Elite sport in many Western countries (and increasingly in developing countries) is a culturally significant activity that captures the attention of the public, and especially the written and visual media. Coaches who work in high-profile sports in these countries attract and often assume a controversial position within the public domain because they are charged with the responsibility of producing successful (winning) results.

Coaching work at the elite level in sport (Olympic and professional sports) is a dynamic, complex and challenging vocation. The work of high-performance coaches has evolved over the past few decades and, reflecting transformations in society and sport itself, has become increasingly more demanding and complex. The increased commercialisation of sport has resulted in increasing demands on coaches in elite sport to deliver ‘cutting edge’ advice and direction to athletes and this has differentially impacted upon the work of coaches. Recent research (Jones and Wallace, 2005 and Bowes and Jones, 2006) has highlighted the organised chaos associated with coaching, especially in high-performance sport; however, the degree of coaching complexity is context-dependent (Trudel & Gilbert 2006). In other words, high-performance coaching work is often idiosyncratic and usually relies upon the coaches’ individual interpretation of their role (Mallett et al 2008). Furthermore, with the perceived failure of coach education/accreditation to cater for the learning needs of high-performance coaches (e.g. Dickson, 2001 and Lyle, 2002), an important question is, how do high-performance coaches learn their craft? For these reasons, coaching scholars and aspiring coaches are interested in the backgrounds and practices of high-performance coaches.

This chapter will introduce what we know (and don’t know) about the pathways to becoming a high-performance coach and then consider the influence of others in how coaches of elite athletes, squads and teams learn their craft. The chapter is organised in three sections: (a) an understanding of high-performance coaching; (b) the pathways to becoming a high-performance coach; and (c) supporting theory and research conducted on situated learning in elite sports coaching environments – with a focus on communities of practice. Key themes foregrounded in this chapter include: problematising high-performance coaching; acknowledgement of the variability in playing and coaching experiences in developing high-performance coaching expertise; and a critique of the concepts of communities of practice and other social networks in developing coach expertise within the highly contested environment of high-performance coaching.

In understanding high-performance coaching we might consider the work performed by coaches in elite sporting environments in comparison to work performed by coaches in other contexts (e.g. junior sport). Lyle (2002) distinguished between different forms of coaching (participation, sport teacher, performance, representative team) highlighting the context-specific nature of coaches’ work. Trudel and Gilbert (2006) categorised coaching into three major forms – recreational, developmental, and elite sport coaching. Nevertheless, recent research (Mallett et al 2008) has shown significant variation in what coaches do both within the same team (club) and between teams. Despite these variations, high-performance coaching would appear to be characterised by several features (Lyle, 2002 and Trudel and Gilbert, 2006). The work of high-performance coaches is typically organised, systematic, deliberate, but highly fluid and dynamic (Woodman 1993). High-performance coaches undertake a range of tasks related to producing winning performances in elite international competition, which involves the highest levels of commitment by the coach and athlete/s to achieve public performance goals (e.g. Grand Final, Olympic medals) through participation in intensive planning, training and competition (Côté et al., 1995, Lyle, 2002 and Trudel and Gilbert, 2006). High-performance coaches usually engage in highly complex decision-making tasks involving extensive data collection, analysis and management, and extensive interaction with a range of personnel (e.g. players, assistant coaches and ancillary staff). Furthermore, this highly structured and formalised environment increasingly requires that high-performance coaches work preferably on a full-time basis.

The extent to which coaches engage in high-performance coaching is dependent upon the satisfaction of eight key criteria for full engagement in the coaching process (Lyle 2002).

Athletes and players involved in professional, semi-professional, and Olympic sports are typically engaged in coach–athlete relationships that satisfy most if not all of the above criteria proposed by Lyle (2002). For example a high-performance coach in athletics might be involved in the following key interrelated tasks:

Although there have been attempts to categorise different forms of coaching (see above), the boundaries between the various forms are not distinct. Even within the category of (elite or high-) performance coaching there is significant variation in what coaches do. For example, the five Head Coaches of the Australian Rugby team (Wallabies) over the past two decades have adopted different approaches to the coaching process – some have contributed with a more hands-on approach (direct intervention using Lyle’s [2002] terminology) and others had more of a focus on a managerial role and used their assistant coaches to undertake the more direct intervention tasks. The head coaches are likely to have based their interpretation of their role and their emphasis within the coaching process on number of factors, for example, their perceptions of the key work tasks of the Wallabies head coach position, their perceived strengths and weaknesses, and access to other expertise. Increased professionalisation has been accompanied by increased demands on coaches’ ability to manage human resources.

