United We Stand: The Coaches' Role in Supporting the Athlete's Civil Protest

Athlete participation in social activism is not new. In its purest form, social activism is another expression of the athlete’s pursuit of excellence. Activism by amateur and professional athletes in the 1960s aided in social change. With many athletes participating in protests at the time, one can infer the presence of supportive coaches. Coaches play a key role in the development of athletes (Lorimer, 2009). A coach possessing the ability to build relationships with his or her athletes has a clear advantage over colleagues lacking those skills (Jowett, 2007). Relationship-building is an indispensable skill set with invaluable dividends. Benefits of the development and refinement of relationship skills are earned trust, respect, and loyalty. The dynamism and depth of the coach-athlete relationship is something frequently overlooked by most sport management scholars. Understanding the import of this relationship increases the level of insight gleaned from this discussion. This theoretical paper explores the coaches’ role in supporting athletes’ civil protest and the potentially perilous repercussions of said support (e.g. admonishment from administrators, discontinued support from stakeholders, potential destruction of the coach-athlete relationship) as it pertains to their expression (or lack of) of support. 

Coaching and Ethics

            There are numerous definitions for the term coach. Scholarship regarding coaching is vast in defining the term as it is in discussing the roles occupied by those afforded that title. What is a coach? Per Culp (2014), a coach is a leader. “They have occupational demands that place them in positions to be social actors who provide a benefit” (p. 112). For McGuire (2012), coaches provide leadership, direction, and organization to the team. Thornton, Champion, and Ruddell (2012) view coaches as one of three essential human components of athletic competition. Simon (2013) ponders if coaches are technical advisers who help athletes develop better techniques, while for others, coaches are teachers and professors educating their players about the sport and even the kind of character needed to play well. Pinpointing an exact definition of the term coach seems frivolous and time-consuming. Therefore, the opearational definition of coach for this review is an individual responsible for the following components athlete development:

·      Social

·      Physical

·      Psychological

·      Emotional

·      Technical

·      Ethical

To fulfill his or her obligations, the coach occupies several roles at different junctures in the coach-athlete relationship. Lyle (2002) suggested, “Coaches play an essential role in the performance and effectiveness of their athletes. They direct their athletes’ growth physically, technically, and psychologically, through their knowledge and experience” (as cited in Lorimer, 2009). Ethics govern the roles the coach fulfills in the coach-athlete relationship.  Thornton, Champion, & Ruddell (2012) suggests:

The function of a coach is to educate students through participation in competition. An athletic program should be designed to enhance academic achievement and should never interfere with opportunities for academic success. Each student-athlete should be treated with respect, dignity, and his or her welfare should be the utmost concern of the coach at all times. Like participants, coaches must make the correct ethical choices. There are unique ethical problems in the administration and organization of sports that coaches must face (p. 149).

The ethics of coaching frame interactions with participants (e.g., parents, athletes, officials), giving the coach a source of protection from potential misconduct. Ethical standards are necessary because of the numerous roles a coach inhabits. Thornton et al. (2012) examined ethical conduct and what constituted misconduct for coaches. The main task of ethics is to evaluate the standards of right or wrong that people assign to behavior (p. 125). The ethical duties identified by Thornton et al. (2012) are: 

1.     Ethical Duty of Safety:

A coach has a duty to provide for the safety of those under his or her charge and even more so in youth sports. At the professional level, players have access to doctors, agents, teams, unions, and leagues that monitor safety issues. It is essential at the youth sports level that coaches provide for the safety of the players under their tutelage. They have a duty to do so.  (p. 125)

2.     Ethical Duty to Supervise and Instruct:

Coaches have the responsibility to properly supervise and instruct their charges with special consideration to the danger of the activity, age and maturity of the participant… In contrast, inadequate instruction and improper training could cause serious injury and in extreme cases, death. (p. 128)

3.     The Coach as a Role Model:

Coaches function as role models to players and student-athletes at both the professional and amateur levels. At the professional ranks, coaches must exhibit characteristics of fair play, discipline, and hard work. At the collegiate and high school levels, coaches have a major influence over student-athletes. Coaches must understand that they function as a role model and conduct themselves accordingly. (p. 149)

As stated above, ethics govern the roles the coach fulfills in the coach-athlete relationship; the ethics of coaching frame interactions with participants (e.g., parents, athletes, officials), giving the coach a source of protection from potential misconduct. 

