Author's personal copy Coach career development: Who is responsible

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Coach career development: Who is responsible?

Andrew Dawson a,*, Pamm Phillips b

a Centre of Exercise and Sport Science, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy,

Burwood, VIC 3125, Australiab School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia

1. Introduction

In the sport industry, career development (as opposed to the mere development of skill) of athletes has been of majorinterest to practitioners and scholars alike. As a result, there has been much attention given to the analysis and developmentof policy that can drive managerial action to facilitate smooth transitions for athletes throughout the development of theircareers (De Bosscher, De Knopp, van Bottenburg, Shilbi, & Bingham, 2009). Although it is recognized that coaches are crucialin the skill and career development of athletes, (Australian Sports Commission, 2008; Gordon & Lavallee, 2004; Hawkins &Blann, 1996; Lavallee, 2006), there has been little attention paid to policy frameworks that might drive managerial andorganizational action to develop systems and pathways of similar complexity for coaches. Unlike the case for developingparticipation and high performance athletes, the way in which sport policy discourse and agendas have impacted coachcareer development has not been explored. This research addresses that gap in knowledge by examining policy discourseand resulting strategies in coach career development in Australia. Policy discourse at the national level of sport (theAustralian Sport Commission or ASC) as well as the National Sport Organization of one sport (Athletics Australia or AA) andthe representative body for coaches in the sport (the Australian Track and Field Coaches Association or ATFCA) is reviewed inorder to illustrate the impact on strategy for coach career development.

Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 477–487

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 20 September 2012

Received in revised form 19 March 2013

Accepted 19 March 2013

Keywords:

Coach career development

Policy

Management

A B S T R A C T

Career development is crucial to the success of individuals, organizations and industries.

As such, in many professions there are prescribed career development processes

underpinned by legal and institutional policies that drive managerial practice. Although

there has been sustained interest in understanding career development for athletes and

building managerial strategies to assist in the process, there is little empirical knowledge

about career development of coaches, and how management may assist in the process. The

aim of this study is to explore the way in which sport policy discourse and agendas have

impacted coach career development. This study demonstrates that coaches’ careers are

not part of the policy discourse despite their important role in athlete performance, career

development and sport organization development and success. Coaches are the key

performance managers in sport and yet they are ignored by sport policy makers and

managers when considering the development of the Australian sport workforce.

� 2013 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by

Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 392517309; fax: +61 392446017.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Dawson).

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

jo ur n al ho mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . c om / lo cate /s m r

1441-3523/$ – see front matter � 2013 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.03.003


1.1. Policy that determines strategy in career development

Career development, whether in sport or in any other context, is important because it underpins individual careersuccession, which in turn, ensures the sustainability of organizations and industries as well as the maturity of professions(Brown & Brooks, 1996; Hubbard, Samuel, Cocks, & Heap, 2007; Nicholson & West, 1989; Patton & McMahon, 1997).Ensuring appropriate career development is vital for organizations and industries to be successful over the longer term(Brown & Brooks, 1996; Montross & Shinkman, 1992; Nicholson & West, 1989; Osipow & Fitzgerald, 1996; Super, 1992). InAustralia, professions such as teaching and psychology, to which sport coaching has often been compared (Schembri, 2001;Woodman, 1993), career development has been deemed so important that it is institutionalized. That is, state and federalgovernments legislate professional accreditation and licensure; governing bodies and professional unions represent licensedpractitioners and coordinate the mandatory career accreditation and resulting career developmental pathways for theirmembers (B. Taylor & Garratt, 2010).

Career development policy benefits both organizations and their workers (Patton & McMahon, 1997; Schlechty et al.,1984). Nicholson and West (1989) stressed that organizations who had clear career development policy also had definedstrategies to assist their employees to develop their careers. By doing so, it is suggested that they insulated themselvesagainst turnover and loss of important and deep domain knowledge vital to continued success. Hubbard et al. (2007) notedthat successful Australian organizations have devoted considerable resources to the career development of managementstaff driven by embedded policy which has in turn provided continued organizational growth and development.

1.1.1. Career development policy in sport

The ASC is the principal agency for sport in Australia, and as such it has the legislative responsibility for the coordinationof sport policy in Australia (Shilbury & Kellett, 2010). The ASC have paid substantial attention to the career development ofathletes and, in particular, to overcoming the challenges brought on by transitions athletes have been found to experiencethroughout their careers (Baillie & Danish, 1992; Gordon & Lavallee, 2004; Lavallee & Wyleman, 2000; Taylor, Ogilvie, &Lavallee, 2006). The ASC has introduced policy mandating career development of athletes. The continued success ofAustralian athletes has been perceived to hinge on skill development, as well as appropriate career development strategieswhich are delivered through the Athlete Career Education (ACE) Program. The ACE program is institutionalized in the sportsetting in that it is delivered through most sport institutions including the Australian Institute of Sport and each of the stateinstitutes of sport (Bloomfield, 2003; Gordon & Lavallee, 2004). Further, most National Sport Organizations (NSO’s)implement a form of the ACE program for their professional and semi-professional athletes. Similar programs have also beendeveloped in other countries to assist athletes plan for transition through, and retirement from sport (Gordon & Lavallee,2004).

Despite such attention to detail regarding athlete career development, empirical research regarding coach professionaldevelopment is embryonic. There has been some interest in better resourcing coach development globally (Lyle & Cushion,2010), and a range of countries have invested in researching coach professional development and policy, such as in the UK(North, 2009; W.G. Taylor & Garratt, 2010; Taylor & Garratt, 2012), Canada (Demers, 2004; Reade et al., 2009; Schinke,Bloom, & Salmela, 1995) and the US (Gilbert, Cote, & Mallett, 2006; Gilbert, Lichktenwaldt, Gilbert, Zelezny, & Cote, 2009).However, in Australia, empirical research on policy for coach career development has been limited (Greenhill, Auld, Cuskelly,& Hooper, 2009), and the ASC (as the custodians of Australian sport policy) has been largely silent on the issue. And as aresult, any programming for coaches has been scant and certainly not institutionalized in the way that athlete careerdevelopment has. This is ironic as coaches are considered to being crucial for the career development of athletes, yet theircareer development is largely ignored.

