This chapter will set out a series of problems and choices that currently face the development of the coaching workforce in the UK. While not currently a traditional ‘academic’ area for coaching, workforce development is a relevant topic that demonstrates practical consequences for issues such as coaching, coaching domains, coach education, and professionalisation. We aim to define what workforce development means and to describe the challenges of developing the coaching workforce, and to do so with a ‘critical edge’. It is clear that an examination of a system-wide management and development of the existing workforce in the UK has central to it issues such as a surveillance culture within the ‘voluntary sector’ in sport, ‘system’ development versus individual development, and contested assumptions about what ‘development’ means. We have attempted to open up this area as one that will become fertile ground for researchers and writers. In this chapter we have resisted the temptation to flood the text with references to existing work related to ‘development issues’ – we believe that this has been done by other authors (see Chapters 8 and 9; also Green and Houlihan, 2005, Lyle, 2007, Bolton and Smith, 2008, Kay et al., 2008 and Lyle, 2008). Rather, we report our ‘active research’ from having been significantly involved in the promulgation and implementation of this development planning, and we hope to have drawn attention to an aspect of sports coaching provision and practice that will merit much more detailed study. Our intention to be polemical takes the form of asking questions, and, in aggregation, creating a research agenda.

In this chapter we take workforce development planning to mean a managed approach to the supply and demand for sport coaches, the perceived quality of that workforce, its employment and deployment, and arrangements for appropriate education and training. There have been a number of recent ‘drivers’ towards workforce development planning for the deployment of coaches in the UK. The government agency SkillsActive has produced a Sector Skills Agreement (SkillsActive 2006) for the sector of the economy that includes sport. This document emphasises the role of coaching and coaches, but acknowledges that workforce planning is underdeveloped, and much of the workforce needs to be upskilled (as the term implies, this refers to improvement in a set of recognised coaching skills, knowledge and practical competences). Sports coaching is thus drawn into more general employment and training policy; although recognising that the concern is largely with entry-level qualifications, and acknowledging that the voluntarism in the coaching workforce creates particular issues. Upskilling generally refers to a skills deficit; that is, recognising that the implicit quality or competence of the workforce could or should be better. The issue of the employment profile of the workforce (proportion of full-time jobs, career opportunities, and so on) is a separate concern within the overall professionalisation debate.

The United Kingdom Coaching Framework (UKCF), launched in April 2008 (sportscoach UK 2008), also emphasises the need for evidence-based policy making and identifies five ‘Strategic Action Areas’ and 12 ‘Specific Actions’ over a 3–7–11 year timeframe, many of which assume a systematic, audited approach to coaching workforce planning. This implies databases of active coaches, licensing of coaches, and a more regulated matching of coaches (and coach education) to athletes’ needs.

In addition, the United Kingdom Coaching Certificate (UKCC 2003) has been introduced (sports coach UK n d). The UKCC is an endorsement of National Governing Body of sport (NGB) coach education certification against a set of standardised UK-wide criteria for sports-specific coach education programmes. Learning programmes, coach educator training, mentoring and other coach education support structures are judged against these standards. The guidance criteria are based on National Occupational Standards (NOS). Government-recognised Occupational Standards identify the skills, knowledge and understanding required to carry out a job to nationally recognised levels of competence (see www.ukstandards.org). This is further alignment of sports coaching within the more general employment framework.

Sports that choose to have their coaching qualifications UKCC-endorsed are charged with producing an implementation delivery plan, and this has turned attention to the existing arrangements for awarding bodies, qualification structures, coach educators, mentors, and assessors. Arrangements for governance, quality assurance, data gathering, funding, monitoring, growth and development are also increasingly required to be evidence-based. Thus, strategic and development planning of the coaching workforce asks fundamental questions about the existing scale (and perceived quality) of coaching provision, and the relationships between this and growth projections within the sport. As we will discuss later, a more all-embracing management of the workforce makes assumptions about the coaches’ motives, sense of community, comparability of roles, and the very ‘boundary markers’ of coaching itself. The responsibility placed on the NGBs is reflective of a greater accountability for governance and government policy-related outcomes – an accountability that may be questionable in terms of the NGB’s traditional coach education and training role and the disparate nature of the coaching workforce.

