After more than 15 years in professional sports, some trends become more evident. One of them is that giving freedom to athletes is considered a risky thing to do and, as a consequence, autonomy is often quickly removed when results do not go according to plan. Although saying “according to hopes or illusions” would sometimes be more accurate. It is my opinion that such reactions are the sign of a lack of preparation and understanding of the targeted principles of collaboration that us coaches want to have with our athletes. My purpose with this article is therefore to discuss why and how I provide autonomy to players in the weight room, show how my collaboration framework has evolved over the past years, and hopefully stimulate reflection on the topic of athlete autonomy in strength and conditioning (S&C).
The goal of every sports organisation should be to win. An organisation should therefore do its best to put the team and the athletes in a situation where they can fully express their potential and optimise the chances of positive results. For such purpose, concepts like giving athletes responsibility and ownership of their results are common in team sports. The implementation of these concepts is typically linked to a less directive leadership style where athletes are given a voice in important decisions regarding methods and structure of training, tactical options, or the individual development of the athletes themselves. Based on the self-determination theory (SDT) (1), autonomy, together with competence and relatedness, is a universal and innate psychological need. In SDT, autonomy refers to self-regulation. This regulation may be implemented at various degrees and it should be distinguished from complete independence. Rather, autonomy is guided by possibilities and choices, which have been shown to result in improved performance, creativity, quality of relationships, and well-being (2). Autonomy should therefore be considered an essential component of a high performing sports organisation. However, the opinions of coaches and players may differ on how to best implement it in the operational structure of a team.
“Just leave me alone, I know what I’m doing.” In a sport like ice hockey, it is not uncommon to be faced with such statements by players at the professional level. These words may make us smile when we hear Kimi Räikkönen pronounce them on the team radio during a Formula 1 race, but when directed to me they have certainly led me to reflect on how I should approach such a mindset. On the other side, team workouts are still the norm in professional ice hockey and team camaraderie is also built by completing challenging training sessions as a group. Modifying established cultural habits of the sport therefore required a clear plan that could be easily understood and adopted by the players and coaches.
My first attempt was based on Ashley Jones’ quadrant approach (https://www.elitefts.com/education/coaching-education/program-determination-using-the-quadrant-approach-individualization-in-a-team-sport-environment/). It includes four degrees of freedom/autonomy detailed in Table 1. This system is based on merit and competence, and the athletes’ quadrant and their evolution are based on the athletes’ effort and interest in their training. In other words, players move to the next quadrant when they deserve it. To make the process and the expectations clear, I included the coach’s and players’ responsibilities for every degree of freedom. In a long-term development structure, every player would start in quadrant 1. However, this system was implemented with a professional team and the majority of players fit in quadrants 2 and 3, where players could make decisions on exercise selection and training methods (e.g., set structure, Olympic lifting vs loaded jumps, traditional loading vs Accentuated Eccentric Loading…) being used. As shown in Table 1, quadrant 4 provides full autonomy as long as the athletes fulfil the required standards in performance testing. Although athletes in quadrant 4 have earned the right to plan and execute their training as they prefer, they are typically proud of their status and want to be an example for their teammates. By experience this often leads to a positive collaboration between these athletes and the S&C coach, where both sides understand the value for the team of continuous improvement.
This approach provided clear benefits. Athletes are competitors and by nature they want to advance in any structure given to them. This mindset, combined with the athletes’ responsibilities for each degree of freedom, drove motivation and interest in training while building autonomy. Athletes also understood and accepted the differences of freedom between teammates. However, this system also has limitations. The progression from a quadrant to another is a slow process that requires athletes to spend time in a quadrant and experiment new exercises, methods, etc. A prolonged lack of perceived progression may hurt the athletes’ motivation. Being able to define a precise moment when an athlete is ready to step into the next quadrant is also highly unlikely and opportunities for autonomy are often more subtle. A more adaptable approach was therefore required.
The athlete is at the centre of my current approach. My belief is that I can best contribute to team success by providing every player with the right amount of autonomy and ensuring their individual development as well as their readiness to play. Following pre-season testing, all players receive their individual report that includes a comparison with team average (Figure 1), my comments on their test results and training priorities that I have defined based on their results and their role on the team. The reports serve as a base of discussion for the one-on-one meetings that I have with every player during pre-season. These meetings are a privileged opportunity for me to let the players express themselves about their goals, their training preferences, how they like to be coached, etc. My goal is to collect enough information through the questions shown in Table 2 and agree on training priorities to both programme for the players and enter the season with confidence about the structure of my work with each individual on the team. After these meetings, players should feel like they have been listened to and their individual needs and goals have been aligned with the goals and expectations of the team.
Professional ice hockey seasons are very intense, and the schedule is very dense with a game approximately every 3 days for 8 to 9 months. Maintaining physical qualities while ensuring optimised readiness to play is therefore a major challenge across the long season. Players now have the autonomy to choose when they want to lift during the week, considering that they are required to do one weekly strength session and one power session based on their individualised strength and power programmes. Every week I suggest when the sessions would ideally be performed in my opinion, but players are free to inform me if they prefer to do them on a different day. A simple choice may also be to lift before or after practice.
Regular weekly testing of qualities such as the vertical jump and groin strength ensures that coaches and players are continuously aware of the development of every player in-season. Good testing results reinforce the value of autonomy to players, whose self-efficacy linked to physical preparation increases consequently. A positive development also increases the players’ buy-in in the programme, leading to an even stronger base of collaboration between coaches and players. With this regular monitoring process, players know that they cannot hide, and that the evolution of their results is a key factor to maintain a valued level of autonomy.
Finally, I believe that, where possible, autonomy should be provided also when minor modifications to the programme are necessary due to fatigue or minor injuries. The typical question by players in these cases is “What should I do?”. My typical answer is “What do you think would be the best for you?”. This method has provided very insightful answers by players on multiple occasions. At the very least, it provides the opportunity for a brief discussion on what could be a good solution and why it would be good in this situation.
Like every system, my current approach has benefits and limitations, and the amount of autonomy provided may feel exaggerated to some coaches. However, my experience during the last two years, based on training results and player feedback, has been very positive. This has reinforced my belief that involving players and providing them autonomy in their training can be a powerful strategy in situations that require constant adaptability. I would even claim that the simple attempt by a coach to provide athletes autonomy, under any form, will enhance the chances of a successful collaboration.
Every sport, league, and club culture provides a different context for the implementation of any strategy. By presenting the evolution of my framework around providing autonomy to athletes in the weight room, my intention is not to suggest that this approach should be replicated in any context. It is by definition a work in progress that needs to be adapted to the needs and preferences of the athletes. However, the frameworks that we as coaches implement need to sustain the adaptability that is by nature required in team sports and it is my belief that well-planned systems provide better adaptability. Such preparation should also help coaches handle the more difficult moments that teams face with greater trust in their operational framework, which should place a team in a better position to rebound to better performance levels. Handling challenges with trust and belief in an empowering system will also increase the athletes’ buy-in in the long term, improving the long-term results.
References
1. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
2. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557–1585.