The aim of this research is to examine the policy discourse on Australian coach career development with a particular focuson the careers of Australian athletics coaches. This discussion is timely as the public discourse on Australia’s recentperformance at the London Olympics has included the plight of coaches and their influence on sport development across theparticipation spectrum (Reade et al., 2009).

1.1.2. Career development for sport coaches

There is much literature that explores what coaches do, and this body of literature is consistent in its focus on the skillscoaches require to enhance the performance of athletes (Burton & Raedeke, 2008; Cote, Young, North, & Duffy, 2007;Montross & Shinkman, 1992; Salmela, 1996; Schembri, 2001; Woodman, 1993). Although the coach has been likened tomany other professionals such as business managers (Launder, 2004; Schembri, 2001; Woodman, 1993), teachers (Banks,2006; Pyke, 2001), psychologists (Launder, 2004; Schembri, 2001; Woodman, 1993), and medical professionals (Schembri,2001), it is ironic that such professions have established systems and structures that provide pathways for the careerdevelopment of their workers. For sport coaches, however, despite the assumed similarity, the policies that give rise tosystems to implement career development have been at best, poorly developed.

Lynn and Lyle (2010) provide the only discussion related to coach career policy development when they examined theScottish coaching workforce. Career development was one of many challenges (but not a priority) for policy makers whosefocus was framed on the professionalization of the coaching workforce (Lynn & Lyle, 2010). That is, the policy was designedto drive managerial action to ensure coaches were being paid for their services and a coordinated framework was establishedfor their development.

A. Dawson, P. Phillips / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 477–487478


Each week in Australia, coaches work with more than seven million sport participants in different settings and contexts(Shilbury & Kellett, 2010). Coaches working at all levels of employment (i.e., from part-time volunteer to full-time wageearner) are expected to be professional in terms of the quality of service they provide, ethical in their behavior, and produceoutcomes for athletes as varied as a fun and safe experience for children to gold medals for athletes at Olympic Games. Moreimportantly, coaches are producing outcomes linked to the missions of the ASC and of their NSO. These, in turn, are linked tobroader federal government aims and policies related to increased sport participation for improved mental and physicalhealth and status as a proud sporting nation (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010; Cuskelly, Hoye, & Auld, 2006; Green &Collins, 2008). Despite their apparent influence on a range of individuals in sport (from children through to adults) coachescan practice at all levels in the sport industry with limited skill development, accreditation and training or careerdevelopment.

1.2. Coaching as a career

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics approximately 659,000 Australian coaches, instructors and teachers workat various levels and capacities within sport (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). The ABS collects data regarding howpeople work in sport, and defines coaching as including individuals who may be working in sport as coaches instructors and/or teachers. From this definition, the ABS indicate 78% work in this capacity as volunteers, and of those who earn an incomeincluding payment in kind, 60.0% earned less than $5000 per year (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). A more specificstudy of the active Australian coaching workforce (Dawson, Wehner, Phillips, Gastin, & Salmon, 2013) shows that 59% arevolunteers, 15% work part time, 9% are self-employed and 6% are full time, and 8% were working on a casual basis. It is clearfrom the available data that coaches may be full-time or part-time professionals who are employed directly on either long- orshort-term contracts by a National Sport Organization; institutes of sport such as the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) orState Institutes; or the various State Sporting Organizations (SSO). Further, they may work at professional sport leagues orclubs (teams). Some coaches may also be employed in multiple sports due to their expertise and transferability of skillsacross sports. For example, many athletics coaches provide specialist services in other sports such as Australian football thatrequire sprinting. Depending on their specific roles, professional coaches working in these capacities may be in charge ofseveral assistant coaches and support staff, also employed on full-time or part-time contracts. Coaches may be self-employed working full or part-time (on a fee for service basis) with individual athletes or on contract with a local club and/orindependent (private) school.

Then, there are volunteer coaches. These coaches ‘‘work’’ for minimal, or no pay. They can coach in clubs at thecommunity level, or at independent locations coaching athletes from a variety of settings and ability levels (i.e., club, state,national, international and professional). As can be seen, the career of a coach can be multi-faceted, and non-linear. It is forthis reason, that it is critical to understand sport coaching careers. The first task is to explore the policy discourse that has ledto the complexity of coaching careers now, and how this can be facilitated to assist coaches develop their careers for thefuture.

1.3. Research context

This research focuses on the sport of athletics in Australia as it is one of the nation’s oldest and most established sports(Bloomfield, 2003; Elliott, 2004; Philips, 2000). Athletics has a complex organizational structure, with several keystakeholders involved in the development and delivery of the sport, and therefore an array of places and organizations wherecoaches work that reflect and perhaps add to the complexity described above. Athletics coaches can work in roles inparticipation such as junior development; competitive based programs such as school-based competition; domesticinterclub competition at athletic clubs; state league competitions; national and international (semi-professional)competition; and professional competition. Athletics coaches work with athletes who might be engaging for participation, orengaging for competition at all levels of performance. Athletics coaching careers are complex; therefore the sport is anexcellent context for examining policy discourse around coach career development.

