{"id":6512,"date":"2019-07-25T06:30:32","date_gmt":"2019-07-25T11:30:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=6512"},"modified":"2020-06-02T13:46:16","modified_gmt":"2020-06-02T18:46:16","slug":"organizational-learning-chains-the-epistemological-chain-and-the-management-of-sporting-talent-pathways","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/organizational-learning-chains-the-epistemological-chain-and-the-management-of-sporting-talent-pathways\/","title":{"rendered":"Organizational Learning Chains \u2013 The Epistemological Chain and the Management of Sporting Talent Pathways"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors:<\/strong> David Grecic<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author:<\/strong>
David Grecic PhD
Greenbank 253
Victoria Street
Preston, UK
PR12HE
Dgrecic1@uclan.ac.uk
00-44-01772-894237<\/p>\n\n\n\n

David Grecic is a principal lecturer in the School of Sport\nand Health Sciences at the University of Central Lancashire.  He is Chair of UCLan Sport, through which he\noffers sport and physical education consultancy for a range of professional\nsports teams, schools and colleges in the UK and overseas.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Organizational Learning Chains \u2013 The Epistemological Chain and the Management of Sporting Talent Pathways <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Epistemological \u2018Learning\u2019 Chain\n(EC) construct of decision making in sport as proposed by Grecic and Collins (1)\nhas been investigated in various domains at the micro level of player and coach\ninteraction.  The EC construct is now\nextended and related to the meso and macro levels of sport. The sporting talent\npathway, its construction, development and performance management, is used as\nthe focus on which to base discussion. An organizational EC is presented for\nconsideration with sophisticated and naive epistemological exemplars.  The operation of an organizational EC within\nthe sporting talent pathway is then explored. Finally, recommendations are made\nin order to extend the scope, value, and impact of future EC research. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> Sports Organizations, Performance, Talent Development<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What do we know about learning\nchains in sport?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Previously Grecic and Collins (1) proposed a decision-making framework to support coaches and administrators in sport referred to as the Epistemological Chain.  Here they defined the EC as \u201cthe interrelated\/<\/em>connected decisions made that are derived from high-level personal beliefs about knowledge and learning\u201d (1.p.153).  They proposed that this decision-making chain has merit and sporting application across various levels and domains.  The EC has subsequently been investigated in a  number of empirical studies (2-6) and has been utilized to structure applied research projects (51), to inform coaching workshops and seminars (3, 7-13), and to shape analysis of the coach player relationships with regards to skill acquisition (14-15). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following six\nyears of the framework\u2019s development and testing it seems pertinent to pause\nand reflect on the findings thus far.  In\nsummary the theory of an EC framework at the micro level has been constructed,\ninvestigated, and then crystallized \/ triangulated from different\nperspectives.  This has provided an\ninsight into how the EC is operationalized, applied, and interpreted by both\ncoaches and players.  However, holding\ntrue to the researcher\u2019s underlying philosophy of pragmatism, one had to\nconsider where this research should go next and what impact it could have on\nsports coaching practice.  To start the\nreflections the researcher first asked, what is now known about the belief\nsystems of sports coaches, their associated decisions, and their impact on\nplayers?  There is evidence that an EC\nconstruct exists which can be used to guide coaches (16); that this EC is\nobservable in practice (4); and that the EC can have positive or negative\neffects on the player\/coach interaction (5). \nBut what does this really mean and what impact does the EC have for\ndecision making in wider sporting environments? \nIn initial work (1) the potential for an intra-coach EC was outlined and\nit was also proposed that the EC may be of great benefit when embedded into\nsport systems such as coach education and training, recruitment, and system\nmanagement.  The choice for this future\nresearch therefore was to further explore the EC\u2019s use and impact within\nsport.  From the data collected so far,\nthere seemed to be on offer a direct choice between exploring the EC\u2019s\napplication and utility for coach education, or to look at its potential wider\nutility within a sport organization and the management of these bodies\u2019 playing\nand coaching systems.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where next for the EC \u2013 a\nperformance management tool?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Due to limitations\nregarding access to sports accredited coach education and training awards the\nchoice was an easy one.  As it is not\npossible to control the process or context of how the EC would be introduced,\ntaught, and then applied within coaching certification levels, it would be\nextremely difficult to fully evaluate and delineate the EC\u2019s contribution to the\ndevelopment of coaches\u2019 robust DM processes. \nIndeed, to venture down this road would imply that the EC in its current\nform is an essential constituent to the development of all future professional\npractice.  In the studies so far,\nhowever, this would not appear to be the case. \nInstead the EC may have great merit in coaches\u2019 long-term\neducation.  Specifically, the EC would\nprovide a framework where player and coach can share their mental models (17).  The EC could also offer a valuable lens\nthrough which coaches can consider more established theories of coach\/player\nrelationships based on levels of cohesion (18), closeness, commitment,\ncomplementarity, and co-orientation (18-20) and coach efficacy linked to\nenhanced athlete and team performance (21). \nReflecting on the data from research so far it is proposed that the EC\u2019s\nacceptance and application would rather take place as a slow burner<\/em> effect as coaches\u2019 exposure and awareness of the EC\nshapes their reflections and gradually modifies their coaching philosophy,\npurpose, and rationale including impact on behavior surreptitiously over time.\nIndeed, this may in fact become a more effective delivery method as research\nsuggests that sports coaches resist many formal education and certification\nopportunities, preferring instead informal and non-formal learning experiences\n(22).  These include learning episodes\nthat are self-directed (23-25), based on coaching experience, observation or\ninteraction with other coaches (26-28), or on their own past athletic experience\n(29-30). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So although identifying the EC and discussing its merits within the sport coaching curriculum may be of great interest, its immediate contribution to the wider coaching population might be relatively limited.  In contrast however, if the EC is regarded as a paradigm by which to also assess organizational decision making and subsequently manage sports\u2019 high performance playing and coaching systems then it would appear to have much greater currency.  This line of investigation is all the more pertinent given the recognition that \u201cexpertise, especially in high performance environments, is heavily dependent on decision-making skills and the possession of a knowledge base to underpin them\u201d (31. p. 210).  Indeed, this important area for practitioners and researchers alike has been highlighted as currently having insufficient knowledge available (32).  In this context therefore, there could be much greater potential for the EC; one in which the coach\/player interactions within a sport\u2019s system are amplified to an almost macro-epistemology<\/em> level. Here the EC could potentially provide any sport a more pragmatic and effective framework to assess how it strategically manages the meso level coach\/player interactions through various developmental\/performance stages in order to effect positive change.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How to measure the EC\u2019s impact?\nLessons from other fields.