Importantly however, over the last 10 years, the demands made of senior (head) and assistant coaches have necessitated changes in the roles undertaken by them. For example, in the Australian Football League (AFL) there have been dramatic changes (Mallett et al 2007). These changes have seen an increase in coaching staff from around 2–4 to 5–7 coaches at each club over that same period. Furthermore, ancillary (support) staff has increased such that overall many senior coaches in the AFL in 2008 were responsible for between 10 and 25 (mostly full-time) staff.

Central to high-performance coaching is the need for the coach to assume leadership and management of the coaching process. As previously stated the extent to which the high-performance coach takes direct responsibility for delivering all the above tasks is dependent on the environment in which they operate, and their expertise and confidence in relation to the perceived demands of their role (including the competency of the coach in all aspects of coaching; availability and access to other expertise; and funding). Coaches may manage a multidisciplinary team of para-professionals (e.g. sports medicine, psychologist, strength & conditioning expert, tactical analyst) who work directly with the athletes/players or alternatively, a team of para-professionals may directly support the coaches and therefore work indirectly with the athletes/players. There are several models of how the coach interacts in the workplace with other personnel to deliver high-performance coaching (see Cavalheiro et al 2005), however, all models require the high-performance coach to exercise a leadership and management role.

The main aim of high-performance coaching is the purposeful leadership and management of competition sport performance, which is achieved through a planned programme of preparation, training and competition, usually within a unique environment (Côté et al., 1995 and Cross and Lyle, 1999). Although coaches engage in sophisticated, structured, and serially designed coaching plans, coaching is none-the-less time- and context-bound and therefore dynamic, complex, and uncertain (Saury & Durand 1998), prompting Cushion et al (2003) to consider coaching as ‘structured improvisation’. Although high-performance coaches attempt to control as many variables as possible, in reality the coach still needs to be responsive to a dynamic environment in which there is, at times, limited control. ‘Structured improvisation’ captures the ‘complexity of coaching arguing that coaching is in fact largely uncontrollable, incomprehensible and imbued with contradictory values’ (Cushion 2007 p 397). Based on the work of Fenwick and Rubenson, 2005 and Mallett, 2008 described (high-performance) coaching as

The fluid nature of high-performance coaching, which requires constant cycles of planning, monitoring, action, and reviewing, contributes to the dynamism and complexity inherent in coaching (Bowes & Jones 2006). This problematised view of coaching reflects the ‘muddiness’ or ‘turbulence’ in which coaches operate, especially in elite sport, and influences what and how coaches learn. Nevertheless, it is proposed that the head coach attempts to bring order to this ‘chaos’. Bringing some order to this ‘messiness’ is central to effective leadership and management of the coaching process.

How did you become a high-performance (elite) coach? This is a frequently asked question of coaches in elite sport. The life histories of coaches are quite fascinating and seem to be of interest to people both inside and outside of sport. Importantly, the life histories of coaches are likely to impact on what and how they learn. Coaches’ life histories have been found to influence the development of coaching knowledge (e.g. Salmela, 1996, Gilbert and Trudel, 2001 and Gilbert et al., 2006), which subsequently contributes to their developing identities as coaches that, in turn, influence their personal agency (individual action). It is this relationship between coaches’ personal histories, their agency, and their subsequent engagement with social experiences that makes research into the backgrounds of high-performance coaches so useful in understanding and informing the coach development process.

Quantitative (e.g. Gilbert et al., 2006 and Lynch and Mallett, 2006) and qualitative (e.g. Schinke et al., 1995 and Rynne, 2008) research methods have been used to examine the pathways to becoming a high-performance coach. For instance, quantitative data have provided some guidance into the amount of investment required to become a successful high-performance coach. To complement the quantitative research, information from interviews (qualitative research) has provided some rich data about coaches’ perceptions of the utility of various activities to coach development. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods should be valued for the unique and complementary contributions they can make to our enhanced understanding of the high-performance coach development process. The following section highlights some of the major quantitative and qualitative research undertaken that has examined the pathways to becoming high-performance coaches.

