Coaching Behaviours Matter
We spend a lot of time talking about speed, force output, lactate thresholds, and strength ratios.
But here’s the truth: performance isn’t just built in the weight room or on the field. It’s shaped in the relationship between coaches and athletes.
In 2019 I pursued more graduate work at the University of Western States in Performance Psychology and blend my knowledge in Psych with my knowledge of Exercise Prescription into my role as a: Performance Specialist.
A 2026 study in BMC Psychology examined 369 elite and elite-pathway athletes and asked a powerful question:
How do supportive vs. controlling coaching behaviours shape how athletes perceive their performance?
And the answer is crystal clear.
Supportive coaching behaviours build performance. Controlling coaching erodes it.
*Controlling behaviours — pressure, intimidation, dismissiveness, ignoring/alienating kids, excessive criticism
But the why matters even more.
The Three Psychological Drivers of Performance
The researchers didn’t just look at motivation in isolation. They examined three psychological mechanisms working together:
Psychological Safety – Do athletes feel safe to make mistakes? Speak up? Take risks?
Self-Efficacy – Do they believe they can execute under pressure?
Resilience – Can they adapt and recover when things go wrong?
When coaches were autonomy-supportive, competence-building, and relationally invested, athletes showed:
Higher psychological safety
Higher self-efficacy
Greater resilience
Stronger perceived performance
And here’s the big one: Self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of performance perception.
I wrote my major paper on this topic in grad school.
Controlling Coaching Backfires
Controlling behaviours — pressure, intimidation, dismissiveness, ignoring/alienating, excessive criticism — had the opposite cascade:
Lower psychological safety
Lower self-efficacy
Lower resilience
Lower perceived performance
Even when athletes were physically capable, their perception of performance dropped in controlling environments.
And perception matters.
Because how an athlete evaluates themselves influences:
Competitive anxiety
Risk-taking
Decision making
Long-term motivation
This is performance infrastructure.
Why Psychological Safety Isn’t “Soft”
In high-performance sport, psychological safety is often misunderstood.
It does not mean:
Lower standards
Comfort over accountability
Avoiding hard conversations
It means:
Athletes can attempt difficult tasks without fear of humiliation
Mistakes are part of learning
Feedback is constructive, not identity-attacking
In the study, psychological safety predicted both self-efficacy and resilience.
That means safety becomes the launch pad for confidence and adaptive coping.
If athletes don’t feel safe, they don’t take risks.
If they don’t take risks, they don’t grow. If they don’t grow, they plateau.
What This Means for Coaches (And Parents)
Performance is not just physiology + effort.
It’s physiology × psychology × environment.
If you want athletes who:
Compete with belief
Stay composed under pressure
Recover from mistakes quickly
Maintain long-term motivation
You must build:
✔ Autonomy support (give ownership)
✔ Competence support (clear structure + actionable feedback)
✔ Relational support (trust + consistency)
That’s not being “nice.” That’s being effective.
The Bigger Takeaway
This study integrates Self-Determination Theory and Social Cognitive Theory and shows that coaching climate shapes internal belief systems, which shape performance perception - I have written and researched these areas extensively as a performance coach. I consult locally and internaationallly with teams, sport coaches and individual athletes in this area.
For the coaches out there - If you are building athletes — not just outcomes — your coaching behaviours are never neutral. It’s a real honour to be a coach.
— Coach Bott
