Coach and Athlete Burnout - West Virginia University

Burnout 98
style of coaching (Vealey et al., 1998). In attempting to explain this discrepancy in the
coach population, Vealey and colleagues (1998) suggested methodological differences
may be at fault. Dale and Weinberg (1989) assessed leadership behaviors through
coaches’ self-reported measures. The Vealey study (1998) determined leadership
behaviors using athletes’ perceptions of the coaching behaviors. This difference in
measurement may have lead to the equivocal findings.
The results of the decision-making behavior and burnout research warrant future
attention. The literature suggests that the coaches’ decision-making style (democratic or
consideration) which has been shown to ignite at times their own burnout is one that may
keep athletes from experiencing burnout. Further, the decision-making style linked to
athlete burnout (autocratic or initiating structure) may be one that protects coaches from
experiencing the same. With the results of the abovementioned research equivocal,
future research is clearly needed to further examine this issue to clarify this relationship
and reduce the likelihood of either group experiencing burnout.
Prevention and Treatment of Burnout
Various approaches have been offered for treating and preventing burnout.
Outside of a sport context, Pines (2000) proposed a psychodynamic existential
perspective on burnout and believed the phenomenon occurred when individuals failed to
derive meaning in their lives from their career. Although the theory was presented
outside the sport context, it lends itself nicely to coaches, who could fail to perceive life
significance from their effort and work in a sport environment. In treating burnout, it was
necessary to identify the conscious and unconscious reasons for an individual’s choice in
vocation and how this choice was believed to lead to a sense of life significance. In