationships is intensified at both

conceptual and methodological levels.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for very helpful

comments on methodological issues and the Guest Co-Editors Sophia Jowett and Paul Wylleman for

constructive suggestions to improve the manuscript both in content and style.

References

Bardin, L. (1991). L’analyse de contenu (The content analysis). Paris: PUF.

Bloom, G. A., Durand-Bush, N., Schinke, R. J., & Salmela, J. H. (1998). The importance of the mentoring in the development of

coaches and athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 267–281.

Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1978). Preferred leadership in sport. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 3, 85–97.

Coakley, J. J. (1990). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby.

Crevoisier, J. (1985). Football et psychologie. La dynamique de l’équipe (Football and psychology) The team’s dynamic. Paris:

Chiron Sports.

Estroff, S. D., & Nowicki, S. (1992). Interpersonal complementarity, gender of interacts and performance on puzzle and motor

tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 351–356.

Gardner, D. E., Shields, D. L. L., Bredemeier, B. J. L., & Bostrom, A. (1996). The relationship between perceived coaching

behaviors and team cohesion among baseball and softball players. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 367–381.

Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., Medbery, R., & Peterson, K. (1999). Factors affecting Olympic performance: Perceptions

of athletes and coaches from more and less successful teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 371–394.

Hellstedt, J. C. (1987). The coach/parent/athlete relationship. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 151–160.

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1995). Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors in athletic performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and

Science in Sports, 5, 191–199.

Jowett, S. (2001). The psychology of interpersonal relationships in sport: The coach–athlete relationship. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Exeter, UK.

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. (2005). On enhancing and repairing the coach–athlete relationship. In S. Jowett, & M. V. Jones (Eds.), Psychology of

sport coaching. Sport and exercise psychology division (pp. 14–26). Leicester: The British Psychological Society.

Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete–coach relationship. Psychology of Sport

and Exercise, 4, 313–331.

Jowett, S., & Meek, G. A. (2000). The coach–athlete relationship in married couples: An exploratory content analysis. The

Sport Psychologist, 14, 157–175.

Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2002). The coach–athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): Development and initial

validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 14, 245–257.

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., et al. (Eds.). (1983). Close

relationships. New York, NY: Freeman.

Nitsch, J. R., & Hackfort, D. (1984). Basisregulation interpersonalen Handelns im Sport (Basis regulation of interpersonal

actions in sport). In E. Hahn, & H. Rieder (Eds.), Sensory motor learning and research in sport games (Sensory motor

learning and research in sport games) (pp. 148–166). Köln: bps-Verlag.

R. Antonini Philippe, R. Seiler / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 159–171 171

Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J. E., & Henschen, K. P. (2002). The athlete and coach: Their relationship and its meaning. Results

of an interpretative study. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 116–140.

Poczwardowski, A., Sherman, C., & Henschen, K. P. (1998). A sport psychology service delivery heuristic: Building on theory

and practice. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 192–208.

Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., & Hardy, C. J. (1989). Examining social support networks among athlete: Description and

relationship to stress. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 192–208.

Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. N., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1987). Interrelations of social support measures: Theoretical and

practical implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 813–832.

Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The social support

questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 127–139.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Social support, personality and performance. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 2, 117–127.

Seiler, R., Kevesligeti, C., & Valley, E. (1999). Coaches and female athletes. The basis of interaction. Motricidade humana.

Portuguese Journal of Human Performance Studies, 12, 67–76.

Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1996). The coach as the focus of research and intervention in youth sports. In F. L. Smoll, & R. E.

Smith (Eds.), Childrend and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 125–141). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill.

Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. (1977). A system for the behavioural assessment of athletic coaches. Research Quarterly,

48, 401–407.

Vergeer, I. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: From nomology to idiography. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 31, 578–583.

Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal relationship in sport: Uncharted territory in sport psychology research. International

Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 555–572.

Yukelson, D. P. (1984). Group motivation in sport teams. In J. M. Silva, & R. S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of

sport (pp. 229–240). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.