What do coaches really want in their playmakers? An analysis of how a coach's background, experience, opinions, and coaching style impacts their perceptions and expectations of key playmaker positions in basketball, field hockey, ice hockey, rugby union, soccer, and volleyball.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research aimed to deepen the understanding of behavioural (non-technical) qualities that coaches desire in their playmakers, exploring whether a like me bias influences these preferences, and how this may vary across different team sports. The study was inspired by consistent observations by the lead researcher over their 30-year career, that coaches often express concerns about the absence of certain behaviours and interpersonal skills they wanted in their team leaders and playmakers, yet failed to specifically address these gaps when selecting or building teams. This subject has been largely overlooked by existing academic research, and due to the scarcity of scientific publications on this specific topic, the literature review encompassed a variety of related fields pertinent to the research questions. Topics explored included biases, self-awareness, leadership characteristics, personality assessments, behavioural profiling, and methodology for identifying ideal behavioural profiles. Using purposive sampling, the focus was on basketball, field hockey, ice hockey, rugby union, soccer, and volleyball coaches, particularly targeting the professional, national, state, and university levels. In total, 1,068 coaches participated in the study, with 764 completing both stages of data collection. The sample comprised 63% head coaches, with 67% from the United States and Canada, 23% from Australia and New Zealand, 7% from the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the remainder (3%) from other countries. Participants had a near-equal gender distribution (51% male, 48% female, and 1% non-binary) and an average coaching experience of 16 years. All participants had also played the sport they coach, with an average playing history of 17 years, and 37% had played at the semi-professional, professional, or national team level. The research was conducted in two stages. Stage 1 involved the collection of demographic data, coaching backgrounds, and coaching styles through the CoachDISC Profile survey, while Stage 2 assessed coaches' behavioural preferences for their ideal playmaker using the AthleteDISC Profile survey. The playmaker (i.e., the player in the position who makes the plays) was a focus due primarily to the impact of this position on the team, along with allowing a common term to be used across different sports. As an example, if a volleyball coach identified their setter as the playmaker position and a football (soccer) coach identified their number 10, then the common term of playmaker aligns and can be used consistently across the different sports. Non-parametric statistical tests were employed for analysis due to the non-normal distribution of the data. The CoachDISC and AthleteDISC Profiles are modern day assessments used in the sports industry that are based on the original work (from almost a century ago) of Harvard University professor and physiological psychologist, William M. Marston (Marston, 1928). DISC Profiles measure someone’s preferences in the four behavioural styles of dominance, influence, steadiness, and conscientious (being an acronym for DISC). The findings of this research revealed no statistically significant differences in behavioural and coaching styles (CoachDISC Profile scores) across the six sports studied, nor among factors such as age, country, coaching level, playing style priority, or gender coached. However, statistically significant differences were measured when considering coaching positions and the gender of the coach. Regarding what coaches want in their ideal playmaker and whether a like me bias exists, the findings show that coaches with dominance, influence, and conscientious as their highest natural score in the CoachDISC Profile preferred playmakers who also score highest in their same highest DISC style, while those coaches with steadiness as their highest score favoured playmakers measuring highest in conscientious. When considering the sports studied, what coaches ideally want as the playmaker’s behavioural style was statistically significantly different. Five of the six sports studied demonstrated that coaches of each sport have distinct behavioural profile preferences for the playmaker, except for ice hockey. Upon completion of this research project, the primary objective is to make a meaningful and substantial contribution to the limited body of scientific literature on this specific coaching topic through numerous publications in relevant academic journals. Examples of these future publications include the differences in coaching styles between male and female coaches, how coaches of different team sports have different ideal playmakers, and the coaches’ like me biases discussed above. In addition, as this thesis is rooted in industry observations, it also aims to empower coaches by providing insights that can enhance their coaching practices and contributes to the success of their teams and athletes. To achieve this secondary aim, a comprehensive communication strategy with educational resources will be developed to support coaches’ ability to understand and implement the research findings. Lastly, the study addresses its limitations and outlines several recommendations for future research. Further research opportunities include investigating how the preferences expressed by coaches in this research compares to actual AthleteDISC Profile results of playmakers, together with coaches’ opinions on these findings to more deeply understand the results; exploring the link between these preferences and performance outcomes; and using behavioural assessments (DISC Profiles) to examine the impact on the quality of coach-athlete relationships when similarities or differences exist. In conclusion, this thesis not only fills a critical gap in the literature regarding the behavioural characteristics valued by coaches in their playmaker, biases, and the use of DISC behavioural profiling in sport, but it also offers practical tools and insights for coaches, ultimately aiming to enhance team experiences and performance in highly competitive team sports.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».