Contradicting Coach or Grumbling to Teammates

Coach–Athlete Interaction

Communication scholars have recognized the potential for sport to be an important socializing force, particularly with regard to communication between coaches and athletes (Turman, 2007; Turman & Schrodt, 2004). Indeed, coaches’ communication styles shape the sporting experience for athletes and the relative success or failure of the team (Turman, 2007, 2008; Turman & Schrodt, 2004). Moreover, athlete satisfaction increases with more frequent and positive interactions with a coach (Myer, Beauchamp, & Chase, 2011), leading to increased effort, fulfillment of goals, and positive work attitudes (Lorimer, 2011). And favorable interactions with a coach move athletes to become more task involved and knowledgeable about participation in the sport community (Turman, 2007, 2008).

While the pressure to succeed often falls to coaches, this translates to greater performance expectations for athletes (Myer et al., 2011). And the way in which athletes make sense of their sporting success or failure gets shaped by coaches’ feedback (Turman, 2007). Coaches vary as well with regard to the timing, nature, and intent of the messages they exchange with athletes (Millar, Oldham, & Donovan, 2011). In fact, coaches’ use of particular feedback cues leads athletes to make more or less positive attributions about their experience—and one possibility when confronted with failure is to highlight shortcomings in the coach–athlete relationship (Turman, 2007). When this transpires dissatisfaction with coaches is a likely result. In contrast, athletes report being more satisfied and successful when coaches use an affirming style of communication (Kassing & Infante, 1999).

All of this suggests that the kind of communication that unfolds between coaches and athletes has an impact on many aspects of the sport experience spanning from how well athletes prepare, to how well they perform, to how they make sense of their success and failure. The relevancy then of coaches’ communication to athletes’ experience is sizeable. Given the significance of coaches’ communication with athletes and the possible impact it can have on athlete satisfaction it is important to develop a better understanding of how athletes share dissatisfaction with and about their coaches.

Employee Voice and Organizational Dissent

The exit–voice–loyalty–neglect model (Farrell, 1983; Hirschman, 1970) suggests that employees will respond differently to dissatisfying conditions in the workplace. Hirschman (1970) originally argued that employees faced with dissatisfying conditions can choose to exit and leave the organization through quitting or resignation or they can decide to stay and voice their concerns in an attempt to rectify the troubling circumstances. Loyalty in turn serves as a moderating factor moving people to choose one option over the other. Accordingly, loyal employees tend to stay in the organization and practice voice, whereas less loyal employees exit their respective organizations (Leck & Saunders, 1992). Farrell (1983) advanced the model by identifying neglect as a third alternative that would be applicable when employees feel they do not have viable opportunities that would allow them to exit their respective organizations. Neglect involves staying in the organization while engaging in neglectful behaviors rather than voice. This might entail tardiness, absenteeism, and increased errors. Subsequent work refined the concepts of voice, with Gorden (1988) arguing that employees can express voice in constructive or destructive ways and Kassing (1997) illustrating how dissent can be expressed in ways that are more or less akin to voice, exit, and neglect.

By definition organizational dissent involves the expression of contradictory opinions and disagreement about workplace policies and practices (Kassing, 1997, 1998). Employees opting to express dissent can do so by sharing their criticism with media outlets and governing bodies via whistle-blowing (Redding, 1985), but more regularly seek out familiar audiences within organizations. Kassing (1997) differentiated these audiences as managers and supervisors who hear upward dissent and coworkers who hear lateral dissent; with upward dissent being a form of employee voice and lateral dissent reflecting elements of neglect in the sense that dissent gets directed away from audiences best suited to address it proactively.

In a series of studies, researchers have been able to document the conditions in which employees are more likely to choose upward or lateral dissent (Kassing, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Kassing & Armstrong, 2001; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999; Kassing & McDowell, 2008; Payne, 2007). Employees favor using upward dissent when they report comparatively higher levels of satisfaction, commitment, organization-based self-esteem, identification, and workplace freedom of speech (Kassing, 1998, 2000a; Payne, 2007). It also surfaces when employees have higher quality relationships with their supervisors and when they report having greater engagement with decision-making processes in their respective organizations (Kassing, 2000b; Kassing & McDowell, 2008). Organizational rank appears to affect dissent expression as well with managers routinely reporting that they share more upward dissent than their nonmanagement counterparts (Kassing & Armstrong, 2001; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).