Supporting Athletes

            It is important for a coach to support his or her athletes in all endeavors. There are very few, if any positive contexts where a coach should withdraw his or her support. For the coach, supporting an athlete’s protest are matters of moral values and moral principle. A distinctive feature of moral values is their grounding in the practical affairs of social life, whereas other ethical decisions are based on broader abstract principles (Masteralexis et al., 2012). As I have previously asserted, “If the practical affairs of social life include violent actions against members of the very communities from which the civil protestor/athlete hails, any objection to a constitutionally protected response to said violence appears to violate the tenants of moral values (Goodloe, 2016). The assertion is supported by Anderson’s (1996) claim:

Since ethics applies to how all participants ought to behave, in sports this translates to how all participants should act in the most ethically desirable manner, even if this means possibly sacrificing some sports value (like winning) for a truly ethical reason. A person is never just a sports participant; he is also first and foremost a human being. Unfortunately, athletes are often only held to standards of conduct as necessitated by the rules of the sport they play.” (p. 387) 

Winning in life is a reason for acting in the most ethically desirable manner. As witnessed and proven in the recent National Football League (NFL) season, protesting the violent killing of unarmed citizens and police officers via kneeling may not necessarily sacrifice winning, but it does sacrifice positive public sentiment. That sacrifice does not alleviate the coach’s ethical duties. 

A coach has a duty to properly supervise and instruct their charges with significant consideration to the perils of the activity, age, and development of the participant. One can argue that said duty also applies to social activism. Crosset & Hums (2012) stated, “Ethical dilemmas have social implications. As such, ethics requires decision makers to consider how their actions will affect different groups of people and individuals (Masteralexis et al., 2012). It is the duty of a coach to take caution when making ethical decisions. Not all ethical issues are dilemmas among equally compelling values. Some ethical dilemmas are about choosing between right and wrong, two opposing choices. When the issue is about doing right or wrong, we are usually dealing with a moral issue (Masteralexis et al., 2012). Is deciding whether to silence an athlete an ethical dilemma or a moral issue? (Goodloe, 2016). 

Regarding the coaches’ duty to support his or her athlete’s civil protest, the answer is yes. A coach is obligated by the ethical duty as a role model to support his or her athlete. When people act morally–according to generally acceptable standards of behavior–they contribute to the maintenance and smooth functioning of society. Shared morality cultivates trust between strangers and enables individuals to function in a society (Masteralexis, Barr, and Hums, 2012). Recent political protests by athletes focus on social injustices across the United States of America. At the core of those demonstrations is moral values and principles. Of moral values, Masteralexis et al. (2012) suggested:

Because people perceive moral values as basic and inalienable, it is often assumed these values derive from a “higher” or from common sense. If for example, an athlete is asked why he or she strives to win, a common response would be “Because that’s what sports are about.” Managers will know if they are dealing with a moral issue as opposed to an ethical dilemma if people justify their position with a simple, “Because it was the right thing to do.” (p. 129)

A coach’s moral decisions are complicated by the social contexts within which a decision is required. “Because it was the right thing to do” does apply in every context, nor does it have significance within every role the coach occupies. Masteralexis et al. (2012) opined: 

Decision making is made more difficult given the variety of roles each of us fills...Consequently, the process of making a moral choice, of deciding what is right and wrong, involves understanding the parameters of acceptable behavior within the context of one’s multiple roles within society. However, this does not mean people can arbitrarily choose which values guide their behavior. Specific situations and roles in our society demand specific moral values. (p. 132) 

In the capacity of coach as a role model, coaches must decide to support the civil protest of the athlete as a role model of citizenship and moral values. Coaches function as role models to players and student-athletes at both the professional and amateur levels… Coaches must understand that they function as a role model and conduct themselves accordingly (Masteralexis et al., 2012). Modeling citizenship is a demonstration of ethical behavior by the coach. 