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking a broader\nperspective from the business literature, many authors have proposed various\nmeasurements of effectiveness ranging from a focus of the Board\u2019s role (33-34)\nto the impact of strategic and operational leaders (35-40).  Also see the Performance Measurement Matrix (41),\nSMART Pyramid (42), Macro Process Model of the Organization (43), Balanced\nScorecard (44), European Foundation for Quality Management\u2019s (EFQM) Business\nExcellence Model (45).  Each of these\nmodels provides judgements on an organizations performance by determining the\neffectiveness and efficiency of inputs, outputs and throughputs from a system (46-47).  They highlight an organization\u2019s resources,\nsystems, goals, and processes (48) its multiple constituents and stakeholders (49-50)\nand potentially competing values (51).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A developing area\nof assessing business is through the learning practices involved in creating a\ntrue learning organization (52). \nHowever, current practices have been criticised as too positivistic and\nnot fully appreciative of the full scope and impact of learning in an organization\n(53). Could this be another area where individual epistemological chains and\nindeed group or organizational EC\u2019s bear influence?  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issues\nand Complexities of Assessing a Sport Organization<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sport is like\nbusiness (54-55) but many argue strongly that it is not the same (56-57).\nTherefore, for sports to adopt the business performance models described above\nand apply them to elite sport would be insensible and unproductive.  Indeed, there are various limitations of\nusing organizational performance models for national sport organizations\n(NSOs). With regard to goals, NSOs often have intangible or vague goals that\nare constantly changing in response to their environment which make their\nmeasurement challenging.  Resource\njudgements must have an explicit link between output and input, which is often\nlacking in NSOs due to their funding sources and lack of transparency.  There are also issues with measuring the\ninternal processes in NSOs due the number of paid and voluntary staff working\ntogether causing difficulty in linking organizational processes with the\nsport\u2019s primary goals. The multiple constituents are difficult to operationalize\nin sport due to the number of stakeholders and constituents, each having their\nown perception of what the organization should be doing and requiring\nsatisfaction. Finally, one must note that when using Quinn and Rorhbaugh\u2019s\nCompeting Values Approach (51) to assess effectiveness, there were also serious\nproblems.  Such an approach, which\nproposes a theoretical framework comparing internal\u2013external,\nstability\u2013flexibility, and process\u2013outcome constituent preferences, is\nproblematic in some NSOs when the sport itself does not hold a clear view of\ntheir own priorities or the ability to assess, in detail, the ability to\nachieve their goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their review of\nthe literature comparing NSO\u2019s application of the models above, Winard, et al.,\n(58) highlighted similar issues in each of studies.  They then suggested their own\nmultidimensional and operational definition of organizational performance; that\nof \u201cthe acquisition of necessary resources and their efficient use through the\norganization processes to achieve relevant and targeted goals, as well as a high\nsatisfaction of the organization stakeholders\u201d (58, p.124).  In turn, they have now encapsulated this to\noffer a new Unified Model of NSO Performance (58). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nNeed for a Sport Specific Performance Model<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite Winard et\nal.\u2019s (104) multidimensional model highlighting the variety of areas to\nconsider when assessing performance in a NSO, there is little consensus of how\nsports should attempt to measure the effectiveness of the decisions made by the\norganization itself and its members within it. \nIn sport organizations, more bespoke approaches have been developed to\nassess the effectiveness of organizational management. (59-61).  Although these authors offer useful frameworks,\ntheir attention is more directed towards overarching sport development and management\npolicy rather than focusing specifically on the processes that aim to enhance a\nsport\u2019s talent pathway to elite performance. \nOther researchers, however, have ventured into this field and developed\na range of specific quality assurance systems and performance management\nmeasurement tools (see the: PASS \u2013 Professional Academy Support System\nframework (62-63), EPPP in the UK, The Peak Performance Organization Theory\n(64), The SPLISS model (65), and the 9 Pillars (66).  What has not been offered, however, is a\nsystematic analysis of how a sport organizations\u2019 decisions about knowledge and\nlearning impact on the inputs, throughputs. and outputs of a system to effectively\nsupport the talent pathway and ultimately the performance of a sport\u2019s organizational\nmanagement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nEC\u2019s Application at the macro level<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking all of the\nfactors above into consideration, we therefore predict that the EC could be\nextremely useful in assessing sports\u2019 organizations decisions at each stage of\ntheir performance model.  Indeed, as\nPeter Drucker (67) noted, decisions are about alternatives (67).   O\u2019Boyle and Hassan (68) proposed that these\nalternatives in sports organizations are between focusing on learning or\nperformance outcome goals.  If so, then\nan exploration of the sport\u2019s epistemology and how this is communicated through\nits strategic management processes would be very useful for assessing a sport\u2019s\ncurrent verses its desired operation, and support its change of status.  In this scenario, the individual elements of\nthe EC would align with elements of the organization\u2019s strategic management\nprocesses with any corrective action that may then need to be applied (69).  That is to say that the EC\u2019s elements of\nenvironment, relationships, goals, methods, judgements, and future direction,\nwould line up with the organization\u2019s internal and external environment\nanalysis, the formulation of the strategic direction via mission, vision and\nobjectives, the alignment of resources such as products, services, systems,\nstructure, and culture, the measurement of performance, and the future\nstrategic plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nEC and Performance Analysis:  The Role of\nDeveloping Talent<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As discussed\nabove, the construct of organizational performance is achieved by evaluating\nthe input (e.g. available resources), throughput (e.g. processing of the input),\nand output (e.g. goals achieved) of the organization (58).  Mandella, et al., (46) support judgements of\nthe organization\u2019s performance being based on a combination of its efficiency\nand effectiveness in managing this process. \nThey define efficiency as being the difference between available\nresources and results, and effectiveness as \u201cthe ability to acquire and process\nproperly human, financial, and physical resources to achieve the goals of the\norganization\u201d (46, p.209).  These authors\noffered a view on what was most crucial to a sport\u2019s performance assessment:\nmore specifically, the extent to which the sport can attract new inputs and\ntransform them efficiently to achieve its relevant targets and outputs.  This paper proposes that one valuable way in\nwhich to assess this within any sport is to focus on its human resources.  Specifically in a sporting context, it\nsuggests the narrowing of this assessment to investigate how its coach inputs\nand player inputs are managed to create the best possible outputs, be they\nprocess and\/or outcome driven.  Indeed,\nSotiriadou and Shilbury (60) support this direction with their summation that\n\u201cdeveloping talented athletes is a well-researched field from a sport sciences\nviewpoint, (but) the talent development process has rarely been explored from\nan organizational perspective\u201d (60, p.142). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When considering\nhow best to assess and investigate the EC within the organization\u2019s talent\npathway, authors have provided numerous models of athlete development and the\nmost conducive environments on which such assessments could be made (40, 70-77).