Lateral dissent occurs when opportunities for sharing dissent with management remain blocked, risky, or inaccessible (Kassing, 1998; Waldron & Kassing, 2011). In these circumstances, employees needing to vent their frustrations turn to colleagues of the same or similar rank to share their concerns. As a consequence, lateral dissent ends up being expressed more readily by nonmanagement workers, by employees who are less vested in their organizations, and by organizational members who exercise less influence in their workplaces (Kassing, 1998; Kassing & Armstrong, 2001; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999). Moreover, employees channel dissent to coworkers when they possess comparatively poorer quality relationships with their supervisors, when their organizations are comparatively intolerant of employee feedback, and when they register comparatively low levels of satisfaction and commitment (Kassing, 1998, 2000a, 2000b). In contrast, lateral dissent expression diminishes when employees perceive that their organizations are fair and open in decision-making practices (Kassing & McDowell, 2008), when burnout symptoms amplify (Avtgis, Thomas-Maddox, Taylor, & Richardson, 2007), and when employees become more engaged with their work (Kassing, Piemonte, Goman, & Mitchell, 2012). Thus, there are clear patterns formed around the use of upward versus lateral dissent.

Power in Sport and Organizational Communication

Although no studies were found that utilize the exit–voice–loyalty–neglect model of dissatisfaction with athletes, it ought to be applicable to this environment because of the common elements (e.g., hierarchy and power) that the sport and organizational contexts share. At a fundamental level, power underpins communication that occurs in coach–athlete and superior–subordinate relationships. While power has been studied extensively in the organizational context (Clegg, Courpasson, & Phillips, 2006; Deetz & Mumby, 1990), it has been looked at less consistently within the coach–athlete relationship (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980; Turman, 2006; Turman & Schrodt, 2004). Chelladurai and Saleh (1980), for example, identified an autocratic coaching style which relied on the clear establishment of one’s authority as coach. In subsequent work, Turman and Schrodt (2004) discovered that an autocratic coaching style was negatively associated with affective learning among athletes. Similarly, Turman (2006) considered the five types of power conceptualized in French and Raven’s (1959) typology. These include: coercive power rooted in punishment, reward power linked to perceived and promised rewards, legitimate power based on position, referent power stemming from a desire to please and identify with someone, and expert power anchored in competence and expertise. He found that starters compared to nonstarters perceived that their coaches used significantly more reward power. Interestingly, no other differences surfaced with regard to any of the other types of power examined.

Power and dissent are closely linked (Kassing, 2011), with the mismanagement of power generally and supervisors’ abuse of power specifically leading to dissent expression (Kassing, 2009; Kassing & Armstrong, 2002). Given that power functions in both superior–subordinate relationships and that it features in coach–athlete relationships too, there should be some overlap between the organizational and sport contexts with regard to the factors that influence the expression of dissent in response to power embedded in hierarchical (i.e., superior–subordinate and coach–athlete) relationships.

Kassing (1997, 2011) argued that upward dissent was a form of employee voice because it sought to improve the situation by targeting audiences that could enact change. Conversely, he suggested that lateral dissent was akin to neglect in that it reached audiences that were comparatively ineffectual and unable to mobilize change. When faced with dissatisfying conditions athletes may be forced to make similar choices. Accordingly, they can quit the team (exit) or they can stay and voice their opinions. When those opinions are contradictory voice involves the expression of dissent (Kassing, 1998, 2011) and it ends up emitted as either something more akin to voice (i.e., upward dissent expressed to coaches) or something more like neglect (i.e., lateral dissent shared with teammates).