The need to support an athlete’s civil protest is further augmented by the coach’s influence of his or her athlete. Phillippe et al., (2016) suggested athletes express great interest in their coaches’ behaviors during the development stages of the coach-athlete relationship. 

Civil Protest and Athletes

            Modeling citizenship is a demonstration of ethical behavior by the coach which undoubtedly will solicit the ire of many. There are potentially perilous repercussions for supporting the civil protests of athletes, especially on the intercollegiate and professional levels of sport. Edwards (2010) stated:

High achievement environments– whether a team, an organization, a community, or a society– have always reflected cultural environments that generate and sustain living traditions made manifest through the medium of exemplary personalities (i.e. stars, heroes, high achievers). When the connection between healthy achievement and individual conduct, aspirations and judgments is weakened or severed, the individual, the community and the targeted realm of institutional achievement inevitably manifest the consequences. (p. 60)

Intercollegiate and professional sports teams and franchises are high-performance environments. The same statement can be made for some interscholastic programs. In these environments, individual expressions contradicting the public image or reputation is viewed as a threat to institutional achievement. Such acts are heavily frowned upon. The consequences of these acts adversely impact the individual. One can argue the damage to the institution is considered both collateral and necessary. Are repercussions for exercising civil responsibility Should potential consequences prevent a coach from supporting his or her athlete? Should potential consequences prevent an athlete from protesting?  The responses of modern-day athletes both popular and unpopular has been a resounding no. Unfortunately, there is a lack of empirical studies on civil protesting and the 21st century athlete to substantiate claims made regarding repercussions. However, inferences can be drawn from prior research and applied in this context. When applied, those inferences provide adequate insight into the repercussions of civil protests. 

Institutions don’t generally lose to individuals, especially in small groups. Instead they reload, retrench, and get back to the status quo, wiser and better able to thwart revolts (Brooks, 2016). How does an institution thwart revolts (protests)? Reports on youth and interscholastic student-athletes being threatened and punished for acts of protest filled various media outlet reports and conversations. Student-athlete protests in intercollegiate athletics face the loss of scholarship at their annual scholarship renewal meeting with the head coach of their respective sport. Brooks (2016) suggested:

The power is in the hands of departments and coaches who sign athletes to one-year renewable scholarships. Some players, seen as ‘troublemakers’ for their part in the protest, will not be asked to return, labeled as uncoachable or a poor fit.

In professional sports, athlete protest is thwarted by the benching, releasing, waiving, or trading of a player. It is difficult to surmise the consequences coaches face for supporting athletes’ protests based on the lack of research. Nevertheless, reasonable deductions are inferred based on the consequences levied against athletes and institutional expectations of the coach. Institutional expectations are often set by the athletic director, but also include the input of head coaches from each sport. It is often assumed that the individuals occupying those roles possess the highest leadership qualities associated with the position. Per Powers, Judge, and Makela (2016), societal views of leadership are used to perpetuate the ideology of leadership: 

A ‘common leadership study’ views a leader of an organization as almost ‘supernatural.’ As such, we tend to place leaders on pedestals in our society, admiring and extolling them for their uncanny capacity to motivate followers and spur positive organizational change. The ‘great man’ theory of leaders however, ‘fails to consider those cases in which leaders exert deleterious effects on subordinates.’ Negative and inept leaders’ stories have not been told nor researched. (p. 297)

Ineptitude and the exertion of deleterious effects on subordinates more than implies repercussive actions take place in intercollegiate athletics. Further evidence supporting assertions of repercussion levied against coaches is found in Title IX retaliation lawsuits against institutions, filed by coaches. Powers et al., (2016) describe the leader-follower interactions as a toxic triangle. The toxic triangle theory supports the idea that followers’ levels of averseness and whistle-blowing intentions will change depending on the characteristics of the leader. The coach working within a toxic environment is inherently pressured to comply with the leader’s wishes, thus maintaining his or her place within the culture of the organization. 