Governance of athletics in Australia is chaotic, and the stakeholders who create policy that has an influence on careerdevelopment of coaches are varied. Often, the stakeholders operate independently from each other. Further, thestakeholders are often in competition with each other to create and develop policy ensuring coaches work in ways that arein the interests of the stakeholder. The ASC, as has been noted previously, is the policy leader in Australian sport. Thepolicies that they create are to be adopted by National Sport Organizations. It is fair to say that the ASC has provided somecoach education through a national curriculum of core coaching principles that apply across all sports. It is deliveredthrough the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme (NCAS) which provides the core curriculum framework, and nationalsporting organizations provide the sport-specific training and development of their coaches. The education of athleticscoaches in Australia has been somewhat different, as coaches have been trained by their professional organization, theAustralian Track and Field Coaches Association (ATFCA), who operates semi-independently from the National SportOrganization that governs the sport, Athletics Australia (AA). Athletics is the only sport in Australia where this happens. Allother sports train and manage their coach development within their national organizational framework. The ATFCAcoaching courses conform to the NCAS curriculum guidelines, and the organization has received some financial supportfrom, but is not beholden to, AA.

A. Dawson, P. Phillips / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 477–487 479


In the case of coach career development in Athletics (similar to a range of sports in the Australian context such as golf anduntil recently tennis), there are two independent bodies that have developed policy regarding coach accreditation andeducation. The Australian Track and Field Coaches Association (ATFCA) has developed with the intent to represent coachesacross all levels of participation and performance in the sport, and as a result have developed their own education programs forcoaches that have not necessarily been in line with the strategic directions of AA (Lyle & Cushion, 2010). The disunity betweenthe key stakeholders has limited the growth and development of Australian athletics at all levels of management, and coacheshave needed to work mostly outside those bodies in order to continue assisting athletes to perform at all levels of competition.Coaches who are accredited via the ATFCA or AA (i.e., Level 1 to Level 5) can be responsible for the development of athleteperformance regardless of their level of accreditation and there are an unknown number of non-accredited coaches who alsowork within the sport development system, training athletes at all levels of ability and performance.

Fig. 1 demonstrates how Australian athletics coaches work within and across the sport development continuum modeldepicted by Shilbury and Kellett (2010). Even though the sport development literature has moved beyond this linear model(Bramham & Hylton, 2008) coach accreditation in Australian athletics is used as the sole activity undertaken by AA todevelop coach careers. This is reflected by the coach development framework published by AA in 2011 (Athletics Australia,2013). The AA model is a hybrid of the traditional sports development continuum and the Long-Term Athlete Developmentmodel (Balyi & Williams, 2009) that ties coach development into categories not dissimilar to the traditional continuummodel discussed by Shilbury and Kellett (2010). The arrows in Fig. 1 illustrate that Australian athletics coaches do notnecessarily conform to any of the models as they may be coaching athletes at different levels of participation even thoughthey may not have the appropriate accreditation (and in some cases, none at all). The ATFCA have added to this confusion bypublishing their own version of a coach development framework (Australian Track & Field Coaches Association, 2013) thatfurther highlights the need to examine the complexity in coach careers in the sport of athletics.

The absence of a policy framework for sport coach career development in Australia is evident as coach careerdevelopment has been ad hoc, poorly supported, and inconsistent with other developments within the sport industry, andinconsistent with other developments in professions with similar influential positions in society. To date there is littleresearch that begins to explore policy discourse and resulting implications for coach career development pathways.

2. Method

In order to examine policy discourse in coach career development in Australia, and in particular in the sport of athletics,an analysis of policy discourse has been employed. Chalip (1995) outlined five elements of a policy analysis: (a) focusing

events that are sufficiently traumatic to an organization to focus policymakers attention to address a particular issue andprovide momentum for, or stimulate, policy making; (b) legitimations establish the boundaries of policy making; (c) problem

Fig. 1. Australian athletics coaches at all levels of accreditation (including non-accredited coaches) are able to (and do) coach athletes at all levels of the

athlete career pathway.



definitions specify what the policies must do by identifying the aspects of a problem or situation that require action; (d)problem attributions are the socially ascribed causes of the traumatic events and indicate where policy makers need toconcentrate their efforts to fix the problem; and (e) decision frames are the reflections, discussions and decision makingprocesses that designate the concepts and categories that can be used during policy formulation by determining whatinformation is relevant to resolve the policy problem (Chalip, 1995). Chalip’s elements have been used as a basis to explorepolicy discourse in Australian athletics.

2.1. Subjects/participating organizations

Three organizations, each of whom influence the development, implementation and operationalization of coach careerdevelopment in sport, were included in this research. The three organizations were

1. ASC,2. AA, and3. ATFCA

As has been noted previously, the ASC has the legislative responsibility to develop and enforce policy in sport in Australia.It is the ASC that deliberate on and produce (in the form of published documents) policy for all activities within theAustralian sport industry – including coach career development (as is the focus of this research).

The national sport organization (or governing body) of Athletics is AA. AA is (like many sports in Australia) funded by the ASC,and as such is responsible for implementing policy that is developed and produced by the ASC in the sport of Athletics. Insome cases, National Sport Organizations such as AA also develop their own policy that may be specific for the sport of Athletics.In the case of this research, the way in which AA implemented and/or developed coach career policy was of interest.

The ATFCA were included in this study as they are a member-based organization that was founded in 1974 and is‘‘recognized by all Athletics Bodies in Australia as responsible for the coordination and development of athletics coaching’’(Australian Track & Field Coaches Association, 2008). During the time this data was collected the ATFCA was the soleaccreditation and development organization for Australian athletics coaches.

2.2. Procedure

All publicly available documents related to coach career development policy from the ASC were collected including annualreports from 2000 to 2009. Also the two most recent federal government commissioned independent national reviews of sportin Australia. These independent reviews each served as documents to guide the development of change, including that of sportpolicy at the level of the ASC. The reviews include (a) Shaping Up (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999) and (b) The Future of Sportin Australia (Crawford, 2009). For the sport of athletics, annual reports from 2000 to 2009 from both AA and the ATFCA wereexamined along with the 2004 Elliott review (Elliott, 2004) into Australian athletics ‘‘Recreating a culture for athletics inAustralia: a report into the high performance, development and governance of athletics in Australia.’’ Apart from the Elliottreview there was little mention of coach career developmentin the policy documents of AA and the ATFCA.