Data on the life (pre-mediate) experiences of successful high-performance coaches can only be collected retrospectively. Whilst there may be some concerns with accuracy of recall, steps to minimise this problem can be taken (Gilbert et al 2006). In addressing this issue, Gilbert and colleagues developed a retrospective interview protocol and schedule based on research on the coaching process (Côté et al 1995), coaches’ learning (Trudel & Gilbert 2006), and an adaptation of the interview procedure described by Côté et al (2005). This 2-hour face-to-face structured interview using a questionnaire enables the collection of quantitative data that identify important developmental profiles of activities (pre-mediate experiences). The data collected in their interview schedule can be checked against public records and by accessing other coaches, athletes and employers (Côté et al 2005). The face-to-face questionnaire was designed to facilitate coaches’ recall of events rather than inferences and reconstructions (Côté et al., 2005 and Gilbert et al., 2006). Furthermore, Côté et al refer to a number of studies highlighting high test–retest reliability of past sporting activities.

Through their structured interview schedule, researchers such as Gilbert, Côté, Mallett and colleagues have captured data on major aspects of coach development. These include: sport participation experience, coaching experience, and formal education.

It makes sense that coaches are likely to coach in a sport with which they have significant playing experience. Trudel and Gilbert (2006) reported that over 90% of ‘elite sport’ coaches were competitive athletes in the sport they coach. A background in playing the sport they now coach seems likely to contribute to understanding the technical and tactical aspects, as well as the ‘culture’ of the sport (Jones et al., 2003 and Mallett et al., 2007).

Several studies of high-performance coaches, using the Gilbert et al (2006) interview schedule, have shown their history of engagement in extensive hours of training and competing in the sport they now coach. For example, several Australian studies have shown that, typically, high-performance coaches (n = 55) averaged between 10 and 20 years of playing the sport they now coach (Lynch and Mallett, 2006, Mallett and Rynne, 2008 and Rynne, 2008). Furthermore, the Australian data suggest that it is more likely that team sport coaches played their sport for longer than individual sport coaches. Erickson et al (2007) who interviewed 19 individual and team high-performance sport coaches from Canada found they had played on average for 5 and 8 years, respectively. Of note was the significant variation in duration of sport participation in both the Australian and Canadian samples. Nevertheless, all studies reported that coaches had a minimum of 5 years playing experience in the sport they now coach, which might suggest that this engagement is a prerequisite for high-performance coaching in that sport.

The development of some base knowledge and understanding of the sport from early sport participation is not unexpected. Experience as an athlete has been extensively reported as an important source of coaching knowledge and practice (Sage, 1989, Bloom et al., 1998, Cushion et al., 2003 and Irwin et al., 2004). For example, most of the coaches interviewed in the Mallett et al (2007) study reported a background in observing matches (live, video replays), which seemed to lay some foundation in analytical skills for coaches in the AFL. Studies by Bloom et al., 1998 and Cushion et al., 2003 suggested that coaches develop some of their initial conceptions of what and how to coach from when they were athletes. These pre-mediate experiences as an athlete can assist knowledge construction that can be drawn on in later years as a coach.

What makes some players (and not others) become coaches? Coaches often report continuing association with their sport as a reason for entering the vocation (Mallett et al 2007). Could the notion of ‘identity’ be key to deciding to become a high-performance coach; perhaps dissatisfaction in one’s playing career influences one to become a coach; the strong influence of a coach on one’s personal development may be important; perhaps an interest in helping others could be a deciding factor; possibly some key experiences (proto-coaching or technical immersion) might be a factor? We need answers to these questions, and they suggest an obvious research agenda.