Organizational Culture

Organizational culture plays a significant role in the decision-making process for the coach wanting to support his or her athlete. Of the leader’s role in embedding organizational culture, Edgar Schein (1988) posited, “…leaders embed culture of their organizations by what they pay attention to. They embed culture by who they hire and why they fire (as cited by Roby, 2014). 

Organizational culture is viewed as the pattern of basic assumptions that guide organizational behaviors (Powers et al., 2016). Culture is derived member collaboration, which make it difficult to define. Negotiation over the implications of actions, ideas, and behaviors within an organization are integral aspects of the collective process (Powers et al., 2016). Roles within an organization’s culture become indoctrinated into the subconscious of members (coaches) and create shared norms. Those norms permeate the actions of coaches in the context of supporting his or her athletes. For their role in the organizational culture, Brooks (2016) stated, “Coaches have learned to speak about the protest as necessary, inspiring, and a growth opportunity that need not be repeated… (p. 21). In most cases, coaches will attempt to silence the civil protest intentions/actions of his or her athlete in favor of institutional (organizational) culture. That attempt at silencing an athlete stems from the understanding the discipline of business ethics applies to sports just as it applies to corporate America. As Thornton, et al. (2012) articulated:    

A sports management professional faces many difficult situations in the workplace, especially in the employment context. Many times, he or she is required to deal with the human resources department to resolve difficult personnel issues… On a broader scale, high-level managers have responsibility for the creation and maintenance of an ethical corporate culture that protects against unethical and illegal conduct by employees and customers as well. Each person in a corporation occupies a specific role and has his or her own responsibilities. Whether it is the president of the club or the salesperson at the entrance to the ballpark, each is charged with a specific duty and must discharge that duty in a fair, reasonable, and ethical manner. Some positions may encounter more difficult problems, but ethical decisions must be made just the same, regardless of an individual’s status, wage, or position within a company. Everyone at a company must be an ethical example to others. (pp. 16-17) 

Coaches understand the complexities of their roles in an organization. He or she recognizes the seriousness of any decision to violate ethical codes of any kind. One cannot frivolously dismiss the gravity of the decision a coach must make regarding supporting an athlete’s stance against social issues. It is equally important to understand the enormity of pressure from the stakeholders placed upon a coach as well; the stakeholders’ voice is powerful in today’s sports environment. 

Stakeholders 

Per Lyle (2002), Performance coaches, and in particular coaches working with elite athletes (high performance), undertake work that differs from participation coaches (as cited by Mallet and C?té, 2006). Mallet and C?té (2006) describe high performance coaching:

…high performance coaching is characterized by higher levels of commitment, more stable coach-athlete relationships, and greater focus on medium-to-long-term planning, monitoring, decision-making, and management skills to facilitate control of performance variables… (p. 213)

The pressure of being a coach in a high-performance setting is difficult to explain, but easily identifiable. In today’s sports-media driven society, stakeholders appear to have a stronger voice in personnel matters. Stakeholders of sports teams (i.e., ticket-buyers, season-ticket holders, corporate sponsors), have direct access to their respective organizations based on the advances in media outlets (e.g., sports, news, social). However, technological advances have provided fans with easier access to voice comments, concerns, and recommendations to general managers, coaches, and players (Thornton et el., 2012). The ethics formally governing members of the media do not apply to the novice reporter/ticket-holder sitting on the couch bloviating about previous game’s coaching atrocities. Per Thornton et al. (2012): 

Media outlets have a responsibility to perform journalism in accordance with the highest standards, and to avoid all potential and actual conflicts of interest. Integrity is an essential quality for any journalist or media outlets… Media outlets have immense power to tell a story and persuade. (pp.424-425)  

Media coverage of recent civil protests in the NFL resulted from social media reports of images of Colin Kaepernick’s sitting during the national anthem. Thornton et al. (2012) stated, “Sports fans are retrieving their sports, news, scores, and information from internet websites, blogs, Twitter, text messages, and cable television” (p. 424). Concerning the coaches’ support of athlete protest, stakeholders have the potential to immediately/adversely impact on the coach. 