As there was very little publicly available or documented information on coach career development for AA, ATFCA twostakeholder interviews were also conducted with the most senior managers responsible for coach management anddevelopment within each of AA and the ATFCA. Interviews sought to obtain further information about the respectivemanagers understanding and ideas about coach career development policy and implementation. The Deakin Universityethics committee approved the use of in-depth interviews for this research project. Coding categories were verified by thecheck-coding process (Miles & Huberman, 1994) between experts in the practice of and research in coaching. All wereexperienced in the process of qualitative data analysis. Stakeholder interview questions were derived from the contentanalyses of the policies on coach career development from the AA and the ATFCA, and the codes were revised until saturationeventuated (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). The coding process for content analysis and stakeholder interviews was ongoingthroughout the data collection period, as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994). To maintain continuity betweenboth methods, initial coding categories for the content analysis were based on the methods developed by Chalip (1995), usedpreviously in the content analysis of policy documents.

3. Results

This study aimed to examine policy discourse related to coach career development in the Australian sport context, and inparticular in the sport of Athletics. The policy discourse for each of the three stakeholder groups is considered in turn in thissection.

3.1. Policy discourse in ASC for coach career development

In the case of the ASC, the legislative body responsible for the development of national sport policy, it was of interest tounderstand if a catalyst existed to stimulate the development of policy related to coach career development beyond the



national education framework specific to coaching practice which is delivered through the NCAS. Results from contentanalyses of annual reports from the ASC from 2000 to 2009 revealed little reference to coach career development. Also, thetwo most recent federal government commissioned independent national reviews of sport in Australia were analyzed. Theseindependent reviews each served as documents to guide the development of change, including that of sport policy at thelevel of the ASC. The reviews include (a) Shaping Up (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999) and (b) The Future of Sport inAustralia (Crawford, 2009). These reviews formed as focusing events for a range of sport-related issues, in particular theprovision of more appropriate pathways for athlete career development. Reviews such as these might be considered focusing

events for an organization such as the ASC. However, there is no evidence from the ASC annual reports during this ten yearperiod that either review impacted the development or operationalization of policy in coach career development eventhough it was implicated in the reviews.

This would seem ironic given that the reviews of sport defined the problem of lack of international success to be linkedspecifically to elite coach performance. For example, the 1999 review, ‘‘Shaping Up’’, legitimized the importance of coaches inimproving sport performance and focused recommendations for managerial action primarily on developing and fundingsupport programs for elite coaches. There were no recommendations regarding developing career pathways for coachesseeking elite careers. The review defined the problem of coach career development, not as a problem for the ASC to developpolicy, but for National Sport Organizations to contract their elite coaches to mentor other coaches. Not only did this signalthat the ASC did not require policy or programming to be developed, but it also signaled that each coach was equipped withthe relevant skills to provide career development for other coaches. The problem attribution became a question ofdetermining who is responsible for coach career development which remained unanswered. For example, the reportrecommended that sports require their elite coaches to nurture local (non-elite) coaches. This recommendation clearlyimplied that mentoring should be implemented, but with little guidance regarding how this was to be achieved.

Perhaps more problematic was that nurturing coaches careers was not addressed as an outcome in any of the ASC annualreports in the proceeding decade, so although the policy recommendation was flawed, it seems that it was largely ignoredanyway.

Almost a decade later, independent Crawford (2009) review of sport in Australia suggested further reforms. The reportacknowledged the importance of coach development and expressed the need to ensure funding and support for elite coaches.Once again, the problem of coach development was situated in elite level sport. Different to the earlier report, Crawford(2009) suggested that sports need to look for ways to ‘‘recycle’’ athletes in their systems to increase coach participation anddevelopment. Significantly, the problem of coach career development was placed in the realm of transitioning athletes intocoaching roles.

The results from this study indicate that the ASC did not see coach career development as a particular issue in terms ofsustainability of sport in Australia. As noted above, the problem was perceived to reside in elite level sport, and a problem forcoaches themselves (in 2000) and a problem for athletes in 2009.

In the current study, with the case of the ASC, the federal government’s response to the Crawford (2009) review,Australian Sport – The Pathway to Success (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010), articulated the decision frames when itidentified the strengthening of coach pathways as being essential for Australia’s long-term sport development. Two policystatements relating to coach career development were made:

1. Recognizing the importance of quality coaching right across the sporting spectrum and introducing new funding, training,support and mentoring to assist coaches.

2. Providing additional coaching and officiating training opportunities for up to 45,000 community coaches and officials andsubsidized costs associated with training for 5000 new community coaches and officials (Commonwealth of Australia,2010, p.2).

The first statement clearly indicates that there has been some reflection regarding the information and infrastructure that isrequired to resolve lack of coach career development in sport. The second statement indicates that coach career developmenthas been seen as necessary for grass roots sport development. With the 659,000 coaches actively involved in coaching(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008), it is unclear how 5000 extra (0.75%) will make a difference. Thus far, however, there is noindication from the ASC how this policy will be operationalized and indeed cascaded through the sport system.

3.2. Policy discourse in coach career development: AA and the ATFCA

At the level of AA results from this study show that the major review of the sport of Athletics Elliott (2004) could haveprovided a focusing event to lead AA to examine coach career development for their sport. Elliott (2004) stated that:

A vibrant coaching system is essential for the well-being of the sport. It is difficult to overstate the critical importance ofthose good coaches at all levels, who provide inspiration and establish the environment in which athletes learn andimprove their performances. This environment exists in too few instances at present (p. 15).