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supporting this\nnew direction, Fletcher and Wagstaff (78) have highlighted the need for\nresearchers and practitioners to better understand the influence of sports\norganizations on athletic performance. \nWithin each sport its executive decision makers have a great\nresponsibility to create sustainable organizational structures to ensure the\nidentification and development of elite performers.  This talent pathway, through the various age\ngroup and performance levels, can take a variety of forms depending on the\nvision, mission, aims, and intentions of those guiding and directing the\nsport.  In this scenario, therefore, this\nthesis proposes that the sport\u2019s overall epistemology and how this in turn is\noperationalized via the talent pathway will have a major impact on the success\nor otherwise of those within it.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The creation and development of talent pathways in sport often occur in an unplanned and\/or unstructured manner, arising from either cultural traditions or financial necessity.  What is often overlooked during this development process is the philosophical basis of the end product (i.e., the elite athlete) that the sport is attempting to create.  Impersonal outcome measures of success are often imposed in a \u2018no compromise\u2019 fashion from financial awarding bodies, which in turn drive the sport\u2019s own subjective and objective reviews of its performance.  Despite a burgeoning body of research highlighting the importance of learning in organizations (52, 79-80), one element which does not appear to bear enough influence in the sport\u2019s structural design is in the epistemological development of its athletes.  This focus of learning within sport also is just as valid a request at the organizational level.  For example, if a sport ignores this domain and simply values compliance with outcome targets, aligning all of its processes in the talent pathway with this objective, it may be apparent that the sport itself is engaged in quite a na\u00efve epistemological focus with its coaches and players simply carrying out top down processes to create athletes which meet the prescribed outcome criteria regardless of their own personal growth.  In comparison, it could be argued that a sport exhibiting a more sophisticated epistemology would have a much wider focus on developing the individuals within it, whether it be athletes, coaches, managers, sport science teams, or other stakeholders such as the athletes\u2019 teachers, family, and sponsors.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, in line\nwith a coaching EC of DM, it should also be apparent that the sport itself\nshould have a clear EC which can be utilized to support talent\ndevelopment.  This line of argument is\nsupported by research highlighting the relationship between core\nepistemological beliefs and beliefs about leadership practice and positive\nbehaviors in organizations (81) and how these organizations\u2019 implicit theories of intelligence<\/em> can\npositively or negatively affect their members\u2019 behavioral decisions (82).   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sport\nOrganizations\u2019 ECs in Action<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As in our original\nconceptual paper Schommer\u2019s typology of na\u00efve and sophisticated epistemologies\n(83-84), is utilized to develop indicative models of sport organizations EC\u2019s\nat either end of the epistemological scale. \nSee Figure 1. below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1.<\/strong>
Na\u00efve and Sophisticated Epistemological Stances of an Organizational EC <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
Na\u00efve Sport<\/th>\n Epistemological
Chain<\/th>\n 		Sophisticated Sport <\/th>\n <\/tr>\n
The sport believes that there is a \u2018best way\u2019. A model, truth or truths that needs to be achieved and embedded This model \/ truth is based on that sport\u2019s uniqueness. It comes from the sport\u2019s tradition, culture, and experience of what \u2018works\u2019. Simple competencies are evident and measureable. The sport will copy what its competitors are doing. It will aim to simply modify what works for others but do it better.<\/td>\n Epistemology<\/strong>
\u2193<\/td>\n 		The sport believes that knowledge can be discovered in many places. It promotes a constant journey of discovery- innovation, experimentation and reflection to create new knowledge and gain an edge over competition. It aims that knowledge will be created and owned by the team, staff, and its athletes. It will look to different sports, and different domains for new ideas. It doesn\u2019t discount any potential angle or opportunity to learn.<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Leaders and followers; Rules, systems, and processes to follow; autocratic, disciplined; information protected \/ hidden.<\/td>\n Environment<\/strong>
\u2193<\/td>\n 		Learning environment created; Innovation, recognition that competencies can be combined and weighted in different scenarios to become very complex so appreciate difference and uniqueness of ideas. Open communication, discussions and flow of ideas.<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Transactional and dictating behaviors, centralized power relationship, behavior expectations to be followed, failure to perform highlighted.<\/td>\n Relationships built<\/strong>
\u2193<\/td>\n 		Transformational leadership providing intellectual stimulation. Actions taken based on long-term nested plans and goals that support innovation and constant progression. Devolved responsibility and ownership Trusting, caring, nurturing, autonomy-supportive behaviors. <\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Passed down from above. Against Intelligence (IQ) and technical performance outcome measures.<\/td>\n Goal setting<\/strong>
\u2193<\/td>\n 		Negotiated with team \u2013 all performing a complimentary role to achieve organization\u2019s goal. Emotional and Social Intelligence.Development of whole person. Focus on processes as well as outcomes.<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Follow pre-determined plan, curriculum, training schedule based on historical data and replicating what has been done previously.<\/td>\n Methods<\/strong>
\u2193<\/td>\n 		Self-determined by staff and athletes through discussion, support and mentoring. Experimentation evident \u2013 aim to gain a competitive advantage.<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Success or failure determined by tangible markers or results; e.g., outcome performance markers \u2013 times, distances, Win\/loss records etc.\/,<\/td>\n Judgements made<\/strong>
\u2193<\/td>\n 		Dependent on how the player develops as an athlete and person, whilst working towards the athlete led targets. Decisions based on \u201cis the athlete now an autonomous decision maker confident in their own ability to source, analyze, create and apply knowledge and learning to meet their personal goals?\u201d Judgements made in a collegiate manner with all those involved having equal input into the process.<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Sport\u2019s leadership review performance and modify targets and delivery plan to achieve performance outcome goals.<\/td>\n Future direction<\/strong>
\u2193<\/td>\n 		Future path determined by athletes\u2019 progress towards their holistic development. Individual development plans are updated in negotiations with all interested parties<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n <\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

