Observers have noted that the spirit of the age is trending towards safetyism, or the assertion that challenging situations and discomfiting experiences are something we should seek to protect young people from. Recent evidence suggests this trend is continuing apace; indeed the calls for such protections are coming from young people themselves - or at least from a vocal minority who claim to represent different sections of the population. Moreover these requests are often granted with some enthusiasm by increasingly indulgent institutions. At the very least trigger warnings are deemed necessary for anything that has the potential to cause upset or offend increasingly delicate sensibilities - unless of course the term ‘trigger warning’ is itself found to be too triggering for the individuals concerned.
Against this societal backdrop it was somewhat inevitable that those operating in the realms of coaching and performance sport might start running into issues. Perhaps the closest cousin of coaching is teaching. Those of us in the coaching profession would therefore do well to heed the alarming ideological shift in higher education (and education in general) notably in North America. There is a storm on the horizon.
Based on recent high profile cases in the media, perhaps the storm is already here. These developments might even pose an existential threat to the profession. As fundamental tenets of how coaches conduct themselves when coaching live humans are called into question the whole thing starts to look increasingly untenable. Moreover, whilst institutions are becoming hyper-protective of those receiving instruction, there is an ominous lack of protection for those charged with the responsibility of providing said instruction and stewardship.
TERMS OF REFERENCE…
Across different disciplines it is increasingly asserted that our duty is to empower, to affirm and seemingly to even indulge. But coaching (much like teaching) is not cheerleading. Coaching might be described as the process of systematically imposing challenge and exposing areas of weakness. In the context of performance sport, preparing the performer similarly means continually pushing the individual towards the limits of what they are capable of in order to extend those capabilities over time.
Naturally this is an exacting process; at times it is confronting and certainly it is not always a pleasant experience. To some extent the adversity and attendant hardships are features not bugs; the act of persevering and the experience of enduring and ultimately overcoming serve an important purpose.
Such a demanding endeavour and its many trials are of course things that the performer must enter into willingly. As coaches we have a responsibility and all of this must be done with clear (and explicit) intention in order to spare the performer from unnecessary suffering which does not serve any purpose. All of which means that expectations must be aligned as both parties make the necessary commitment.
ETHICAL COACHING…
The ethics of coaching and rules of professional conduct are straightforward when it comes to clear-cut breaches, such as physical abuse or improper conduct such as sexual harassment. We can draw clear lines in these egregious cases and there is no argument. The bone of contention and what we are discussing here is coaching conduct with respect to what and how we communicate with the athlete. Let us narrow the discussion further and state that we are speaking about coaching athletes who are eligible to compete at senior level (i.e. adults in the eyes of the law).
The boundaries are far less well defined when it comes to the language we use and our interactions. What is deemed to be appropriate is largely dictated by cultural and societal norms, which by their nature are always shifting.
Clearly this becomes all the more contentious when the norms in wider society (or at least certain sections of society) no longer accord with what is called for in the specific context of coaching athletes who aspire to perform at the highest level. In this scenario, not only must the athletes themselves understand that different rules apply but there must also be some shared understanding among those around them - even extending to casual observers who might witness a training session! Moreover cases are increasingly playing out in the media, such that they are judged in the court of public opinion. This strips away any nuance, consideration of context or indeed a reliable account of what actually happened.
DUTY OF CARE…
Even if we remove the child-protection element (given we are speaking here of senior athletes), as coaches we are nevertheless in a position of trust and influence, which comes with attendant responsibilities. We have a duty to those athletes we serve; it is important that this is acknowledged and with responsibility comes accountability.
The term safeguarding is employed in some circles to describe our duty as coaches to the athletes - being analogous to child protection legal provisions relating to coaching athletes who are minors. Clearly this is an imperfect analogy, given that we are dealing with consenting adults who have greater agency and ability to advocate for themselves. Unlike coaching athletes who are minors and as such are in our care, when dealing with grown ups they are deemed responsible and capable of caring for themselves. Arguably the biggest problem with the present trend is the tendency to infantilise and the assumption that young (and not so young) adults are vulnerable and in need of protection for their own sake.
Even if safeguarding is arguably the wrong less through which to view these issues, we nevertheless have a duty of care as coaches of athletes of university-age and above. We should however be clear on what specifically this encompasses.
For instance, we have a duty to be honest with the athlete. By extension we should encourage them to be honest with themselves and help them to see things as they are. Once again, coaching is not cheerleading. Central to our professional ethics is the duty to provide an honest assessment rather than telling them what they want to hear. It is not only dishonest but ruinous to give a performer a false impression of where they are and how they are progressing.
“A coach is someone who tells you what you don’t want to hear, who lets you see what you don’t want to see, so you can be who you always knew you could be.”
The notion that it is harsh or ‘tough love’ to say these things is false; it is a sign of respect to the individual that we are prepared to be honest and candid with them. It might not be what they want to hear but we have a duty to tell them. Or at the very least we should not participate in any delusion.
I have made the case before that ‘first do no harm’ is a sound principle for coaching and athlete support disciplines. However, this relies on having a sensible definition of what constitutes harm.