However, despite the review being a focusing event to lead to policy reform in coach development, there was littleaction. Although the resulting strategic plans developed immediately after the Elliott review for the period 2005–2009



(Corcoran, 2005) legitimized coach development as part of the viability of athletics as a major sport in Australia and thesuccess of its athletes, coach career development was not explicitly articulated. Further, a senior manager of the AFTCAbelieved there were few opportunities to have a career in coaching saying ‘‘. . .you’ve got your full-time coaches and yourhobby coaches, members like me who coach after work, and that’s the background of our coaches in Australia.’’. However,the problem definition was clear, senior representatives from AA and the ATFCA understood coach career development tomerely include accreditation and articulation of coaches – not the broader understanding of career development as itmight apply specifically to coaches and the complexity of the roles in which they work in their sport. It might be arguedthat this might not be surprising given that there was limited recognition or understanding of it at a national level(through the ASC).

Results from this study indicate that managers from each of AA and the ATFCA each believed (problem attribution)coaches’ career development (in terms of providing education and accreditation) is their sole responsibility. For example, thesenior manager from AA noted ‘‘So in a nut shell we’re (AA) building the frameworks around which we bring in more coacheswho are better supported, who have more opportunity, to provide a good sports performance’’ while the manager fromATFCA stated ‘‘. . .we’ve been doing it right for 30 years (coach education/accreditation)’’. Currently, these organizationscompete with each other in designing and delivering coach accreditation and education, and the managers understand it ascore to their business as they receive payment from coaches who undertake their courses or their accreditation.

Adding further complexity to the competition between the organizations is their poor relationship. The poor relationshipbetween AA and ATFCA poses a major barrier to having a coordinated approach to coach career development. The seniormember from the ATFCA admitted that his organization was not willing to work with AA to ensure coaches careers weredeveloped, because of the decades of mistrust between the two organizations. The ATFCA did not view AA to have utility incoach career development. For example, a senior manager from the ATFCA stated: ‘‘We’ve been going for 30 odd years, [theATFCA]; . . .they [AA] do nothing for coaches’’.

The senior manager from the ATFCA reported that he had witnessed five separate reviews of the sport of athletics over thepast twenty years, and was sceptical about how the Elliott (2004) review would lead to an improvement of the managementof coach career development. He noted ‘‘I’ve been through these reviews and the last one was this big review . . . theyslammed the [ATFCA] and, they didn’t know what they were talking about’’.

Ironically, AA had similar views of the ATFCA and their role in coach career development. For example, a senior managerfrom AA stated:

The ATFCA have been the group responsible for coach education and coach career development. I think they have hadsome mixed success in terms of how that’s gone. . .they don’t have a national framework around which success can be built.So the sports commission’s direction and certainly the board of AA have said ‘‘. . .we need to embrace coach education, coachcareer development as one of the key platforms [for the sport] and the ATFCA is part of that’’.

The senior manager from AA believed professionalization of athletics coaching was long overdue and believed that ATFCAneeded to relinquish its responsibility for guiding the direction of coach career development as they were not equipped to bethe sole educator or developer of coaches. He went on to state that ‘‘. . .the sport of athletics hasn’t done well in the past indeveloping coaches and bringing coaches into the system’’. He was clearly of the opinion that the boundary for policydevelopment regarding coach career development was the responsibility of the NSO, in this case AA.

At the national sport level, it was clear from the results of this study that athletics was experiencing problems with coachcareer development and very aware of its impact on the future success of their sport. Unlike the ASC, that provided littleknowledge about implementing coach career development and situated the problem to be with coaches themselves,managers at AA identified the problem to be one of management. In his review of the sport, Elliott (2004) defined theproblem of coach career development as one of a lack of national leadership in AA stating:

As a sport, athletics is splintered, and faces a number of substantial challenges. The national governing body, AA, is notresponsible or accountable for many areas of the sport. . . . there is a history of distrust and lack of cooperation between thepeak bodies involved in athletics (Elliott, 2004, p.6).

Elliot articulated the problem with coaching saying: ‘‘In relation to the recruitment, education, recognition, developmentand support of coaches, the review found that AA has failed to provide leadership’’ (p. 15).

For AA, the decision frames were clearer in one sense but hindered by the fragmented relationships in the sport. Despitethe Elliott (2004) review stating the importance that ‘‘AA in partnership with the ATFCA, revitalize coach education programsand immediately review the purpose, structure and content of coach accreditation courses to ensure they meet thecontemporary needs of the sport’’ (p. 16), AA and ATFCA have continued to disagree on an approach to coach development.ATFCA believed it was their responsibility, whereas AA saw the limitation of an ATFCA coach development approach. Theconflict between AA and the ATFCA has impeded coach career development at a time when collaboration in system changehas been necessary.

A prolonged struggle between the two organizations with regards to who has responsibility for coach career developmentand the boundaries of the supporting coach career development policy has led the sport into a situation where coach careerdevelopment seems to have been lost in the arguments between the competing organizations. Both the ATFCA and AA eachunderstand the need to rationalize the organizations that currently see their responsibility to deliver coaches careerdevelopment. However, each organization perceives that they are the ones to fix the managerial problems associated withcoach career development. AA and the ATFCA have operated independently for more than thirty years and have been indisagreement about coach education and development.



4. Discussion

This investigation has examined the career development of Australian athletics coaches from the perspective of nationalsport policy development across multiple stakeholders (including the ASC, AA, and the ATFCA). The findings illustrate thelack of discourse about coach career development is ironic given the importance of coaches in the development of athlete’scareers, and ultimately the success of sport. If, as Chalip (1995) suggests, a focusing event encourages policy makers toaddress a particular issue and stimulate policy development about it, it would seem that the ASC experienced no focusingevents sufficient to stimulate inquiry or managerial action regarding coach career development. This is at odds with the non-sport literature, where employee career development is considered an essential component of long-term organizationaldevelopment and success in occupations such as teaching (Patton & McMahon, 1997) and business management (Hubbardet al., 2007; Nicholson & West, 1989) as well as the sport literature where athlete career development is well established(Gordon & Lavallee, 2004; Taylor et al., 2006).

