By A. Craig Fisher, Ph.D.

Where did we learn that highlighting athletes’ errors results in performance changes? Or, if it does sometimes, is it the best approach? Are we so naive that we believe athletes will thank us for our reasoned criticism and vow to be better next time? What little I know about the complexity of human motivation and behavior change suggests that athletes tend to be motivated more with positive reinforcement (e.g., praise, recognition) than by punishing criticism.

Last, criticism overlooks the larger performance picture. In reality, most athletes do more things right than wrong, but coaches often tend to focus on the errors. If we get extremely critical, we can even begin to criticize the random and inconsequential errors always present in imperfect performances. We end up criticizing and trying to correct mistakes that rarely repeat themselves in the same week or month.

Is it possible to recast performance feedback in positive rather than negative directions? More specifically, is it not possible to reinforce performance when it is correct or approximates correctness instead of constantly pointing out what is wrong?

Why is criticism used so much? With all the obvious drawbacks of a critical communication style, why would reasoned individuals continue the practice? It clearly is not because it has been well thought out and systematically planned. And maybe that is what makes it so unfortunate.

We are slaves to the power of models unless we recognize and learn to break the cycle. Everyone has heard it prophesied: We will teach as we were taught, coach others as we were coached and raise our children as our parents raised us. What have we experienced and what behaviors do we now model? For a large number of us, the answer is criticism.

I am not suggesting that any of us intentionally set out to destroy our athletes’ self-confidence and place unnecessary emotional hurdles in their paths, but nonetheless that is the reality. Coaches have their athletes’ best interest in mind when they direct critical comments their way. That is what makes the outcome so unfortunate; we mean to help but often we hinder.

On a more castigating note, there is a certain inherent cheapness to criticism. It is possible to use perfection as your frame of reference and judge each of your athletes against that standard. The reality is that there is no perfect performance; therefore every performance that you observe affords the opportunity for your critical comments. I refer to this as cheap shot coaching because almost anybody can do it; it takes no talent at all. If, indeed, you sense you must always offer some feedback, then you will always have material for your evaluation. But, then, that is the mark of the mentally lazy coach, one who cannot see the big picture of emerging success for the egregious performance glitch.

I suppose by this point you have decided either that my arguments have some validity or that I am out of touch with reality and know nothing about coach-athlete communication. Because, after all, constructive criticism is the backbone of sport skill improvement. For those of you who are going to continue to use criticism, hopefully not as unthinkingly as before, I offer some guidelines.

Periodically, you need to remind yourself of the main purpose of your criticism — to get athletes’ attention and motivate them to change their behavior. Criticism then, being as sensitizing as it is, needs to pass some particular tests. To be effective, criticism needs to be filtered before and as it is given.

Following are suggestions to you as coaches as you consider the application of criticism in the coaching process:

• IS THE TIMING RIGHT? Is the athlete in emotional shape to hear the criticism? Athletes who are frustrated with their lack of success are not good consumers of negative feedback; they have enough negative thoughts of their own to process.
• DO YOUR ATHLETES NEED MORE PRAISE? Positives are more powerful agents of behavior change than negatives.
• IS YOUR CRITICISM NOVEL? Or is it the “same old, same old” harangue? The latter is ineffective because you have heard yourself say too often, “How many times do I have to tell you that?”
• ARE YOU POSITIVE THAT THE ATHLETE CAN MAKE THE CHANGE? Is the behavior primarily under the particular athlete’s control or are others involved (e.g., a bad pass needs both a passer and a receiver’s participation). Does the athlete have the skills and confidence to make the change? Is the performance error due to inadequate skill or a lack of effort? The latter is perhaps correctable; the former demands time on task. Do not dismiss the significance of self-confidence because it lies at the heart of behavior change. Only self-confident athletes will be able to internalize performance feedback if it is layered with negative evaluation.
• IS YOUR CRITICISM CLEAR ENOUGH TO BE ACTED UPON? Does the athlete know what needs to be changed? Nothing is more frustrating than being criticized and not knowing what to do to make the criticism go away.
• CRITICISM OFTEN FORECLOSES THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE THE COACH CRITIC DOES NOT LISTEN TO THE ATHLETE’S RESPONSE. You must process how the information is being received to assess its effectiveness (e.g., frowning brow, gritting teeth, no effort made to change). Be quick to recognize any changes made in response to your criticism.
• NO HIT-AND-RUN BEHAVIOR IS GOING TO WORK. Unless you are prepared to be systematic with your criticism and commit yourself to the length of time it takes to change old behavior and consolidate new behavior, it’s very doubtful your criticism will be effective