INFORMED CONSENT…
I would argue that informed consent is a crucial principle to navigate the present minefield. A shared understanding of terms of reference from the outset will go a long way to avoid issues along the way. This means providing clear and explicit expectations, along with well defined rules of engagement. I would advocate that this might even be formalised with an ‘athlete contract’ mutually consenting to the terms laid out (understanding that they remain free to withdraw their consent at any point in the future).
Returning to the theme of agency, it is for the individual to decide what path they take, who they enlist to guide them and also how much they invest in the endeavour. All the same, when any performer comes to us for help it is necessary to secure their full consent before proceeding. Likewise we should ensure that they are fully appraised in each situation and armed with everything they need to know in order to make sound choices and fully informed decisions at every turn.
TEMPERING…
An important but overlooked part of our duty of care to ensure that the athlete is adequately prepared for whatever they might encounter in the crucible of competition and the many trials they will face on the journey. Discharging our duty to the athlete means tempering the body, mind and character of the individual to withstand these rigours. Clearly this requires willingness on the part of the athlete and a commensurate level of trust.
When we consider the situation from this standpoint, it becomes clear that the present insistence on ‘safe spaces’ where individuals are free from any ‘threat’ of having their views challenged or encountering ideas that might offend is entirely contrary to what is called for if our objective is to prepare performers to do battle. By protecting individuals from challenge and seeking to eliminate anything that might be perceived as threatening or liable to cause offence we are denying any opportunity to acquire the necessary tools to cope with these things. In doing so we are failing entirely in our duty of care to equip individuals to survive in the outside world, let alone the hostile environment of competition.
Raising lambs in a safe space only condemns them to be torn to shreds when they inevitably encounter lions and hyenas in the wild. Performers who grow accustomed to being in a cosseted environment will find their weaknesses ruthlessly exploited by opponents. If all it takes is some harsh words to put the performer off their game and throw them into emotional turmoil then they are likely to be in real trouble. Bleating may work with administrators but it will prove wholly ineffectual against a hostile adversary with real teeth and claws (and no qualms about using them).
THE NEED FOR (RE-)EDUCATION…
Increasingly individuals are becoming accustomed to the hysteria-prone mood online and being handled with kid gloves in the classroom, on campus and even at home, to such an extent that this is all spilling over into the work place. Naturally, it will be a jarring experience when performers then find themselves in a culture of challenge and an environment in which the highest standards are rigorously enforced. Likewise, encountering coaches and practitioners who are not of their generation and as such do not necessarily subscribe to their world view can only add to the sense of disorientation.
There is a common assumption that it is up to the coach to change with the times and adapt their style with each new generation. Whilst there is some logic and perhaps even merit to this suggestion, it fails to consider that current cultural trends might be leading us in the wrong direction. As coaches we should continually seek to evolve; however, it is worth remembering that evolution is also about conserving what serves and traits that have proven advantageous. There are some things that are so fundamental to coaching that they must remain non-negotiable and cannot (or at least should not) be discarded simply because they do not fit with the zeitgeist.
What is striking is how the wisdom of the coaching greats is publicly lauded and these individuals are revered, yet the policies enacted and what is being advocated is increasingly contrary to these same coaching philosophies. The feature on Sir Alex Ferguson remains one of the most widely read and cited articles in the Harvard Business Review, yet if Sir Alex was starting out in his coaching career today he would perhaps struggle to emerge unscathed and might even face cancellation. Much of what is described in the feature ‘Ferguson’s Formula’, such as the emphasis on enforcing high standards, never ceding control and dealing ruthlessly with any player who challenged his authority, would now be deemed controversial or even ‘problematic’.
So let us consider the possibility that perhaps the performers (and those in their circle) might themselves have something to learn from those who came before. Subscribing to a different set of values than might be the norm for their peers could open up a new world of possibilities. Indeed, the central themes Ferguson identifies in his own success is instilling winning values and raising the athletes’ own standards in what they expect and accept from themselves and their team-mates.
REJECTING MEDIOCRITY MEANS ACCEPTING DISCOMFORT…
It is a truism that nobody ever rose to low expectations. It is equally true that setting high standards is only useful to the extent that we are held accountable to those standards. Both of these elements have fallen out of fashion in the recent period. As a result, upholding standards is an increasingly fraught endeavour for those who remain brave enough to attempt to do so.
One of the emerging trends in this brave new world is a growing aversion to challenge. Being challenged can be confronting. Being held to a higher standard can be discomfiting. As it has fallen out of favour to hold people responsible, we are fostering a general reticence to being held accountable. Some are affronted when they are held to account. Blaming others or simply society for adverse outcomes is rather more in vogue. There is also hypersensitivity towards anything that might imply criticism. Individuals are increasingly quick to take offence, irrespective of intent. And delicate sensibilities are easily offended.
Those who follow this path inevitably find only resentment and discontent. Once again, we have a duty to steer performers towards the path less trodden and the possibilities it offers; however, it does require a conscious and ongoing commitment on the part of the individual to opt to hold themselves to an entirely different set of standards and expectations than is the norm elsewhere in society. An essential ingredient is having respect for themselves, for the endeavour they have chosen to pursue and for those they have enlisted to support them in the quest.