From the policy documents and stakeholder interviews analyzed, it was clear that coaches’ career development was notconsidered beyond the direct links with athlete development pathways and their technical development. Although in policydocuments and stakeholder interviews it appeared that coach career development was considered important it was notclearly articulated as a strategy for ongoing development of both coaches and the sport organizations examined in this study(the ASC, AA and the ATFCA). Coach career development as policy was limited to accreditation and education. The fracturedrelationship between AA and the ATFCA appeared to divert the discourse away from developing policy that would enhancecoaches’ careers despite senior managers from both AA and the ATFCA acknowledging that coach career development wasvital for growth and success. These findings highlight the gap between present coach career development policy (or lackthereof) and non-sport career development theory and practice. Non-sport organizations similar in size to the ASC and AAhave managed to develop employees’ careers in consultation with the workers themselves (Dunn, 1997; Hubbard et al.,2007; Nicholson & West, 1989). Hubbard et al. (2007) and Dunn (1997) believed the focus on career development was vitalfor employees’ development and also served the interests of the organizations.

The lack of coach career development policy and understanding found in the sport coaching context was somewhatcontradictory. The knowledge and awareness of athlete career development is paramount in almost every sport (Gordon &Lavallee, 2004; Hawkins & Blann, 1996). Managing athlete career development is a key responsibility from grassroots to elitelevels of many Australian sports, and especially trained career development officers have been employed to coordinate thisprocess. In contrast, coaches are expected to do the same for themselves with little guidance or support. Further, all of theprofessional sports have large budgets for development for their professional athletes beyond their sport career. Indeed,athlete career development research literature based in areas of psychology, sociology and sport management has beenintegral to the practice of athlete development and advancement for more than 20 years in the Australian setting (Gordon &Lavallee, 2004). Not only is athlete career development a key part of sport development practice, it is policy for manynational sports organizations (Australian Sports Commission, 2008).

It was unclear from this research why such attention has not been devoted to the coaching context, as many athletes turnto coaching as a post athletic career (Flanagan, 2001a,b). The coach is assumed to be central to the athlete’s careerdevelopment and advancement, and yet there are no clear guidelines or steps to ensure that Australian coaches mature intheir industry in ways that ensure that they have the best skills to grow their careers. However there is mounting evidenceinternationally (Demers, 2004; Gilbert et al., 2006, 2009; Reade et al., 2009; Schinke et al., 1995; Taylor & Garratt, 2012) andcritical empirical research in coaching (Taylor & Garratt, 2012; Timson-Katchis & North, 2010) that coaches careers areintegral to athlete and sport development and are increasingly being considered as part of broader policy planning anddevelopment in sport.

5. Implications for practice

There are several implications for sport policy makers and managers when considering coach career development. Firstly,given that the ATFCA deliver coach education and accreditation, this presents a challenge for AA in terms of aligning theeducation and development of coaches with their strategic sport development plans. This is particularly so, as ATFCA, who isin regular contact with its members, has different ideas about coach education and development, and has a long history ofdistrust and conflict with AA.

The long-term development and, indeed, the viability of the sport of athletics in Australia relies on the careerdevelopment of its coaches but the unfortunate irony occurs when considering the investment in developing athletes careerscontinues while the career development of coaches is ignored. The literature on the organizational benefits of professionalcareer development of teachers and managers could not be clearer (Hubbard et al., 2007; Nicholson & West, 1989, 1988;Patton & McMahon, 1997). Organizations need to develop the careers of their managers to avoid regrettable turnover andburnout, and sustain growth and performance. This, however, was not happening in Australian athletics. It might be arguedthat successful coaches do not need formal coach career development as there are many successful coaches in this category.However, there is ample evidence from non-sport literature (Hubbard et al., 2007; Nicholson & West, 1989; Patton &McMahon, 1997) and from the emphasis on coach career development globally (Gilbert et al., 2006, 2009; Hawkins & Blann,1996; Lavallee, 2006; Nash & Sproule, 2009; Schinke et al., 1995; Taylor & Garratt, 2012), to suggest a recognition that thisarea has been sadly lacking and out of step with the rest of sport development. Indeed, the lack of coach career development



may have been the impetus for many nations to import coaches as there is a lack of knowledge and experience nurtured intheir own countries. Athletics Australia has already been criticized for importing coaches (Hadfield, 2004) but their need todo so is hardly surprising given their lack of career development for coaches as evidenced from this research. Although

attention to coach career development is growing internationally, there is little empirical evidence that coach career development

has been examined in ways that this research suggests is necessary.The second implication is that the role of the coach in sport development has been largely ignored in the literature and in

this case, any supporting policy that guides performance management strategies and ease of transition in careers is missing.Current models of sport development are predominantly athlete focused (Eady, 1993; Green, 2005; Shilbury & Kellett, 2010),where coaches play a supporting role rather than being recognized as key managers in the production of successfulperformance. The data from this study highlights the importance of coaches’ influence in sport development and yet thereappears to be a lack of understanding and willingness to develop coaches’ careers by both the ASC and AA.

The final implication for policy makers concerns the education of sport managers on the understanding the careerdevelopment of coaches as a sport development strategy that aligns with the policy for athlete career development. There isalready considerable knowledge that can be transferred across from established athlete career development practice and yet,until now, there has been no discourse on coach career development.

