skip navigation

Coaching strategies for communicating and motivating female athletes

By Michele Amidon - ADM Regional Manager, 04/28/16, 2:15PM MDT

Share

Olympian Karen Thatcher Sits Down for a Q&A

The female athlete perspective on coaching focuses on the physical, cognitive, mental and emotional development of our female players. Women are not men and children are not small adults. One size does not fit all. When coaching females, a coach may need a slightly different approach compared to the male athlete. All coaches should consider the psychological and sensitive needs of their players.

“With women, your effectiveness is through your ability to relate.  They have to feel that you care about them personally or have some kind of connection with them beyond the game…to be an effective leader of a men’s team, you don’t need personal rapport as long as there is respect.  That’s the extent of the relationship.  That’s all that’s really required.  But in a women’s team, respect is only part of it, and it is derived from a relationship.  Women have to have a sense that you care for them above and beyond their (athletic) abilities.” -- Anson Dorrance on motivating females

----

In the following Q-and-A, Michele Amidon, USA Hockey ADM manager, speaks to 2010 U.S. Olympian Karen Thatcher regarding some of the best coaching strategies for communicating and motivating female athletes.    

Q: What are some effective coaching strategies used when working with female athletes?

Thatcher: From personal experience as a coach and a player, I would say the number one most important strategy when working with female athletes is COMMUNICATION! Girls are notorious for wanting to know “why?” This extends to the sports realm as well. I believe Nietsche, in all his brilliance, had a very good point when he stated: “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” (Although, I do believe it should read “she who has a why...”) If you give female athletes a WHY, that is, a defined purpose and direction for what they are doing, the results are staggering. Communicate to female players what their role is, why we are doing this, what is the purpose of this team system, etc. They may not always agree with you, but if they understand that you do have logic and a purpose behind whatever is happening, they will respect it and be more effective in whatever task you are asking of them.  

Furthermore, it is important to respect female athletes as people and athletes separately, and coach in this manner as well. Females respond a lot better when you treat them fairly and with respect as people first and foremost.  

Q: What are some of the least effective coaching strategies used when working with female athletes?

Thatcher: Embarrassing or degrading her in front of her teammates is the worst strategy with a female athlete. It does not motivate the athlete to improve; instead, it encourages her to feel poorly about herself and may cause her to be fearful to even attempt to improve. Female athletes also tend to emotionally carry this type of experience along with them, leading to perhaps inhibiting her develop in the future as well. This strategy often causes more harm than good.  

Q: How do you, as a female athlete like to get feedback from a coach?

Thatcher: I like when a coach talks to me. I usually know when I do something wrong (don’t we all?) as it did not “work.” So, I enjoy when coaches do not simply tell me what I did wrong (I already knew that!), but give examples of how to do it next time. Yelling about the mistake does not seem productive to me, and I don’t consider that constructive feedback.

Q: What are some of the assumptions male coaches have made about you (or your teammates) as a female athlete?

Thatcher: I have been fortunate that my male coaches have not been ones to make negative assumptions about myself or my female teammates. Usually, male coaches who are involved in women’s hockey are involved because they are impressed with the athletes and love the sport. I experienced more assumptions from players and parents of players on boys’ teams that I played on or against, but not usually from the coaches. These assumptions included that I wasn’t tough enough or good enough, or that I must be older than the boys (when in fact I was younger). Or, worst of all that I was taking the place of a boy in a male world.... the assumption that I just did not belong. I, however, always had the support of my coaches and this helped me persevere. I realize in talking to others in the sport that I was extremely fortunate in this regard.  

Q: Sometimes I think female coaches are harder on the female players and that female players are harder on female coaches. Do you agree with this statement?

Thatcher: Yes. Absolutely. Female players tend to accept male coaches and male players automatically as being “legitimate.” Conversely, female players have to “prove themselves” to each other. And female players expect their female coaches to “prove themselves” as well. I do not know to what to attribute this, but I have observed it mostly at the highest level in the sport. Perhaps it is due to the sport not being as widespread or as strong at the grassroots level, and so high‐level girl hockey players are used to other girls “not being good enough” to challenge them, and boys being where they found challenge. Thus, this typecast stuck with them, leading to female coaches and other female players having to prove themselves before they are accepted as legitimate sources.  

Q: Do females hold their own gender more accountable or are they just willing to approach certain topics that make male coaches uncomfortable?

Thatcher: I believe females hold other females accountable in different ways than they would males or that males do with other males. I believe this has a lot to do with the way that females process information and experiences and the way that we attach emotion to our world. Females have a need to be “seen, met, and heard” as a person; that is, they want to understand their own emotions and feel that you have an understanding of where they are coming from as well. This is “respect” to a female: to acknowledge their emotional standpoint, explain your own, and help them understand the situation as a whole. I have found that men have trouble and are uncomfortable attaching emotion to experience within a professional setting, such as coaching. Females, conversely, view emotion as a natural and necessary component of any situation. Thus, I think the way that females approach situations and their view of emotions differ vastly from that of males, and this leads to notion of varying accountability and male discomfort.

----  

Karen Thatcher graduated Summa Cum Laude from Providence College in 2006, was a member of the 2010 U.S. Women's Olympic Team and served as an assistant coach of the women’s hockey team at Providence College.

