![]()
Section 1
Coaching
![]()
1 Effective coaching in strength and conditioning
The foundations of the profession
Dave Collins and Jeremy Moody
Learning objectives
Upon completion of this chapter you should be able to:
1. consider the role of a strength and conditioning coach;
2. consider how best you should work and think in order to make the best professional decisions in your work.
1.1 Introduction
We would like to attempt a conceptualisation of some of the keys areas that are often overlooked when we observe the discipline area of strength and conditioning (S&C) and, perhaps more importantly, the process (and indeed processes) of the S&C coach. We would suggest that S&C coaches across the continuum of development consider the following content as part of the role whilst digesting the fabulous information provided by such highly rated applied professionals in the following chapters. Initially we would like to scope the role and purpose of the S&C coach with regard to the dearth of information about contributory factors that may affect this. It is a bold attempt to confirm the requirement of clarity and direction, with a bundle of accountability concerns that accompany such expectations. The chapter also explores how S&C coaches should work, the environments they work in, and the associated challenges such environments will demand. Often overlooked are the ancillary knowledge and the importance of the āsoftā skill set within the coaching sector; after all, the job title in the majority of cases does mention the word ācoachā. Finally, there is a closer inspection of the thinking process(es) that may be required as part of the delineated role.
1.2 What is an S&C coach supposed to do?
Given the importance of role clarity for any job, and especially one which involves working with people, this seems like a good place to start. Of course, there is a whole lot written about the multiple roles inherent in generic sports coaching [10] and, consequently, the equally wide range of knowledge sources on which the coach must draw [2]. Furthermore, coaches certainly come from a very wide variety of backgrounds [9] and, whilst this diversity is likely to be lower in S&C, and further decrease as the profession gets established, there are clear advantages to identifying, gaining acceptance and publicising the core features of role, knowledge and modus operandi. Lots of this is written elsewhere, however, so, rather than get into discussion about the coach as expert, social worker, mentor and so on, it is worth considering what similar and what different challenges the S&C coach will face.
Given that for the moment we consider the coach as what s/he does (rather than what s/he thinks should be done), the answer to the question which titles this section often involves the goodness of fit between the individualās opinions and philosophies and what the job description specifies. Clearly, a lot of this ārole specificationā should come from the employer, head coach or whoever else is responsible for the post. Even when this specification seems to fit with the S&C coachās individual philosophy, however, it is all too easy for vagaries to cause problems. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, lack of role clarity is a major issue in any organisation, leading to underperformance, lack of recognition and general disharmony [4]. This situation is potentially exacerbated by the pressures of performance demands, and further complicated when the role is a new one and less understood (or perhaps less commonly understood) by other members of the working team. Taken together, these factors can raise significant challenges for the S&C coach, so working to clarify what is expected is almost never a waste of time.
This need for clarity can extend right from higher-order strategy (quite simply, what the whole organisation is trying to achieve), through means of working, down to the āWhat will I get from your input?ā questions focused on an individualās contribution. At the higher levels, this is best expressed as fitting in with the goals of the group, what Pedlar and colleagues term ābeing on purposeā [21]. More definite than often airy-fairy āmission statementsā, discussion on āwhy we are hereā helps all involved to pull in the same direction: often a common challenge when egos get involved. So, for example, an S&C coach employed as part of an exercise-related health programme would want to be clear on the inherent aspirations for the clients: functional ability (doing the activities of daily life) is a commonly stated goal, but should providers (including the S&C coach) be pushing for more of an improvement in function, confidence and aspiration? Or should the programme work to keep people in their comfort zone, both physically and mentally? Affinity with these sorts of āhigher goalsā will be an important feature of coherent service, with the S&C coach a central part of this ā hence the need to get everyone on the same page.
At a lower level, role clarity issues pertain to how the S&C coach works, in particular where responsibilities begin and end. As an example, consider the role of an S&C coach working with a squad of athletes. Problems may start when athletics coaches and S&C coaches disagree about the relative contribution each should make, a situation which may occur because physical conditioning is considered to be a fundamental feature of the athletics coachās contribution. A similar clash, but with different people, occurs when the athlete gets injured. As s/he rehabilitates, the athlete will be prescribed exercises by the physiotherapist; but when does this responsibility pass to the S&C coach? In fact, we encountered both issues when working with UK Athletics. The roles were eventually clarified (and a more effective, harmonious and productive relationship was generated) by tackling the issue head on and thrashing out a set of guidelines1 based around a signing-over process to mark the transfer of responsibility. Such discussion is a good example of entering the āzone of uncomfortable debateā (ZOUD) [3], which is often essential in addressing silo mentality and developing sound and well-understood working patterns, a notable feature of early-stage, interdisciplinary support teams.
At the final, lowest level, role clarity is often expressed by clear understanding of exactly what each individual will offer. For S&C coaches, this may at first seem pretty obvious: youāll get stronger and fitter! It is not so simple, unfortunately, especially when one works in a high-accountability environment such as a professional sports club or modern institute system. The bottom line for these organisations should be enhanced performance. In a multidisciplinary support structure, however, managers may wish each disciplinary specialist to be evidencing his or her unique contribution. In this case, the S&C coach is driven towards performance data on specific exercises rather than the bottom-line performance which should be the only indicator. In simple terms, if I have to keep demonstrating efficacy based only on my bit of the performance pie, my emphasis will almost inevitably become disproportionate, thereby inhibiting other areas. Adding to this problem, poor transfer from S&C exercise to performance, for example bench press increases associated with decreased hand off performance in rugby league [6], will just further exacerbate this problem as the S&C coach works tirelessly to demonstrate improved exercise scores whilst simultaneously undermining the bottom-line performance. It is important to recognise that this desire to contribute is not just systemic but also a (usually) positive human trait. As a result, S&C coaches, just like anyone else, want to feel that they have ādone their bitā for performance. Unfortunately, unless roles are clearly expressed and understood, this can result in everyone on the support team wanting to do their bit at the wrong time and place and in the wrong way. Overload for performers in such circumstances is almost inevitable, and many recent athletes, teams and tours may well have suffered from an overdose of well-intentioned āhelpā!
So, in summary, even though it may seem that the S&C coachās role and purpose are clearer than in many other professions, there is always a need to make sure that all are on the same page. Add in the social pressures which will inevitably be brought to bear by variations in expectation and the need to get everyone on the same page is hopefully clear.
1.3 How should the S&C coach work?
Aspects of the previous section clearly impact on this. In simple terms, it is all too easy for discipline specialists to focus on their own part of the puzzle, demonstrating their success but often through changes made independently, or even at the expense, of performance on the primary task, be it sport, overall health or an improvement in functional behaviours (older people performing normal life activities, for example). In a highly āobjective outcomeā discipline, such as S&C, this trap is even easier to fall into, often because the evaluation of the discipline contribution is easier than any other process measure. And thereās more; this between discipline support picture can be further complicated by agendas running to different time scales. In many cases, the āprimary agendaā may be located within other targets, some of which can appear to be of greater importance. Longer-term development against immediate success in talent athletes is a good example here. The bottom line is that, almost irrespective of what domain the S&C coach works in, s/he will often face a complex combination of often interlinked and un-delineated agendas. Of course, such problems are not the sole preserve of S&C coaches. Both the challenges and the solutions we offer next are common across coaching and the other support professions. Recognise this as we explore the subtle but powerful techniques of nested thinking.
Today, nested thinking ideas are being developed and deployed in high-level coaching [1] and performance psychology [15]. The idea that any of...