6. Implications for research

The career development of athletes has been considered important for over two decades (Gordon & Lavallee, 2004) and,yet as this research has shown, the careers of those who develop them, their coaches, have been largely ignored. If this is to beremedied, there are a range of options. As the coach career is complex, and may include paid or volunteer engagement, acoach career development policy and resulting managerial operationalization strategy may be well served by drawing fromliterature that is not grounded purely in the corporate setting where employees are paid (Nicholson & West, 1989; Patton &McMahon, 1997). Rather, it might, conceptually, draw from the models developed in athlete career development (Gordon &Lavallee, 2004) that including policies and processes that are already embedded in the Australian sport system and structure,and have proven to be successful. In such models, there is clear and sound policy; structure of delivery; and resulting rolesand responsibilities (e.g. the ACE program delivered by the AIS and each state sports institute). Career development policymay benefit by drawing from literature that examines volunteer learning education and development (Zhuang & Girginov,2012). This is a growing area of scholarly research particularly in both sport and non-sport settings (Kleiber, 2012; Zhuang &Girginov, 2012). It would seem that the first task for the sport of Athletics is to provide clarity in roles and responsibilities ofthe ATFCA and AA in conjunction with the ASC.

Coach involvement and support in the athlete career development process is a requirement of the ACE programs(Australian Sports Commission, 2008). As such, athlete career development policies have had an impact on coachingpractice; managerial action; and policy development in sport. Similar focus and education about appropriate coach careerdevelopment should also have a profound impact on practice; managerial action; and policy development in sport. Further,understanding coach career development may also have an impact on our understanding of career development moregenerally. As this research has shown, the coach’s career can be complex. It is evident that careers in non-sport sectors arealso becoming progressively more complex with individuals entering and exiting the workforce at different stages and withdifferent skill sets (Hubbard et al., 2007; Patton & McMahon, 1997). It is possible that by exploring and understandingcoaches in the sport setting, there are lessons for career development more generally in a progressively intricate context ofindividuals, professions, organizations and industries.

7. Conclusion

This investigation began with the premise that: the development of workers’ domain specific knowledge and skills isessential for industry sustainability, organizational growth, and the development of skilled workforces. It is clear from theliterature discussed earlier, and the results from the ensuing study that coaches have made a significant contribution to thesuccess of the Australian sport system. Australia is fortunate to have many skilled and experienced coaches who arededicated to the ongoing success of their athletes, and their sports. However, unlike the corporate setting careerdevelopment that provides support and pathways that reflects such development for coaches has not been evident in anyinstitutional policies, in the sport of athletics in particular and more generally at the ASC.

References

Athletics Australia. (2013). Athletics Australia Coach Accreditation Framework and Accreditation Programs. Retrieved from http://www.athletics.com.au/home/coaches/coaching_faq/athletics_coach_accreditation.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Involvement in organised sport as a coach, instructor, referee or umpire. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/featurearticlesbytitle/93A4CF8A7A038740CA2575BE00128D59?OpenDocument.

Australian Sports Commission. (2008). Careers and education. Retrieved from http://www.ausport.gov.au/participating/athletes/career_and_education.Australian Track & Field Coaches Association. (2008). National Coaching Accreditation Scheme. http://www.atfca.com.au/coacheducation.ews.Australian Track & Field Coaches Association. (2013). ATFCA/Athletics Australia Athletcs Coach Accreditation Framework Alignment. Retrieved from http://

www.atfca.com.au/docs/new_coach_accred_alignment_with_atfca.pdf.Baillie, P. H. F., & Danish, S. J. (1992). Understanding the career transition of athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 77–98.



Balyi, I., & Williams, C.A. (2009). Coaching the young developing performer: Tracking physical growth and development to inform coaching programmes, Sports CoachUK.

Banks, J. (2006). The role of the coach. In N. Goodman (Ed.), Beginning coaching (4th ed.). Canberra, ACT: Australian Sports Commission.Bloomfield, J. (2003). Australia’s sporting success: The inside story. Sydney, NSW: UNSW Press.Bramham, P., & Hylton, K. (2008). Introduction. In K. Hylton & P. Braham (Eds.), Sports development: Policy, processes and practice (pp. 4–5). London: Routledge.Brown, D., & Brooks, L. (1996). Career choice and development (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Burton, D., & Raedeke, T. D. (2008). Sport psychology for coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Chalip, L. (1995). Policy analysis in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 9(1), 1–13.Commonwealth of Australia. (1999). Shaping up: A review of Commonwealth involvement in sport and recreation in Australia; a report to the Federal Government. In S.

a. R. Industry (Ed.). Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). Australian sport: The pathway to success. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.Corcoran, D. (2005). Achieving High Performance 2005-09: Executive Summary Athletics Australia.Cote, J., Young, B., North, J., & Duffy, P. (2007). Towards a definition of excellence in coaching. International Journal of Coaching Science, 1, 3–16.Crawford, D. (2009). The future of sport in Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.Cuskelly, G., Hoye, R., & Auld, C. (2006). Working with volunteers in sport: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.Dawson, A., Wehner, K., Phillips, P., Gastin, P., & Salmon, J. (2013). Profiling the Australian Coaching Workforce. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://

www.deakin.edu.au/health/ens/newsletters/files/Aus%20Coaching%20Workforce%20full%20report_web.pdf.De Bosscher, V., De Knopp, P., van Bottenburg, M., Shilbi, S., & Bingham, J. (2009). Explaining international sporting success: An international comparison of elite

sport systems and policies in six countries. Sport Management Review, 12, 113–136.Demers, G. (2004). Why female athletes decide to become coaches – or not. Canadian Journal for Women in Coaching, 4(5), 1–9.Dunn, L. (1997). Career development in changing organisations. In W. Patton & M. McMahon (Eds.), Career development in practice: A systems theory perspective.