Is success as a player a prerequisite for a successful career in high-performance coaching?Mallett et al (2007) found that high-performance Australian Football League (AFL) coaches reported an extensive playing background in Australian football. However, not all coaches in the AFL had playing experience in the AFL (highest competition level). This finding indicated a slight shift away from the line of thinking that playing at the highest level was essential to a coaching career in the AFL. The majority of high-performance coaches report that they were generally above-average players among their peers (around 7–8 out of 10) (Gilbert et al., 2006, Mallett et al., 2007 and Rynne, 2008). A playing background in the sport they coach probably assists in the early stages of a career by enabling the coach to get a ‘foot in the door’; after which, the coaching record of a coach becomes more pertinent to future employment opportunities (Mallett et al 2007). A limitation of the research that asks participants to rate their sport ability has been the clear identification of the frame of reference for that judgement. For example, when reporting on athletic ability do participants base their judgement in relation to their peers on: the best performers in the world, the players in the league in which they play, or their team mates?

The evidence suggests that in becoming high-performance coaches, experience in playing the sport they coach is probably advantageous, but success at the highest levels is not essential (e.g. Irwin et al., 2004, Lynch and Mallett, 2006, Erickson et al., 2007, Mallett et al., 2007 and Rynne, 2008). Having played the sport they coach probably helps the coaches in several ways:

Experiential learning (e.g. coaching work) has been identified as the primary source of coaching knowledge in the development of expertise (Salmela, 1996, Saury and Durand, 1998, Gilbert and Trudel, 2001, Lyle, 2002, Jones et al., 2003, Mallett et al., 2008 and Rynne, 2008). Simon and Chase (1973) proposed a ‘10-year rule’ for developing expertise. Moreover, extensive coaching experience in developing expert knowledge is consistent with Ericsson et al’s (1993) notion of ‘deliberate practice’ – focused effort on improving performance through structured practice. Ericsson et al (1993) concluded from their research that to achieve an expert level of performance, approximately 10000 hours of deliberate practice was required.

Erickson et al (2007) found support for Simon and Chase’s (1973)‘10-year rule’ and partial support for Ericsson et al’s (1993) notion of 10000 hours of deliberate practice. Australian data also support Simon and Chase’s ‘10-year’ rule (Lynch and Mallett, 2006, Mallett and Rynne, 2008 and Rynne, 2008). Many of the Australian coaches sampled had coached for around 10 years prior to engagement in high-performance coaching. Again, this was not consistent across sports and even within sports there was significant variation. Netball coaches typically coached for almost 20 years prior to working at the national level whereas basketball coaches had coached for around 10 years before securing a high-performance coaching position (Mallett & Rynne unpublished work, 2008). The data from Australian coaches also revealed that individual sport coaches coached more hours on average than their team sport counterparts. This is not surprising considering the number of contact hours in multiple weekly training sessions in which athletes in individual sports engage. Overall, it appears that most high-performance coaches typically engaged in between 5 and 10 years’ coaching experience prior to commencement of their elite coaching careers.

Some coaches had limited experience coaching prior to engagement in elite sport coaching whereas others had extensive experience at the developmental level. Some former elite athletes in Australia commenced their high performance coaching careers almost immediately post retirement. Trudel and Gilbert (2006) reported research that suggested most elite coaches ‘have five or more years of assistant coaching experience before assuming a head coach position’ (p 538). High-performance coaches are most likely to develop their craft from early experience as a developmental coach rather than from extensive experience at the recreational level (Lynch and Mallett, 2006, Mallett and Rynne, 2008 and Rynne, 2008). This finding was supported by Canadian research (Erickson et al 2007).

Nevertheless, extensive work experience alone is insufficient to develop high-performance coaching expertise (Eraut, 2004 and Lynch and Mallett, 2006). The importance of self-reflection in making one’s experiences meaningful and subsequently developing one’s coaching knowledge and refining coaching practices has been extensively reported (Gilbert and Trudel, 2001, Cushion et al., 2003, Irwin et al., 2004, Mallett, 2004 and Trudel and Gilbert, 2006). The work of Donald Schön (1983) has contributed much to our understanding of experiential learning and the significance of ‘reflection-in-action’ and ‘reflection-on-action’ in sports coaching. Key to the transformation of experience into coaching knowledge is ‘reflection-in-action’ (during coaching work), ‘reflection-on-action’ (post coaching work) and ‘retrospective reflection-on-action’ (after the season) (Gilbert and Trudel, 2001 and Trudel and Gilbert, 2006).