The recent strategy document in Scotland: Reaching Higher: Building on the Success of Sport 21 (Scottish Executive 2007) makes considerable reference to the importance of coaching in achieving a wide range of policy objectives for sport, as does Grow, Sustain, Excel, the 2008–2011 Sport England strategy (Sport England 2008). Whilst we may argue that these claims are aspirational, and are based on a set of practice-based, but ultimately untested, assumptions about the contribution of the coach to the development of sport, there seems to be little doubt that the more evident emphasis on the coaching workforce has enhanced the role of coaching and consequent resource allocation. Nevertheless, there is a recurring theme in both documents of increasing the quantity and quality (a contested term, to which we will return) of coaches with attention to an upskilling agenda. Each strategy states that having the ‘right coaches in the right place at the right time’ is a valuable policy marker, even if a little simplistic. However, there will also be sport-specific issues that drive workforce planning in each sport. Examples of these might include the balance of volunteer/paid employment, perceived under-qualification leading to safety issues, the traditional role of the coach, geographical distribution, gender balance, the reward environment, and so on. A more specific position report is provided by the document Coaching Scotland (Vaga Associates 2006), which emphasises the need for increased attention to the coaching workforce. There is a general exhortation to improve coaching provision and quality, although it is not entirely clear at this stage whether this constitutes a skills shortage, skills deficit, growth-leading or growth-dependent shortfall.

The documents identified so far are generally predicated on the assumption that the existing knowledge about the coaching workforce in each sport is unsatisfactory; that is, the extent, characteristics, and qualifications of the workforce are not known in detail. In addition, it seems likely that the proportion of unqualified coaches is higher than would be wished and there is an under-representation of women, disabled persons and black and ethnic minorities (Townend & North 2007). A number of the Coaching Scotland report’s recommendations refer directly to workforce planning: (a) coaching audits and workforce development plans to be carried out, supported by better data management systems, (b) more flexible coach education delivery, (c) increased attention to volunteer recruitment and management, (d) increased funding for and marketing of the UKCC in Scotland, and (e) a recruitment and retention drive (Vaga Associates 2006).

In the context of these policy drivers the opportunity to generate coaching audits and workforce development plans for a range of Scottish Governing Bodies of sport (SGBs) was both significant and highly relevant. The authors were employed to carry out this work, and the research required to devise these audits and plans provided an opportunity to gain insights about the particular circumstances of workforce development planning for coaches in the (predominantly) voluntary sector. Thus the overall process has resulted in a form of ‘research in action’, from which we have drawn attention to some critical questions about the workforce itself and how it is represented. This chapter examines the concept of workforce planning, describes the process of workforce development planning with 19 SGBs, and provides a critical interpretation of the process that establishes links to conceptual issues about sports coaching.

According to the Employers Organisation document Workforce Development Planning: Guidance Document (2004), workforce development is directly related to organisational performance and the achievement of corporate goals. This is particularly important in service or people-directed occupational sectors:

The document stresses the need to clarify the ‘key service priorities’ in the short, medium and longer term. Assessing ‘demand’ in this way is necessary in order to identify the consequent jobs or roles and their characteristics, and whether the people who can satisfy this demand are currently available or can be recruited. In other words, it is necessary to be clear about what the organisation intends to achieve, in order to identify its workforce requirements. Therefore, workforce development plans should be based on workforce planning analysis, which involves (a) identifying the current and future skills and number of employees needed to deliver new and improved services, (b) comparing the present workforce and the desired future workforce to highlight shortages, surpluses and competency gaps, and (c) comparing the (organisation’s) diversity profile with that of the population more generally.

A literature review carried out for the Employers’ Organisation for Local Government (2003b) identifies a number of key features of workforce planning: (a) workforce planning can be driven by competition, building capacity, skills shortages, demands of modernisation, and/or demographic changes; (b) the process is beneficial for focusing on ‘key’ aspects of the organisation; (c) the danger is that the Workforce Development Plan is perceived as a predictor of the future. It is more about setting an agenda and acting as a decision-making filter for the organisation. It should be flexible, on-going and responsible to a changing environment; (d) it must not be perceived as solely a ‘numbers game’ – the qualitative aspect is important; (e) all strategic plans within the organisation need to be reconciled; (f) the Workforce Development Plan is acknowledged to have benefits beyond the plan itself. The organisation benefits from thinking ahead, coordination, and integration within the organisation; and (g) models of workforce planning can be complex, including the use of software. However, the target is a simple, focused and effective workforce plan. The underlying assumptions about a cohesive workforce and asset of consensual objectives may not apply to a coaching workforce that is more disparate and with multi-agency deployment. Nevertheless, recognition that there are benefits simply from paying attention to the nature of the workforce, and being ready to embrace change, should commend the process to coach developers.