TRIP WIRES EVERYWHERE…
For any readers who have not been keeping up, the imperative to use gender-neutral language was deemed to be obligatory as of approximately five minutes ago. Particularly for coaches and practitioners who were born before the millennium this is all happening with dizzying speed.
The conception of what constitutes polite or appropriate language will naturally differ according to the acculturation of each individual. Aside from what generation they were raised in, what circles each individual moves in and what media they happen to consume will also help to determine the extent to which they are even aware of the potential hazards.
More trip wires are seemingly added daily as language is co-opted by various activist causes and the implied meaning continually shifts. Unsurprisingly this is creating a growing mismatch in the lexicon between coach and Gen Z athlete, increasing the potential for unintended offence. It is ironic that all of this is done in the name of tolerance, yet there is a glaring lack of tolerance in the reaction and treatment of those who unwittingly transgress the new rules of decorum simply by using language recently decreed to be irredeemably ‘problematic’.
Offence is of course in the eye of the beholder, or even the onlooker. And who are we to deny the claim that somebody’s feelings have suffered actual bodily harm? Words are now considered violence. Somewhat confusingly, silence is also violence (the logic here seems to mainly rest on the fact that the two words rhyme). It is hard not to be flippant (after all in a rational analysis at least some of this is absurd).
To be clear, this does not discount that there are real cases of bullying which do occur and cause genuine harm. The problem is there is currently an inability to differentiate and a lack of proportionality in the response. The definition of what is deemed to be ‘harmful’ or ‘traumatic’ is proving to be highly elastic. It is also naive to think that this will not be weaponised and there is more than a hint of performance among some of those raising grievances and claiming distress. It is no longer safe to assume good faith from all parties involves.
Understandably some coaches will simply opt out of having the hard conversations for fear of the potential blow-back, judging that it is simply not worth the trouble. For others the logical solution is to walk away from coaching entirely rather than suffer this slow death. Very few who answer the call are in it for the financial compensation and the rewards are becoming insufficient to make up for the growing sense of risk involved.
SELF-PROTECTION…
A society or culture that rewards and incentivises victimhood is pathological. Yet this is sadly the situation that exists. A related and unlovely truth is that some of those claiming victim status are doing so with the express intention to wield power. Ultimately such actions are likely to be ruinous for the misguided individual concerned but the more immediate concern is the real harm done to others in the meantime.
As with teachers and other authority figures, coaches are vulnerable to these tactics and the nefarious individuals who might employ them. There is a clear asymmetry in that even baseless accusations have the power to do lasting damage. Inevitably this presents a looming threat to coaches and practitioners on the ground in different parts of the world.
In lieu of the necessary protections from the institutions who employ and purport to represent us, there is a need to take appropriate precautions and preemptive action to indemnify ourselves. As institutions have proven too prone to being captured by the prevailing ideology, it is perhaps time to explore initiatives to organise and collectively advocate for members of the profession.
IN CLOSING…
Having painted a bleak picture let us finish on a more hopeful note. After all, we do not necessarily need to appeal to the many but rather the few who continue to aspire to do great things. Challenge remains the great motivator - indeed it is something that performers crave, despite the story we are being told elsewhere in society.
It is oddly encouraging to observe that those who are cosseted and indulged are not content (or indeed particularly happy in life). All the sensitivity training, safe spaces and protections are not having the intended effect. The overzealous approach to protecting young people (and people in general) from any and all perceived harm is merely creating more anxious, less happy and more fragile humans who are less well equipped to cope with what life will inevitably throw at them.
As a species we still find fulfillment in striving and investing ourselves in the quest. Arguably the need has never been greater for those who, in the words of Tom Landry, are willing to tell performers what they don’t want to hear and prompt them to see what they don’t want to see. There is an enduring hunger to be told we can be better and do more. Performers of all ages will still respond to those who see the potential in them and accordingly expect and demand more. We can still appeal to the better parts of our nature and raise the bar.
It might require courage in the present moment (and being pragmatic, certain necessary precautions to protect ourselves) but coaching remains hugely rewarding for those brave souls who are still willing to step into the breach.
Cover Photo credit: Photo by Nathan Anderson on Unsplash
Those interested in learning about the consulting services we provide to organisations and support we offer to individuals can find more via the What We Do section on the site. You are also welcome to reach out via the Contact page.
Found this a worthwhile read? Subscribe to get Informed Blog posts direct to your email inbox and free to share with anybody in your network who might find value. When you subscribe you will receive a link to access a course entitled Fundamentals of Physical Preparation for free.
Also check out the Books section for a host of resources that take a deeper dive on various topics relating to human performance, coaching, athletic preparation and sports injury. The recent release Prepared: Unlocking Human Performance with Lessons from Elite Sport is now available worldwide (feedback and reviews always very welcome).
Finally, the new e-learning course Comprehensive ACL Rehabilitation and Return to Performance is available for practitioners interested in better supporting injured athletes on the journey back to sport following injury and stacking the odds in the athlete’s favour when they return.