A\n\u2018Na\u00efve\u2019 Sporting Organization<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, therefore, a\nsport\u2019s na\u00efve EC would emanate from an environment where the vision, mission\nand strategic objectives are based on performance outcomes.   Athletes in this system, and the sport\nitself, strive to be recognized as world leaders in terms of rankings points\nand positions, championship successes and stages achieved, and by the number of\ntrophies and events won during a fixed time period.  The relationships developed here would\ntherefore be based on a transactional model with various levels of executive\nmanagement \u2018telling\u2019 those below them the expected performance outcomes and\nwhat needed to be done in order form them to be achieved.  Here decisions would be autocratic, based on\nprevious experience of what works in this environment.  In turn, the goals passed down would be\noutcome based, measured solely on the coaches\u2019 and athletes\u2019 ability to meet\nthe expected standards of a simple competency based structure.  Under this level of expectation the coaches\nwould be pressurized to adopt short term methods and practices that would\ncreate \u2018one dimensional\u2019 athletes and teams that could succeed solely in terms\nof the goals they had been prescribed. \nIn such an organization\u2019s EC, the judgements made about all those within\nthe pathway would be based on how effective they had been in achieving the\noutcome measures laid out by the sport.  \nFinally, all future decisions about athletes, coaches, managers, and\nimplications for their continued presence in the pathway would be subject to\n\u2018benchmarking\u2019 against tangible performance measures set out in the sport\u2019s\nstrategic objectives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 A \u2018Sophisticated\u2019 Sporting Organization<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A sport\u2019s talent\npathway based on a sophisticated epistemology by comparison would look very\ndifferent and would encapsulate the promotion and development of all of the\nindividuals and stakeholders within it. \nThis message and philosophy would be explicit in the sport\u2019s holistic\nvision and mission, and its long term strategic objectives.  It would be evident from the public\npronouncements from its leaders and executives celebrating new innovations, partnerships,\nand learning collaborations.  In turn the\nrelationships that would be fostered would be focused on developing players,\ncoaches, managers, and support teams not just with the skills and attributes\nrequired to perform effectively within this sport but also based on learning\nand experiences that would be valuable for individual development and\nprogression whatever their final career path\/end point.  Additionally, power within such an\norganization would be decentralized and delegated outwards regardless of the\nindividual\u2019s notional level in the structure (31).  Here each person would be clear on their own\nrole and where transient responsibility would be held for the coordination of\nshared processes to facilitate peak performance (85).  Indeed, goals and targets agreed between\nthose involved in the pathway would be focused on holistic personal growth as\nwell as the predefined objectives for the individual sport.  This philosophy is best exemplified in a\nquote from Bennie and O\u2019Connor\u2019s (86) study of Australian sports coaches where\nan interviewee replied to a question on performance targets: \u201cif we develop\ngood human beings and good people then the winning will take care of itself\u201d\n(86 p. 315).  In such a sophisticated\nsport\u2019s EC, the methods and practices engaged would be innovative and varied,\nand the members of the pathway themselves would be given ownership to direct\ntheir own development and learning.  The\nassessment of the pathway\u2019s effectiveness would therefore not simply be\nmeasured on tangible successes and awards but instead based upon progress\ntowards the self-determined goals of its participants.  Finally, in such a sophisticated sport\u2019s EC,\nthe decisions on the future planning and direction taken at the end of each\ncycle would be directed to those areas highlighted by its individuals where\nlearning and development was most required.  \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, it is too simplistic to\npresume that the choice for a sport\u2019s executive board is this black and\nwhite.  What are presented above are two\nextremes of a sport\u2019s EC of DM in action. \nIn practice, organizational stress (87), including external and internal\npressures (88-89), necessitate a sport to deliver on many varied fronts and as\nsuch may require a more balanced EC. \nExternal funding, internal expectations, and cultural norms may compete\nwith or complement each other in operation. \nAn investigation of this potential power struggle and the relative focus\nof the sport could therefore be enlightening and shed light on the sport\u2019s\noperating practices.   Indeed, such an\nanalysis may then provide a basis on which to make decisions on the\neffectiveness of a sport\u2019s pathway and valuable comparisons between sports for\nthe benefit of all involved.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nEC – Sport, Decision Making, and Learning.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In conclusion, it\nis important to reconsider the wider context in which the research direction is\nbeing promoted and the implications it carries for broader sport and organizational\nresearch.  The valuable insights and EC\nframeworks provided from such research could provide the focus on which both\ncoaches and managers can base future decisions on should they become embedded\nin professional practice in all self-paced sports to aid assessments of action\nagainst goals during slow, deliberate, planning, and reflection.  Indeed there is also an argument that the EC\nwould be just as useful a framework to examine rapid DM processes in fast paced\nsports.  Here the EC could frame the\nreflections of coaches and players and help uncover what may at first seem\ntacit DM.  Indeed Lyle (90) notes that\nsuch rapid, gut, instinctive or intuitive DM has a number of features.  These are that it is a learned capacity, it\ncan be improved through practice, the pattern recognition it depends on is\ncontext specific, and reflection is required to actively develop this expertise\n(90. p.35).  Each of these components\ncould be supported by the EC.  Such\nresearch would also extend the work of Richards, et al., (91) who identified\nthe role that reflection had played in determining pre-defined tactics employed\nin fast moving team sports, and delve deeper into Lyle\u2019s  (90) descriptions of naturalistic DM.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly the agenda for this paper is centered at the elite performance end of the sporting continuum, but the EC application within other domains of sports participation, from entry level grass roots coaching right through to those who coach at the Masters level should also be promoted.   From a coach education perspective Cushion (92) argued that understanding coaches and coaching practice across domains was a cornerstone to conceptual developments and in ensuring practitioners were engaged and motivated in the process.   For this to be possible the EC should be included within the coach education programs of each and every sport\u2019s governing body and all levels.  If this is possible then the potential benefits outlined will be disseminated throughout the sports coaching fraternity.  Communities of practice will be established crossing traditional sporting boundaries with coaches confident to share, explore, and challenge each other’s epistemological positions and EC\u2019s in order to enhance their own learning.  Indeed, such questioning of one\u2019s own coaching behavior supports the development of expertise in itself (93-96).  Of course, this potential utopia<\/em> is limited by the individual sport’s own organizational ECs that may still attempt to provide all the answers<\/em> for their coaches (30). Despite this there are positive signs emerging from of sports joining together to enhance their delivery to their expert<\/em> coaches, and other sports who are sharing pedagogical content modules for their developing coaches.  Critics may argue that these developments are not going far enough.  Here, however, the EC framework could provide a scaffold against which developing coaches could base their decisions on what additional learning and experience they require. Only if our views and practices can be cross-pollinated and a common language of coaching shared, one which includes a full and detailed understanding of individual and organizational ECs, will all practitioners finally be able to reflect in, on, and for action and together start to make the ‘right’ decisions for everyone involved in sport.     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of the application of pre-existing theoretical models and frameworks in operational management, performance management, and change management the EC offers a valuable new perspective.  As proposed in our original conceptual paper the matching of individual and organizational ECs could provide a mechanism by which both recruitment and selection decisions could be based. From the Performance Management perspective, the EC could help create new outcome targets such as developing sophisticated ECs and processes based on such ECs.  Just as in the Talent Pathway example examined above, performance management in any business unit could be operated through an EC framework.  