It is also important to focus on how workforce planning should be conducted. The Scottish Integrated Workforce Planning Group (SIWPG 2002a) was established to consider and advise on the principles and key issues for workforce planning in the National Health Service in Scotland. The SIWPG provides a useful template around which to structure workforce planning. The principles of workforce planning identified by the Group (amended from SIWPG 2002b p 4) are shown in Table 13.1 along with some implications for sport and coaching.

The SIWPG template identifies nine elements to be clarified in setting the context: timescale, geographical situation, type of service, nature of demand, scale of service change, organisational scale, planning focus, client group, and employment categories. Thereafter, the plan should move to a consideration of demand, supply, imbalances (gaps), risk assessments/business case, resource implications, and recommended actions. The importance of these nine elements cannot be overstressed, and they provide a data-gathering agenda for workforce developers. They set the parameters or assumptions on which planning should be based. At this stage, it becomes clear that coaching workforce development on a national scale, and encompassing all agencies, is likely to present significant challenges. It is useful to note that the nature of demand is further divided into ‘initiated’ (promotion/development by a lead agency, such as a Governing Body of sport), ‘managed flow’ (balance within existing provision), and ‘reactive’ (unforeseen demand) (SIWPG 2002a). In the same document, the scale of the service change is divided into ‘quantum change’ (significant scale in short period of time), ‘incremental’ (moderate growth over longer period), and ‘maintenance’ (maintain existing service levels). Incremental and/or maintenance change was thought most likely for SGBs because of their reliance on a limited infrastructure, and in the context of modest growth, and this assumption was very strongly borne out by our experience.

The document Guide to Workforce Planning in Local Authorities: Getting the Right People with the Right Skills in the Right Place at the Right Time (Employers’ Organisation for Local Authorities 2003a) is also helpful for providing a generic template for workforce planning. The document stresses that information needs should be gathered from a mixture of quantitative and qualitative sources, and dealt with in a simple cyclical planning process: preparation, data collection, assessment of current position, future needs (and scenario planning), gap analysis, strategies and action plans, evaluation against initial plans, and process evaluation. Interestingly this (incontestable) process makes assumptions about existing planning processes being in place. Furthermore, there is a proposal for the minimum data required for effective workforce planning. This comprises details of employee roles, personal characteristics, vacancies, sources of recruitment, turnover and wastage, and qualifications and skills data. It is interesting that the Guide assumes, perhaps not unreasonably, that the (coaching) workforce is a known entity.

However, experience would suggest that this is not the case with the coaching workforce of many sports organisations, and for that reason a coaching audit is a necessary first stage in a workforce planning project. Before embarking on the planning projects undertaken by the authors, it became evident from sports agency representatives that data on the coaching workforce was ‘patchy’ at best, with a mix of membership lists, databases, local government employment records, coaching association records, and general lack of ‘collation’ of all sources. Table 13.2 illustrates the questions that arose from the guidance documents to which reference has already been made. In initiating the WDP process, these questions were the ones that needed to be addressed by sports, and acted as a framework for the procedures to be adopted. However, it becomes apparent from examining these questions that there are implications for professionalisation, coaching practice, the boundaries of the role, sports coaching policy, and how we conceive of ‘provision’.

In addition to these, often quite specific, questions about the nature of the existing workforce, there are a number of ‘political’ considerations. Recognition within the sport of the contribution of coaches and coaching, and the level of support for change from the traditional pattern of provision may be facilitating or constraining. Having established the scope of coaching workforce development, we now examine some of the particular challenges that are presented when operating in the context of governing bodies of sport. Once again we emphasise that these insights have been gained from first-hand experience of working with a considerable number of these agencies.

There are a number of features of workforce planning and management that will help to explain the relevance of some of the barriers to be overcome when national sports organisations attempt to develop their coaching workforce. First, workforce planning is normally carried out by or on behalf of an employer or an organisation (reflecting demand) but not always with an accompanying responsibility for workforce education and training (i.e. supply), if this is not carried on in-house. Second, workforce planning may also be sector-wide (and we will return to an example of this). However, this implies a close relationship between supply (for example, from further or higher education) and employment. This is perhaps most appropriate in publicly funded education and training, and in controlled employment environments (public sector job markets).