Employees are more likely to share dissent with their supervisors when they have greater organizational status in terms of their role and are more engaged with their work (Kassing & Armstrong, 2001; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999; Kassing et al., 2012), when they are more satisfied (Kassing, 1998), and when they feel that their organizations and supervisors are open to hearing and willing to respond to dissent (Kassing, 1998, 2000a). Conversely, employees express dissent to workplace colleagues more readily when they hold lower ranking positions, have less involvement and influence, and feel that neither management nor supervisors are likely to respond to their concerns (Kassing, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Kassing & Armstrong, 2001; Kassing & Avtgis, 1999).

Given these patterns it is possible that athletes will express dissent directly to their coaches in similar circumstances. That is, when they feel that they have greater status on the team, when they are more satisfied, and when they perceive that their coach is open to hearing their feedback. Contrastingly, athletes who find their coaches closed to feedback, who are less invested in the team, and who have less satisfaction overall with the experience may opt to express lateral dissent to teammates. The following hypotheses are offered to test these possibilities:

Hypothesis 1: Higher levels of athlete status, athlete satisfaction, and coaches’ openness to athlete feedback will associate with upward dissent expressed to coaches.

Data Collection and Sample

A convenience sample comprised of friends, family members, coworkers, and neighbors was solicited to complete survey questionnaires. To qualify people needed to be able “to report about a former college or high school coach” in any sport. Participants received either a hard copy or electronic version of the cover letter inviting their participation and describing the purpose of the research, which contained a link to the location of the online survey questionnaire.

There were ninety-seven (N = 97) former athletes in the initial sample. Examination of the age of respondents indicated that for some many years had passed since they had participated in high school or college athletics. Thus, to ensure that the retrospective data collected remained as valid as possible the value of 18 was subtracted from the age of respondents who reported about a high school coach (i.e., the oldest age of a typical high school athlete) and the age of 22 was subtracted from the age of respondents who reported about a college coach (i.e., the oldest age of a typical college athlete). This calculation provided an estimation of the years that had passed since the former athlete played for the coach about which he or she reported. Scores on this estimate ranged from less than a year to 35 years. Examination of the frequency distribution of these values suggested that several cases should be dismissed due to the considerable time that had passed since the athlete played for the coach. A strategic decision was made to limit the amount of elapsed time to 10 years as this value preserved the majority of the cases but clearly eliminated those that were suspect. Another two cases were dismissed due to missing data. These steps resulted in the retention of 73 cases (N = 73) in which players reported about a coach for whom they played within the past 10 years (M = 4.04, SD = 2.51). Subsequent analyses and descriptions of the participants are based upon this refined sample.

Former athletes in the study played a variety of sports, which included: softball (n = 11), baseball (n = 10), volleyball (n = 8), football (n = 8), basketball (n = 7), golf (n = 5), swimming (n = 4), track and field (n = 4), soccer (n = 2), tennis (n = 2), wrestling (n = 2), gymnastics (n = 1), and water polo (n = 1). A portion of respondents reported about a sport other than those listed (n = 7) or did not identify the sport in which they participated (n = 1). Their overall participation in the sport about which they reported ranged 1–18 years (M = 8.16, SD = 4.40) and the number of coaches in that sport ranged from 1 to 20 (M = 5.11, SD = 3.64).

The vast majority of the sample described a high school coach (90%) versus a college coach (10%). Respondents also reported about female coaches (74%) considerably more often than male coaches (26%). And they recounted having played for these coaches from 3 to 96 months (M = 31.93, SD = 17.02).

There were more female former athletes (63%) in the sample than male (27%). Approximately 75% of participants described their ethnicity as Caucasian, 8% as Hispanic, 6% as African American, 6% as Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5% as Other/Multiracial. The age of respondents ranged from 18 to 28 (M = 4.04, SD = 2.51).

Instrumentation

The survey questionnaire stipulated that participants would need to be able to “think of a specific coach and keep that person in mind when responding to each item.” Additionally, respondents were reminded with each new set of items to consider “the coach you reported about earlier,” to “think about your overall experience playing for that same coach,” and to report “with the same coach in mind.” These reminders served to ensure that former athletes would report about the same coach throughout the questionnaire.