The prevalence of social media has increased interaction between fans, athletes, and coaches. Fans can be adamant about supporting a team (Thornton et al., 2012). Although fans must make ethical decisions, the lack of enforcement of those ethics nearly renders them moot. In context, the stakeholder’s role in providing repercussions to the coach come in the form of discontinued financial support of the team via ticket purchasing and corporate sponsorship. As cited by Potrac and Jones, 2009):

Per Jones, Wells, Peters, and Johnson (1993): being political is a necessary part of a coach’s repertoire, because of a coach’s effectiveness and longevity may depend not only on a favorable win-loss record but also on an individual’s ability to gain the approval of contextual power brokers (e.g., athletes, other coaches, or owners). (p. 223) 

Added to the boisterous outlets of media, and a coach supporting his or her athlete is certain to regret such a decision. For as voluminous as the stakeholder’s voice is in the coaches’ decision to support his or her athlete, it pales in comparison to that of the athlete. The coach faces significant repercussions to the coach-athlete relationship for failing to provide support of his or her athlete’s expression.

Coach-Athlete Relationship

            The relationship between a coach and athlete is something best described as complicated. There are more nuances to the coach-relationship than most people outside of the coaching world would fathom. The amount time, energy, and effort spent in the development of that relationship is immeasurable. A coach-athlete relationship requires a great deal of empathy, compassion, and many other traits commonly associated with coaching. Lorimer (2013) stated:

In sports coaching, the capacity of the coach to understand their athlete is viewed as a vital factor for evaluating the athlete and for achieving an appropriate working partnership… In their definition of coaching excellence, C?té and Gilbert (2009) emphasized the need for coaches to understand and be responsive to their athletes, and Galipeau and Trudel (2006) have also emphasized the importance of coaches and athletes understanding each other to effectively coordinate their efforts and goals, stating the need for ‘ensuring [the] understanding of each other… (p. 27)

Coordinating, understanding, and responding are identified/emphasized as important aspects of the coach-athlete relationship. The development of shared goals and an understanding for one another is critical to building trust between the athlete and coach. The coordinated efforts of the coach-athlete assist the athlete in reaching his or her potential. Per Keegan, Harwood, Spray, and Lavalle (2014):

Elite athletes train and make tremendous sacrifices in order to reach the pinnacle of physical condition, technical prowess, and human achievement. Even the most talented athletes are unlikely to realize their potential without significant practice and arduous training (Treasure, Lemyre, Kuczka, & Standage, 2008). Elite athletes need to be highly motivated, over a long period of time, in order to train so frequently and intensely. If this motivation can be influenced by the people who surround the athletes on their journeys–their coaches, team-mates, and parents–then a central question becomes: ‘What do these key social agents do to influence the motivation of elite athletes?’ (p. 97)

Another aspect of the coach-athlete relationship is motivation. Mallet and C?té (2006) suggest the context in which the coach-athlete relationship operates is an important variable impacting performance (p. 215). Potrac and Jones (2009) suggested, Alternatively, recent research has positioned coaching as a personal, power-ridden, everyday pursuit where practitioners’ management of microrelations with other stakeholders, be they athletes, other coaches, managers, or owners, form the principal aspect of their duties (Potrac, Jones & Armour, 2002; Potrac, Jones, & Cushion, 2006; d’Arripe-Longueville, Fournier, & Dubois, 1998). Relationships are key to success no matter your role in life. In leadership roles, relationships are the theme (Teaff, 2006). The coach-athlete relationship requires a people-centered approach which is aided by aspects of ethical conduct. 