Here targets to convert inputs to outputs would be based on exhibiting, promoting, and reinforcing values and behaviors in line with businesses’ own EC.  Research projects that embed the EC as a measurable target would undoubtedly add value to the current performance management literature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supplementing the EC application within generic business\nand management scenarios the EC should also be embraced as a valuable addition\nto current Change Management theory. \nHere the EC would support the awareness \/ unfreezing stage of any\nintervention, and help shape the changes desired by an organization in line\nwith their implicit or explicit organizational EC.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nEC and Sport\u2019s Talent Development Pathways \u2013 Routes to the Top<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nShooting Arrow<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As an example of\nwhen different structures and an operationalization of talent pathways are\nconsidered using the EC as a framework of analysis, the origins of their\ncontrasting architectures may become apparent. \nThe paper now offers three scenarios to illustrate this point which uses\nthe work of Webb et al., (97) and their three models to illustrate this\npoint.  First to consider is a \u2018Shooting\nArrow\u2019 talent pathway described below (see Figure 2).  In this design athletes are exposed to a very\nlimited range of experiences and learning throughout the pathway stages as they\nprogress.  Such a pathway involves the\nsport or organization creating an homogenous experience at every level.  Here players are being trained and instructed\non how to act in accordance to the sport\u2019s prescribed performance markers\nthroughout their lifespan.  The ultimate\naim of the Shooting Arrow pathway is to create a fully formed individual at the\npinnacle of the pathway, who can and does perform in the sport\u2019s desired and\npredetermined manner. Such players are of great immediate benefit to the\norganization as they can hit the ground\nrunning<\/em> so to speak.  Should the\nsport or organization\u2019s focus change, however, players from a Shooting Arrow\npathway will not have had the range of developmental experiences to enable them\nto change their behavior.  In such a\nShooting Arrow pathway scenario, decisions on the environment, relationships,\ntarget setting, and performance monitoring would be expected to be based on the\nmore na\u00efve extreme of the Organizational EC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 2.<\/strong>
 The Shooting Arrow Talent Pathway<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The\nPinball Effect<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An alternative\ntalent pathway design (see Figure 3) to be considered is the Pinball Effect (97).  In this context the athletes are exposed to a\nhuge level of variation in their experiences and the coaches that manage their\ndevelopment.  Here players may be passed\nfrom na\u00efve to sophisticated coach, to different sophisticated coach back to a na\u00efve\ncoach as they progress through the system. \nAs they bounce and ricochet their way from level to level and from coach\nto coach they will become confused.  They\nwill be supplied with a range of different opportunities or \u2018truths\u2019 on how\nbest to develop themselves.  In such a\nsystem as this, athletes who have been exposed to a huge array of knowledge and\nlearning opportunities may not unfortunately have had sufficient time or focus\nto make meaning from potentially worthwhile events.  The end result is an athlete who may be so\nadaptable that they are perceived as the jack\nof all trades \u2013 master of none<\/em> and are overlooked and denied access to\nhigher level progress within the sport.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 3. <\/strong>
The Pinball Effect Talent Pathway<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The\nGoldilocks Paradigm<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, (see\nFigure 4.) the paper now offers the Goldilocks – just enough<\/em> analogy where athletes are exposed to a range of\ncarefully managed experiences to facilitate learning at an optimum level whilst\nstill being guided by the sport\u2019s externally driven performance measures (97).  Here athletes may have been exposed to many\nvaried techniques, tactics, patterns of play, etc., but have been supported in\nsuch a way that they have assimilated enough knowledge and understanding that\nthey are able to self-monitor and moderate their performance depending on the\nspecific context and outcome required.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 4.<\/strong>
The Goldilocks Talent Pathway<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Figure<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In each of these\nthree talent pathway exemplars it is evident that the coaches (A, B, C, and D),\ntheir roles, and their impact on the player is crucial at each and every\nlevel.  This reinforces the support and\nneed for the coaches\u2019 EC\u2019s to be examined to ensure optimal relationships are\nbeing established and implemented as highlighted in our previous studies, but\nit also directs attention to how the sport itself manages the developmental\nprocess and the coach-player, coach-manager, and inter-coach relationships\nwithin it.  In the exemplars above, a\nsports organization that has an explicit EC focus for its pathway would\ncarefully position their coaches (A, B, C, and D) according to the\ndevelopmental experience they wish to create. \nFurthermore, if the organization had already explored the coaches\u2019 own\npersonal ECs then this manipulation of the players\u2019 developmental experience\ncould be maximized with coaches holding alternative ECs (na\u00efve or\nsophisticated) being positioned accordingly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Therefore, to summarize the theoretical\ndirection being developed, this paper proposes that the merit of the EC of DM\nwhilst apparent, valuable, and important at the individual level could have\neven greater bearing and impact at a sport\u2019s organizational level.  It could have great utility in assessing the\ndesign, implementation, and effectiveness of a sport\u2019s talent pathway, whilst\nalso offering a framework by which modifications and improvements can be made\nand evaluated.          <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EC at the meso, macro level\nin sport and beyond. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Developing the\nabove themes at a meso level of program delivery the EC should also be explored\nas a tool to aid the design, implementation and to assess the effectiveness of\nsports performance coaching programs. \n(As with other psychological and life skills training programs eg.\nUNIFORM, ELITE, etc.)  At this level\nwhere groups of coaches interact and support each other the EC would provide a\nframework against which coaches could share ideas and opinions in a community\nof practice to support each other develop their expertise. Learning situated\nwithin this elite coaching community would include the use of critical friends\nand mentors, role-play, and scenario coaching from each of the stakeholders\u2019\nperspectives.  The intention here would\nbe to expose, reflect, and then revise \/ develop the coaches\u2019 ECs against their\nown personal coaching philosophies. Despite access to sporting coach education\ncurriculum design not being available, a case study approach with a small\ncommunity of coaches motivated for self-development would collect valuable data\nwhich could inform future sports coaching CPD. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As coaches\u2019\ninteraction is crucial at the program level, not simply during but also at key\nhandover periods at the beginning and end of a program, the group dynamics of a\ncoaching group with respect to the alignment or not of their individual EC’s\nwould be another interesting avenue to explore. \nSuch research could inform a team, squad or university coaches’ team\nbuilding activities, explore cognitive dissonance between the coaching hierarchies\nand ultimately help measure and improve the group’s performance.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With regard to the\nmacro level, the utility of the organizational EC framework developed above\ncould be expended upon. One area introduced should be the conscious placement\nof staff to various roles within the talent pathway based on the individual’s\nexplicit EC and the type of talent pathway that each sport is striving\nfor.  