North Sydney: New Hobsons Press.Eady, J. (1993). Practical sports development. Harlow, UK: Longman.Elliott, H. (2004). Recreating a culture for athletics in Australia: A report into the high performance, development and governance of athletics in Australia. Canberra, ACT:

Athletics Australia1–52.Flanagan, J. (2001a). Coach career management: Tips for successful career development on and off the sporting field. Sports Coach, 24(1), 30–31.Flanagan, J. (2001b). How to become a career coach. Sports Coach, 24(2), 25.Gilbert, W., Cote, J., & Mallett, C. (2006). Developmental paths and activities of successful sport coaches. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching, 1, 69–

76.Gilbert, W., Lichktenwaldt, L., Gilbert, J., Zelezny, L., & Cote, J. (2009). Development profiles of successful high school coaches. International Journal of Sport Science &

Coaching, 4, 415–431.Gordon, S., & Lavallee, D. (2004). Career transitions in competitive sport. In T. Morris & J. Summers (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications and issues (2nd ed.).

Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia.Green, B. C. (2005). Building sport programs to optimize athlete recruitment, retention, and transition: Toward a normative theory of sport development. Journal

of Sport Management, 19(3), 233–253.Green, M., & Collins, S. (2008). Policy, politics and path dependency: Sport development in Australia and Finland. Sport Management Review, 11, 225–251.Greenhill, J., Auld, C., Cuskelly, G., & Hooper, S. (2009). The impact of organisational factors on career pathways for female coaches. Sport Management Review, 12,

229–240.Hadfield, W. (2004). Blood on the running tracks! http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sportsfactor/blood-on-the-running-tracks/3407714#transcript,

Retrieved 07.09.08.Hawkins, K., & Blann, W. F. (1996). Athlete/coach career development and transition Scientific Report: Australian Sports Commission.Hubbard, G., Samuel, D., Cocks, G., & Heap, S. (2007). The first XI: Winning organisations in Australia (2nd ed.). Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons.Kleiber, D. A. (2012). Taking leisure seriously: New and older considerations about leisure education. World Leisure Journal, 54(1), 5–15 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/

her/cyl063.Launder, A. (2004). The role of the track and field coach in Australia: Complex, complicated yet crucial. Modern Athlete and Coach, 42(2), 17–18.Lavallee, D. (2006). Career awareness, career planning, and career transition needs among sports coaches. Journal of Career Development, 33(1), 66–79 http://

dx.doi.org/10.1177/08948453306289550.Lavallee, D., & Wyleman, P. (2000). Career transitions in sport: International perspectives. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Naturalistic inquiry (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lyle, J., & Cushion, C. (2010). Sport coaching professionalisation and practice. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Lynn, A., & Lyle, J. (2010). Coaching workforce development. In J. Lyle & C. J. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching professionalisation and practice (pp. 193–207). London:

Elsevier.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Montross, D. H., & Shinkman, C. J. (1992). Career development: Theory and practice. Springfield, MA: Charles C Thomas.Nash, C. S., & Sproule, J. (2009). Career development of expert coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(1), 121–138 http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/

1747-9541.4.1.121.Nicholson, N., & West, M. (1988). Managerial Job Change. London: Cambridge University Press.Nicholson, N., & West, M. (1989). Transitions, work histories, and careers. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 181–

201). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.North, J. (2009). The coaching workforce 2009–2016, Leeds.Osipow, S. H., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1996). Theories of career development (4th ed.). Needam Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (Eds.). (1997). Career development in practice: A systems theory perspective. North Sydney, NSW: New Hobsons Press.Philips, M. (2000). From sidelines to centre field: A history of sports coaching in Australia. Sydney, NSW: UNSW Press.Pyke, F. S. (Ed.). (2001). Better coaching: Advanced coach’s manual (2nd ed.). Belconnen, ACT: Australian Coaching Council.Reade, I., Rodgers, W., Holt, N., Dunn, J., Hall, N., Stolp, S., et al. (2009). A report on the status of coaches in Canada, Alberta. Coaching Association of Canada.Salmela, J. (1996). Good job coach: Getting the edge from proven winners. Ottowa, ON: Potentium.Schembri, G. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of the coach. In F. S. Pyke (Ed.), Better coaching (2nd ed.). Canberra, ACT: Australian Sports Commission.Schinke, R. J., Bloom, G. A., & Salmela, J. H. (1995). The career stages of elite Canadian basketball coaches. AVANTE, 1(1), 48–62.Schlechty, P.C., Joslin, A.W., Leak, S.E., & Hanes, R.C. (1984). The Charlotte-Mecklenburg teacher career development program. Educational Leadership (December), 4–

8.Shilbury, D., & Kellett, P. (2010). Sport management in Australia: An organisational overview (4th ed.). Bentleigh East, VIC: Strategic Sport Management.Super, D. E. (1992). Toward a comprehensive theory of career development. In D. H. Montross & C. J. Skinkman (Eds.), Career development: Theory and practice.

Springfield, IL: Thomas.Taylor, B., & Garratt, D. (2010). The professionalisation of sports coaching: Relations of power, resistance and compliance. Sport Education and Society, 15(1), 121–

139 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573320903461103.Taylor, W. G., & Garratt, D. (2010). The professionalisation of sports coaching: Definitions, challenges and critique. In J. Lyle & C. Cushion (Eds.), Sports coaching:

Professionalism and practice (pp. 99–117). London: Elsevier.Taylor, W. G., & Garratt, D. (2012). Coaching and professionalism. In P. Potrac, W. Gilbert, & J. Denison (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports coaching. London:

Routledge.



Taylor, J., Ogilvie, B., & Lavallee, D. (2006). Career transition among athletes: Is there life after sports. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personalgrowth to peak performance (5th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Timson-Katchis, M., & North, J. (2010). UK coach tracking study. Leeds: UK.Woodman, L. (1993). Coaching: A science, an art, an emerging profession. Sport Science Review, 2(2), 1–13.Zhuang, J., & Girginov, V. (2012). Volunteer selection and social, human and political capital: A case study of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. Managing Leisure,

17(2–3), 239–256 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2012.674397.


Author's personal copy Coach career development: Who is responsible

Documents

Transcript of Author's personal copy Coach career development: Who is responsible