The survey questionnaire contained a combination of organizational communication and sport communication instruments. To measure athlete dissent, the 18-item organizational dissent measure (Kassing, 2000b) was adapted. The measure has been used widely to examine dissent in organizational settings by assessing the degree to which employees share dissent with their supervisors (upward dissent) or with their colleagues (lateral dissent). To adapt the measure for use in the sport context the directions were adjusted so that they instructed people to describe how they share their “concerns when they disagree with something their coach has done, said, or expects of them.” Furthermore, items were rewritten as necessary to reflect dissent expressed to coaches instead of supervisors and dissent expressed to teammates instead of coworkers. For example, the upward dissent item “I do not question management” (reverse coded) became “I do not question my coach” (also reverse coded) and the lateral dissent item “I let other employees know how I feel about the way things are done around here” became “I let my teammates know how I feel about the way my coach does things.” To ensure athlete dissent was being tapped two additional items were written: (a) “I share my concerns with my coach” (upward) and “I talk to teammates or other athletes about my concerns with my coach” (lateral). Thus, the measure of upward dissent expressed to coaches included 10 items (α = .86, M = 30.04, SD = 7.04). Reliability analysis indicated that 1 item should be dropped from the lateral dissent pool of items. Therefore a 9-item measure of lateral dissent expressed to teammates was used in subsequent analyses (α = .87, M = 24.65, SD = 6.35).

A second organizational measure, the Supervisor as Voice Manager scale (Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992) was adapted as well. This measure accesses the degree to which employees feel that their supervisors are responsive to employee feedback. It includes 14 items that tap employee estimates of their supervisors’ responsiveness (e.g., “My boss is fair when I take a concern to him or her”) and approachability (e.g., “It is difficult to take a concern to my boss”). Here too items were adapted to fit the sport context/coach–athlete relationship. For instance, the aforementioned items were rewritten as “My coach is fair when I take a concern to him or her” and “It is difficult to take a concern to my coach.” All 14 items were combined to create a measure of coaches’ openness to athlete feedback (α = .95, M = 45.89, SD = 11.46).

Along with the adapted organizational instruments a measure of athlete satisfaction was administered. This instrument incorporated items drawn from Turman’s (2006) athlete satisfaction with a sport/team measure, which includes statements like (how satisfied are you with) “The social interaction with your teammates” and “The recognition you received by being a member of your team.” Additional items were selected from Kassing and Infante’s (1999) measure of satisfaction with a coach (e.g., “I would play under this coach again if given the opportunity”). The athlete satisfaction measure included 9 items that assessed satisfaction with the sport, the team experience, and the coach (α = .93, M = 34.75, SD = 8.14). An exploratory principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation indicated that the measure was unidimensional.

The dissent, feedback, and satisfaction measures were administered with a 5-point Likert-type response format that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Finally, athlete status was operationalized by asking participants about the percentage of time they spent as a “starter” (M = 70.37, SD = 32.88) based upon the assumption that athletes who spend more time in starting roles will be more engaged with their respective teams and coaches and will be more vested in the outcomes produced.

Data Analysis

To address the research question, two separate forced entry multiple regressions were run with coaches’ openness to athlete feedback, athlete satisfaction, and athlete status as independent variables and either upward athlete dissent or lateral athlete dissent as the dependent variables. There were two sizeable correlations between independent variables (i.e., correlations >.50). Regression was used to reduce the high levels of multicolinearity observed. This involved regressing athlete satisfaction against coaches’ openness to athlete feedback and athlete status against athlete satisfaction. Residuals for coaches’ openness to feedback and athlete satisfaction were used in subsequent multiple regression analyses. Correlations between all variables appear in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Correlations Between Upward Dissent Scale Dimensions and Validation Measures.

	1	2	3	4
1. Upward athlete dissent
2. Lateral athlete dissent	.01
3. Coaches’ openness	.47**	−.32**
4. Athlete satisfaction	.32**	−.18	.64**
5. Athlete status	.28*	−.18	.24*	.55**

Note. **p < .01 one-tailed. *p < .05 one-tailed.

Because sport level could be a confounding variable (i.e., high school vs. college) and because there were so few cases where athletes reported about college coaches (n = 7) the same set of analyses were rerun with these cases removed to determine if the patterns revealed in the overall data set would carry over to a sample of just high school coaches.