A research study that used the\norganizational EC and then hypothesized and tested the coherence of staff EC’s,\nmaking recommendations for coach redeployment accordingly would provide a new\nand novel take on the creation of the most effective TDEs.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Due to the fluid\nnature of any sport, future research should also focus on the EC’s of sports\u2019\nnew leaders and managers as they are appointed in respect of agreeing and\nestablishing the organizational values for their own specific performance\ndepartments.  This would further enable\ninvestigation into the organization’s individual and group practices against\nits newly defined organizational EC. \nThis data similar to that collected with regard to the talent pathway\nfocus of this paper, could be replicated in many other areas such as\ninvestigations into organizational management, the resultant culture change,\nand the new performance management structures being implemented.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, when\nconsidering the EC at the macro level studies it is vital to examine\nmulti-stakeholder perspectives of impact by interviewing the players, parents,\nand sport science support staff within of the chosen sport\u2019s talent pathway.  This approach would be invaluable in\ntriangulating the effectiveness of the EC application and in illuminating the\nsocially complex and dynamic nature of sport coaching practice. Possibly of\ngreater interest however would be perceptions of the sport’s EC from those currently\noutside and excluded from the pathway. \nThe views here of coaches, players, parents and the media would shine a\nfascinating lens when contrasted with those who have first-hand experience of\nthe EC in action.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Grecic, D., & Collins, D. (2013). The Epistemological Chain: practical applications in sports. QUEST<\/em>, 65(2), 151-168. Doi.10.1080\/00336297.2013.77352<\/li>
  2. Collins, L., Collins, D., & Grecic, D. (2014). The epistemological chain in high-level adventure sports coaches. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning<\/em>, 1-15.<\/li>
  3. Grecic, D., & Collins, D. (2012, January). Checking the Route to the Top: An Evaluation of the EGU Talent Pool Pathway. <\/em>Paper presented at the England Golf Coaching Conference themed \u201cThe Talent Development Environment\u201d. The National Golf Centre, English Golf Union, Woodhall Spa, Lincs.<\/li>
  4. Grecic, D., MacNamara, A., & Collins, D. (2013). The epistemological chain in action: coaching in high level golf. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies<\/em>, 7<\/em>(1), 103-126.<\/li>
  5. Grecic, D., & Palmer, C. (2013). Tales from the Tee: A narrative accounts of being coached in golf. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sports Studies,7(<\/em>1), 127-152.<\/em><\/li>
  6. Grundy, A., & Grecic, D. (2016).  Pragmatic research in sport: coaching philosophies in action – a values chain to inform practice ,Journal of Qualitative Research in Sport Studies<\/em>, 10, 1, 211-232<\/li>
  7. Grecic, D. (2013a, September). Managing an Effective Talent Pathway \u2013 The Story of England Golf and the Inter Coach Epistemological Chain<\/em>. Paper presented at the BASES Annual Conference, Preston.<\/li>
  8. Grecic, D. (2013b, December). Developing Elite Performance \u2013 Aligning the player, coach and parents.<\/em> Paper presented at \u2018Elite Golf Performance\u2019 England Golf Christmas Coaching Conference, Loughborough.<\/li>
  9. Grecic, D. (2014, May). Organising for Excellence<\/em>. A paper presented at the England Golf Coaches and Managers Conference, The National Golf Centre, Woodhall Spa, Lincs.<\/li>
  10. Grecic, D., & Taylor, R. (2016, July). Embed the Pathway Talent Development Programme,  Rugby Football League, Castleford Academy, Manchester.<\/li>
  11. Grecic, D., & Wilkinson, S. (2017, Oct). Sale Sharks Academy Performance Review, Sale Sharks Training Centre, Carrington, Manchester.<\/li>
  12. Grecic, D., & Ryan, B. (2018, Jan). Elite Golfer Development and Coach Learning, USPGA Golf Expo, Orlando, Florida. <\/li>
  13. Grecic, D., & Jones, B. (2018, Oct). Rider Development Planning – Talent Induction Day, British Cycling, East Leicester College, Leicester UK. <\/li>
  14. Grecic, D. (2017). Making Sense of Skill: A Personal Narrative of a Coaching and Teaching Journey, Journal of Qualitative Research in Sport Studies<\/em>, 11, 30-48.<\/li>
  15. Grecic, D., & Ryan, B. (2018). Coaching golf: How skilled are we at skill? The Sports Journal<\/em>, August, 1-19.<\/li>
  16. Grecic. D., & Collins, D. (2012). A qualitative investigation of elite golf coaches\u2019 knowledge and the epistemological chain. Journal of Qualitative Research in Sport<\/em>, 6<\/em>(1). 49-71.<\/li>
  17. Cannon-Bowers, J. , Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues<\/em> (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.<\/li>
  18. Jowett, S. (2007). Interdependence analysis and the 3+1C in the coach-athlete relationship. In, Jowett, S. and Lavallee, D. (Eds.) Social psychology in sport<\/em>. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.<\/li>
  19. Jowett, S., & Chaundy, V. (2004). An investigation into the impact of coach leadership and coach-athlete relationship on group cohesion. Group Dynamics, 8<\/em>, 302\u2013311. doi:10.1037\/1089-2699.8.4.302 <\/li>
  20. Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART4 Q): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14,<\/em> 245\u2013257. doi:10.1111\/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x<\/li>
  21. Carron, A., Colman, M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24<\/em>, 168\u2013188.<\/li>
  22. Feltz, D., Short, S., & Sullivan, P. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport: Research and strategies for working with athletes, teams, and coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  23. Stoszkowski, J., & Collins, D. (2012). Communities of practice, social learning and networks: exploiting the social side of coach development. Sport, Education and Society<\/em>, 1-16.<\/li>
  24. Irwin, D., Hanton, S., & Kerwin, D. (2004).  Reflective Practice and the origins of elite coaching knowledge. Reflective Practice<\/em>, 5<\/em>(3), 425-442.<\/li>
  25. Nelson, L.J., & Cushion, C.J. (2006). Reflection in coach education: The case of the National Governing Body Coaching Certificate. Sport Psychologist<\/em>, 20<\/em>, 174-183.<\/li>
  26. Reade, I., Rodgers, W., & Spriggs, K. (2008). New ideas for high performance coaches: a case study of knowledge transfer in sport science. International Journal of Sport Science and Coaching<\/em>, 3<\/em>(3), 335-354.<\/li>
  27. Abraham, A., Collins, D., & Martindale, R. (2006). The coaching schematic: Validation through expert coach consensus. Journal of Sport Sciences<\/em>, 24<\/em>, 549-564.<\/li>
  28. Cassidy, T., Jones, R., & Potrac, P.(2009). Understanding sports coaching: The social, cultural and pedagogical foundations of coaching practice<\/em>. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.<\/li>
  29. Cassidy, T., Potrac, P., & McKenzie, A. (2006). Evaluating and reflecting upon a coach education initiative: The CoDe of rugby. The Sport Psychologist<\/em>, 20<\/em>(2) 145-161.<\/li>
  30. Cushion, C.J., Armour, K. M. & Jones, R. (2003). Coach education and continuing professional development: experience and learning to coach. Quest,<\/em> 55<\/em>(3), 215-230.<\/li>
  31. Cushion, C. (2010). Coach behaviour. In J. Lyle & C. J. Cushion (Eds.), Sport coaching: professionalisation and practice<\/em> (pp.43-62). London: Churchill Livingstone.<\/li>
  32. Collins. D., Trower. J., & Cruickshanks, A. (2013). Coaching high performance athletes and the high performance team. In P.Sotiriadou and V. De Bosscher (Eds.),Managing High Performance Sport (pp.205-220), London: Routledge.<\/li>
  33. Yates, J., & Tschirhart, M. (2006). Decision-Making Expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance<\/em> (pp. 421-438). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.  http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1017\/CBO9780511816796.024<\/li>
  34. Ferkins, L, Shilbury, D., & McDonald, G. (2009). Board involvement in strategy;Advancing the governance of sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management,<\/em> 23<\/em>(3), 245-277.<\/li>
  35. Slack, T., & Parent, M. M. (2006). Understanding sport organizations: The application of organization theory<\/em>. Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  36. Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdill\u2019s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications<\/em>. (3rd<\/sup> ed.), New York: Free Press<\/li>