Trudel and Gilbert (2006) reported that most elite sport coaches in North America are tertiary educated and around two-thirds of elite developmental coaches completed postgraduate study. Unsurprisingly, most tertiary-educated coaches majored in physical education. Nevertheless, much of the research reported by Trudel and Gilbert from North America is from the U.S. Collegiate system, which varies in the degree to which coaches can be considered high performance. Trudel and Gilbert (2006) also reported research that showed that 56–84% of elite coaches in Europe, Asia, and South Africa held undergraduate degrees. In Australia, research from several studies (Lynch and Mallett, 2006, Mallett and Rynne, 2008 and Rynne, 2008) has shown that around 65% of coaches surveyed (n = 55) were tertiary-educated predominately in the fields of physical education and/or sports science. Again there was significant variation between sports and studies.

In the quest for improving their coaching knowledge and practice elite coaches in many Western countries have completed accredited coach education courses. Although coaches may initially complete these courses with a motive of self-improvement and personal satisfaction, the higher levels of coach accreditation are often seen as a ‘ticket’ to the big stage (Dickson, 2001 and Rynne, 2008). That is, the highest level of coach accreditation is perceived as a prerequisite for elite coaching positions and credibility within the sporting community. In Australia coach accreditation is synonymous with coach education. Dickson (2001), in reviewing coach accreditation programs in Australia, reported that successful completion of courses was valued because they provided improved vocational opportunities and advancement. However, they did not afford authentic context-specific information necessary for learning to become a high-performance coach. Coach accreditation is accordingly viewed as a low-impact activity, terms of allocated time, in the development of elite coaches (e.g. Dickson, 2001, Lyle, 2002, Cushion et al., 2003 and Rynne, 2008). Nevertheless, it can serve to affirm coaching knowledge and practices as well as providing a catalyst for challenging the thinking of coaches. Therefore, caution is warranted in thinking that coach accreditation is not useful for some coaches in their development.

Much of the data collected from high-performance coaches (e.g. Erickson et al., 2007 and Rynne, 2008) on formal education (coach accreditation and tertiary education) shows the significantly lower amounts of time invested compared with coaching itself, which is not surprising. The extensive time involved in coaching practice far exceeds what is possible in formal coach education activities. Of greater importance to developing coaching expertise is the quality of the experience and its subsequent contribution to coach development. High-performance coaches appear to make up for perceived limitations in knowledge by accessing and aggregating other sources (Mallett et al., 2007 and Rynne, 2008). Importantly, it is the complementarity of these varied experiences that contributes to individual high-performance coach development.

Research reveals that there is significant variation in the range of experiences prior to becoming a high-performance coach (Erickson et al., 2007 and Rynne, 2008). However, much of the retrospective data collected on high-performance coaches does not report the varying influence of pre-mediate experiences in developing high-performance coaches’ expertise. Rynne (2008) asked 24 high-performance individual and team sport coaches to rate the value of contribution of a variety of coach development activities at three stages of their coaching career: (a) first 2 years, (b) middle 2 years, and (c) last 2 years. The high-performance coaches in his study rated ‘on the job experience’ as the most valued coach development activity during all three stages of their careers. Personal reflection and discussions with colleagues were also highly valued by the participants in the study, although, interestingly, these were more valued as the coaches developed their craft. The importance of reflection in coach development was discussed earlier in this chapter (e.g. Gilbert and Trudel, 2001, Cushion et al., 2003, Irwin et al., 2004 and Trudel and Gilbert, 2006). Discussions with colleagues (and observing other coaches) were also valued. Tertiary study was not rated highly, but it should be noted that only one-third of coaches in Rynne’s study were tertiary educated. Those who had actually completed tertiary study valued highly their university education, especially in the middle and latter stages of their career. Salmela and Moraes (2003) also found their coaches highly valued tertiary education. Overall, Rynne’s data suggested that as high-performance coaches developed they seemed to value a greater variety of sources for developing their craft. That finding might be linked to an increase in self-efficacy (Eraut 2004) and increased access to learning opportunities (e.g. working with other colleagues). In some cases the increase in access might be connected with a move from voluntary and/or part-time to full-time coach employment.