The servant leadership principles espoused by the coach creates a sense of comfort and trust within the athlete because the coaches’ approach is based on serving the needs of the athlete. van Dierendock (2011) suggested, Servant leadership is different than other approaches to leadership as the emphasis of leadership is explicitly on the needs of followers, and because this approach emphasizes the ideal of service in the relationship between leader and follower (as cited by Burton and Welty Peachey, 2013). Any violation of the coach-athlete relationship has the potential to permanently ruin future interactions. In some regards, failing to support the athlete in his or her protest becomes an act of aggression toward the athlete. In his or her capacity as a caregiver, the coach is entrusted with ensuring the safety and fulfillment of many of the athlete’s physical and emotional needs. This is especially true at the higher levels of sport where athletes spend more time with their coach than their own family (Stirling and Kerr, 2013). Denial of attention and support is considered one of the ways in which an athlete may experience emotional abuse within the coach-athlete relationship. Stirling & Kerr (2007, 2013) reported that their feelings of emotional upset in response to experiences of emotional abuse become more pronounced across the course of their athletic careers. 

Conclusion

            The coach as a motivator, arguably, is one of the more rewarding of role within the coach-relationship. Coinciding with the role of motivator is that of the caregiver. A caregiver is someone who looks after another. In the sport context, the coach is essentially a caregiver. There is very little separation between the two roles, as the former is but a reflection of the occupation of the latter. As this paper was purely exploratory in nature, future research is required regarding the coach-athlete relationship and the repercussions supportive or non-supportive coaches face because of said support. Given athlete’s dependence on the relationship to not only increase performance, motivation, and technical skills; it is important to identify appropriate coaches’ responses to avoid creating emotionally abusive environments. It is equally important to discern the ethical response of a coach within each of the roles he or she occupies. It is recommended that greater attention should be paid to the construction of organizational culture and codes of ethics, which include additional consideration for the psychological well-being of both the coach and athlete. 

References

Brooks, S. (2016). The fire this time: A context for understanding the Black male athlete protests at Missouri. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 96(2), 18.

Culp, B. (2014). An analysis of future coaches’ emerging dispositions on social justice: The Wooden effect. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(1), 111-122. 

Edwards, H. (2010). Social change and popular culture: Seminal developments at the interface of race, sport and society. Sport in Society, 13(1), 59-71.

Add Jowett

Kaufman, P., & Wolff, E. A. (2010). Playing and protesting: Sport as a vehicle for social change. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 34(2), 154-175.

Keegan, R. J., Harwood, C. G., Spray, C. M., & Lavallee, D. (2014). A qualitative investigation of the motivational climate in elite sport. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 15(1), 97-107. 

Lorimer, R. (2013). The development of empathic accuracy in sports coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 4(1), 26-33 

Mallett, C., & C?té, J. (2006). Beyond winning and losing: Guidelines for evaluating high performance coaches. Sport Psychologist, 20(2), 213-221. 

Masteralexis, L. P., Barr, C. A., & Hums, M. A. (2012). Principles and practice of sport management. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

McGuire, R. (2012). Winning kids with sport! Teach…model…practice…inspire. Ames, IA: Championship Productions. 

Powers, S. Judge, L. W., Makela, C., McKenna, J., & Voight, M. (2016). An investigation of destructive leadership in a Division I intercollegiate athletic department: Follower perceptions and reactions. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 11(3), 297-311.

Roby, P. P. (2014). Ethical leadership in college athletics. Journal of Collegiate Sport 7(1), 31-35. 

Simon, R.L., & Jenkins, S. (2014). The ethics of coaching sports: Moral, social, and legal issues. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 9(1), 247-254. 

Stirling, A.E., & Kerr, G.A. (2013). The perceived effects of elite athletes’ experiences of emotional abuse in the coach-athlete relationship. International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 87-100. 

Teaff, G. (2006). The power of influence. Baylor Business Review, 24(2), 24. 

Thornton, P. K., Champion, W. T., & Ruddell, L. (2012). Sports ethics for sports management professionals. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.