  37. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Wittington,R. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy<\/em> (8th<\/sup> ed.), London:Prentice-Hall<\/li>
  38. Kotter, J.P.(1990). A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management<\/em>. New York:Free Press<\/li>
  39. Locke, E.A. (1991). The Essence of Leadership: The Four Keys to Leading Successfully<\/em>. New York: Lexsington Books, <\/li>
  40. Northhouse, P.G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice<\/em> (5th<\/sup> ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage<\/li>
  41. Vaeyens, R., Lenoir, M., Williams, A., & Philippaerts, R. M. (2008). Talent Identification and Development Programmes in Sport: Current Models and Future Directions. Sports Medicine, 38<\/em>(9), 703. <\/li>
  42. Lynch, R.L. & Cross, K.F. (1991). Measure Up: The Essential Guide to Measuring Business Performance<\/em>. London: Mandarin.<\/li>
  43. Brown, M. (1996), Keeping Score: Using the Right Metrics to Drive World\u2010class Performance<\/em>, New York :Quality Resources <\/li>
  44. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard<\/em>. Boston,MA: Harvard Univesity Press<\/li>
  45. Kennerley, M. & Neely, A. (2003). Measuring performance measurement in a changing     business environment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management<\/em>, 23<\/em><\/strong>, 213\u2013229.<\/li>
  46. Madella, A., Bayle, E., & Tome, J. (2005). The organizational performance of national swimming federations in Mediterranean countries: A comparative approach. European Journal of Sport Science, 5<\/em>(4), (pp.207\u2013220.<\/li>
  47. Evan, W. (1976). Organizational theory and organizational effectiveness: An exploratory analysis. In. Organizational Effectiveness: Theory, research, utilization<\/em>, S.l. Spray (ED) Kent,Ohio: Kent State University Press<\/li>
  48. Cameron, K.  (1980). Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 9<\/em>, 66-80<\/li>
  49. Chappelet, J., & Bayle, E. (2005) <\/strong>Strategic and performance management of olympic sport organizations<\/a>, Leeds: Human Kinetics.<\/li>
  50. Friedman, M., Parent, M., & Mason, D. (2004). Building a framework for issue management in sport through stakeholder theory. European Sport Management Quarterly<\/em>, 4<\/em>(3) 170-190. <\/li>
  51. Quinn,R.E., & Rohrbaugh,J. (1981). A competing valves approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Productivity Review<\/em>, 5<\/em>, 122-140.<\/li>
  52. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency.<\/li>
  53. Seddon, J., & O\u2019Donovan, B. (2012). A Systems Approach to Housing Repairs. In Case Studies in Service Innovation<\/em> (pp. 91-94). New York: Springer.<\/li>
  54. Gilmore, S., & Gibson, C. (2007). Finding form: Elite sports and the business of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management,<\/em> 20<\/em>, 409-428. <\/li>
  55. Jones, G. (2002). Performance excellence: A personal perspective on the link between sport and business. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14<\/em>, 268\u2013281.<\/li>
  56. Cruickshank, A., & Collins, D. (2012a). Culture change in elite sport performance teams: Examining and advancing effectiveness in the new era. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24, <\/em>338\u2013355. doi:10.1080\/10413200.2011.650819 <\/li>
  57. Cruickshank, A., & Collins, D. (2012b). Change management: The case of the elite sport performance team. Journal of Change Management, 12, <\/em>209\u2013229. doi:10.1080\/146970 17.2011.632379 <\/li>
  58. Winand, M., Vos, S., Claessens, M., Thibaut, E., & Scheerder, J. (2014). A unified model of non-profit sport organizations performance: perspectives from the literature. Managing Leisure,19<\/em>(2), 121\u2013150,dx.doi.org\/10.1080\/13606719.2013.859460<\/li>
  59. Soares, J., & Correria, A. (2009). Factors and focus in the strategic decisions of sporting organizations:Empirical evidence in sports associations. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 5(3), 338-354. <\/li>
  60. Sotiriadou, K., & Shilbury, D. (2009). Australian elite athlete development: An organizationalperspective. Sport Management Review, 12<\/em>, 147-148.<\/li>
  61. Sotiriadou, K., & Shilbury, D. (2013). Sport development in high performance sport. In  P.Sotiriadou and V.De Bosscher (Eds.), Managing High Performance Sport<\/em>,(pp.139-158), London:Routledge.,<\/a><\/li>
  62. Van Hoecke, J., Schoukens, H. & De Knop, P. (2006). Foot PASS:A constructive and distinctive quality system for youth academies of professional football clubs. In D. Papadimitriou (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th<\/sup> Congress of the European Association for Sport Management<\/em>, Torino, EASM and SUISM, 382-384<\/li>
  63. Van Hoecke, J., Schoukens, H. & De Knop, P. (2007).The impact of the quality management system Foot PASS on the structural dimensions of a professional football academy. In In D. Papadimitriou (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th<\/sup> Congress of the European Association for Sport Management<\/em>, Torino, EASM, 278-279.<\/li>
  64. MacPherson, A., & Howard, P. (2011). The team perspective: promoting excellence in performance teams.  In D. Collins, A. Button, & H. Richards, (Eds.),Performance Psychology: A practitioner\u2019s guide<\/em>. (pp.121-138). London: Churchill Livingstone.<\/li>
  65. De Bosscher, V ., De Knop, P ., van Bottenburg, M., & Shibli, S. (2006). A conceptual framework for analyzing sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6<\/em>, 185-215.<\/li>
  66. Wylleman, P.<\/a>, Reints, A.<\/a>, & De Knop, P.<\/a> (2013). A developmental and holistic perspective on athletic career development<\/a>. In P. Sotiaradou, & V. D. Bosscher (Eds.), Managing High Performance Sport <\/em>(pp. 159-182). (Foudations of Sport Management). New York: Routledge.<\/li>
  67. Drucker, P. (1966) The Effective Executive<\/em>. New York: Harper & Row<\/li>
  68. O’Boyle, I., & Hassan, D. (2014). Performance management and measurement in national-level non-profit sport organizations, European Sport Management Quarterly<\/em>, 14,3, 299-314, DOI: 10.1080\/16184742.2014.898677<\/a><\/li>
  69. Hoyle, R., Smith, C., Nicholson, M., Stewart, B. & Westerbeek, H. (2012). Sport Management: principles and practices <\/em>(3rd<\/sup> ed). London, Routledge<\/li>
  70. Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2004). Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice in talent identification and development: considering the role of psychology. Journal of Sports Sciences<\/em>, 22<\/em>(5), 395-408.<\/li>
  71. Balyi, I, (2002). Long-term Athlete Development, the System and Solutions. FHS<\/em>,14<\/em>, 6 \u2013 9.<\/li>
  72. Collins, D., Abraham, A. & Collins, R. (2012). On Vampires and Wolves \u2013 exposing and exploring reasons for the differential impact of coach education. International Journal of Sport Psychology<\/em>, 43<\/em>, 1-17.<\/li>
  73. Durand-Bush, N. N., & Salmela, J. H. (2002). The development and maintenance of expert athletic performance: perceptions of world and Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology<\/em>, 14<\/em>(3), 154-171. <\/li>
  74. Henriksen, K., Stambulova, N., Roessler, K. (2010). Holistic approach to athletic talent development environments: A successful sailing milieu. Psychology Of Sport & Exercise<\/em>, 11,212-222. doi:10.1016\/j.psychsport.2009.10.005<\/li>
  75. Martindale, R. J., Collins, D. D., & Daubney, J. J. (2005). Talent development: A guide for practice and research in sport. Quest<\/em>, 57<\/em>(4), 353-375.<\/li>
  76. Phillips, E., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Portus, M. (2010). Expert Performance in Sport and the Dynamics of Talent Development. Sports Medicine<\/em>, 40<\/em>(4), 271-283. <\/li>
  77. Wylleman, P., Alfermann, D., & Lavallee, D. (2004). Career transitions in sport: European perspectives. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5<\/em>, 7\u201320.<\/li>
  78. Fletcher, D., & Wagstaff, C.R. (2009). Organizational psychology in elite sport: Its emergence, application and future. Psychology of Sport and Exercise<\/em>, 10<\/em>, 427-434. doi:10.1016\/j.psychsport.2009.03.009<\/li>
  79. Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization science<\/em>, 2<\/em>(1), 88-115.<\/li>
  80. Brownlee, J., Nailon, D. & Tickle, E. (2010). Constructing leadership in child care: Epistemological beliefs and transformational leadership. Australian Journal of Early Childhood<\/em>, 35<\/em>(3), 95-104.<\/li>