Recent News

Most Popular Articles

Al, Chuck and Caleb all find fulfillment as USA Hockey officials

Changes to the Registration Process for the 2022-23 Season

By USA Hockey 07/15/2022, 1:00pm MDT

Q-and-A with USA Hockey’s Director of Officiating Education Program Matt Leaf

The Referee Section of USA Hockey recently met during Annual Congress and discussed a variety of issues that will have an impact in the success of the officiating program. Many of those issues relate back to the successful completion of the registration requirements and the retention of officials.

Streamlining the registration process and maximizing the efficiency of our educational platforms are always a priority and the following Q-and-A will highlight those changes that every official should be aware of heading into the new season.

USA Hockey: What is the biggest change made to the registration requirements for this season?

Matt Leaf: With more and more seminars transitioning to a virtual format, the Referees-in-Chief (RIC) have determined that there really is no need for the closed book exams. So, level 2, 3 and 4 officials this season will no longer be required to submit a closed book (or modified online closed book exam) upon completion of the seminar requirement. Instead, the open book exams have been expanded to 75 questions for level 2 and 100 questions each for level 3 and level 4.

The RICs acknowledged that the purpose of the exams has always been as a means to encourage rule knowledge, so more effort was made to put together open book exam questions that will encourage the officials to open the Rules/Casebook in an effort to not only learn the rule, but more importantly, understand the spirit and intent of the rule.

USAH: Are there any other changes to the exam process

ML: The only other change to the exams deal with those who do not pass the original exam. Level 2, 3 and 4 officials will now be able to complete their retake exam 24 hours after failing their original exam. Level 1 officials will still need to wait seven days as we want them to slow down and take some time reviewing the rules so they can gain a better understanding and improve their chances for success on the ice.

USAH: What changes, if any, have been made to the seminars? Are all officials still required to attend a seminar each season?

ML: Yes, except for Tenured Officials, all officials are required to attend a seminar for the level that they apply for each season. So, a Level 1 official must attend a Level 1 seminar, Level 2 attends a Level 2 and then Level 3 and 4 seminars will be combined as one seminar in many cases.

Level 1 officials are strongly encouraged to attend a seminar in their own area and most areas will mainly conduct in-person Level 1 seminars. Although there will be some hybrid Level 1 seminars with both a virtual and in-person component, the key here is that every Level 1 official is required to attend a Level 1 seminar ice session. This may require some additional coordination of scheduling for these new officials, but the reality is this on-ice practice is so critical to any future success they may have on the ice that the RICs feel it is critical that the ice session is part of their educational experience.

Level 2 seminars will also include an on-ice component that Level 2 officials need to be aware of when they plan their seminar attendance. The vast majority of Level 3 and Level 4 seminars will be virtual and officials are encouraged to attend a seminar at a date and time that is convenient for them.

USAH: Have there been any changes to the curriculum for the various levels?

ML: The curriculum for each level was standardized prior to last season and is something that will continue to be updated on an annual basis. The specific presentations, along with the video examples, have all been developed in a manner that provides valuable information specific to each level with new presentations and updated video examples being used to keep things fresh and relevant. In addition, the seminar curriculum has been coordinated with the online modules to minimize duplication and to diversify the required education for each level.

USAH: How about SafeSport and Screening – any changes to those requirements?

ML: The background screening process will remain the same as USA Hockey is required to conduct a national screen every two years on any official who is 18 years of age as of June 1 of the registration year (in this case 2022). Both the background screen and the SafeSport training are mandated by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) per the Amateur Sports Act initiated by Congress.

For SafeSport, any official who was born in 2005, or earlier, is required to complete SafeSport training on a yearly basis. This may include the full training or refresher training that is managed by the US Center for SafeSport. Although it will not have an impact on registration for this season, there was a change in SafeSport that has been made where the training will only be valid for a 12-month period of time and it not consistent with an overlapping season. This will be addressed during the summer of 2023.

USAH: Are there any other changes or areas of emphasis that you want officials to be aware of?

ML: A significant part of the discussions that took place with the RICs focused on the importance mentoring plays in the success and, ultimately, the retention of brand-new officials. USA Hockey loses 50% of our new officials every season and improving that retention rate by just 15% will result in 1,000 additional experienced officials joining our ranks each year. We need to do a better job of bringing new officials into the fold and then supporting them in ways that sets them up for a successful and rewarding experience. The RICs feel strongly the best way to positively impact this issue is through mentoring.

Experienced officials should expect to receive information later this summer that outlines expectations of a formal Mentor Program and asking them to volunteer their time and expertise to become involved as a mentor. Once we have established a pool of officials that are willing to contribute in this way to the next generation of officials, they will be assigned a group of new officials they can reach out to and guide them through the registration process, seminar attendance, assistance in completing the open book exam and reaching out to prospective assignors when the time has come they are ready to work games. Once they have stepped on the ice, that mentor can continue to be a valuable resource for the new official and provide the necessary support needed to be successful. We will also be encouraging local clubs, assignors and officials’ groups to implement Shadow Programs that will complement the Mentor Program and positively enhance the officials’ experience even more.

With everyone working together towards a common goal, USA Hockey can become a leader in addressing the officiating crisis while providing a positive experience to our next generation of officials.

3 Tips for Measuring Your Powders

By USA Hockey 04/11/2017, 11:00am MDT

Useful tips when getting ready to mix up a shake