La simulación de contratos de tercerización

Consistent throughout my research has been the concept of climate – culture, environment and social milieu – that impacts MT in rugby teams, along with the messages that players receive within these contexts that impact their mindset. These messages might emanate from a multitude of sources, such as parents, spouses, peers, teammates and even the media. Notably, my data suggest that the within-team coaching processes – along with their influencing of others, such as teammates – were the most significant in terms of direct and controllable messaging. This alignment of coach, assistant coaches, support staff and even captain was endorsed throughout Chapter 4, which demonstrated that having a harmonious climate within the multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary support groups helps the team to be more

effective (Collins et al., 1999; Moore & Collins, 1996). It is accepted that organisational stress also impacts players’ MT (Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2099), so less dissonance and increased coherence can only be positive. In tandem with this and counter-intuitively, at the core of the decentred approach mentioned earlier, and as reflected in my results, is the awareness or EI of the coach and his/her ability to be flexible in styles while building trust, along with listening skills and empathy – in short, the ability to employ “an array of complex managerial skills” (Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009, p. 430). Again, these factors resonate with my results, in that aligning formal leaders and having stringent or ‘sacrosanct’ terms within staff was seen as crucial by the coaches in Chapter 4 to eliciting MT. In terms of harmony and even well-being within this intragroup, one that builds its own resilience (Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009), it was seen as important for the head coach to value and support the members of his/her team. Giving them space to operate supports their sense of competence – as suggested by SDT – and motivates staff to conform to the team norms. Having coaches ‘kick cans’ in frustration was seen as counter-productive, poor role modelling and definitely damaging the harmony. Be it the coach presenting to other staff members to embed the approach – his/her philosophy – or having weekly coffee meetings with the captain, the emphasis upon alignment and coherence within the support teams – including the captain – was significant. Both these examples – ‘kicking cans’ and valuing assistants found in Chapter 4 – endorse the importance of coaches managing emotions and having an awareness of “managing conflict, communicating emotion” and managing the emotional contagion that adds to a stronger performance team and organisational functioning with subsequently more coherent messaging to players (Fletcher et al., 2009; Wagstaff et al., 20129, p 26). Planning how messages are delivered to staff also pre-empts thinking and helps set

the philosophy. In a more negative or pathological sense, a lack of alignment not only adds to the dissonance – lessening commitment – but also, more insidiously, allows avenues of ‘avoidance’ (escape) that players can use to not conform and shirk the responsibility that is key to MT, consequently acting less mentally tough and with reduced player ownership (as suggested in Chapter 3).

As mentioned in Chapter 4, it is a key role of coaches to “keep onto the behaviours…because its those little things that contribute to a team being the most mentally tough” (C-2) or as such, to reinforce the requisite mentally tough behaviours. If these are questioned or countered by other staff or coaches, this obviously undermines the head coach. As such, and stressed by my sample, it is crucial that the message is aligned to the head coach – who should value and utilise the skills of the coaching team – and disseminated to the players’ as ‘one’ consistent and coherent message. As evidenced, this message is directly delivered from the head coach to assistant coaches and to the captain and then to player leaders, who then indirectly reinforce the head coach’s message.

As Fletcher and Wagstaff have stated, “all members of the sport organization will have an impact on its functioning and effectiveness” (Fletcher & Wagstaff, 2009, p. 431) and this includes the CEO as well as the head coach, support staff and players. As found in previous research, a lack of alignment or agreement reduces harmony among support teams and, most likely, filters into and negatively impacts the whole team (Collins et al., 1999; Moore & Collins, 1996).

Having rules of engagement about where the support staff operate with players, either above or below the ‘them and us’ line, impacts directly on the subsequent engagement and players’ dispositions towards these support coaches (Collins et al., 1999). This is evident in my results in the ‘sacrosanct’ nature of

management meetings along with the alignment of coach and captain, and of coach co-coaches. The politics or micro-politics of proactive coaching can be difficult due to challenging circumstances that often bring conflict. Importantly, however, engaging through processes such as the ‘Zone of Uncomfortable Debate’ (ZOUD) (Collins et al., 2011) may help to manage that conflict in ways that have “liberating effects” (Potrac & Jones, 2009, p. 233). The emotional responses of coaches in the ZOUD and the ways that they manage the micro-politics within these meetings through making sense of what is ‘most pertinent’ to their position (Kelchtermans, 2005) allow them to optimise any situation and offer time to effect change. This approach is in line with my results, according to which the staff might “agree or disagree”, so whether it was the bagman or the physio, the coach was unequivocal – “I will come down on you like a ton of bricks” – as to the messages going out. Proactively engaging with difficult or uncomfortable conversations also shows that coaches are comfortable in knowing where they stand and recalls EJ’s confidence in challenging players and in also selecting Hartley as captain.