  81. Murphy, M., & Dweck, C. (2010).A culture of genius: How an organization\u2019s lay theory shapes people\u2019s cognition, affect and behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin<\/em>, 36<\/em>(3), 283-296<\/li>
  82. Schommer, M.A. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology<\/em>, 82<\/em>(3), 498-504. <\/li>
  83. Schommer, M.A. (1994). Synthesising epistemological belief of research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review<\/em>, 6<\/em>, 175-199. <\/li>
  84. Collins, D., & Collins, J. (2011). Putting them together: skill packages to optimize team\/group performance. In D. Collins, A. Button,  & H. Richards, (Eds) Performance Psychology: A practitioner\u2019s guide<\/em>,(pp.361-380). doi:10.1016\/B978-0-443-06734-1.00025-0<\/li>
  85. Bennie, A., & O\u2019Connor, D. (2010). Coaching philosophies: Perceptions from professional cricket, rugby league and rugby union players and coaches in Australia. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching<\/em>, 5<\/em>(2), 309-321.<\/li>
  86. Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S.D. (2006). An organizational stress review: Conceptual and theoretical issues in competitive sport. In S. Hanton & S.D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology<\/em> (pp. 321\u2013373). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. <\/li>
  87. Cruickshank, A., & Collins, D. (2012a). Culture change in elite sport performance teams: Examining and advancing effectiveness in the new era. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24, <\/em>338\u2013355. doi:10.1080\/10413200.2011.650819 <\/li>
  88. Cruickshank, A., & Collins, D. (2012b). Change management: The case of the elite sport performance team. Journal of Change Management, 12, <\/em>209\u2013229. doi:10.1080\/146970 17.2011.632379<\/li>
  89. Lyle, J. (2010). Coaches’ decision making: A Naturalistic Decision Making analysis. In J. Lyle & C. J. Cushion (Eds.), Sport coaching: professionalisation and practice<\/em> (pp. 27-41). London: Churchill Livingstone.<\/li>
  90. Richards, P., Collins, D., & Mascarenhas, D. R. (2012). Developing rapid high-pressure team decision-making skills. The integration of slow deliberate reflective learning within the competitive performance environment: A case study of elite netball. Reflective Practice<\/em>, 13<\/em>(3), 407-424.<\/li>
  91. Cushion, C. J. (2007). Modelling the complexity of the coaching process. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching<\/em>, 2<\/em>(4), 395-401.<\/li>
  92. Nash, C., & Sproule, J. (2009).Career development of expert coaches. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching<\/em>, 4<\/em>(1) 121-138.<\/li>
  93. Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2012). The role of deliberate practice in becoming an expert coach: Part 1 \u2013 Defining coaching expertise. Olympic Coach Magazine<\/em>, 23<\/em>(3), 19-24.<\/li>
  94. Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2013a). The role of deliberate practice in becoming an expert coach: Part 2 \u2013 Reflection. Olympic Coach Magazine<\/em>, 24<\/em>(1), 35-44.<\/li>
  95. Gilbert, W., & Trudel, P. (2013b).  The role of deliberate practice in becoming an expert coach: Part 3 -Creating optimal settings. Olympic Coach Magazine<\/em>,24<\/em>(2), 15-28. <\/li>
  96. Webb, V., Collins, D., & Cruikshank. (2016). Aligning the talent pathway: Exploring the role and mechanisms of coherence in development. Journal of Sports Science. Oct;34(19):1799-807. doi: 10.1080\/02640414.2016.1139162.<\/li><\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Authors: David Grecic Corresponding Author:David Grecic PhDGreenbank 253Victoria StreetPreston, UK […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[976,291],"tags":[475,1495,1251],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1H2","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":123,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/transformational-leadership-and-organizational-effectiveness\/","url_meta":{"origin":6512,"position":0},"title":"Transformational Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness in Recreational Sports\/Fitness Programs","date":"February 15, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Chin-Hsien Hsu, Dr. Richard C. Bell and Kuei-Mei Cheng Abstract The concept of leadership has gained a large amount of attention in recent years. This paper investigated the relationships between transformational leadership and organizational effectiveness in the field of recreational sport and leisure. First, it reviewed a discussion\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3438,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-high-performance-management-model-from-olympic-and-professional-to-university-sport-in-the-united-states\/","url_meta":{"origin":6512,"position":1},"title":"The High Performance Management Model: From Olympic and Professional to University Sport in the United States","date":"February 4, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Jed Smith* (1), Peter Smolianov (2) (1) Head Strength and Conditioning Coach and an Instructor in the area of Movement and Exercise Science at the University of Northern Iowa and is currently a doctoral student at the United States Sports Academy (2) Sport Management Professor at Salem State University\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"Smith Figure 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/Smith-4.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":263,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/book-review-2006-sports-market-place-directory\/","url_meta":{"origin":6512,"position":2},"title":"Book Review: 2006 Sports Market Place Directory","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Glaucio Scremin The sports industry is a multifaceted, multibillion dollar industry. It encompasses a wide range of business segments, from sporting goods to stadium and arena construction. The 2006 Sports Market Place Directory brings a multiplicity of sports industry sectors together into the most comprehensive index of sport\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":99,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/transformational-leadership-organizational-culture\/","url_meta":{"origin":6512,"position":3},"title":"Transformational Leadership, Organizational Culture and Organizational Effectiveness in Sport Organizations","date":"February 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Jon Yean-Sub Lim, Ed.D., Fitness Management Coordinator, Northern State University and Fred Cromartie, Ed.D., Sports Medicine Chair, USSA ABSTRACT Transformational leadership and organizational culture have become increasingly popular topics over the past 10 years. Some researchers have suggested that these topics contain the key to understanding organizational effectiveness\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Facilities"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":279,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/college-sport-management-student-perceptions-regarding-special-olympics-curriculum-and-service-learning\/","url_meta":{"origin":6512,"position":4},"title":"College Sport Management Student Perceptions Regarding Special Olympics Curriculum and Service Learning","date":"March 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Reginald F. Overton & Brenda M. Malinauskas Abstract: This pre-test\/post-test study evaluated college sport management student (N = 21) perceptions of Special Olympics North America curriculum\/field experience. Pre-event and post-event values indicate that students had positive perceptions. Significant individual effects were found for General Orientation, Facilities and Safety,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":103,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/information-technology-for-sports-management\/","url_meta":{"origin":6512,"position":5},"title":"Information Technology for Sports Management","date":"February 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Dr. T.J. Rosandich Introduction This article will address the topic of information technology for sports management and will attempt to provide an overview of how information technology (called IT) is changing the nature of management practices in sport. The discussion of IT applications in the profession can be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6512"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6512"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6512\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7295,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6512\/revisions\/7295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}